Attachments
Here is the counterpart, less philosophy and more technicality. I agree more with this approach.
https://aestheticsforbirds.com/2021/04/07/an-audio-professionals-take-on-vinyl/
PS : My emoticon was just for the graphic joke. But it came out in the wrong place.
https://aestheticsforbirds.com/2021/04/07/an-audio-professionals-take-on-vinyl/
PS : My emoticon was just for the graphic joke. But it came out in the wrong place.
Numbers confirm that vinyl is inferior to CD when it comes to the accuracy of sound reproduction. Compare the specs yourself if you don't believe it.
That depends on what the problem is. If it's slow sales of DACs, spreading claims of superior sound quality would help to some degree.
Better or worse is a defined parameter in sound reproduction. Hint, "hi-fi" is a term used for sound reproducing equipment for many decades. Look up the definition if you aren't sure.
Perhaps English isn't your native language. He claimed "latter easily sounds better. Better bass, better imaging, wider soundstage, and it sounds less distorted than DAC-3". Both DACs have distortion levels and sound coloration below audible threshold. Hearing a difference between two of such devices is an extraordinary event. Do you know of anyone who did such thing in objective listening comparison?
"tubes are nice because they add harmonics that aren't on the recording." -> tubes are nice because they add harmonics that aren't there in the real life/to begin with... does that feel OK?
Its not like tube knows what (might?) be missing in a recording and magically repairs the recording to resample what the instrument sounded like.
The biggest problem is that most "audiophiles" don't know or remember what a saxophone sounds like in real life...
//
Its not like tube knows what (might?) be missing in a recording and magically repairs the recording to resample what the instrument sounded like.
The biggest problem is that most "audiophiles" don't know or remember what a saxophone sounds like in real life...
//
You have made PURELY a matter of taste and clearly the other listeners are from a group of friends which influence each other's tastes. There is not a single atom of objectivity.
This is all fine and legitimate, but call it for what it is. A test based purely on personal taste performed by like-minded friends.
Also, using any DAC in "true sync" is stone age.
No, it is a blanket condemnation as “tube sound” is either considered a fault or an asset.
A really good tube amp has very low distortion at the power levels used and tend to follow Jean Hirag’s curve of harmonics. Nelson has refined that further.
The same but substitute “good SS” in above.
The holy grail of an amplifier is the goal being approached by both SS & tube, if that amp is driving another amp, things are simplier, hook it up to a transducer and all sorts of stuff can happen.
Taken how primitive current speaker technology is, and the affect of price, there is a huge swath of loudspeakers, leading to the need for amplifiers with different sets of compromises.
dave
Which is of course completely wrong. Unless you are using the wrong technology for a DAC (such as R2R, NOS, small bit depth).
Oh, ooops.
And the sound remains different from the D90 implementation also when tested double blind?
That's your claim. Which goes against everything published and peer reviewed research has shown.
Where is it proven, published and peer reviewed that these "measures" are "mostly meaningless"?
When you have enough specific measurements, you know that a DAC converts the signal with a given precision, and that the difference wrt the original signal is under a certain level. When this is inaudible under all conditions and at all frequencies, the DAC is properly converting, and if you prefer a DAC that is less precise it's your ear and brain that are wrong.
Provide substantiation to this quite bold claim.
Adaptable, yes. Analytical, not even remotely.
Oh, right, Floyd Toole is an exec of a company that has to sell stuff.
Roberto
- Status
- Not open for further replies.