Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Where did I go wrong?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
May 28, 2004 6:28:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Over the weekend I added some damping material called Vibrastop which
was mostly used in aviation industry to damp the circuit board and
transport in my player. Most of damping done by remounting the circuit
board by inserting some material between the chassis and the board.
None of the materials were closer than 1 cm to the circuits itself.
The board's edge itself was surrounded by the material giving a solid
"thud" sound when knocked. Previously a light knock would give out a
rattling sound.

Result of listening test.

The sound became more scaterred ( read separated) between instruments,
Sound lacking bite ( read smooth), But i love the bass. Sharp, deep
and sometimes longer, or maybe I am mixing with deep and longer but I
think the timing is more precise. One thing is obvious, various
instruments heard more clearly and telling several voices became more
apparent.

Now the only problem is I do not know whether it is an improvement.
Fatigue factor almost nil but I would also find that the sound was
like re-recorded with remixing done at increasing the level of all
instrument to be even. BUT, it is different, and I do not like them.
The vocal is much lower and the harshness is no longer there. The
voice used to sound with a slight breaks or brittle previously but now
it is more distanced and smooth (read flat) .

All these simply because a little damping? Or is it because I am used
to an inferior sound for it has been almost two years since any major
change to my equipment? Or am I so confused that I do not know what is
good sound ? To be fair to myself I have not made any comparison with
other high end product to compare. I want to listen for a month or so
and then remove the damping to revaluate again.

Right now, I am just listening to my equipment and comparing it before
and after damping. After all, damping should improve the sound right?.
Or did the manufacturer already had taken in consideration of the
microphonic of the circuit board in the design and any extra damping
affects the sound negatively?

Awaitng for your esteemed comments.

More about : wrong

Anonymous
May 28, 2004 10:41:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

TChelvam wrote:
> Over the weekend I added some damping material called Vibrastop which
> was mostly used in aviation industry to damp the circuit board and
> transport in my player. Most of damping done by remounting the circuit
> board by inserting some material between the chassis and the board.
> None of the materials were closer than 1 cm to the circuits itself.
> The board's edge itself was surrounded by the material giving a solid
> "thud" sound when knocked. Previously a light knock would give out a
> rattling sound.
>
> Result of listening test.
>
> The sound became more scaterred ( read separated) between instruments,
> Sound lacking bite ( read smooth), But i love the bass. Sharp, deep
> and sometimes longer, or maybe I am mixing with deep and longer but I
> think the timing is more precise. One thing is obvious, various
> instruments heard more clearly and telling several voices became more
> apparent.
>
> Now the only problem is I do not know whether it is an improvement.
> Fatigue factor almost nil but I would also find that the sound was
> like re-recorded with remixing done at increasing the level of all
> instrument to be even. BUT, it is different, and I do not like them.
> The vocal is much lower and the harshness is no longer there. The
> voice used to sound with a slight breaks or brittle previously but now
> it is more distanced and smooth (read flat) .
>
> All these simply because a little damping? Or is it because I am used
> to an inferior sound for it has been almost two years since any major
> change to my equipment? Or am I so confused that I do not know what is
> good sound ? To be fair to myself I have not made any comparison with
> other high end product to compare. I want to listen for a month or so
> and then remove the damping to revaluate again.
>
> Right now, I am just listening to my equipment and comparing it before
> and after damping. After all, damping should improve the sound right?.
> Or did the manufacturer already had taken in consideration of the
> microphonic of the circuit board in the design and any extra damping
> affects the sound negatively?
>
> Awaitng for your esteemed comments.
===============================================

Maybe you didn't go wrong. Don't judge on the basis of only a short
listen. As you say, "listen for a month or so and then remove the
damping to revaluate again."

-GP
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 4:32:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <c97ia7026lo@news3.newsguy.com>,
tchelvam@hotmail.com (TChelvam) wrote:

> All these simply because a little damping?

No, because you think damping should have an effect.

> Or is it because I am used
> to an inferior sound for it has been almost two years since any major
> change to my equipment? Or am I so confused that I do not know what is
> good sound ? To be fair to myself I have not made any comparison with
> other high end product to compare. I want to listen for a month or so
> and then remove the damping to revaluate again.
>
> Right now, I am just listening to my equipment and comparing it before
> and after damping. After all, damping should improve the sound right?.

Nope. It shouldn't do anything at all to the sound.

> Or did the manufacturer already had taken in consideration of the
> microphonic of the circuit board in the design and any extra damping
> affects the sound negatively?

The possible microphonic effects are so tiny that for all practical
purposes they do not exist. I'm afraid that damping a CD player is a
waste of time. (Unless it vibrates so badly that you can hear the
player over quiet passages, in which case you should just toss the
player and buy a better one.)

--
Tim
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
May 29, 2004 5:18:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

TChelvam wrote:
> Over the weekend I added some damping material called Vibrastop which
> was mostly used in aviation industry to damp the circuit board and
> transport in my player. Most of damping done by remounting the circuit
> board by inserting some material between the chassis and the board.
> None of the materials were closer than 1 cm to the circuits itself.
> The board's edge itself was surrounded by the material giving a solid
> "thud" sound when knocked. Previously a light knock would give out a
> rattling sound.
>
> Result of listening test.
>
> The sound became more scaterred ( read separated) between instruments,
> Sound lacking bite ( read smooth), But i love the bass. Sharp, deep
> and sometimes longer, or maybe I am mixing with deep and longer but I
> think the timing is more precise. One thing is obvious, various
> instruments heard more clearly and telling several voices became more
> apparent.
>
> Now the only problem is I do not know whether it is an improvement.
> Fatigue factor almost nil but I would also find that the sound was
> like re-recorded with remixing done at increasing the level of all
> instrument to be even. BUT, it is different, and I do not like them.
> The vocal is much lower and the harshness is no longer there. The
> voice used to sound with a slight breaks or brittle previously but now
> it is more distanced and smooth (read flat) .
>
> All these simply because a little damping? Or is it because I am used
> to an inferior sound for it has been almost two years since any major
> change to my equipment? Or am I so confused that I do not know what is
> good sound ? To be fair to myself I have not made any comparison with
> other high end product to compare. I want to listen for a month or so
> and then remove the damping to revaluate again.
>
> Right now, I am just listening to my equipment and comparing it before
> and after damping. After all, damping should improve the sound right?.
> Or did the manufacturer already had taken in consideration of the
> microphonic of the circuit board in the design and any extra damping
> affects the sound negatively?
>
> Awaitng for your esteemed comments.

