O.T. - Hi Fi buffs - are they serious?

[alby]

I was reading in the Jazz Times magazine about Hi Fi systems, and the guy matched a NAD CD Player with a NAD Amp.

 

This is the first time I have seen some one recommending a CD player and an AMP from the same manufacturer. The British Hi Fi magazine What Hi Fi would put an Arcam CD Player with a NAD AMP.

 

Like would it make sense to have the CD player and the Amp from the same manufacturer?

 

Another issue I have is the view that dedicated CD players are better at playing music than DVD players.

 

Yet the Audio from a music dvd should have a higher bandwidth than the Audio from a standard CD.

 

Some of the stuff they talk about sounds like astrology to me.

 

My whinge for the day

alby

[Dave Horne]

This is like religion and you're dealing with true believers. There are probably measurable differences between a $50 CD player and a $500 CD player, but I seriously doubt anyone can hear the difference under a double blind test.

 

(I just gave a lesson to a woman, an adult probably about 40 years old or so, who is 'dabbling' in astrology. She asked what my sign was and I gave my usual answer, 'guess'. I gave her two guesses and she was wrong both times. Amazing.)

[ksoper]

Originally posted by alby:

Another issue I have is the view that dedicated CD players are better at playing music than DVD players...

I have an older Denon single-cd player that my dad bought in the 80s. When I got my dvd player I thought I'd be able to remove a piece of gear from the entertainment center. But the audio out of the dvd player was very brittle with little low end. The Denon has a warmer sound and it continues to occupy its place in the furniture. I guess that not all D-A converters are alike.

 

k.

[Prague]

If maximum power transfer is desired between gain stages (preamp and amp for example), that can be done by a single manufacturer.

[Dave Horne]

Originally posted by ksoper:

Originally posted by alby:

Another issue I have is the view that dedicated CD players are better at playing music than DVD players...

I have an older Denon single-cd player that my dad bought in the 80s. When I got my dvd player I thought I'd be able to remove a piece of gear from the entertainment center. But the audio out of the dvd player was very brittle with little low end. The Denon has a warmer sound and it continues to occupy its place in the furniture. I guess that not all D-A converters are alike.

 

k.

You write that it has a 'warmer' sound - I bet if you test both pieces of equipment they will both be with 1.5 decibel (or less) from 40 hz to 15,000 hz. Where's the, measurable 'warmth' there? When most people hear a difference (when comparing two pieces of similar equipment, side by side), they usually hear a slight increase difference in the output level of one piece - anything slightly louder sounds better whether or not the listener is aware of any difference.

[konaboy]

"Directional speaker cables" really get me! What's all that about? Can it really make a difference what direction you send a signal down a metal wire?

 

 

And what's the difference in sound between a $20 digital interconnect and a $100 high quality digital interconnect?

 

Baffled...

[rylos]

Some things will make a major difference in the sound quality: for instance, switching from a set of cheap computer speakers to a fairly good amp & speaker. Other things will make smaller changes: playing original CD instead of mp3 file. Even smaller (but maybe audible if your ears are trained enough) would be ditching $2 audio or speaker cable for a fancy one. Or the difference in sound due to different D/A converters in CD players. Sometimes a particular CD player/amp/speaker combination will sound better due to subtle (but real) differences if the sound of each item reinforcing or cancelling each other.

 

Then we have the stuff that is pure balony. Like directional speaker cables (audio is AC, with no "directional" aspect at all). Other pure snake-oil that is sworn to by the nuts are:

 

various optical coatings / disc clamping types / isolation feet, etc. in CD players. The "true believers" in this stuff don't seem to realize that when music is recorded & played back in the digital domain, NOTHING will make it sound "better" than the data being just barely playable. If the data is barely legible, the numbers come out exactly perfect. If the data is played back "better", the numbers are still exactly perfect. After all, if CDs can play back computer programs (where even one single bad number can cause catastrophe) they can certainly handle music (where an occasional flipped-bit is not likely to be noticed). As long as the disc is just barely readable, it'll sound as good as it can.

