What hi-fi system do you own and music do you listen to beside your rolex?

[joeychitwood]

Some of my oldest LPs have the best sound. Ella Fitzgerald's Let No Man Write My Epitaph, recorded almost 50 years ago, has the best sound of any CD, DVD or LP I've ever heard. The engineers back then were supremely talented.

[TheDude]

Nice setups folks.

As for LPs, they're a great hobby and definitely better than CD. However, the high resolution codecs are pretty equal if not better to LPs... and lots less expensive.


The master tapes are re-sampled at higher resolution and then re-mastered. With the right signal path, it should be as good or better than the best LP setup.

CD (Redbook)

2 channels of PCM audio, each signed 16-bit values sampled at 44100 Hz

An audio CD can represent frequencies up to 22.05 kHz, the Nyquist frequency of the 44.1 kHz sample rate.
The bit rate is 1411.2 kbit/s:
2 channels x 44,100 samples per second per channel × 16 bits per sample = 1,411,200 bit/s = 1,411.2 kbit/s.


SACD (Direct Stream Transfer)

_____________________________CD____ SACD
Format_______________16 bit PCM____ 1 bit DSD
Sampling frequency_____44.1 kHz____ 2822.4 kHz[1]
Dynamic range_____________96 dB____ 120 dB[1]
Frequency range___20 Hz – 20 kHz____ 20 Hz – 50 kHz[1]
Disc capacity_____________700 MB____ 7.95 GB
Stereo_______________________Yes____ Yes
Discrete surround_____________No____Yes


DVD-Audio (Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP)

Six channels at 96kHz/24 bit,Two channels at 192kHz, 24 bit

[snow_rocks]

Originally Posted by joeychitwood

Some of my oldest LPs have the best sound. Ella Fitzgerald's Let No Man Write My Epitaph, recorded almost 50 years ago, has the best sound of any CD, DVD or LP I've ever heard. The engineers back then were supremely talented.

The one thing I found out about recordings, and how they were made back then, was they were engineered to sound really good through what seems to be adequate speakers.
This became apparent when older taped recordings were transferred to CD. Analog recordings suffered due to compression needed to make the recording, in other words, the dynamic range was limited due to tape noise, and the quieter passages had to be brought up in volume, and lack of dynamic headroom for the much louder passages. Of course DBX change that with dynamic range expanding equipment.

CDs, if recorded in true DDD format, not AAD, are sound wise much superior to the tape recordings of today, and yesteryears!

But, the true audiophile will always argue that their LPs have a certain something that the CD sound can replicate (tape noise and scratching). If one could distinguish a difference of a 1/16 octave, they would have a point, but most can't.

There are many shades of black in a photograph, and like speakers, only one or two of those shades will be appealing to an individual.

[swissautopro]

Wow! I just have a little Bose dock for my iPod. Sounds great, but I feel so inadequate!

[TheDude]

Originally Posted by snow_rocks

CDs, if recorded in true DDD format, not AAD, are sound wise much superior to the tape recordings of today, and yesteryears!

But, the true audiophile will always argue that their LPs have a certain something that the CD sound can replicate...

Actually, the bit depth on an analog or digital recording is very important. I have a DVD-Audio (48/24 MLP) of REM's "Automatic for the People" that was recorded digitally @ 48/24. The CD of same is 44/16, so even though the production chain was digital, there is a lot of information being left behind in the transfer to CD.

You don't need to have a golden ear to hear the difference that the 16 bit to 24 bit resolution jump represents.

A digital "master" recording doesn't need to be "resampled". It's as much detail as you're going to get - that's all the codec captured.

A master tape on the other hand can be resampled at a higher rate, cleaned up, etc... Just look at the fantastic job that was done on the Beatles albums. The crime there is that they have yet to release the high resolution versions commercially.

[joeychitwood]

I have several recordings in both the CD and LP format. I've cued them up to the same points, set the gain equally and then performed "A" and "B" testing with many of my kids' friends. Interestingly, the vast majority of listeners pick the analog LP as sounding better than the CD. When asked why, they frequently reply that "there is more music there."

