advertisement


£20 Behringer, £1250 Naim V1, £1800 Linn Majik DS-Eff all in it.

arrowhead said:
Don't forget the Behringer UCA202 is not only a DAC, it's a ADC, a headphone amp, and a USB/Toslink converter, all for less than £25. Sounds bloody good too IMHO.
Click to expand...
Agreed, it's incredible value for money.

Or, maybe it's priced exactly right, and everything else ranges from poor value to plain ridiculously poor value.
 
MVV said:
Anyone know which forum Serge, Robert et al moved to?
Click to expand...

Rob's very much still here, he's just given up on utterly pointless cyclic arguments, and full respect to him for that. Serge appears to have done the same, and whilst I like him a lot and have some overlap with his views (only some mind) I don't miss his need to attack every opposing viewpoint on every single thread upon which it may occur. It makes far more sense to accept that not everyone on a forum of this size and activity is going to agree about everything and simply stick to that which interests you. That's what I try to do anyway. I'll never convince either Serge or say Steve Toy about the sensible middle-ground that lies between them, so why bother? It's just not my argument!

PS you'll find Serge over on HiFiWigWam.
 
The computer has been a game-changer for hi-fi. The hi-fi business struggles with this. Its desperate to hang on to its 'differences' and to differentiate expensive products. Trouble is, ten minutes around the very capable bits the computer, as opposed to the audio, business offers and its game over. Once you question the viability of £10k device next to a £100 one that is more capable the whole pack of cards comes down. Its not hard to understand why the hi-fi business is upset by this. But its just one of a series of business sectors to be hit by disruptive technology in this way.

Unfortunately, instead of adopting and adapting, some in the industry prefer to insult the intelligence of consumers and resort to the old 'deaf' and 'can't hear differences' routines which used to be used to sow doubt and help prop up a business model.

Consumers, however, don't have to prop up a business - and nor should they. Its important they make the right purchasing decisions for them. In this way, the business which supplies us with products will have to adapt.

And yes, I have bought expensive digital offerings from the hi-fi trade - and compared them with those costing a fraction of the price available widely. I have done this at home to my satisfaction. And no, I didn't particularly level match, but then I've never been offered a level-matched dem at a dealer in 40 years either, so it can't be very important:)

I have moved digital music files between a desk top, four or five laptops, four Nas boxes, via Usb and ethernet and half a dozen back ups for over a decade. I have compared decade-old digital files moved about in this way with the same discs re-ripped on my latest kit. No difference. Nada. Nothing.

I conclude digital files - music files - are robust and can be enjoyed at high quality for modest amounts of money. But don't buy your next laptop for word processing from an ex-typewriter manufacurer...
 
Computer audio has changed nothing really , all it has done is replace a source , everything after that is still subject to the vagaries of hifi... Dacs , pre's, amps , speakers , cables , whatever remain the same or similar.
 
Purite Audio said:
We're all three dacs heard in the same room same system, we're the output levels matched?
Keith.
Click to expand...

Yes same room, speakers, amp (level on display said 48 on all three occasions). The demo guy, whilst stocking the brand of amp I own, didn't have that model in stock so used a different brand. BEFORE the demo commenced he said that the make of amp wouldn't matter, the aim was to show the difference between the three. The difference was, as I have said, eff all. I am sensitive to arguments about far eastern slave labour conditions and all my kit is British bar a Dynavector cartridge (Naim, Linn and Rega new and s/h). I am more than happy, keen even, to pay a premium for more expensive British made goods. I am even willing to splash out for a £1250 dac, but some of that mark-up should include an element (ie more than eff all) of superior sound quality surely.
 
That's not level-matched as the DACs themselves will almost certainly have differing output levels.
 
It they weren't level matched and you didn't hear a difference then you've got hearing problems. You should at least have been able to hear they were playing at different levels!
 
MVV said:
I'm with you mister mole. Since the likes of serge and Robert have left there is almost no balance against the people who come here to promote their business. You post a comment and are told your hearing is faulty and you don't know how to listen to music properly or that you are simply not discerning enough by people who mostly sell hi fi. Me I use a FIiO D3 and find there is eff all between it and any DAC. Having said that I am deaf, thick and shop at Aldi.
Click to expand...

