Folkman
pfm Member
You don't actually believe that do you .
A high quality CD Player
- Thread starter naimplayer
- Start date
You don't actually believe that do you .
music fiend
life lusting
OK. You give me the best possible but I may not like it because I have bad taste, is that it?
(Did you write that with a straight face?)
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
I believe that loudspeakers and room make by far the largest contribution to sound quality, the loudspeakers need to be driven by capable amps.
I do believe that if the amplifiers have extremely low distortion and are capable of driving the loudspeakers without clipping they are going to sound pretty similar, similarly with dacs, not identical but pretty similar.
But having said that the individual has to live with the system and ultimately they must choose what they prefer.
Keith.
music fiend
life lusting
Most certainly. I guess that he has not sold a single Weiss DAC.
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
music fiend
life lusting
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
Yes of course, the intention of the artist is represented by the recording, all we can do is try to reproduce that recording as faithfully as possible.
Keith.
music fiend
life lusting
Always blind, right?
So the cheapest must sound significantly worse than the most expensive one. You must stop selling the cheapest as it does not conform with your "properly designed" mumbo jumbo.
music fiend
life lusting
Whaleblue
Southbound
Thanks for clarifying. Apologies for any misrepresentations!
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
No problem Whale ,only my experience I am sure everyone will be different.
Keith.
Keith.
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
Well I don't actually specify how they should compare, but I do mention that louder often sounds 'better' and level matching is a good idea.
Anyhoo this all way off topic .
Keith.
music fiend
life lusting
So the insistence with blind testing is just for people who are considering buying other expensive DACs that you happen not to sell. I see.
Here's my 2p worth for the O.Poster.
You can normally tell within 10 seconds if the sound is a substantial upgrade otherwise for that money don't bother.
My experience of listening to technically good CD replay, which was a top end DCS system, was that although there was a lot of extra detail and it sounded very clean, the
music seemed to have been washed away. I heard the system at 2 locations with the same reaction.
I have been happy with a Wadia 861 and Zanden 4 box player which sounds closer to a vinyl sound which I prefer.
You can normally tell within 10 seconds if the sound is a substantial upgrade otherwise for that money don't bother.
My experience of listening to technically good CD replay, which was a top end DCS system, was that although there was a lot of extra detail and it sounded very clean, the
music seemed to have been washed away. I heard the system at 2 locations with the same reaction.
I have been happy with a Wadia 861 and Zanden 4 box player which sounds closer to a vinyl sound which I prefer.
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
Seriously think man:
a. where does the accurate clock information need to be used?.
b. what does all the guff about jitter, digital signals "really" being analog, waveform distortion caused by reflections, all the guff about why s/pdif signals mangle the embedded clock, mean for the transmission of a clock signal over a distance*
are any thoughts beginning to form about the correct location of the clock?
* of course this is largely guff about sp/dif because you don;t need to use the embedded clock in the data; but if you insist on using an external clock it does matter.
ps FWIW the Arcam was recommended by John Westlake and actually has been designed properly as a transport (eg taking clock link from dac, optically isolated output board, transformer isolated S/PDIF *not* nonsense designed to appeal to people who imagine that a cdt is like a record player.)
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
In fact there is some serious evidence that people can detect changes using rapid switching ABX's which they cannot detect in the unstructured listening which audiophile mythology claims is better. I can't remember where I found the reference.
Edit: Perhaps it was here
http://audiosciencereview.com/forum...ity-and-reliability-of-abx-blind-testing.186/
DevillEars
Dedicated ignorer of fashion
One real problem with blind tests is where the Hell to put the white canes and cute Labradors.... 
Another problem - this time on a more serious note - lies within the human brain in the interactions between sensory inputs from the eyes and ears.
What we are dealing with is "perception" - a subjective phenomena - where the brain interprets sensory inputs from eyes and ears (we can, hopefully, ignore inputs from the other senses of smell, taste and touch...).
This interpretation can produce weird results such as when the sensory inputs are in conflict.
One such case (not sure if real or just urban legend) was a dual input sequence (one, a video feed of a face focusing on the mouth; the other, an audio feed of what was - supposedly - being said). The sequence starts with audio feed - synchronised to the video feed - with the word "BUCK" repeated a few times while video feed shows the correct mouth movements for "BUCK". Then the sequence switched to a combination where the audio feed remained "BUCK" but the video feed changed to where mouth movements showed the word beginning with an "F". The listeners were all outraged when their brain interpreted the audio feed of "BUCK" as something a wee bit different...