Well,
I'm sorry, but this sounds like one of the descriptions of expensive cable
manufacturers. And there is the same probability of sound differences. It is
also somehow significant of how the human mind will make up an evaluation.
We believe in the analog world, but the signal of the player is digital. And
digital is a go/no-go affair. We know this from old CD-players. They don't
gradually degrade, but suddenly they refuse to play or start jumping or
muting the sound. We try to clean the lens, but it won't make a difference,
and we buy a new player.
When Scarpitti was describing the benefits of the green pen, he used the
same vocabulary(I first thought it was a parody). As if reflections or
vibrations directly influence the analog output, but there are only digital
words passing, with no correlation to the final analog output.
So everything you describe is 100% a product of your imagination, the second
convincing argument would be : "Even the wife heard it from the kitchen".

So with your tweaks you might even damage your electronics, apart from
throwing away the guarantee. These little plastic parts are wimpy and break
easily. And there might come up unexpected problems due to the additional
thermic isulation, which can rise the temperature of your electronics and
degrade reliability.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 7:13:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"TChelvam" <tchelvam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c97ia7026lo@news3.newsguy.com...
> Over the weekend I added some damping material called Vibrastop which
> was mostly used in aviation industry to damp the circuit board and
> transport in my player. <snip>

For what it's worth, I tried damping the tray on my Denon CD player (which
is quite solid anyway) with pieces of bitumen damping pad and it definitely
sounded worse.

Stephen
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 9:28:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 5/29/04 9:18 AM, in article c9a2i80p62@news4.newsguy.com, "Ban"
<bansuri@web.de> wrote:

> TChelvam wrote:
>> Over the weekend I added some damping material called Vibrastop which
>> was mostly used in aviation industry to damp the circuit board and
>> transport in my player. Most of damping done by remounting the circuit
>> board by inserting some material between the chassis and the board.
>> None of the materials were closer than 1 cm to the circuits itself.
>> The board's edge itself was surrounded by the material giving a solid
>> "thud" sound when knocked. Previously a light knock would give out a
>> rattling sound.
>>
>> Result of listening test.
>>
>> The sound became more scaterred ( read separated) between instruments,
>> Sound lacking bite ( read smooth), But i love the bass. Sharp, deep
>> and sometimes longer, or maybe I am mixing with deep and longer but I
>> think the timing is more precise. One thing is obvious, various
>> instruments heard more clearly and telling several voices became more
>> apparent.
>>
>> Now the only problem is I do not know whether it is an improvement.
>> Fatigue factor almost nil but I would also find that the sound was
>> like re-recorded with remixing done at increasing the level of all
>> instrument to be even. BUT, it is different, and I do not like them.
>> The vocal is much lower and the harshness is no longer there. The
>> voice used to sound with a slight breaks or brittle previously but now
>> it is more distanced and smooth (read flat) .
>>
>> All these simply because a little damping? Or is it because I am used
>> to an inferior sound for it has been almost two years since any major
>> change to my equipment? Or am I so confused that I do not know what is
>> good sound ? To be fair to myself I have not made any comparison with
>> other high end product to compare. I want to listen for a month or so
>> and then remove the damping to revaluate again.
>>
>> Right now, I am just listening to my equipment and comparing it before
>> and after damping. After all, damping should improve the sound right?.
>> Or did the manufacturer already had taken in consideration of the
>> microphonic of the circuit board in the design and any extra damping
>> affects the sound negatively?
>>
>> Awaitng for your esteemed comments.
>
> [stuff deleted about how it was all in his imagination]

I have found it productive instead of declaring that something is in his
imagination - it might be good to figure out what *could* cause improvement
in sound by disassembling and reassembling the player in the manner
described.

Some things leap to my mind -

He might have inadvertantly cleaned some inner contacts that had gotten
dirty:

Analog: It would sound better if there were any non soldered connections
that has some dirt or oxidation -

Digital - cleaning: He might have improved the BER of the D to A with the -
which will cause some degradation on the sharp edge before it would lose the
signal (like some of the digital phones - though the digital phones have an
even sharper edge than CD coding).

Cable routing: Due to the limited amount of shielding in most CD players -
he may have moved a cable away from an area that was causing interference
(EMI) or moved it to an area with some EMI.

I would agree that it is hard to imagine that the chnaged described would
have the effect he was talking about - I just find it hard to be dismissive
of observation - and instead of saying how someone is wrong - it is
sometimes useful to figure out how the person might be right....
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 9:30:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Ban" <bansuri@web.de> wrote in message news:c9a2i80p62@news4.newsguy.com...
> Well,
> I'm sorry, but this sounds like one of the descriptions of expensive cable
> manufacturers. And there is the same probability of sound differences. It
is
> also somehow significant of how the human mind will make up an evaluation.
> We believe in the analog world, but the signal of the player is digital.
And
> digital is a go/no-go affair...................

I would like to say that I agree with you. It happened to me when I bi-wire
my speakers wrongly but I was convinced for a long time that I heard
improvement. But having said that I am not going to deny all expensive
players do not make a difference.
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 11:02:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"TChelvam" <tchelvam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c97ia7026lo@news3.newsguy.com...
> Over the weekend I added some damping material called Vibrastop which
> was mostly used in aviation industry to damp the circuit board and
> transport in my player.

<snip mag rag prose>

The only way to dampen cd player mechanics
is to use horse feathers.

Sprinkle liberly over cd & transport.
A tube (valve(uk)) could also be stuck, using super glue, on
the output of left & right sockets, to give that
WW2 feeling.

Seriously (lol) though you are trolling.

The way cd's work make the transport & indirectly
the electronics free from vibration effects.

Cushions should be placed for best effect
on the listener
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 11:04:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Bromo" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:0L3uc.9311$IB.4903@attbi_s04...

>
> I have found it productive instead of declaring that something is in his
> imagination - it might be good to figure out what *could* cause
improvement
> in sound by disassembling and reassembling the player in the manner
> described.
>

No - He added something.
What you say is true in that disconnecting things
and reconnecting can repair inherent build defects.

He is not saying that. He says that what he added
changed the sound.

Different arguement, different ball game.
Anonymous
May 30, 2004 6:14:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 5/29/04 3:04 PM, in article c9amrh0ak0@news3.newsguy.com, "Rab Smith"
<rabsmith@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>
> No - He added something.
> What you say is true in that disconnecting things
> and reconnecting can repair inherent build defects.
>
> He is not saying that. He says that what he added
> changed the sound.
>
> Different arguement, different ball game.

IN this case - he may have done all that - and did experience better sound -
was just trying to say that he may have heard correctly - but not for the
reasons he thought.
Anonymous
May 30, 2004 6:16:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Rab Smith" <rabsmith@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c9amou0aho@news3.newsguy.com...