 

Special power cords. Hey guys, we're talking 60Hz alternating current here. You can't get better midrange response by making the AC power a tiny bit better. As soon as this power goes into your amp it gets sliced, diced, & hacked up, the tops get chopped off the waveform, it gets dumped into big filter capacitors, etc. Anything that happens to this power during the parts of the waveform that are lower than the voltage at which it passes through the rectifiers can't possibly have any effect. Anything happening at the time the voltage is high enough to get rectified will get absorbed by the filter capacitors (that's their job). It will NOT "constrict the dynamic range" if your power goes through conduit during the last 50 feet of it's thousand-mile journey from the power generator. Nor will those power converters that convert the AC to different frequencies make any difference. Power at 50Hz, 60Hz, or even 90Hz still gets converted to the same DC voltages in the power supply. Even if the converter is put on special isolation feet. As long as you don't have any major goofines in the actual amount of voltage / current available, nothing audible can get through.

 

Special cable for anything in the digital realm can't make any difference in the sound, except when you replace a malfuntioning cable with a working one.

 

The only time that isolation feet will help equipment sound better is either when they are used on an analog playback source (like a turntable or cassettte deck), or if used on equipment that is succeptible to microphonics (where tapping on the parts inside makes an audible sound from the speakers). They will have no effect on digital. Otherwise your computer would run "better" when isolated.

 

These same fanatics probably think that when you travel cross-country the scenery you see will be "better" if you use special tires on your car. Same logic.

 

So go for better audio cables if you want, and spike your speakers to the floor. But if you paint your power cord green, then you've surpassed reality.

[Dave Horne]

<<>>

 

It has been proved time and time again that the color green has no effect on sound ... only the color red. Let's not confuse the issue here.

[coyote]

There's a guy right down the street from me who has 'invested' nearly $70,000.00 in his home sound system. After every change he makes, he has 'experts' come in and do measurements and document the changes in acoustics at different points in the room, or document the change in capacitance & resistance when he gets new speaker cables....

 

He only thinks he's serious. Everyone else thinks he's quite amusing

[marino]

Hifi fanatics go well with opera fans and jazz purists in that they are able to waste most of their life in the pursue of non-existent goals.

[Postman]

My favorite is the CDs that claim to have better sound because they're somehow manufactured with a small amount of gold content.

[rylos]

But you have to paint your player red in order to play them.

[realtrance]

Fortunately I realized before I spent a lot of money that any audiophile obsessions I might have started developing would be better served by focusing on making music myself, instead of trying to control the increasingly illusory details of "high-end" hi-fi. I think a lot of those lost in the audio bug are really just being frustrated musicians, and unless you're living in an outlying area in Nebraska, you'll be better served spending the money you'd spend on high-end audio going to a -- dare I say it -- live concert (especially if it's acoustic folk or classical music, performed in a good hall).

 

I do enjoy reading about audiophilia, though, and I'm sure under the right circumstances, if money is not an issue for you, that audio jewelry is as enjoyable a hobby as anything else.

 

I suspect there is some truth to discussions about clock jitter as an effect on the quality of the sound, but I haven't boned up on the issue enough recently to remember why.

 

The area where audiophile obsession pays off for me is more in the focus on room treatment; and that primarily in positioning of speakers. If you study the dimensions and materials of your room, you can pretty easily calculate the standing waves and such and position your speakers and furniture to deal with any problems present in the room. Getting bass traps for the corner is really the only expenditure beyond that that makes any sense. Doing acoustic foam treatments can also make sense, but a few wall hangings, book cases and the like can also do a great job at breaking up room resonances at various frequencies.

 

rt

[ksoper]

Originally posted by Dave Horne:

When most people hear a difference (when comparing two pieces of similar equipment, side by side), they usually hear a slight increase difference in the output level of one piece - anything slightly louder sounds better whether or not the listener is aware of any difference.

Normally I'd agree with you. However, I'm not an average consumer. I did the test with a cd I mixed myself and presided over the mastering. While I can't tell you one circuit from the next, I assure you that I was careful with the test.

 

I've spent the past ten years learning the difference between what I think is good and what is trulygood, as accepted by the countless engineers and musicians I have around me in Nashville. An engineer I trust agreed with me that there was a significant difference between the sound of the CD player and my DVD player.

