 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.115.217.131
In Reply to: RE: Integrating analog with digital posted by Audioquest4life on February 26, 2015 at 15:35:44
I hate to rain on your endeavor but why complicate your life so and in the process degrade your system's performance?It is against the laws of physic that adding more of anything to a playback system will get you anywhere closer to the original.
I have a 2-channel 2-component music only system that so happens to also play moves via the OPPO BDP-105D and I also use the OPPO's passive volume attenuator.
You have a budget of X dollars for your desired multi-channel config. How is spreading that budget more thinly across 7.1 channels (or whatever) going to help you when that same budget could go toward improving your 2-channel system?
Also, with multi-channel you have far more cabling and speakers, more chassis', and more power supplies.
Most important is that more power supplies imply more noisy AC coming in from the street that must be properly dealt with e.g. proper line conditioning, power cables, etc. and each power supply also induces mechanical vibrations into each chassis that also much be properly dealt with.
Moreover, the more chassis' you have the more mechanical vibrations are captured within each via air-borne and internally generated and again, much be properly dealt with.
And then there's the aesthetics. Fewer amps, receivers, cables, speakers, etc. all translate to an improved, more professional and simple installation with far less clutter.
I'd like to suggest going the other way, focus on creating a vastly superior 2-ch system that excels at music and just so happens to excel at movies as a by-product. If you focus on the simple, you can still acquire a sound no multi-channel system can touch. Only you won't be hearing any star fighters flying over your shoulder.
I've included a few pics. Now my decor may not impress you but it's all about performance for me. Which can only come from simplicity.
BTW, the OPPO is a fabulous performance for both music and video and is vastly superior to the $9k Esoteric unit I owned previously. Also that's a 120" screen.
Edits: 02/28/15Follow Ups:
Thank you for that detailed response; however, your analysis of what state you think my two channel setup currently is way off the mark. I am pretty confident that my mostly analog system is more than exotic enough for about 90 percent of those audio enthusiasts who surf the audioasylum channel. My reference preamp, the Octave Jubilee, offers up plenty of ultra high resolution two channel audio with the Aesthetix IO Signature. While stationed in Germany, I tried the ASR Emitter and ASR phono, but not my cup up tea. Likewise, the Einsten tube and Einstein preamp were also not my cup of tea.
While I agree with you in concept regarding more equipment, cabling, heat, etc., I am using the Mcintosh MVP891 in a very similar fashion as you. I have routed the center and rears to analog outs from the player to the surround receiver. I am okay watching 3D, Blu-ray, or DVD movies in 5.1 in the current configuration. It is the digital media where I have the issues. For my research, it appears that both the Oppo 103 and 105 have analog in and analog out. The question is does it matrix or down sample the HDMI input from a digital device to two channels, or leave the DAC conversion as is to true 7.1 output.
Similarly, my Krell SACD has been the best SACD player I have heard, regardless of price. The new Mcintosh MVP891, the best movie player.
I might get the Mcintosh MX150 and surround multichannel amp and be done with it.
You've done great job of imparting a "mood" with the lighting - good on ya!
-RW-
I'm glad to hear what you're saying about the Esoteric, because I'm about to slot in an Oppo bdp-95 for my ailing Esoteric DV-50. I had to go with the bdp-95 precisely because neither my Pioneer Pro-1000HD tv nor my Anthem AVM 20 processor has HDMI inputs.
But for my money both movies and (in particular) classical music sound significantly better in 5.1. As the OP has presumably already spent the money for surround sound I really don't see your point.
My points are focused on performance first and foremost, cost, simplicity, and space requirements, whether audio or video:
1. Within 10 days of installation, the OPPO was easily a nice improvement over the Esoteric UX-3SE. For video (which I don't use much) it was significatly better than the Esoteric. Especially when engaging the Darbee feature.
But then once I started using the OPPO's passive attentuator and eventually by-passed the CD transport using a thumb drive or SSD as a music server, the OPPO absolutely trounces the Esoteric's performance.
(BTW, I always thought my Esoteric excelled)
2. I have 2 little Wyred 4 Sound SX-1000 mono-block amps at 575wpc each ($2400 retail pair) that do not have any HDMI inputs. In my config. these amps absolutely trounce my previous $8 BMC C1 integrated amp.
3. I use:
a. one of the OPPO HDMI outputs going straight to the overhead projector.
b. one pair of balanced ic's from the OPPO to the 2 little amps.
c. I use 1 pair of speaker cables from the amps to the speakers.
What do you guys plan to use?
--------------------------------------
My point being that your configurations will no doubt include:
a. more electronics,
b. more cabling,
c. more real estate space,
d. more shelves,
e. far less musicality.
More specifically, 1 superior line conditioner that properly treates the noisy AC coming in from the street, will make your classical music sound more natural and closer to the absolute sound than any surround sound config could ever do.
Last spring I swapped out $25k retail of gear (CDP, int. amp, and speakers) with $10k retail of gear, (CDP, amps, VMPS RM40 speakers) each of which are signifcantly superior to their predecessors.
But I also spend $14k behind the scenes on proper AC/electrical mgmt and proper vibration control mgmt. Two areas where few spent any time or money on. Yet, it's these two areas that actually make all the difference in the world as AC and vibration mgmt are actually the foundation for which all systems are built, even if nobody knows it.
The point being is, do you want a me too sound that is no better than anybody elses, or do you want a simple system that performance wise nobody else can touch? Surround sound or not.
"More specifically, 1 superior line conditioner that properly treates the noisy AC coming in from the street, will make your classical music sound more natural and closer to the absolute sound than any surround sound config could ever do."
And you know this because you've actually had a high quality surround sound system in the same space and your line-conditioned 2-cheannel system sounds better?
My experience is pretty much the opposite, and comports with Jim's experience. My 5.1 system sounds worlds better than any 2 channel system I've ever had. And the improvement was not the least bit subtle.
I think it's okay for you to say that you prefer your current 2 channel system to a previous surround sound system you had in the same space. But to make a blanket statement that a line-conditioned 2-channel system "will make your classical music sound more natural and closer to the absolute sound than any surround sound config could ever do." is more than a bit misleading and disingenuous...
-RW-
Perhaps. But if one has much experience about something that they know beyond the shadow of doubt to be true, it just might not be such a bold statement for that one to make, right?BTW, there is no such thing as a "high quality" surround sound playback system. Well, if you're talking a very expensive system that looks "high quality" that's one thing, but that has nothing to do with the quality of sound.
If 2-channel systems fail miserably, it stands to reason that surround sound systems will fail even more miserably.
The life of the music is in the recording itself, not in the number of channels you're spreading the distorted sound across across. And if the distortions induced by our electronics are so severe as to raise the noise floor so high that only a small percentage of all the music info embedded in the recording are audible (while the vast majority of music info remains inaudible due to the severity of the unversal distortions plaguing every last playback system), then it stands to reason that more electronics is even more destructive.
But that's not to say there's not pleasure to be had with the phenoena that a surround sound system brings. It just has little or nothing to do with reality.
Edits: 03/05/15
Disregard any more statements from you. For someone to post "BTW, there is no such thing as a "high quality" surround sound playback system." bespeaks an incredible ignorance and hubris on your part. I see a lot of that from 2-channel snobs, and you are clearly one of those.You also wrote: "And if the distortions induced by our electronics are so severe as to raise the noise floor so high that only a small percentage of all the music info embedded in the recording are audible (while the vast majority of music info remains inaudible due to the severity of the unversal distortions plaguing every last playback system)"
How in the world did you come to this knowledge? You must have some seriously deficient gear if "the vast majority" of your music is inaudible due to "distortions plaguing" your system. You strike me as a hand-wringing crackpot of the 1st order.
Good day to you, "sir"...
-RW-
Edits: 03/06/15
Really?
So when I speak negatively about the quality of music for 2-ch. systems you don't have any apparent issues. But when I speak equally negative about the quality of music for multi-ch. systems you have issues? How is that so?
If you disagree with our playback system's levels of musicality, then you give clear indication you know not what you speaketh. But as you know you are far from alone here.
Let's start with a few quotes about playback systems and their potential limitations.
Robert Harley, editor-in-chief of The Absolute Sound magazine and former sound engineer speculated in the Mar/Apr 2009 issue, "I believe that something catastrophic occurs at the recording mic's diaphragm so that much of the music never makes it to the recording." Paraphrased.
About 1 year earlier, Jonathan Valin, senior editor at the same magazine said, "We are lucky if even our very best playback systems are able to capture 15% of the magic of the live performance." Paraphrased.
In the Sept. 2009 issue of Stereophile mag, editor-in-chief and sound engineer John Atkinson something similar when he said, "I believe much of the music never makes it to the recording." Paraphrased.
Should you encounter somebody intimately familiar with live muisc performances as well as playback systems, if they are worth their weight in salt, they should also say something not too dissimilar.
Regarding Valin's comment above, I've had several tell me that even that 15% is rather optimistic.
As for me, I agree with their catastrophic claims of a playback systems performance level, but I disagree with them when they say the music info never makes it to the recording. To the contrary I'm confident the vast majority of the music makes it to the recording and is processed throughout the chain during playback, but distortions are so great that much of the music processed falls below a much raised noise floor so that it remains inaudible.
How do you weigh in on this? Do you think Harley, Valin, and Atkinson, and others are out to lunch on this matter? Do you suppose they have as much or more opportunity than you to listen to live music? Do you think they have at their disposal far better products than you or I?
Or do you have some insights of your own here where you can demonstrate that what you're hearing (though perhaps impressive in its own way) is indeed still catastrophic when compared to the live perfromance?
"So when I speak negatively about the quality of music for 2-ch. systems you don't have any apparent issues. But when I speak equally negative about the quality of music for multi-ch. systems you have issues? How is that so?"
When you speak negatively about *any* playback system using the hyperbole you do, I tend to dismiss it as the ranting of audiophile snob. Sorry. As for how is this so, it's so because I have a fairly decent multi-channel playback system and many *very* good source discs/files and to my ears they sound very, very good. And I certainly do not hear this atrocious noise floor that you keep referring to. There is virtually NO noise, just a pant load of great music.
"If you disagree with our playback system's levels of musicality, then you give clear indication you know not what you speaketh."
There you go again with the hyperbole. Dismissing out of hand my experiences. That's audio snobbery, IMHO.
"How do you weigh in on this? Do you think Harley, Valin, and Atkinson, and others are out to lunch on this matter?"
Yes, they are out to lunch. Now if someone like Michael Bishop or Bob Ludwig made the same claims, I'd tend to assign more merit to them. But the aforementioned "critics" spend their daze (pun intended) dreaming up new and ever over-reaching phrases for what they claim to hear. And every couple of months they are proclaiming that the latest and greatest - exceptionally expensive - geegaw has now rendered all previous exceptionally expensive geegaws moot. Sorry, not buying it.
I sold top-end systems way back in the day and even then there were moments that were absolutely magical and that transported me to another place and time via the music retrieved from those grooves and pits/lands. We are now 40 years on from that time and the systems and speakers are ever so much better. Believing that I'm missing out on 85+% of the music is just plain silly, IMHO. But feel free to assign whatever arbitrary numbers you wish.
"Do you suppose they have as much or more opportunity than you to listen to live music?"
I dunno. I can tell you that I have been to a shit load of concerts - that's a technical term - and our systems, while not able to convey the size and majesty of the original event due to the limitations of little bitty drivers and the rooms we put them in, they are certainly capable of rendering a very adequate recreation of the event from a frequency response, channel balance, and PRAT (I hate that term) perspective.