Of course, not every analog LP sounds great, however the great LPs are stunning.

[TheDude]

Originally Posted by joeychitwood

I have several recordings in both the CD and LP format. I've cued them up to the same points, set the gain equally and then performed "A" and "B" testing with many of my kids' friends. Interestingly, the vast majority of listeners pick the analog LP as sounding better than the CD. When asked why, they frequently reply that "there is more music there."

Of course, not every analog LP sounds great, however the great LPs are stunning.

You're right. CDs aren't that great. At the time the format was released, the longevity and durability made up for a lot of sins associated with the resolution of the format.

The relative fidelity of CDs and LPs is something that has been decided. LPs won.

However, high(er) resolution digital formats should be as good or better than LPs.

[snow_rocks]

Originally Posted by TheDude

Actually, the bit depth on an analog or digital recording is very important. I have a DVD-Audio (48/24 MLP) of REM's "Automatic for the People" that was recorded digitally @ 48/24. The CD of same is 44/16, so even though the production chain was digital, there is a lot of information being left behind in the transfer to CD.

You don't need to have a golden ear to hear the difference that the 16 bit to 24 bit resolution jump represents.

A digital "master" recording doesn't need to be "resampled". It's as much detail as you're going to get - that's all the codec captured.

A master tape on the other hand can be resampled at a higher rate, cleaned up, etc... Just look at the fantastic job that was done on the Beatles albums. The crime there is that they have yet to release the high resolution versions commercially.

You should have quoted my part on dynamic range (DR). When you compare DR to bit depth, we have gone into overkill. A bit depth of 16 (back in the '80s) would give us a DR of 96dBs, which is our normal range of hearing. At 32 bits, the DR is over 190 dBs, which is senseless.

Telarc made some fantastic DDD recordings of classical back in the late '80s, and the dynamic range of those discs gave the music so much depth and character, compared to the master tape-to-record version. I worked in a mid-high end stereo store when the 1st 8 bit DA CD players hit the market. A 1/2 speed master MFSL LP still fell short of the DDD CDs at the time, because of the dynamic range.

Unfortunately, CDs produced today are more noise than music because somebody thought the bit depth should be bigger than it actually should be, and the recording has suffered!

[2005rivers]

I have a lame home theatre system, but I enjoy listening to music in my truck;





This was right after install so the carpet is dirty


Focals in the doors

[TheDude]

Originally Posted by snow_rocks

Unfortunately, CDs produced today are more noise than music because somebody thought the bit depth should be bigger than it actually should be, and the recording has suffered!

Well... the issue as I understand it is that CDs are now mastered to be -loud-. This clips the peaks and you never get that information back - all you get is loud distortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war


You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that CD can stand up to SACD, DVD-Audio, or high bit encoded content.

[Porsche]

Just to add fuel to the debate on digital v's analogue...

I have been reading the latest research on this debate.

Sound engineers of CD's and other digital recordings remove the frequencies outside of human hearing range. The argument being that if you cn't hear it, why have it there, taking up valuable bandwidth, size, processing power etc. So they filter down to the frequencies within human hearing range... BUT... appears that the tones you don't hear actually affect the harmonics of the frequencies you CAN hear.

[shandy]

Originally Posted by joeychitwood

Some of my oldest LPs have the best sound. Ella Fitzgerald's Let No Man Write My Epitaph, recorded almost 50 years ago, has the best sound of any CD, DVD or LP I've ever heard. The engineers back then were supremely talented.

It is really true what is said that the golden age for LP's were the 50's 60's and early 70's before they started to use a lot more recycled vinyl in records.
Apparently now though with the advent of heavy weight virgin vinyl the quality is coming back!

[snow_rocks]

Originally Posted by TheDude

Well... the issue as I understand it is that CDs are now mastered to be -loud-. This clips the peaks and you never get that information back - all you get is loud distortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war


You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that CD can stand up to SACD, DVD-Audio, or high bit encoded content.