 

It's not that far a stretch to conclude that the components and digital converters in my older (and costly for its day) Denon player are better than those in my $300 garden-variety Sony DVD player.

 

Come on over! We'll taste-test.

 

k.

[The Magician]

Actually the funnies t thing about the Hi-Fi crowd is that they fail to realize that they care more about it then WE do (the people making and recording music.) Honestly. I have been on the console many many times and let something less than perfect pass ina mix due to lack of time.

 

Now I will state and I believe everybody here can attest to a few things, A) good cables never hurt, b) Good Power never hurt, and C)good gear never hurt.

 

but lets face the simple fact that many times the hi-fi guys buy playback equipment that is higher quality then most folks record on.

 

Andy

Magic Man

[Dave Horne]

ksoper,

 

<<>>

 

If there's an audible difference there must also be a measurable difference, correct? What is the measurable difference between the two units?

 

I would think an easy test would be match the output of the two players to within 1/3 of a decibel and use the same CD (two copies of the same CD would be OK with me) on both. If you can consistently discern which player is currently being played, then there's a difference.

 

I have read many double blind tests and under those conditions, the 'golden ears' fail ... their choice is roughly the same as chance. Unless a test is performed under those conditions (matched to 1/3 of a decibel and double blind), I take the comments with a grain of salt.

[coyote]

A couple months ago I proposed double-blind tests for analog vs VA synths - at least one person said he wanted to see the equipment as it was being played cos he didn't want to be 'tricked' lol

 

Originally posted by Dave Horne:

I have read many double blind tests and under those conditions, the 'golden ears' fail ... their choice is roughly the same as chance.

[konaboy]

Good observations guys!

 

Anybody heard the one about putting CDs in the fridge for an hour before playing them?

[AmplifierExperts]

Originally posted by marino:

Hifi fanatics go well with opera fans and jazz purists in that they are able to waste most of their life in the pursue of non-existent goals.

I recall quite a few years ago when I did an internet audio demo for Stephan Zucker, a major player in the New York Opera world, he claimed my digitized copies of old 78rpm recordings sounded 'digital'. I was skeptical, considering there was nothing above 4kc on any of the records I transcribed.

 

I could understand the ability to hear a difference if we're talking going from 15IPS tape that has been recorded with premium condenser mics, and a digitized copy of that, but on something that is from the 1920s, I much doubt it.

 

I have been working for about 7 years now with the Leroy Anderson Estate, doing restorations of virtually everything the composer wrote and ever performed, even if it wasn't released. The owners of the material are quite happy with the results and we continue to build libraries of the anthology of this American composer to this day.

 

Hi Fi has become the domain of the very rich and the voodoo-oriented. I built my own and saved $66,000.

 

The only things about interconnects that matter is that the connections must be reliable, shielded, and that speaker cabling be able to deliver the current and maintain the damping factor of the amplifier, hence woofer control.

[MurMan]

One of my favorite topics. Some random comments:

 

- Physics beats Astrology. But when we don't fully understand the physics, it's indistinguishable from Astrology.

 

- Sometimes features are more important than ultimate audio quality. I have an older Denon CD deck that has the A-B feature. (Repeats from point A to point B) Priceless for learning someone's music.

 

- There's a great story about what happened when RCA did blind testing of their new "Hi-Fi" equipment in the '50's. The general public preferred the old record players because it sounded more natural to them.

 

- Ethan Winer has a good article on his site: Dispelling Audio Myths

 

Murray

[rtype]

Science is not designed to explain the world first and then observe it. Rather, the role of science should be to explain what is observed.

 

It's easy to say something is nonsense if you haven't listened for yourself. If you have, you may find differences where you wouldn't expect them.

 

The DACs in modern CD and DVD players are much, much better than older "dedicated" CD players and thus, usually sound better.

 

However, there is some truth to the idea that DVD players have lasers that are aligned better for reading DVDs than CDs. Some DVD players have "dual pickups" (this doesn't mean that they have four wheeels in the back). If your DVD player doesn't have dual pickups, you may find the DVD laser has a more difficult time reading some brands of CDRs, for example. If a CD player has read errors on a CD that it can recognize, it performs its own internal "error correction" and if there are enough of these, the difference in sound quality between the error corrected music will be audible.

