Absolutely agree. Mind you it was all we had so we had to “listen through” the defects. For classical the arrival of digital was a blessed, albeit not perfect, relief. It has improved again, is there room or need for future improvement? I’ve no idea but I’m glad that people are trying. Now I find that the source has caught up to show the potential of the extraordinary Quad electrostatics. Even they have been improved, the 2805 and 2812 sounding, imho, much better than the ESL 63. Speakers have now been developed that sound, again imho, better than the Quads at bringing the original performance into the home. Of course, different genres of music present different problems and some genres are easier to create an illusion of than others.
Assuming you talking about what you sell, I tried two of those. Great for analysing the recording, not so good at recreating an illusion of the original performance (where there was such a thing of course).
Not sure who you are replying to, but In your anal world maybe, but some of us use hifi to create a realistic illusion of music in our homes.
It's an interesting starting point which most of us will agree with (up to a point)- given the limitations of microphones, the limitation of stereo, the limitations of speaker drivers, the problem of the room - there's no reason why a reproduction of a recording should sound exactly the same as a real muscial event in your room, even if perfectly reproduced.
Such dogma! For you personally maybe, and that’s perfectly fine but you may be perplexed to learn that some of us use hifi, not to prove a point, , not as a thing in its own isolated right, but to enjoy music in the home. Music which we have experience of in the concert hall or at other venues where it is performed. Perhaps some of us are more interested in music and the use of hifi as a tool to transfer it to our homes. For that we have to decide what works best for us as individuals and, given that we are all different, there is unlikely to be one ideal solution.
Nice word.
Obviously not the way I’ve gone but that’s the point; we are different in our tastes in music and the way we perceive it. neither of us are wrong in our choices. Thankfully there’s a wide choice of hifi available to cater for all of us. When I went to the Wam show I was impressed by just how wide a range exhibitors own systems were. Some I loved some I hated but they were all good for their owners. In the end it is about getting the most amount of enjoyment from music, at least for me.
. A nugatory DAC. Is that a DAC that is edible?
One of my cousins was a recording engineer. He was much older than me and now long since deceased but looking back I would have loved to sit in on him recording mostly classical music. Sadly our family is quite dispersed and it was only on meeting his son (only two years younger than me) that I learn’t what his father did for a living.
To that I'd say negatory!
interesting thought. I’ve had a look at my history but can’t remember which quartet I was listening to at the time. I don’t think any of them were on Harmoni Mundi though. The point is that with one DAC it was ouch and a face screw and with the other exciting and natural. I did do some comparative measuring in REW at the listening position and no difference to speak of. Perhaps a violin shows the advantage of upscaling and its (alleged for some
Those descriptions work for me. You’ve got me wondering if my problem with the Benchmark DAC1 would be helped by feeding it from an m scaler or HQ Player?