Well, blame that on the engineers, or producers of today, because that was not a problem back 20 years ago. It seems everything today has to be loud, not accurate!

[JJ Irani]

Nothing too elaborate..........Harmon Kardon amp & CD player with B&W (Bowers & Wilkins) speakers.



B&W speaker with front grill removed.....

[Dr. Robert]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Nothing too elaborate..........Harmon Kardon amp & CD player with B&W (Bowers & Wilkins) speakers.



B&W speaker with front grill removed.....

I like my B&W speakers.....but yours JJ are awesome!

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by Dr. Robert

I like my B&W speakers.....but yours JJ are awesome!

Thanks, Bob. Yes, they do sound pretty good, capable of handling up to a max of 150 watts, their clarity and bass handling is quite amazing.

My system was purchased new in 2004.........so I guess significant improvements have been made since then.

JJ

[dick8008]

Marantz Amp
No CD....C'mon get an iPod!
Bose speakers

[TSW]

NAD & Argon white glossy speakers!
Listen to all kinds of music but now most classic rock!

[TheDude]

Originally Posted by snow_rocks

Well, blame that on the engineers, or producers of today, because that was not a problem back 20 years ago. It seems everything today has to be loud, not accurate!

More like 20+ years ago it wasn't a problem. If you see the animation of the sine waves from the four "masterings" of the same Beatles track in that wiki, you'll see that only the masterings from the 80s are okay. That and perhaps some classical stuff.

Mainstream music is all ruined in by the engineers and the producers who tell them what to do.

[Taffi Abernathy]

Originally Posted by Safetrends

I miss my 8 tracks.
I also had a AM radio.

Bones, perhaps you should take a "physic" after your daily constitutional then rest on your Louis XV chair. I'll bet you hate like hell that you swapped your sundial for a damn Rolex. By your leave, sire . . .

[SSD]

Me likey my iPod. Its fun!

I used to run my old Kenwood receiver from the late 80's, with 100 watts and four speakers. For years it rocked hard, and really still does despite newer, better sounding units being all over the place. The Blue-Ray player links up with a nice little Onkyo package, but that old Kenwood brings memories!

[multimedia]

Here's my current setup;

AMP. - Poppulse T-2024



DAC - Citypulse DA 7.2x



Squeezebox



Xindak AC-02



Xindak SC-01



KEF IQ30




Cheers,
Joe

[ParisDakarBmw]

I have a hi def surround sound set up at my jewelry bench. I wouldn't have it any other way!

[Porsche]

ha ha, nice system Paul. I see you like "vintage" in your hi-fi as well as in Rolex's!

[boomtime]

Slowly building a great setup

Receiver: simple Sony with decent watts
Sources: Sony turntable and Xbox360 for discs
Speakers: Focal/JM lab profile 918's
Sub: Velodyne SPL800

[ParisDakarBmw]

All I need is a handset to be finished. The jewelry store has a little better sound system, and AC to go along with it.

[sunburst]

Originally Posted by multimedia

Here's my current setup;

Xindak AC-02


Xindak SC-01


Cheers,
Joe

I had a good experience with Xindak interconnects.
I've noticed that you are based in Shanghai.
China is the home of some of the surprisingly amazing tube pre, power amps.

[multimedia]

Originally Posted by sunburst

I had a good experience with Xindak interconnects.
I've noticed that you are based in Shanghai.
China is the home of some of the surprisingly amazing tube pre, power amps.

Yeah, Xindak knows there stuff, that's for sure (and so good prices over here ).

Talking about tupe amps, this Cayin A-88T is one of my favorites in this particular area.




Cheers,
Joe

[sunburst]

Originally Posted by multimedia

Yeah, Xindak knows there stuff, that's for sure (and so good prices over here ).

Talking about tupe amps, this Cayin A-88T is one of my favorites in this particular area.




Cheers,
Joe

That looks like a well build amp!
Is it based on KT88s ?

[multimedia]

Originally Posted by sunburst

Is it based on KT88s ?

Yep, that's correct. 4 x KT88 - 6550EH on this little bugger.

Cheers,
Joe