 

That's not what I'd equate to astrology. The problem with audiohiles is that like any other hobby, they draw the attention of obsessive people who have a lot of money and love to spend it on incremental accessories. Some make a lot of difference. Some make a little difference. Some make no difference at all. Some even impact the sound negatively.

 

I was surprised to find that in high end systems, differences between cables could sometimes be audible. I didn't want to believe that, but after having heard it myself, it is what it is. I was lucky enough to borrow a bunch of cables to try this. I recommend you do the same if you have a high end system and want to experiment. However, no amount of my saying "Yes, it really did make a difference" could makeup for the legions of idiots who connect $500 cables to cheap CD players and crappy receivers. Cables can make a difference but you'd be extremely foolish (or in need of a purchase to get your OCD fix on) to spend a lot of money on that before you'd conquered the far more important pieces of your system and gotten some good well engineered recordings.

 

I agree that this topic can be religious which is why I tend to side with neither the audiophile nor the anti-audiophile. In this case, the athiest is certainly as firmly affixed to his faith as the theist.

[MurMan]

Originally posted by rtype:

Science is not designed to explain the world first and then observe it. Rather, the role of science should be to explain what is observed.

Meaty post, rtype. But I can't let you get away with the above quote.

 

Science is knowledge. You may think that science creates theories in order to explain what is observed. But in the real world, the relationship between theory and observation is much more interesting. There's a hell of a lot of science that originated purely from a theory and/or an equation. It sometimes takes decades before an experiment can be run that observes what was explained by the theory.

[alby]

Science is knowledge. You may think that science creates theories in order to explain what is observed. But in the real world, the relationship between theory and observation is much more interesting. There's a hell of a lot of science that originated purely from a theory and/or an equation. It sometimes takes decades before an experiment can be run that observes what was explained by the theory.

Thats true. A lot of maths talk about n x m dimensional spaces (vector algebra?). Pure maths is pretty spooky like that.

 

Regards

alby

[alby]

http://www.analog.com/processors/communities/video/understandingAudio.html

 

A quote from this web site about the Audio specs for DVD-Video discs.

 

"Unlike audio CDs, which use PCM two-channel encoding in16-bit samples at a 44.1 kHz sampling rate, DVD-Video discs use a variety of different encoding formats and sampling rates, primarily with 24-bit sample sizes identical to the 24-bit original masters. This larger sample size delivers higher audio precision in terms of dynamic range, and requires high-resolution decoding and post-processing."

 

What is never mentioned is that the Audio from a DVD-Video is a higher spec than the Audio from a CD (24 bit vs 16 bit). So therefore, playing a DVD Music Video of the same concert as the CD eg. the Eagles when hell freezes over - you are going to get a better sound from the DVD player. Just turn the TV off!

 

So why buy a separate CD player as well as a separate DVD player? Besides to fill the coffers of the Hi Fi industry.

 

regards

alby

[Dave Horne]

rtype,

 

<<>>

 

Were the differences a result of _instantly _ switching between the two sets of cables or was there a delay of more than several seconds when the cables were manually switched? An instant switch when you don't know which set is being used and then being asked which set you think you are hearing would be more fruitful, don't you agree?

 

If you _know_ ahead of time which set you are listening two, the results for me, should be taken with a grain of salt.

[rylos]

- There's a great story about what happened when RCA did blind testing of their new "Hi-Fi" equipment in the '50's. The general public preferred the old record players because it sounded more natural to them.

If you're not used to highs, having highs can sound "shrill".

 

Back in the early days, after some experiments indicated that lo-fi sounded better than hi-fi, someone figured out that part of the problem might be that there was a lot of noise & distortion on the high-end of the recordings that were used for the tests, making the lo-fi playback sound better. They devised a test using live music, with the musicians being behind an acoustic hi-cut filter that could be be put in effect selectively, without the test subjects knowing if it was there or not. Under the circumstances of hi-fi without distortion people usually preferred hi-fi.

 

Anybody heard the one about putting CDs in the fridge for an hour before playing them?

News to me. Good for a laugh, though. It's going to be hard to get the data off any better than perfect.