Anyone's opinion is valid, even mine when I say i disagree. I don't think you can tell wheter a component is good or bad by playing a single track.
I haven't said the OP doesn't know how to listen to music properly, I said a single track by Bjork in an unknown system is not enough to get an idea of a component.
 
realmassy said:
Anyone's opinion is valid, even mine when I say i disagree. I don't think you can tell wheter a component is good or bad by playing a single track.
I haven't said the OP doesn't know how to listen to music properly, I said a single track by Bjork in an unknown system is not enough to get an idea of a component.
Click to expand...

Yes fair comment, but surely one would be able to get a gist of the potential? If level matching was so crucial to differentiate the dacs then the failure not to ensure so is the dealer's rather than mine. If it all came down to level matching or absence thereof (which I dont happen to think it does) then that has cost the dealer a sale. As it happened they all sounded about the same volume. Regarding the single track thing, again if the gist of the difference is not apparent after a track I know well then I reckoned sitting around for several hours faffing about wasn't going to get me much further.
 
I recently compared a Behringer electronic crossover to my own (nice pcb, quality components, high quality pots etc). The Behringer is truly excellent VFM and very flexible. It's also very well designed.... if cost and features are the main criteria.

On a quick listen there is EFF all in it. The Behringer is a bit more forward and dynamic sounding and seems to present more detail.

However after a couple of evenings of listening to it the sound starts to grate a bit. Returning to the higher quality unit - all the "new" detail is still there but it's presented in a more balanced way. It is also apparent how much more relaxed and coherent it sounds.

A friend came round to have a listen and we went through the same procedure, he thought pretty much the same (although he seems to be able to come to conclusions much more quickly than me). Then we tried an old recording from the Montreux Jazz festival in 1959 (probably made with very smple but decent quality recording equipment) - the quality XO sounded massively superior and the Behringer sounded harsh and nasty in comparison.
Of course this must all be kept in context "massively superior" for audiophiles is "oh, if you say so" for our wives!
 
A very useful tip I learned years ago was to notice how the music made me feel.

I once listened to 2 products side-by-side at home: the 1st I'd owned for 4 years which was a big cut-down of the 2nd product. The more expensive product did sound more detailed, but more importantly it was much more enjoyable to listen to.
 
Wouldn't regard electronica as a good test track. Go back and try it with Oscar Peterson 'We get requests' any track from that album is useful for helping the bewildered identify any differences that might be there. Really depends what you want from your home listening. My kids are happy with mp3's played through an ipod connected through a rca cable to an amp. They can detect the vast difference when played through a decent dac using a wav file. If you cant detect any difference then obviously the expensive option aint for you.
 
I've wasted lots of money on overpriced electronics in the past to no advantage. Nowadays, I'd rather spend my money on speakers where noticeable improvements are gained. DACs seem to be the new cables, loads of BS but minuscule improvements per pound in SQ.
 
Thanks for the UC202/222 info .. Im gonna pick one up on Monday..
Weiss-man
I run meridian DSP6000 speakers off a Squeezebox, one costs 100x more than the other.
Plenty other folk I know with serious systems are running cheap sources too.. (laptops , macs etc)
 
martin clark said:
NO. It is perfectly possible to have unbelievably-great hearing and not give a significant toss about the very small differences one might detect, and so choose to buy a bit of kit on entirely-other grounds: aesthetic, packaging, cost, flavour, running cost, number of worker-children killed per unit sold, ability to stir shit on a forum one trolls etc.
So, as SQ says in the post above, you buy what you are happy with. The End.

Such choices have got absolutely zero to do with the relative technical merit of each item auditioned, nor how good the buyer's 'ear' is. It's a personal value judgement in the round. Everyone does it - everyone!


(and so the conflation of such issues are also why 99% of audio threads can be safely ignored...)
Click to expand...

POTD and caused me to spit tea too - thanks Martin :)
 
One mans 'eff all' is another's 'staggeringly vast differences', such is the nature of subjective experience.

What this episode does show is how important a demonstration is so that one can decide where ones 'eff all' limit is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top