> The only way to dampen cd player mechanics
> is to use horse feathers.
>
> Sprinkle liberly over cd & transport.
> A tube (valve(uk)) could also be stuck, using super glue, on
> the output of left & right sockets, to give that
> WW2 feeling.
>
> Seriously (lol) though you are trolling.
>
> The way cd's work make the transport & indirectly
> the electronics free from vibration effects.
>
> Cushions should be placed for best effect
> on the listener
>

The last time I wrote something like these it was politely rejected by our
moderator. Nevermind that.

So you are telling damping, a solid chassis or better casing and all the
other extra compartments got nothing to do with sound?

I wonder whether one High End designer who is selling cotton or wool felt
damper for the circuit board for his amplifer misleading us?

> The way cd's work make the transport & indirectly
> the electronics free from vibration effects

As Stephen pointed out damping the tray did not improve the sound. Actualy I
think it shouldn't even have any effect. Once the CD is inside it is held
suspended by clamping.

Maybe that's why some transport boast that their using ruby bearing or
something like that for their transport to reduce vibration from the
spinning motor.

I have tried many tweaks just for the fun of it. Mostly i believe the so
called effects are imaginary. But some actually works and latest tweak is
one which I am trying to tell the diff btw real and imaginary.

Cheers.
Anonymous
May 30, 2004 10:45:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

> I wonder whether one High End designer who is selling cotton or wool felt
> damper for the circuit board for his amplifer misleading us?

Ya think?
>
> > The way cd's work make the transport & indirectly
> > the electronics free from vibration effects
>
> As Stephen pointed out damping the tray did not improve the sound. Actualy
I
> think it shouldn't even have any effect. Once the CD is inside it is held
> suspended by clamping.
>
> Maybe that's why some transport boast that their using ruby bearing or
> something like that for their transport to reduce vibration from the
> spinning motor.

I have been lurking this ng for about two weeks, it is a refreshing look at
real world audio reproduction. You people seem to separate the wheat from
the chaff, and I really enjoy reading.

Scrape, scrape, (that's the soap box being positioned) <grin>

You know, if we had multi-terabyte RAM packs that the music was stored in,
nothing moved, rotated, flexed, swayed or vibrated, there would be some
unscrupulous SOBs out there trying to tell us the special foam pad he
conjured up would make our RAMPAC 7000 Music Storage Device sound sooooo
much better, and improve the "air" around the instruments as well.

I hate to say it, but if you have the money and the lack of sense to piss it
away, go for it. Personally, the day I spend more than 5 or 10 bucks for an
interconnect cable, or more than 30 cents a foot for speaker cable, that
will be the day they take me drooling to the nursing home. One thing that
WILL make a difference in your system, take the whole interconnet system
apart about every six months, and clean all the plugs and jacks, speaker
cable ends and connectors. Put it all back together, I'll bet you'll hear
better sound -AND- it won't cost anything but a little of your time.

just .03 worth, kicked it up a penny,
Tom
May 31, 2004 1:21:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Chelvam wrote:
> "Rab Smith" <rabsmith@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:c9amou0aho@news3.newsguy.com...
>
>> The only way to dampen cd player mechanics
>> is to use horse feathers.
>>
>> Sprinkle liberly over cd & transport.
>> A tube (valve(uk)) could also be stuck, using super glue, on
>> the output of left & right sockets, to give that
>> WW2 feeling.
>>
>> Seriously (lol) though you are trolling.
>>
>> The way cd's work make the transport & indirectly
>> the electronics free from vibration effects.
>>
>> Cushions should be placed for best effect
>> on the listener
>>
>
> The last time I wrote something like these it was politely rejected by our
> moderator. Nevermind that.
>
> So you are telling damping, a solid chassis or better casing and all the
> other extra compartments got nothing to do with sound?

A better designed chassis can result in lower operating temp, as well as
better grounding. But better does not necessarily mean more weight, or
higher cost.

>
> I wonder whether one High End designer who is selling cotton or wool felt
> damper for the circuit board for his amplifer misleading us?

I can't think of any reason why damping a circuit board in an amp can
possibly change the sound of the amp. What kind of improvements is he
claiming, and does he have any measurements to back those up?

>
>> The way cd's work make the transport & indirectly
>> the electronics free from vibration effects
>
> As Stephen pointed out damping the tray did not improve the sound. Actualy I
> think it shouldn't even have any effect. Once the CD is inside it is held
> suspended by clamping.
>
> Maybe that's why some transport boast that their using ruby bearing or
> something like that for their transport to reduce vibration from the
> spinning motor.
>
> I have tried many tweaks just for the fun of it. Mostly i believe the so
> called effects are imaginary. But some actually works and latest tweak is
> one which I am trying to tell the diff btw real and imaginary.

Can't you remove the damping material and see if the sound changes back?
Make sure you are listening at the same position, at the same level,
from the same discs.

>
> Cheers.
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 31, 2004 7:53:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 29 May 2004 13:18:00 GMT, "Ban" <bansuri@web.de> wrote:

>We believe in the analog world, but the signal of the player is digital. And
>digital is a go/no-go affair.

Actually it is not. The moment the signal leaves the DAC, it becomes
analog. Also the rest of the cd player is analog: the transport, the
controller of the lense, the transformer, the circuit board, you name
it. And all those analog elements influence the sound.

Ernesto.

"You don't have to learn science if you don't feel
like it. So you can forget the whole business if
it is too much mental strain, which it usually is."

Richard Feynman
Anonymous
May 31, 2004 8:19:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:Wfsuc.26534$Ly.17558@attbi_s01...and also to what Tom wrote....

> > I wonder whether one High End designer who is selling cotton or wool
felt
> > damper for the circuit board for his amplifer misleading us?

> I can't think of any reason why damping a circuit board in an amp can
> possibly change the sound of the amp. What kind of improvements is he
> claiming, and does he have any measurements to back those up?

Oh yes! You would be surprised to know how many actually could hear the
improvement. See www.altavistaaudio.com and go to the testimonial part.

The other part on "measurements" , I would say physics is not an absolute
science. Perhaps, there is some element that is yet to be discovered by us.
Isn't it only recently scientists discovered the is another force besides
gravity. So maybe, there's is something else that exist but cannot be proven
simply because we do not know the existence of that element. I think the
measurement of inductance, resistance, capacitance developed over along
period of time.

On many occassions ( actaully on all occassions), I can't tell the
difference btw a $200 and $2000 power cord. But I can tell the difference
between a $10 and $200 interconnect. However, my friend who bought and the
guy who sold the cable claim they can tell the diff btw $200 and $2000
cable. I would like to believe them only if they could take the blind test
but they are pretty busy for such childish game. I hope you get my drift.

> Can't you remove the damping material and see if the sound changes back?
> Make sure you are listening at the same position, at the same level,
> from the same discs.

That's the fun part. it is my friend's job to remove all the damping in a
month or so without my knowledge. Hopefully, he didn't pull a fast one by
removing that by now because as of yesterday, I was still hearing the so
called 'improvement'. Otherwise, I have to pay for the foolishness by
donating a free CD/SACD and one week free flow at Cheers equivalent on me.

cheers
Anonymous
May 31, 2004 8:28:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 28 May 2004 14:28:23 GMT, tchelvam@hotmail.com (TChelvam) wrote:

>Over the weekend I added some damping material called Vibrastop which
>was mostly used in aviation industry to damp the circuit board and
>transport in my player. Most of damping done by remounting the circuit
>board by inserting some material between the chassis and the board.
>None of the materials were closer than 1 cm to the circuits itself.

Some people say that damping a cd player, or, for that matter, an
amplifier, does not make any difference to the sound, because it
"cannot" make any difference to the sound as electrons etc are
insensitive to vibration.

This kind of reasoning is invariably presented by persons who have
NEVER done any damping experiments themselves. These persons are also
invariably WRONG, as damping and placement in general ALWAYS makes a
difference. Whether for the better or for worse, is subject to
judgement.

Cables are subject to microphonics, transformers are sensitive to
vibration, as are caps. It is NOT difficult to hear an amplifier
perform differently when placed on a wooden board or on a marmor
plate, or on sorbothane rubbers, or on whatever you have at hand.

The many heard argument that you hear a difference because you pay a
lot of money for high end contraptions, doesn't hold water, because
the wooden board or the old marmor plate or the street bricks or
whatever are not expensive at all: generally they are free to collect
from this or that spot.

So when it comes to damping, many persons use sorbothane pods or
rubbers under their machines or inside. My experience with sorbothane
is contrary to the positive experience of most people: I put it under
the transformer of my pre amp once and didn't like the result at all.
There was a kind of freq shift, introducing a kind of slissing high
and all things happening to the basses. It was a very manufactured and
unnatural sound. I had the same experience a year before with
sorbothane feet under my cd player.

My experience is that amps (both transistor and tube) and cd players
need a kind of breathing space to keep the sound open, so damping many
times doesn't do much good. However, I do use cheap rubber feet of a
special type under my cd player and amps (20 euro for four), because
it turned out that they work well with my equipment. All the other
damping material that I have tried over the years, I have always
removed before long. The same with cones or spikes (hard sound).

Ernesto

"You don't have to learn science if you don't feel
like it. So you can forget the whole business if
it is too much mental strain, which it usually is."

Richard Feynman
Anonymous
May 31, 2004 8:28:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 29 May 2004 15:13:41 GMT, "Stephen McLuckie"
<stephen.mcluckie@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>For what it's worth, I tried damping the tray on my Denon CD player (which
>is quite solid anyway) with pieces of bitumen damping pad and it definitely
>sounded worse.
>
>Stephen

For me the same.

Ernesto

"You don't have to learn science if you don't feel
like it. So you can forget the whole business if
it is too much mental strain, which it usually is."

Richard Feynman
May 31, 2004 10:46:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Chelvam wrote:

> "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:Wfsuc.26534$Ly.17558@attbi_s01...and also to what Tom wrote....
>
>> > I wonder whether one High End designer who is selling cotton or wool
> felt
>> > damper for the circuit board for his amplifer misleading us?
>
>> I can't think of any reason why damping a circuit board in an amp can
>> possibly change the sound of the amp. What kind of improvements is he
>> claiming, and does he have any measurements to back those up?
>
> Oh yes! You would be surprised to know how many actually could hear the
> improvement. See www.altavistaaudio.com and go to the testimonial part.

I am not surprised at all to see many testimonials on its website. Since
they don't provide any technical reasons or measurements, testimonials
would be their strongest marketing tool.

>
> The other part on "measurements" , I would say physics is not an absolute
> science. Perhaps, there is some element that is yet to be discovered by us.
> Isn't it only recently scientists discovered the is another force besides
> gravity. So maybe, there's is something else that exist but cannot be proven
> simply because we do not know the existence of that element. I think the
> measurement of inductance, resistance, capacitance developed over along
> period of time.

Yeah, but would you trust a tweak if the guy making the tweak can't
quantify what he has changed? Do you believe the amazing, day and night
differences claimed in those testimonials do not show up in measurements?

>
> On many occassions ( actaully on all occassions), I can't tell the
> difference btw a $200 and $2000 power cord.

So there you go. I'm sure there are many, many testimonials from people
able to hear those differences.
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 8:23:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:19:35 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net>
wrote:

>"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
>news:Wfsuc.26534$Ly.17558@attbi_s01...and also to what Tom wrote....
>
>> > I wonder whether one High End designer who is selling cotton or wool
>felt
>> > damper for the circuit board for his amplifer misleading us?
>
>> I can't think of any reason why damping a circuit board in an amp can
>> possibly change the sound of the amp. What kind of improvements is he
>> claiming, and does he have any measurements to back those up?
>
>Oh yes! You would be surprised to know how many actually could hear the
>improvement. See www.altavistaaudio.com and go to the testimonial part.

That would be people who *claim* to hear a difference - not the same
thing at all!

>The other part on "measurements" , I would say physics is not an absolute
>science.

You'll injure yourself, sidestepping that far...............

>Perhaps, there is some element that is yet to be discovered by us.
>Isn't it only recently scientists discovered the is another force besides
>gravity. So maybe, there's is something else that exist but cannot be proven
>simply because we do not know the existence of that element. I think the
>measurement of inductance, resistance, capacitance developed over along
>period of time.

Actually, it developed over a very short period of time, and we don't
need any new scientific discoveries to take two otherwise identical
amps, one orifginal and one 'tweaked', and see if anyone can tell the
difference under level-matched double-blind conditions. Now, if these
mods really worked, that would be the best possible evidence that the
designer could use to promote the product. Now, do you see one single
solitary example of this being done? No? Ever wonder why?

>On many occassions ( actaully on all occassions), I can't tell the
>difference btw a $200 and $2000 power cord. But I can tell the difference
>between a $10 and $200 interconnect.

I bet you $10,000 that you can *not* tell the difference, when you
don't *know* which one is connected.

> However, my friend who bought and the
>guy who sold the cable claim they can tell the diff btw $200 and $2000
>cable. I would like to believe them only if they could take the blind test
>but they are pretty busy for such childish game. I hope you get my drift.

Childish game? The only positive way to know if there really is a
difference - you call a childish game? I think we know who is playing
games here...................

>> Can't you remove the damping material and see if the sound changes back?
>> Make sure you are listening at the same position, at the same level,
>> from the same discs.
>
>That's the fun part. it is my friend's job to remove all the damping in a
>month or so without my knowledge. Hopefully, he didn't pull a fast one by
>removing that by now because as of yesterday, I was still hearing the so
>called 'improvement'. Otherwise, I have to pay for the foolishness by
>donating a free CD/SACD and one week free flow at Cheers equivalent on me.

It's lot simpler than that - just get another, untreated, amplifier
and compare the two.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 8:25:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:28:44 GMT, ernstr@xs4all.nl (Ernst Raedecker)
wrote:

>On 28 May 2004 14:28:23 GMT, tchelvam@hotmail.com (TChelvam) wrote:
>
>>Over the weekend I added some damping material called Vibrastop which
>>was mostly used in aviation industry to damp the circuit board and
>>transport in my player. Most of damping done by remounting the circuit
>>board by inserting some material between the chassis and the board.
>>None of the materials were closer than 1 cm to the circuits itself.
>
>Some people say that damping a cd player, or, for that matter, an
>amplifier, does not make any difference to the sound, because it
>"cannot" make any difference to the sound as electrons etc are
>insensitive to vibration.
>
>This kind of reasoning is invariably presented by persons who have
>NEVER done any damping experiments themselves.

Wrong.

>These persons are also
>invariably WRONG, as damping and placement in general ALWAYS makes a
>difference.

Wrong.

> Whether for the better or for worse, is subject to
>judgement.

Wromng - it's subject to experimentation to check whether the
'difference' is all in the mind.

>Cables are subject to microphonics, transformers are sensitive to
>vibration, as are caps. It is NOT difficult to hear an amplifier
>perform differently when placed on a wooden board or on a marmor
>plate, or on sorbothane rubbers, or on whatever you have at hand.

Only if the amp is poorly designed. I'll grant that some do exist, but
good emgineering-led manufacturers such as Meridian take care of any
such potential problems in the design stage.

>The many heard argument that you hear a difference because you pay a
>lot of money for high end contraptions, doesn't hold water, because
>the wooden board or the old marmor plate or the street bricks or
>whatever are not expensive at all: generally they are free to collect
>from this or that spot.

Doesn't make any difference to the basic principle that those who put
time, money or effort into something, expect a return.

>So when it comes to damping, many persons use sorbothane pods or
>rubbers under their machines or inside. My experience with sorbothane
>is contrary to the positive experience of most people: I put it under
>the transformer of my pre amp once and didn't like the result at all.
>There was a kind of freq shift, introducing a kind of slissing high
>and all things happening to the basses. It was a very manufactured and
>unnatural sound. I had the same experience a year before with
>sorbothane feet under my cd player.

Horse puckey. That is to say, horse puckey has superior self-damping
to sorbothane, why not try covering the CD player in horse puckey - it
will be equally effective and may improve the general ambience,
releasing a whole new gestalt to the musical performance.

>My experience is that amps (both transistor and tube) and cd players
>need a kind of breathing space to keep the sound open, so damping many
>times doesn't do much good. However, I do use cheap rubber feet of a
>special type under my cd player and amps (20 euro for four), because
>it turned out that they work well with my equipment. All the other
>damping material that I have tried over the years, I have always
>removed before long. The same with cones or spikes (hard sound).

In other words, everything works the same.........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 8:26:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 31 May 2004 15:53:51 GMT, ernstr@xs4all.nl (Ernst Raedecker) wrote:

>On 29 May 2004 13:18:00 GMT, "Ban" <bansuri@web.de> wrote:
>
>>We believe in the analog world, but the signal of the player is digital. And
>>digital is a go/no-go affair.
>
>Actually it is not. The moment the signal leaves the DAC, it becomes
>analog. Also the rest of the cd player is analog: the transport, the
>controller of the lense, the transformer, the circuit board, you name
>it. And all those analog elements influence the sound.

No Ernst, they do not necessarily affect the sound. Above a certain
standard, which seems to have been reached by many CD/DVD players
costing only a few hundred dollars, they do in fact all sound the same
- aside from some of the 'high end' ones which are so utterly
*incompetent* that they really do sound different! Remember, this is
now a very mature technology, the bugs were worked out more than a
decade ago.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 4:09:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"TChelvam" <tchelvam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c97ia7026lo@news3.newsguy.com...
> Over the weekend I added some damping material called Vibrastop which
> was mostly used in aviation industry to damp the circuit board and
> transport in my player. Most of damping done by remounting the circuit
> board by inserting some material between the chassis and the board.
> None of the materials were closer than 1 cm to the circuits itself.
> The board's edge itself was surrounded by the material giving a solid
> "thud" sound when knocked. Previously a light knock would give out a
> rattling sound.
>
> Result of listening test.
>
> The sound became more scaterred ( read separated) between instruments,
> Sound lacking bite ( read smooth), But i love the bass. Sharp, deep
> and sometimes longer, or maybe I am mixing with deep and longer but I
> think the timing is more precise. One thing is obvious, various
> instruments heard more clearly and telling several voices became more
> apparent.
>
> Now the only problem is I do not know whether it is an improvement.
> Fatigue factor almost nil but I would also find that the sound was
> like re-recorded with remixing done at increasing the level of all
> instrument to be even. BUT, it is different, and I do not like them.
> The vocal is much lower and the harshness is no longer there. The
> voice used to sound with a slight breaks or brittle previously but now
> it is more distanced and smooth (read flat) .
>
> All these simply because a little damping? Or is it because I am used
> to an inferior sound for it has been almost two years since any major
> change to my equipment? Or am I so confused that I do not know what is
> good sound ? To be fair to myself I have not made any comparison with
> other high end product to compare. I want to listen for a month or so
> and then remove the damping to revaluate again.
>
> Right now, I am just listening to my equipment and comparing it before
> and after damping. After all, damping should improve the sound right?.
> Or did the manufacturer already had taken in consideration of the
> microphonic of the circuit board in the design and any extra damping
> affects the sound negatively?
>
> Awaitng for your esteemed comments.

In the message I am replying to, I did not see the CD transport brand
identified, but the effects of resonance on components is mystifying but
real. When added to other [endless] variables and tweaks in hi-end audio, it
can become maddening. For some reported issues, there may be as many
(endless) honest solutions offered, but most will be based on the
hard-earned experience of the originator, based on a fixed set of
circumstances. Will they also apply to your circumstance (environment,
equipment, taste)? For your specific instance, experimentation and self
determination may be the only logical solution.

It is possible that the manufacturer of your component designed it to
perform to a set level just the way it came out of the box. This means that
any changes you make will affect the sound, improving certain aspects while
diminishing others. But what is accurate? Probably neither. Any tweaking
will be more effective to fine-tune something you are already pretty
satisfied with, but will not fix bad performance.
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 3:24:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<i42vc.27224$pt3.9084@attbi_s03>...
> On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:19:35 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net>
> wrote:
>

> >Oh yes! You would be surprised to know how many actually could hear the
> >improvement. See www.altavistaaudio.com and go to the testimonial part.
>
> That would be people who *claim* to hear a difference - not the same
> thing at all!
>
> >The other part on "measurements" , I would say physics is not an absolute
> >science.
>
> You'll injure yourself, sidestepping that far...............
>
Physics absolute science? Or do they call it perfect science? I am no
engineer but as a lay man I am cautious to all scientific study and
measurements. If scientific measurements is the gospel truth than ever
wonder why Formula 1 companies queuing to hire those acoustic experts
(I forgot the exact name but he one with headphones and constantly
listening in the Sub looking for movements) who work in US submarines.
They are hired to hear and tell if something is different in the
engine sound. It is a gift and a lot of training to hear what others
don't.


> >Perhaps, there is some element that is yet to be discovered by us.
> >Isn't it only recently scientists discovered the is another force besides
> >gravity. So maybe, there's is something else that exist but cannot be proven
> >simply because we do not know the existence of that element. I think the
> >measurement of inductance, resistance, capacitance developed over along
> >period of time.
>
> Actually, it developed over a very short period of time, and we don't
> need any new scientific discoveries to take two otherwise identical
> amps, one orifginal and one 'tweaked', and see if anyone can tell the
> difference under level-matched double-blind conditions. Now, if these
> mods really worked, that would be the best possible evidence that the
> designer could use to promote the product. Now, do you see one single
> solitary example of this being done? No? Ever wonder why?


> >On many occassions ( actaully on all occassions), I can't tell the
> >difference btw a $200 and $2000 power cord. But I can tell the difference
> >between a $10 and $200 interconnect.
>
> I bet you $10,000 that you can *not* tell the difference, when you
> don't *know* which one is connected.

Why is it we assume that tweaks should work for all equipments? I dare
to say tweaks only work for budget equipments. Some tweaks probably
work for certain type of music. Maybe the one with extreme highs and
lows. And it takes a few hours before deciding which one sounds
better. So it is no wonder many fail in the double blind test.

I can't tell the diff btw my cabletalk ($20) interconnect and the
expensive Monstercable immediately but after a few days of listening
my preference would be the MonsterCable. Tried all tricks yet I have
correctly preferred the more expensive one (reluctantly using the word
expensive perhaps better designed would be more appropriate). But if
you were to ask me to tell immediately which cable is being played I
would fail miserably. However, I am still unable to tell my preference
when compared with Monster cable and XLO. They are both identical
though the price difference was about 50%. So how do you explain that?
Is your $10000 bet under the abovementioned terms?

The way I pay attention to music is probably different form the way
you listen. Some listen for various instruments or whether they can
hear the back singers rather that the main voice.

My transport which was considered very High End many years ago, came
with its own built-in spike ( one pointed screw at the rear centre)
which supposedly affect the sound. If they got a reason for putting it
there, then Diamond racing cone's claim is believable.

Many tweaks do not work on High End products simply because there is
no room for improvement. None worked for my Amp not even the with
power conditioner if you want to call that tweaking too. But may
negatively.

One the other hand, the reason why I do not hear any diff btwn a $200
and $2000 powercord simply because my cheap equipment is not efficient
enough for it or it is already High End enough that have a proper
power supply built in. Maybe for a $200,000 speakers a $10000 speaker
cable would make a difference. I used MAYBE, because I know this is a
forbidden territory for me. I have never heard one and probably will
never own one.

There are four types of music lover. One those love music for music
and contend with their mini compo. The way they judge music is
different from others. They don't care how high end is the sound
output but as long they can reasonably hear what is being played they
are contend.

The second group is the one likes music and fancy loud and deep bass.
They will be contended with that and would not spend an extra penny
for the so called High End equipment.

And the third, who own expensive equipments just to satisfy their
status ego.

And fourth, the type who believe in the art of setting up the
equipment is to hear difference form one cable and another or a
speaker etc etc.. Their main objective is not to hear music but to
hear the difference. And in this category some will pretend/imagine
hearing the difference and others genuinely do hear.

Mr Pinkerton, with due respect , the fifth category is guys in audio
engineering believe everything is equal under measurement.

>
> > However, my friend who bought and the
> >guy who sold the cable claim they can tell the diff btw $200 and $2000
> >cable. I would like to believe them only if they could take the blind test
> >but they are pretty busy for such childish game. I hope you get my drift.
>
> Childish game? The only positive way to know if there really is a
> difference - you call a childish game? I think we know who is playing
> games here...................

Not me.


> >> Can't you remove the damping material and see if the sound changes back?
> >> Make sure you are listening at the same position, at the same level,
> >> from the same discs.
> >
> >That's the fun part. it is my friend's job to remove all the damping in a
> >month or so without my knowledge. Hopefully, he didn't pull a fast one by
> >removing that by now because as of yesterday, I was still hearing the so
> >called 'improvement'. Otherwise, I have to pay for the foolishness by
> >donating a free CD/SACD and one week free flow at Cheers equivalent on me.
>
> It's lot simpler than that - just get another, untreated, amplifier
Ø and compare the two.

My earlier answer applies to this as well. You can't tell the diff
immediately unless it is as obvious as black and white or day and
night. However, I am not claiming damping a miracle tweak. It sounded
differently and was seeking views from others. It maybe my eagearness
and expectation after spending one day to damp to hear something
different. Probably none. But this time I would say yes. The same way
I discovered that isolating your equipment from the speakers sound
affects the performance. Maybe that too is a myth.

Cheers.
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 10:15:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<i42vc.27224$pt3.9084@attbi_s03>...
> On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:19:35 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> >news:Wfsuc.26534$Ly.17558@attbi_s01...and also to what Tom wrote....
> >
> >> > I wonder whether one High End designer who is selling cotton or wool
> felt
> >> > damper for the circuit board for his amplifer misleading us?
>
> >> I can't think of any reason why damping a circuit board in an amp can
> >> possibly change the sound of the amp. What kind of improvements is he
> >> claiming, and does he have any measurements to back those up?
> >
> >Oh yes! You would be surprised to know how many actually could hear the
> >improvement. See www.altavistaaudio.com and go to the testimonial part.
>
> That would be people who *claim* to hear a difference - not the same
> thing at all!
>
> >The other part on "measurements" , I would say physics is not an absolute
> >science.
>
> You'll injure yourself, sidestepping that far...............
>
> >Perhaps, there is some element that is yet to be discovered by us.
> >Isn't it only recently scientists discovered the is another force besides
> >gravity. So maybe, there's is something else that exist but cannot be proven
> >simply because we do not know the existence of that element. I think the
> >measurement of inductance, resistance, capacitance developed over along
> >period of time.
>
> Actually, it developed over a very short period of time, and we don't
> need any new scientific discoveries to take two otherwise identical
> amps, one orifginal and one 'tweaked', and see if anyone can tell the
> difference under level-matched double-blind conditions. Now, if these
> mods really worked, that would be the best possible evidence that the
> designer could use to promote the product. Now, do you see one single
> solitary example of this being done? No? Ever wonder why?

It may depend on the program material. Not all music exercises all the
possibilities.
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 8:11:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/1/04 12:26 PM, in article H62vc.30683$js4.27069@attbi_s51, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

> On 31 May 2004 15:53:51 GMT, ernstr@xs4all.nl (Ernst Raedecker) wrote:
>
>> On 29 May 2004 13:18:00 GMT, "Ban" <bansuri@web.de> wrote:
>>
>>> We believe in the analog world, but the signal of the player is digital. And
>>> digital is a go/no-go affair.
>>
>> Actually it is not. The moment the signal leaves the DAC, it becomes
>> analog. Also the rest of the cd player is analog: the transport, the
>> controller of the lense, the transformer, the circuit board, you name
>> it. And all those analog elements influence the sound.
>
> No Ernst, they do not necessarily affect the sound. Above a certain
> standard, which seems to have been reached by many CD/DVD players
> costing only a few hundred dollars, they do in fact all sound the same
> - aside from some of the 'high end' ones which are so utterly
> *incompetent* that they really do sound different! Remember, this is
> now a very mature technology, the bugs were worked out more than a
> decade ago.

Actually, the process of A to D and D to A has been developing rather
rapidly over the last 10 years especially. The chips are better, the
understanding of distortion in signals - in the process and in the recording
(or A to D ing) have all improved greatly - and has allowed the development
of some truly excellent D/A converters whose ability to convert CD's are
nearly as good as the D/D converters that made the CD's.

The point I think you *should* be making is that while there has been
tremendous progress, the main benefit is that yesterday's high end
technology (now in more modest CD players) is in many cases "good enough" to
give truly excellent sound, and many modest (<$800) CD players are right at
the limit of most recordings' fidelity.

If you have the benefit of access to good recording studios, you will find
the limits of their technology is high sample rate high bit rate PCM
(24bit/96kHz is where most mastering takes place and the A/D and D/A
converters are rather pricey at that level. I expect to see 192kHz as a PCM
standard before too long as well) - and some have DSD.

For the home studio - there is a very good D/A converter that is probably as
good as you will ever get for CD conversion and does an excellent job in
listening to the masters (24bit/96kHz) as well. Costs about $900 - the
Benchmark DAC1 - and will probably be all you would ever need for an
audiophile setup if ultimate transparency is your goal.

And, of course, there are some really nasty designs, though I suspect that
most of the brands talked about here aren't those.
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 2:51:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:11:06 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Actually, the process of A to D and D to A has been developing rather
>rapidly over the last 10 years especially. The chips are better, the
>understanding of distortion in signals - in the process and in the recording
>(or A to D ing) have all improved greatly - and has allowed the development
>of some truly excellent D/A converters whose ability to convert CD's are
>nearly as good as the D/D converters that made the CD's.

Actually, real engineers are well aware that DACs have *always*
exceeded the performance of ADCs.

>The point I think you *should* be making is that while there has been
>tremendous progress, the main benefit is that yesterday's high end
>technology (now in more modest CD players) is in many cases "good enough" to
>give truly excellent sound, and many modest (<$800) CD players are right at
>the limit of most recordings' fidelity.

The reality is that the demands of 16/44 encoding were exceeded at
least ten years ago. Anything further is a mere 'numbers game' beloved
of marketing departments.

>If you have the benefit of access to good recording studios, you will find
>the limits of their technology is high sample rate high bit rate PCM
>(24bit/96kHz is where most mastering takes place and the A/D and D/A
>converters are rather pricey at that level. I expect to see 192kHz as a PCM
>standard before too long as well) - and some have DSD.

DSD is in most respects inferior to 24/96, and 24/192 is the basic
standard of 2-channel DVD-A, which is already with us.

>For the home studio - there is a very good D/A converter that is probably as
>good as you will ever get for CD conversion and does an excellent job in
>listening to the masters (24bit/96kHz) as well. Costs about $900 - the
>Benchmark DAC1 - and will probably be all you would ever need for an
>audiophile setup if ultimate transparency is your goal.

There are literally *dozens* of 24/192 DACs on the market, and the new
breed of 'universal' players such as the Pioneer 868/59 and Denon 2900
are excellent exemplars of this technology.

>And, of course, there are some really nasty designs, though I suspect that
>most of the brands talked about here aren't those.

Indeed not, that sort of incompetence tends to be restricted to the
so-called 'high end' brands such as Audio Note and YBA..........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 2:53:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 2 Jun 2004 23:24:43 GMT, tchelvam@hotmail.com (TChelvam) wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<i42vc.27224$pt3.9084@attbi_s03>...
>> On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:19:35 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>> >Oh yes! You would be surprised to know how many actually could hear the
>> >improvement. See www.altavistaaudio.com and go to the testimonial part.
>>
>> That would be people who *claim* to hear a difference - not the same
>> thing at all!
>>
>> >The other part on "measurements" , I would say physics is not an absolute
>> >science.
>>
>> You'll injure yourself, sidestepping that far...............
>>
>Physics absolute science? Or do they call it perfect science? I am no
>engineer but as a lay man I am cautious to all scientific study and
>measurements. If scientific measurements is the gospel truth

You seem to be missing the point, which is that we're not talking
about measurements, we're talking about *listening* tests, where not
one single person has *ever* demonstrated an ability to hear 'cable
sound' despite much vocality and handwaving on this and other audio
newsgroups.

> than ever
>wonder why Formula 1 companies queuing to hire those acoustic experts
>(I forgot the exact name but he one with headphones and constantly
>listening in the Sub looking for movements) who work in US submarines.
>They are hired to hear and tell if something is different in the
>engine sound. It is a gift and a lot of training to hear what others
>don't.