 

The mention of the second level of "error correction" is useful. The usual name for that is "error concealment". If the disc has errors so major that error correction can't re-create the original data (yes, the process does bring back the exact original numbers) then the software in the player tries to guess at what numbers could be put in the data stream that would approximate what would be likely to have been there. Not perfect, but better than hearing a big ol' pop or tick when playing past that big hairy scratch in the disc. Up to the point where error concealment starts kicking in, the data will be perfect.

 

As to the audio on DVDs, while recording of audio-only can be recorded at a high bit-rate, allowing better than CD quality sound, if you also have a movie on there odds are the audio was recorded at a low bit rate, using a lossy compression system. Basically a high-end mp3. Not a big issue with movies, as watching the movie distracts people from being real picky about the sound.

[Griffinator]

Originally posted by Dave Horne:

This is like religion and you're dealing with true believers. There are probably measurable differences between a $50 CD player and a $500 CD player, but I seriously doubt anyone can hear the difference under a double blind test.

 

(I just gave a lesson to a woman, an adult probably about 40 years old or so, who is 'dabbling' in astrology. She asked what my sign was and I gave my usual answer, 'guess'. I gave her two guesses and she was wrong both times. Amazing.)

Actually, the difference between a $50 CD player and a $500 CD player are enormous.

 

Start with tracking stability, crystal quality, DAC quality, power supply isolation...

 

I can go on and on.

 

This kind of response is rather surprising. What would you say if I scoffed at your (theoretical) $100,000 automated console and said that my $500 Behringer with the MIDI automation addon sounded just as good in double-blind tests?

 

Not that I believe that, but from an outsider's perspective...

[Dave Horne]

Griffinator,

 

<<>>

 

For one, there's a $450 price difference and a feature difference, but for the rest, I doubt if I could hear any difference. What are the specs on a cheap unit? Do they still publish specs for CD players? When I go to buy another player, I will only look for features, I won't even consider specs on a CD player. (I never checked the specs on the CD player in my computer ... does anyone?)

 

I'm sure there are differences, I would not want to bet my life's savings that I could tell the difference in a double blind test where two units matched to within 1/3 decibel, however. Would you care to bet your savings that you can tell the difference between two units in a double blind test?

 

The key phrase here is audible differences.

 

I remember reading a test on a first generation CD player where they hooked up a light to show when the error correction circuitry kicked in. The techs were amazed how many times the light came on. but they could not hear that anything had occurred.

[rtype]

Originally posted by Dave Horne:

rtype,

 

<<>>

 

Were the differences a result of _instantly _ switching between the two sets of cables or was there a delay of more than several seconds when the cables were manually switched? An instant switch when you don't know which set is being used and then being asked which set you think you are hearing would be more fruitful, don't you agree?

 

If you _know_ ahead of time which set you are listening two, the results for me, should be taken with a grain of salt.

Dave

 

The switching was very quick and was repeated multiple times. My preferences ended up being a mid-range price cable, though my bias is the opposite of what you suspect (I wanted cheaper to win -- I wanted no differences so I could justify spending less to people who spend more).

 

In any case, I have never attempted to establish credibility with random internet people and am not trying to now. I imagine that no matter what I say to you, you will "take it with a grain of salt." I didn't suggest you believe me nor did I try to sell you a product. I only suggest that you listen for yourself before trusting only your assumptions that no difference is possible.

 

* * *

 

RE: DVD vs CD

 

The reason DVDs often do not sound as good as their CD counterparts is due to compression. 24 bit vs 16 bit doesn't usually have as much of an impact as highly compressed vs. uncompressed digital music, especially if the source was 16 bit master tape anyway. If you rip a DVD and look at the contents, you'll usually find only a very small bit of bandwidth reserved for the 2-channel track (again, don't take my word for it--rip one of your concert CDs and look at the file sizes in a program like DVD Shrink).

[rtype]

Produce a $50 player and a $500 player for comparrison and YOU set up the double blind volume matched system (though we'll have to assume you'll pick a reasonable quality amp and speakers or this is moot) and I'll show up, take your test and describe the differences.

 

Lots of people who claim "no audible difference" have themselves never listened for one.