It's almost as if the brain seeks confirmation from multiple sensory inputs and, when one of these inputs is blocked, the perception process gets knocked out of kilter.
A mate in the audio game outlined an experiment to try:
Put on a recording with a decent soundstage and a defined soloist and listen for a while with eyes open and picture the soundstage and the soloist, then when this is reasonably clear, suddenly close your eyes. The soundstage is immediately shrunk and it takes quite a while before the brain shifts gears to allow it expand again.
I've long had my doubts about unsighted testing (to differentiate them from so-called double-blind - or ABX - evaluations) and how perceptions can play tricks.
Other factors that can and do influence perception lie in the areas or overall health and in whether or not the listener is over-tired.
Finally, there is a tendency when carrying out comparative listening tests to move away from the holistic overall appreciation of the music to a focussed evaluation of specific areas of reproduction (as opposed to the music).
I used to be guilty of this in the early days when my selection of test records/CDs always included one to highlight low frequencies (extension and transient handling), another to showcase spatial cue reproduction in soundstaging and imaging, another for male vocals, another for female vocal, etc.
Nowadays, I have a set of CD's (vinyl doesn't leave the house) of my favourite music and any evaluation is not done while listening, but immediately after the end of each piece based on how enjoyable it was and how satisfied I felt with the overall experience.
I also find myself listening more to the music than listening to the "system" doing the replay.... That, after all, is what it's all about...
Another problem - this time on a more serious note - lies within the human brain in the interactions between sensory inputs from the eyes and ears.
What we are dealing with is "perception" - a subjective phenomena - where the brain interprets sensory inputs from eyes and ears (we can, hopefully, ignore inputs from the other senses of smell, taste and touch...).
This interpretation can produce weird results such as when the sensory inputs are in conflict.
One such case (not sure if real or just urban legend) was a dual input sequence (one, a video feed of a face focusing on the mouth; the other, an audio feed of what was - supposedly - being said). The sequence starts with audio feed - synchronised to the video feed - with the word "BUCK" repeated a few times while video feed shows the correct mouth movements for "BUCK". Then the sequence switched to a combination where the audio feed remained "BUCK" but the video feed changed to where mouth movements showed the word beginning with an "F". The listeners were all outraged when their brain interpreted the audio feed of "BUCK" as something a wee bit different...
It's almost as if the brain seeks confirmation from multiple sensory inputs and, when one of these inputs is blocked, the perception process gets knocked out of kilter.
A mate in the audio game outlined an experiment to try:
Put on a recording with a decent soundstage and a defined soloist and listen for a while with eyes open and picture the soundstage and the soloist, then when this is reasonably clear, suddenly close your eyes. The soundstage is immediately shrunk and it takes quite a while before the brain shifts gears to allow it expand again.
I've long had my doubts about unsighted testing (to differentiate them from so-called double-blind - or ABX - evaluations) and how perceptions can play tricks.
Other factors that can and do influence perception lie in the areas or overall health and in whether or not the listener is over-tired.
Finally, there is a tendency when carrying out comparative listening tests to move away from the holistic overall appreciation of the music to a focussed evaluation of specific areas of reproduction (as opposed to the music).
I used to be guilty of this in the early days when my selection of test records/CDs always included one to highlight low frequencies (extension and transient handling), another to showcase spatial cue reproduction in soundstaging and imaging, another for male vocals, another for female vocal, etc.
Nowadays, I have a set of CD's (vinyl doesn't leave the house) of my favourite music and any evaluation is not done while listening, but immediately after the end of each piece based on how enjoyable it was and how satisfied I felt with the overall experience.
I also find myself listening more to the music than listening to the "system" doing the replay.... That, after all, is what it's all about...
mattgbell
Help the elderly and unwell!
... which is what all well informed people know to be the case.
I look forward to naimplayer's comments on his listening sessions. I notice, like my TEACs, that there are a range of filter and sampling options on the K-03 that, according to a review, make a significant difference to the sound. My experience is that, where I could detect a difference, they were tiny, but that was years ago and I may know better what to listen for so should perhaps experiment again. I have in my headphone system a T+A DAC 8 which also has some filters and I definitely have a preference, but again you have to listen hard to notice.
For the experts, could you please explain what an external clock does better then the internal clock already in my boxes? Likewise, I would be interested to hear comments from naimplayer if he experiments with and without the external clock.
For the experts, could you please explain what an external clock does better then the internal clock already in my boxes? Likewise, I would be interested to hear comments from naimplayer if he experiments with and without the external clock.