|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Please prove your claims. posted by EnuffzEnuff on April 06, 2003 at 20:18:34:
In comparisons using Ray Brown's "Soular Energy" DVD-A and SACD, one experienced listener suggested the SACD was like listening to the live event while the DVD-A was like listening to playback of the master tape. The SACD was more relaxing to his ears. OTOH, he thinks vinyl is even more relaxing yet than SACD...Both 24/192 PCM and SACD were very good to my ears and any difference might have been due to differences in source hardware.
Have you played with SACD ? Curious you would want scientific evidence that SACD is "better" ? You've probably already decided LP and tubes are very good despite sometimes atrocious "scientific" "measurements". Your ears are probably telling you something is "right" about LP and tubes, why not SACD ?
Follow Ups:
> > You've probably already decided LP and tubes are very good despite sometimes atrocious "scientific" "measurements". Your ears are probably telling you something is "right" about LP and tubes, why not SACD ? < <Scientific measurements of LPs confirm to me what I already knew I didn’t like about them, including: noise, compression and horrendously uneven frequency response. Not to mention resonance artefacts.
Dalton eloquently wrote a while back:-
"The idea that vinyl sounds "better" is ludicrous. At best we could agree that, for some people (I call them "kooks"), vinyl colors the music in a more pleasing or soothing way (although a less natural way). If a photographer and an Impressionist painter portrayed the very same subject and you had to choose which work you liked best, you might prefer the painting. But the photograph is more accurate. Notice I wrote "photograph", not "phonograph". Vinyl lovers usually refer to the unnatural coloration inherent in vinyl playback as "ease" and "liquidity". They might as well be referring to a painter's brush stroke."
People who like LPs only prefer the distortions of a flawed medium. This is the hoariest of cliches. It is only repeated by those who have virtually no experience with halfway decent analog sections.
It doesn't make any difference how expensive a vinyl system is. One will still suffer the compression (etched into the LP’s grooves), surface noise, resonance contamination (OK this can be reduced — but not eliminated), uneven frequency response etc. But I suppose that some people won't hear some of those imperfections, especially those with tubes & electrostatics which can do an effective ‘cover-up’ job. I see that with your own admission of "no low bass" in your system, then this will inherently hide much of the low-freq groove rumble too!
it's all terrible, tubes, vinyl, elctrostatics. Also wasted my money on expensive cables. Then again, I actually listen to these things on a daily basis, and I actually know how they sound, versus you, who probably never heard a halfway decent turntable in your life. That's really the point - true crediblity comes from experience.Someday you will know what you have been missing. When your ivory tower theories finally clash with reality, it is the theories that will fall.
and then listen to any PCM recording and see which has the Feeling of live music you experienced at that live acoustic concert, you will see PCM is miles away, but Vinyl is very, very close.
Listen to the same album on CD, and the room enveloping sound collapses in a heap. Sorry, I can not resist debunking this kind of comment.
From my experience a well recorded CD can sound good and have a great soundstage. The most impact on a good sounding recording are the speakers. On some of my CDs I get a 180 degree soundstage with height.
Yes speakers are indeed very important. My 3.5ft high TDL RTL-3’s vertically-stacked drivers for deep-bass, midrange and high-frequency, do a fantastic job with CD of keeping the stereo soundstage as defined as possible.And regarding my CD source, by keeping my existing multibit offboard DAC (Audio-Alchemy) for my CD listening, I now use my Denon DVD-3800 as the transport input via SP/DIF, and the imaging & soundstaging improvement I get (compared with an old Marantz CD transport) is very noticeable indeed.
I suspect the Denon’s SP/DIF output feed is much more accurate than the Marantz’s was, partly because everything now goes through the Denon’s error-correction RAM buffer prior to output, and the subsequent timing of serial data release, ‘bit-by-bit’ can be extremely tightly controlled, resulting in hardly any jitter.
nt
Here is a pic of my diy speakers at this site.http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13015
Here is another pic with my speakers and my Tempest diy sub.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13152
nt
SnaggS, you have merely introduced a side issue, in that CD has its own set of problems exacerbated by its lower-than-optimum sample rate. (At low sample rates, any timing inconsistencies between sample points of the L&R channels, have a much greater impact on spatial information, of which the high-frequencies play a crucial part.)However, a good low-jitter CD transport & DAC can redress this to a significant degree. Now with an optimum DVD-A 24-bit/96kHz+ hirez PCM system, timing tolerances are inherently much finer and more accurate in relation to bandwidth, thus soundstaging is opened-up tremendously.
nt
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: