Just want to hear what was recorded.
mantis
Posts: 17,194
What's up guys,
For a very long time I've been in this business with a question that NO ONE will answer without their own objectives in the way. So here it goes.
For starters I'm a Musician who has written songs , been in bands , recorded , and I'm a sound man for a friends band when they need me. I started my lessons in 1979.
Now with a home stereo system , 2 channel or call it what you will , what you are building is a replay system. What the goal is with this system is to recreate what was recorded. Anything after that can be called personal.
There are thousands of ways to get this done , all who which took a path that they feel is right for them. Cool I don't care how you get that done , I just want to get the music off the disc , hard drive or whatever and listen to it as correctly as possible. This seems to be a goal no one can get right.
Think about it , there are speakers that cost upwards of 200k , amps , wire , etc all priced amazingly high but in the end I only want to know is that what it takes to get the job done?
Forget about your wallet for a minute , forget about your system and think clearly on this objective. I'll state it again , hear what was recorded , thats it simple right? doesn't seem to be.
So if I go downstairs and write a song. Then record it. Then play it back. I want it to sound the same as if I was playing it. Now at this stage , whatever level of quality of this given recording is , lets say it's 95% of the exact same quality to the point you might not be able to tell the difference when I play it or I replay the recording.
So after that is done , I burn it to lets say a hard drive. now I want to go upstairs and listen to that recording and want to retain that 95% quality. How can this be done?
Some givens so we are clear , it's a 2 channel recording which requires a stereo pair to recreate what was created. Goal is to retain that 95% quality. Can it be done?
So now you have to build a system that has the ability to replay it. Lets go further with givens and say it lives on a computer , don't care who's , brand or anything. I just want to get it out of the computer , get it to a preamp , then get it from the preamp to the amp , then from there to a pair of speakers that can replay that sound.
Can you get this done?
For a very long time I've been in this business with a question that NO ONE will answer without their own objectives in the way. So here it goes.
For starters I'm a Musician who has written songs , been in bands , recorded , and I'm a sound man for a friends band when they need me. I started my lessons in 1979.
Now with a home stereo system , 2 channel or call it what you will , what you are building is a replay system. What the goal is with this system is to recreate what was recorded. Anything after that can be called personal.
There are thousands of ways to get this done , all who which took a path that they feel is right for them. Cool I don't care how you get that done , I just want to get the music off the disc , hard drive or whatever and listen to it as correctly as possible. This seems to be a goal no one can get right.
Think about it , there are speakers that cost upwards of 200k , amps , wire , etc all priced amazingly high but in the end I only want to know is that what it takes to get the job done?
Forget about your wallet for a minute , forget about your system and think clearly on this objective. I'll state it again , hear what was recorded , thats it simple right? doesn't seem to be.
So if I go downstairs and write a song. Then record it. Then play it back. I want it to sound the same as if I was playing it. Now at this stage , whatever level of quality of this given recording is , lets say it's 95% of the exact same quality to the point you might not be able to tell the difference when I play it or I replay the recording.
So after that is done , I burn it to lets say a hard drive. now I want to go upstairs and listen to that recording and want to retain that 95% quality. How can this be done?
Some givens so we are clear , it's a 2 channel recording which requires a stereo pair to recreate what was created. Goal is to retain that 95% quality. Can it be done?
So now you have to build a system that has the ability to replay it. Lets go further with givens and say it lives on a computer , don't care who's , brand or anything. I just want to get it out of the computer , get it to a preamp , then get it from the preamp to the amp , then from there to a pair of speakers that can replay that sound.
Can you get this done?
Dan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time.
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time.
Post edited by mantis on
Comments
-
My brother is in a band / writes for other artists and records his own music also. Many will disagree but what he does is he listens to his stuff on his studio monitors. It's the way he hears it when he records it, so why not have it be his playback as well.Klipsch The Nines, Audioquest Thunderbird Interconnect, Innuos Zen MK3 W4S recovery, Revolution Audio Labs USB & Ethernet, Border Patrol SE-I, Audioquest Niagara 5000 & Thunder, Cullen Crossover II PC's.
-
On a different take, ( just an opinion ) I think sometimes a lot of us who haven't been in that field or end of things tend to go for the live hall sound and not the recorded studio soud. ( as you know they are completely different) So in that aspect, bigger is better comes into play. In the studio, you figure when a lot of people in smaller studios use or used to use Yamaha NS10 and if you need more of a kick they added a sub. Studio monitors, the better ones, are made to be accurate and clean. I think a lot of people forget or don't think that home speakers tend to color the sound. All brands vs studio monitors. Studio monitors need to point out bad and not coverup anything. Aagain, as with anything, its all personal preference. Like my brother goes between yorkville and yamaha monitors but when he comes to my house, he enjoys listening to the Legacy focus I have and before that he loved my carver amazings. He has said to me my home speakers are better for long listening, not as fatiguing as a studio monitor. Home speakers also have to fill up a bigger space vs a smaller recording room. Home speakers also to me do a better job of reproducing a concert all type sound.
Sorry to go in 2 directions on this.Klipsch The Nines, Audioquest Thunderbird Interconnect, Innuos Zen MK3 W4S recovery, Revolution Audio Labs USB & Ethernet, Border Patrol SE-I, Audioquest Niagara 5000 & Thunder, Cullen Crossover II PC's. -
So after that is done , I burn it to lets say a hard drive. now I want to go upstairs and listen to that recording and want to retain that 95% quality. How can this be done?
Some givens so we are clear , it's a 2 channel recording which requires a stereo pair to recreate what was created. Goal is to retain that 95% quality. Can it be done?
So now you have to build a system that has the ability to replay it. Lets go further with givens and say it lives on a computer , don't care who's , brand or anything. I just want to get it out of the computer , get it to a preamp , then get it from the preamp to the amp , then from there to a pair of speakers that can replay that sound.
Can you get this done?
This is where the problem starts.....the burning process. You need a bit perfect burning process to begin with. Much of this is covered in the digital section, but once it's burned to a format such as WAV or FLAC, then you have to worry about getting it off the computer in bit perfect form, and there's many ways to do that too. Streaming it to another room is easy, the playback systems such as dac, pre, amp and speakers would need to be identical if your looking for the exact same sound as your recording room.
Many thoughts on this and opinions, but the basic is retaining everything along the way in a bit perfect world until it hits your dac. As you know, everything in audio imparts a certain sound signature of their own to some degree, so the same bit perfect music file will sound different on different gear. No different than playing a cd on different gear. Personally I subscribe to the "less is more" train of thought and the less that digital signal gets converted back and forth the better. Streaming it around the house is easy, providing you have a good dac to accompany it. Making it sound exactly the same as your recording room ? Then you'd have to duplicate that room and gear.
Lots of this is covered as I said in the digital section, burning....programs to use.....streaming.....dacs, etc. The most important part imho is having a good dac to retrieve that info on a digital file. Without that, your just pissin' in the wind.HT SYSTEM-
Sony 850c 4k
Pioneer elite vhx 21
Sony 4k BRP
SVS SB-2000
Polk Sig. 20's
Polk FX500 surrounds
Cables-
Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable
Kitchen
Sonos zp90
Grant Fidelity tube dac
B&k 1420
lsi 9's -
So really it's all about the DAC once everything before it is correct. I'm wondering what would be for a better DAC? I have the choice of many but I'm considering the following 3.This is where the problem starts.....the burning process. You need a bit perfect burning process to begin with. Much of this is covered in the digital section, but once it's burned to a format such as WAV or FLAC, then you have to worry about getting it off the computer in bit perfect form, and there's many ways to do that too. Streaming it to another room is easy, the playback systems such as dac, pre, amp and speakers would need to be identical if your looking for the exact same sound as your recording room.
Many thoughts on this and opinions, but the basic is retaining everything along the way in a bit perfect world until it hits your dac. As you know, everything in audio imparts a certain sound signature of their own to some degree, so the same bit perfect music file will sound different on different gear. No different than playing a cd on different gear. Personally I subscribe to the "less is more" train of thought and the less that digital signal gets converted back and forth the better. Streaming it around the house is easy, providing you have a good dac to accompany it. Making it sound exactly the same as your recording room ? Then you'd have to duplicate that room and gear.
Lots of this is covered as I said in the digital section, burning....programs to use.....streaming.....dacs, etc. The most important part imho is having a good dac to retrieve that info on a digital file. Without that, your just pissin' in the wind.
1) Audioquest Dragon fly USB DAC. No external power supply , it uses your computers USB voltage , it has Sabre DAC's which are suppose to be fantastic and true to the conversion , analog volume control and a very good clock. At $249.00 retail I can't see this being any better.
Downside is it's only 1 conversion meaning only one source DAC. Which is fine for my purpose , I plan on once I get a Mac Mini , I don't plan on using anything else for music playback. Only has Mini analog out so you have to use a mini to RCA cable. Thats fine as Audioquest makes some really nice high quality cables. No Balanced which is something I think will help keep the signal pure as balanced is the best analog connection IMO.
2) Cambridge Audio DAC Magic. Uses high quality Wolson DAC's for each channels. Can connect the computer as well as other sources. Has Balanced outputs and RCA which is awesome as my new preamp will have balanced in's. It's much more then the Audioquest but seems to be a better DAC for more things. I really like the balanced outputs.
3) Peachtree DAC. Has Sabre DAC's , Has 3 inputs in Coax , Optical and USB so you could use 3 different sources . Also has a IR remote .Only has analog outs. I'm not sure if thats a bad thing or not. I do however wish it had balanced.
Out of these 3 , I'm leaning towards the Cambridge DAC. I think it would be the best overall. Yes it costs the most but I think you get the most out of it. Opinions?
On a side note , the Cambridge up-samples everything to 24/384 fixed output I believe , I think this could in fact be a bad thing. Shouldn't a file be replaced int he same freq and rate it was recorded or stored at? Is upsampling a good or bad thing? Opinions?Dan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time. -
I had a pair of binaural mics (stealth) that I used to bootleg concerts with. Now they were not good if too much crowd noise as they were very omnidirectional. But for the right situation they made the most realistic recordings of what I heard at the show.I got static in my head
The reflected sound of everything -
Upsampling is never a good thing in my book. Anyway, as dacs go, they vary greatly in price/performance and build quality. To my ears, the Cambridge is alittle too sterile for me and the Peachtree too laid back. Haven't had an ear on the Dragonfly yet. I would think a W4S dac 1 or dac 2 might be more up your alley. Personally I like many in the sub 1000 buck catagory. Musical fidelity, Ps audio's DL3, Tranquility dacs, Burson, and Brock and I have discussed Audio gd products and Keces dacs plus other fairly cheap dacs whose performance is way above their price points. Lets also not forget just like receivers, a dac chip alone won't dictate the sound you hear so again we are at that part of the equation where a colored sound comes into play based on gear selection. Most seem to think the Benchmark dacs are the most faithfull to the signal, not imparting any coloration to the signal but that just moves it to the next piece of gear in the equation.
No getting around it Dan, you can have a perfect signal transcoded by a perfectly neutral dac, only to be played on a pre,amp, and speakers that will color the sound to some degree. So for me it's not about the faithfull reproduction, as thats typically impossible to achieve, it's about what sounds good to you without having to go deep into signal processing and which piece is the most faithfull to the music. You can drive yourself nuts by doing that.
There's a middle road in all of this. Spending too much time worrying about resolution, formats, gear, upsampling, takes the joy out of it. Also, the more resolving your dac, gear and speakers, the good will shine and stand out more so but so will the bad. Keep it as simple as possible. A good burning process so you have a bit perfect copy in a lossless format, streamed to a good dac and the pre/amp of your choice. Doesn't need to get much more complicated than that.HT SYSTEM-
Sony 850c 4k
Pioneer elite vhx 21
Sony 4k BRP
SVS SB-2000
Polk Sig. 20's
Polk FX500 surrounds
Cables-
Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable
Kitchen
Sonos zp90
Grant Fidelity tube dac
B&k 1420
lsi 9's -
I believe simplicity is key. I like Audioquests' analogy of equipment/cabling being layers of glass, every layer you remove or minimize---the image becomes more and more true to the original; this is why I go with a passive linestage, and the shortest possible cable runs. My CD (Insert computer) goes to the DAC via .5mtr coax, comes out of the DAC via .5mtr IC's in to the passive, which connects to the amp via .5 mtr IC's. If I had a higher end CD, I'd despense with the DAC altogether, thus removing another "layer" and set of IC's.
Of course SPEAKER CHOICE IS PARAMOUNT. It's the end result, therefore the MOST important to replicating the actual event.Source: Bluesound Node 2i - Preamp/DAC: Benchmark DAC2 DX - Amp: Parasound Halo A21 - Speakers: MartinLogan Motion 60XTi - Shop Rig: Yamaha A-S501 Integrated - Shop Spkrs: Elac Debut 2.0 B5.2 -
You can't just make up some arbitrary, subjective goal (95% quality), and ask how to achieve it. One thing is for sure, you are not going to get there going cheap. Of course, maybe 90% quality is okay.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
Are you referring to the discontinued DacMagic like this one? Current version is the DacMagic Plus.
The DacMagic has twin WM8740 high quality DACs in dual differential mode which improves stereo imaging. It upsamples to a max of 24 bit/192kHz. It is hard to fix an absolute on upsampling as it can help or hurt, but I like to be able to control it. While you can't switch upsampling off, you do get to choose filter type to experiment with tailoring sound. Linear phase has been around since DAC's were first released in the '80s and most common used in upsampling players. They had dual mono back then too, along with plenty of cheapened offerings that didn't do much for quality sound.
Have you looked at the Music Hall 25.3 DAC? It has user selectable oversampling and asynchronous hi res capable USB. I had one that I eventually modded to make it even better. Not sure of what you want to budget for a DAC (they are like $599 retail new, but you can do better). They are reasonably priced used if you want to go that route. The 25.3 does have a tube on the RCA out, but balanced out is SS.Salk SoundScape 8's * Audio Research Reference 3 * Bottlehead Eros Phono * Park's Audio Budgie SUT * Krell KSA-250 * Harmonic Technology Pro 9+ * Signature Series Sonore Music Server w/Deux PS * Roon * Gustard R26 DAC / Singxer SU-6 DDC * Heavy Plinth Lenco L75 Idler Drive * AA MG-1 Linear Air Bearing Arm * AT33PTG/II & Denon 103R * Richard Gray 600S * NHT B-12d subs * GIK Acoustic Treatments * Sennheiser HD650 * -
A nice pair of electrostats will provide accurate playback
-
Squeezebox (or other network device) or Mac Mini connected to Benchmark DAC1 HDR (using USB, coaxial, digital, ect) to whatever amp you have. Short simple, done.
This is the setup I will eventually have in my office only I am a windows guy so this is what it will look like for me:
Computer playing FLAC files -> USB to Benchmark DAC1 HDR -> Kimber Kable PB&J to some amp (more than likely a Carver M1.0t) -> Speakers.
Shortest signal path, have a DAC and Pre in one which allows you to get a very nice unit."....not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." William Bruce Cameron, Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking (1963) -
Eliminate the pre, especially tubes. Now it's up to the source to reproduce the signal unaltered, pass it on thru cables that don't muck it up. The speakers & room will be the final stage on how well the original signal is represented. Short & sweet...the KISS system."2 Channel & 11.2 HT "Two Channel:Magnepan LRSSchiit Audio Freya S - SS preConsonance Ref 50 - Tube preParasound HALO A21+ 2 channel ampBluesound NODE 2i streameriFi NEO iDSD DAC Oppo BDP-93KEF KC62 sub Home Theater:Full blown 11.2 set up.
-
pearsall001 wrote: »Eliminate the pre, especially tubes. Now it's up to the source to reproduce the signal unaltered, pass it on thru cables that don't muck it up. The speakers & room will be the final stage on how well the original signal is represented. Short & sweet...the KISS system.
From what little I know its suggested to keep the signal digital as long as possible through as few connections as possible (i.e. DAC's, tube buffers, ect) and on the analog side also keep the number of jumps limited.
By using a DAC/Pre your removing one set of cables entirely so its Source - DAC/Pre - Amp - Speakers. I also dont know about using a digital volume control. Most here suggest going USB (to eliminate jitter) and also to use the WASAPI or ASIO plug-in's which normally don't allow volume control from the digital source (or in this case computer).
I could be wrong here so if so please correct me."....not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." William Bruce Cameron, Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking (1963) -
Two words: Altec Duplex.
OK, six words:
Altec Duplex and single-ended triodes.
Perfect? Nope, not even close. Like real flesh-and-blood life? Yup (for my money, at any rate).
You will - I reckon - like it.
-
Over the years I have tried and used countless cables. Audioquest seems to work the same in all systems. So I believe they have it right. So thats why I use just their stuff everywhere.I believe simplicity is key. I like Audioquests' analogy of equipment/cabling being layers of glass, every layer you remove or minimize---the image becomes more and more true to the original; this is why I go with a passive linestage, and the shortest possible cable runs. My CD (Insert computer) goes to the DAC via .5mtr coax, comes out of the DAC via .5mtr IC's in to the passive, which connects to the amp via .5 mtr IC's. If I had a higher end CD, I'd despense with the DAC altogether, thus removing another "layer" and set of IC's.
Of course SPEAKER CHOICE IS PARAMOUNT. It's the end result, therefore the MOST important to replicating the actual event.Dan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time. -
I believe we have both in stock so I can try both. I have not checked out the Music Hall but It looks interesting. I have used the original Dac Magic many times in many systems and it really performs well. It really makes a difference over everything I have tested.SCompRacer wrote: »Are you referring to the discontinued DacMagic like this one? Current version is the DacMagic Plus.
The DacMagic has twin WM8740 high quality DACs in dual differential mode which improves stereo imaging. It upsamples to a max of 24 bit/192kHz. It is hard to fix an absolute on upsampling as it can help or hurt, but I like to be able to control it. While you can't switch upsampling off, you do get to choose filter type to experiment with tailoring sound. Linear phase has been around since DAC's were first released in the '80s and most common used in upsampling players. They had dual mono back then too, along with plenty of cheapened offerings that didn't do much for quality sound.
Have you looked at the Music Hall 25.3 DAC? It has user selectable oversampling and asynchronous hi res capable USB. I had one that I eventually modded to make it even better. Not sure of what you want to budget for a DAC (they are like $599 retail new, but you can do better). They are reasonably priced used if you want to go that route. The 25.3 does have a tube on the RCA out, but balanced out is SS.Dan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time. -
I'm right there with you man , your setup is very close to what I'm considering doing. I'm really down to the DAC and what overlaying software I'm gonna use with Itunes. I really want to check out the Audioquest Dragon Fly USB DAC , simple dedicated and no external power supply. I like everything about it and even the price is totally awesome. I would like however a shootout with the Cambridge and Peachtree. I probably could look into Bryston , if they make a stand alone DAC or NAD.EndersShadow wrote: »Squeezebox (or other network device) or Mac Mini connected to Benchmark DAC1 HDR (using USB, coaxial, digital, ect) to whatever amp you have. Short simple, done.
This is the setup I will eventually have in my office only I am a windows guy so this is what it will look like for me:
Computer playing FLAC files -> USB to Benchmark DAC1 HDR -> Kimber Kable PB&J to some amp (more than likely a Carver M1.0t) -> Speakers.
Shortest signal path, have a DAC and Pre in one which allows you to get a very nice unit.Dan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time. -
Can I ask a question mantis? Do you not work for a living and have for some time in THIS trade your asking questions about?
When people come to your store to ask these questions, what do you tell them?
Not trying to be a dick, just asking a simple question. Same applies to your thread about digital music storage/playback... You used to preach highly of Sonos and now your asking about devices for the purpose of playback of digital media? -
Yes I work in the Industry , I'm a Customer Installer / Programmer. I also do ISF Calibrations as well as 2 channel system design and setup. We sell DAC's , Sonos , Peachtree products etc. We don't however sell Computer storage or computers of any kind. We have a Salesman who is a long time Audiophile and has a very nice Computer setup for music.Can I ask a question mantis? Do you not work for a living and have for some time in THIS trade your asking questions about?
When people come to your store to ask these questions, what do you tell them?
Not trying to be a dick, just asking a simple question. Same applies to your thread about digital music storage/playback... You used to preach highly of Sonos and now your asking about devices for the purpose of playback of digital media?
I ask these questions to learn more about the subject. Just because I'm a Professional doesn't mean I know everything. Yes I know a lot about a lot of areas of our Industry but this is one place where I'm lacking. I'm not a salesman so I don't sell these products on a daily basis.
We are doing a Digital Music event at our store and a guy who wrote a overlaying software is coming in to teach us more about this wonderful topic. I'm trying to learn all I can on my own and there are a lot of 2 channel guys in this forum who built music servers and used many different DAC's. I like learning from them when I can. It's why I'm still apart of this forum.
As far as Sonos , yes It's a wonderful device and we use it a lot with excellent results.Mated with a Cambridge DAC , it's pretty badass. I don't own any Sonos yet but it's always an option. For me personally I'm leaning towards a Apple Mac Mini , Audioquest USB DAC , Audioquest Mini to RCA cable and an overlaying software to correct the issues with Itunes output. But I still want to talk to others and see what they are doing and if any other that would be a solution to what I want to do.
Apple TV with a Cambridge DAC is also something we do with excellent results.
There are many arguments that Itunes is not the best way to store digital music. I for one love how Itunes is managed and want to learn more about it's flaws and this overlaying software that really corrects these issues.
So hopefully that answers your question. No offense taken.Dan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time. -
polkfarmboy wrote: »A nice pair of electrostats will provide accurate playback
Yeah, those'll work, too :-) -
Yes I work in the Industry , I'm a Customer Installer / Programmer. I also do ISF Calibrations as well as 2 channel system design and setup. We sell DAC's , Sonos , Peachtree products etc. We don't however sell Computer storage or computers of any kind. We have a Salesman who is a long time Audiophile and has a very nice Computer setup for music.
I ask these questions to learn more about the subject. Just because I'm a Professional doesn't mean I know everything. Yes I know a lot about a lot of areas of our Industry but this is one place where I'm lacking. I'm not a salesman so I don't sell these products on a daily basis.
We are doing a Digital Music event at our store and a guy who wrote a overlaying software is coming in to teach us more about this wonderful topic. I'm trying to learn all I can on my own and there are a lot of 2 channel guys in this forum who built music servers and used many different DAC's. I like learning from them when I can. It's why I'm still apart of this forum.
As far as Sonos , yes It's a wonderful device and we use it a lot with excellent results.Mated with a Cambridge DAC , it's pretty badass. I don't own any Sonos yet but it's always an option. For me personally I'm leaning towards a Apple Mac Mini , Audioquest USB DAC , Audioquest Mini to RCA cable and an overlaying software to correct the issues with Itunes output. But I still want to talk to others and see what they are doing and if any other that would be a solution to what I want to do.
Apple TV with a Cambridge DAC is also something we do with excellent results.
There are many arguments that Itunes is not the best way to store digital music. I for one love how Itunes is managed and want to learn more about it's flaws and this overlaying software that really corrects these issues.
So hopefully that answers your question. No offense taken.
Thanks for your answer!
I must apologize as I thought you WERE a salesman within your industry. My bad. I see your role now and agree. It's impossible to know everything!
As to your question, there isn't much more I can add as there have been excellent posts so far with answers to your question. There exists many methods and systems to achieve what you're asking about.
I will say, there are a few programs out there that do a much better job managing music collections as well as native playback management over iTunes. Most of these programs have equivalent applications which can be run on either Apple, Android or Blackberry phones and tablets. These systems are far superior than iTunes CAN be. Many have already been mentioned in this thread.
I've always said if you're happy with your Apple system and comfortable with it over any Windows based product, stick with it. -
Mantis: PM solidsqual. He had a totally digital MAC system until recently that looked killer. There are probably posts about it somewhere.
I will say based on my research iTunes lossless files when played in a totally MAC environment with something like pure digital run over the top handling the actually playing and leaving iTunes to only manage the library makes for a very easy good system.
Any other use of iTunes falls short of what many of us consider high fidelity.
To quote MikePursue better. It can be had for less than you think.
:biggrin:"....not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." William Bruce Cameron, Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking (1963) -
Let me start by saying first off that I use digital equipment and state that digital equipment (DAC's, transports/CD players, etc) have come a long way in the last 25 years..........BUT they still don't match a high quality/fidelity pure analog system for the most accurate reproduction. Why, you may ask? The music was played in the analog realm and the listener hears the music in the analog realm. Using computers, DAC's, CD players/Transports will not reproduce recorded music as accurately as analog reproduction. The more conversions you do from the analog realm will require conversions back to the analog realm for the listener to hear the music. The more conversions you do, the less accurate the reproduced music will be to the listener, period. That is not subjective, but fact. There is no AD/DA converter in existance that can convert analog to digital and back without altering the signal, period. Again, this is not subjective, but fact. Also, really there is no analog system that can reproduce recorded music without altering the signal but a high quality/fidelity analog system will alter it less than a digital system.
Now, if you are saying that you want to use a digital system to reproduce the music you record as accurately as possible then that is a different discussion all together. I'm not trying to start a heated debate about analog vurses digital, but common sense and the way the human body and nature work is pretty straight forward. Take my response or leave it, but analog equipment reproduces music more accurately than digital.
If you want to get into a discussion about higher resolution, less noise, how long the format lasts, etc. again this is another discussion.
Edit: I am also talking from a tonal point of view mostly and not resolution, noise, longevity. Thought I should throw this in as it may make things more clear.
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."![:\](https://forum.polkaudio.com/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee -
Just like with standard analog audio, you can get as deeply invested as you wish with digital too. I think digital is finally getting it's hi-fi on to compete with analog. Bose made a name for themselves by compromising SQ for ease of use and austhetics, some digital can go down that same path too but imho most consumers today are not aware of whats available to them or how to go about getting good sound from a computer or other digital based sources. I think consumers in general like simple, thats what Apple offers up in boat loads hence their popularity. The 2 basics in all of this is a good burning program into a lossless format, and a good dac. Once you have that in place everything else is just a matter of preference, piece of cake.HT SYSTEM-
Sony 850c 4k
Pioneer elite vhx 21
Sony 4k BRP
SVS SB-2000
Polk Sig. 20's
Polk FX500 surrounds
Cables-
Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable
Kitchen
Sonos zp90
Grant Fidelity tube dac
B&k 1420
lsi 9's -
Our biggest hurdles in digital audio continue to be in the recording techniques---or lack there of. The potential has always been there, unfortunately the "quantity over quality" crowds' voices are louder.Source: Bluesound Node 2i - Preamp/DAC: Benchmark DAC2 DX - Amp: Parasound Halo A21 - Speakers: MartinLogan Motion 60XTi - Shop Rig: Yamaha A-S501 Integrated - Shop Spkrs: Elac Debut 2.0 B5.2
-
We should all just hire live bands, it would be cheaper in the long run.Vinyl, the final frontier...
Avantgarde horns, 300b tubes, thats the kinda crap I want...
-
One might also consider that Studio Monitors and the rooms they live in are EQ'd.
The better the studio the better the gear and expertise to use it correctly. -
We should all just hire live bands, it would be cheaper in the long run.
Yea let me ring up Bono right now and find out his rates :P -
audiocr381ve wrote: »Yea let me ring up Bono right now and find out his rates :P
Every U2 album was recorded horribly. Bono sucks. :razz: -
Every U2 album was recorded horribly. Bono sucks. :razz:
Yea, they really dropped the ball on that one... look at the CD sales