And there is most certainly not a hugely elevated level of noise associated with those systems, that's just silly. My system is dead nuts silent until the music explodes in front of and around me. You hear a bunch of noise?
Yes, it does require a bit of imagination and suspension of disbelief in order to fully enjoy these little marvels (our systems) we have before us. And if you cannot summon that I am truly sad for you, you are really missing out on a ton of joy and merriment...
-RW-
It's hardly audio snobbery. It's called intellectual honesty.
But you should notice of the 3 I quoted, all are associated with audio publications. Making such intellectually honest statements certainly does not help them sell magazines. I suspect that's why we only hear them admit such things about 1 or twice every 10 years.
But that's fine.
BTW, Valin did not say only 15% of the music, he said, "15% of the magic".
Potentially a big difference. Now he did not explain what he meant but I assume he meant 15% of the believability or 15% of those highly desirable or sought after characteristics that a playback system is unable to reproduce.
IMO, it's more like 35 - 40% of the music that's inaudible.
But just to confirm whether or not you understand, try this little experiment. Next time you're listening to some percussive instruments, listen for maracas or windchimes. Close your eyes and envision based on what you hear, whether or not these little instruments sound like they are 3ft in length or diameter or more like 3 inches.
Enjoy your system.
I will do as you request and let you know what I hear.
My point about the critics was that, as you say, if they only speak the truth every 10 years or so and yet engage in deceptive writing all the rest of the time, why on earth would I lend any credence to their thoughts?
-RW-
BTW, if you're into choral or opera music, like piano these are the most tortuous types of music to sufficiently play back at live performance volumes. The universal distortions embedded in every system will cause a break up and/or flattening out, again causing the listener to whince or the proverbial ear bleed.
But again, if you attempt to listen for these things, you have to listen at volume levels approaching the live performance. Say in the 88 - 98db range. As nothing in the 60-65 db range will cause these issues.
If you're struggling to find music to listen to, I might have a CD around here that I burned (redbook format) I could mail to you with some excellent examples of the fatigue/ear bleeding I'm trying to describe.
Please contact me offlist and I'll give you my mailing address. And thanks for thinking of me, I truly appreciate it!
-RW-
RW, I burned a CD for you last night.
As mentioned in my email to you yesterday, I apologize as I never saw your email with your shipping address until yesterday.
I should get it out to you in the next day or so and I'll email some notes to you as to what to look for, etc.
I sent you an email.
Good point.I don't put a lot of stock into much of what they say either. But at least they know enough to speak the truth once or twice every 10 years as apposed to those other so-called experts who can't even speak the truth even once.
It would be great to have a fully functional clock. But even a broken clock is right at least twice a day. As opposed to a clock in pieces with no hands on the dial. Right?
An easier test actually for something to look for would be well-recorded piano piece that includes a lot of sharp notes high on the register and played back at volume levels approaching the live performance.
They say piano is the most difficult instrument to accurately reproduce. There's are lot of truth in that statement. But I think a more accurate way of saying it is, "All instruments are near equal in difficulty to reproduce. But the piano may be the most easily discerned to illustrate how far short of the mark our playback systems really are.
Perhaps the best way to look at it is, the piano is perhaps the most offense instrument when demonstrating how far short of the mark our PB systems really are.
The sharp piano notes at reasonably high volumes should make a bee-line to your ear much like a laser beam causing fatique, whincing, or "bleeding of the ear".
BTW, any music is tolerable to the ear at elevator music volumne levels.
Edits: 03/08/15
We all have our own tastes, resources and circumstances to deal with. My Denwycke House system (listed here) is ten years old. I make no particular claims of the sound other than superb dynamics and a certain degree of transparency. Knowing what I do now about the prospects for hi rez surround sound I might have done otherwise. But the money is spent and the space occupied.
What I'm doing right now is simply updating the system, which has led me to looking into connecting components which are primarily designed for HDMI through their analog alternatives - among them a Fibe TV receiver.
You're welcome.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