You mean the sonar/hydrophone operator. And your point is?

BTW, in modern submarines, the identification of other submarines at
long range is done by machines, which are much more sensitive than
even the most gifted human operator. There is nothing mysterious or
unknown about acoustics and electronics here, and no 'magic' cables
are used in hydrophone circuits, even though they are at least 1,000
times more sensitive than the human ear.

>> >On many occassions ( actaully on all occassions), I can't tell the
>> >difference btw a $200 and $2000 power cord. But I can tell the difference
>> >between a $10 and $200 interconnect.
>>
>> I bet you $10,000 that you can *not* tell the difference, when you
>> don't *know* which one is connected.
>
>Why is it we assume that tweaks should work for all equipments? I dare
>to say tweaks only work for budget equipments. Some tweaks probably
>work for certain type of music. Maybe the one with extreme highs and
>lows. And it takes a few hours before deciding which one sounds
>better. So it is no wonder many fail in the double blind test.

Actually, *all* fail in a DBT.

>I can't tell the diff btw my cabletalk ($20) interconnect and the
>expensive Monstercable immediately but after a few days of listening
>my preference would be the MonsterCable. Tried all tricks yet I have
>correctly preferred the more expensive one (reluctantly using the word
>expensive perhaps better designed would be more appropriate). But if
>you were to ask me to tell immediately which cable is being played I
>would fail miserably. However, I am still unable to tell my preference
>when compared with Monster cable and XLO. They are both identical
>though the price difference was about 50%. So how do you explain that?
>Is your $10000 bet under the abovementioned terms?

It is under the usual level-matched double-blind conditions, the
standard being more than fifteen correct out of twenty attempts. There
is no set time limit.

>The way I pay attention to music is probably different form the way
>you listen. Some listen for various instruments or whether they can
>hear the back singers rather that the main voice.
>
>My transport which was considered very High End many years ago, came
>with its own built-in spike ( one pointed screw at the rear centre)
>which supposedly affect the sound. If they got a reason for putting it
>there, then Diamond racing cone's claim is believable.

Sure they have a reason - they are hoping that customers think it's a
'high end' tweak. That rubbish was started by YBA, and became
fashionable - like bi-wiring. Heck, I even have a set of Michell cones
myself - although they're just a table decoration now!

>And fourth, the type who believe in the art of setting up the
>equipment is to hear difference form one cable and another or a
>speaker etc etc.. Their main objective is not to hear music but to
>hear the difference. And in this category some will pretend/imagine
>hearing the difference and others genuinely do hear.

Nope, not one single person in the last five years, despite many
highly vocal *claims*, has been able to demonstrate any such ability
to hear 'cable sound'.

>Mr Pinkerton, with due respect , the fifth category is guys in audio
>engineering believe everything is equal under measurement.

Why do you mention my name in this context? When have I stated any
such thing? I am the sixth kind of audiophile, who really *does* trust
his ears, and does not need his eyes..................

OTOH, it's true that in every case where there is a *real* audible
difference, the reason for it is easily measurable.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 3:27:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/2/04 7:24 PM, in article c9lnjr0cqe@news1.newsguy.com, "TChelvam"
<tchelvam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> I bet you $10,000 that you can *not* tell the difference, when you
>> don't *know* which one is connected.
>
> Why is it we assume that tweaks should work for all equipments? I dare
> to say tweaks only work for budget equipments. Some tweaks probably
> work for certain type of music. Maybe the one with extreme highs and
> lows. And it takes a few hours before deciding which one sounds
> better. So it is no wonder many fail in the double blind test.

This reminds me of a friend of mine that is a vinyl-head (doesn't own a CD
player - even. But with 500+ LP's why would you?) -- he said that the
degradation of a cartridge due to use is a subtle thing - and when he finds
himself not listening to music very much - he turns around and checks the
cartridge - in his case it means that something isn't right with it - and
off it goes for refurbishment or repair.
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 3:36:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"If you have the benefit of access to good recording studios, you will
find
the limits of their technology is high sample rate high bit rate PCM
(24bit/96kHz is where most mastering takes place and the A/D and D/A
converters are rather pricey at that level. I expect to see 192kHz as a
PCM
standard before too long as well) - and some have DSD.

For the home studio - there is a very good D/A converter that is probably
as
good as you will ever get for CD conversion and does an excellent job in
listening to the masters (24bit/96kHz) as well. Costs about $900 - the
Benchmark DAC1 - and will probably be all you would ever need for an
audiophile setup if ultimate transparency is your goal."

Many here think the red book cd 44/16 is all that is needed for the same
goal, as the contrary has yet to be shown. Studioes like higher rates
because of the headroom it gives them to play around in mastering.
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 4:54:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/3/04 6:51 PM, in article pXNvc.2394$Sw.1505@attbi_s51, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:11:06 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually, the process of A to D and D to A has been developing rather
>> rapidly over the last 10 years especially. The chips are better, the
>> understanding of distortion in signals - in the process and in the recording
>> (or A to D ing) have all improved greatly - and has allowed the development
>> of some truly excellent D/A converters whose ability to convert CD's are
>> nearly as good as the D/D converters that made the CD's.
>
> Actually, real engineers are well aware that DACs have *always*
> exceeded the performance of ADCs.

'real' engineers? Is that a subjective judgement there, hmmmmmm? ;-)

ADC's are much more difficult to do properly, yes, but understanding and
improving the science has happened mostly in the last 10 years - the
previous 10 was just trying to get the technology and physical hardware to
work properly.

>> The point I think you *should* be making is that while there has been
>> tremendous progress, the main benefit is that yesterday's high end
>> technology (now in more modest CD players) is in many cases "good enough" to
>> give truly excellent sound, and many modest (<$800) CD players are right at
>> the limit of most recordings' fidelity.
>
> The reality is that the demands of 16/44 encoding were exceeded at
> least ten years ago. Anything further is a mere 'numbers game' beloved
> of marketing departments.

I would agree that the technical achievement had been reached aound 1995-96
time frame - the real achievement has been that the good chips have been
made affordable - and the coding and decoding have improved as well - so
that more and more is done digitally.

I wouldn't ay it is so much a 'numbers game' as that for very little money,
you can have a great deal of margin to the specs.

>> If you have the benefit of access to good recording studios, you will find
>> the limits of their technology is high sample rate high bit rate PCM
>> (24bit/96kHz is where most mastering takes place and the A/D and D/A
>> converters are rather pricey at that level. I expect to see 192kHz as a PCM
>> standard before too long as well) - and some have DSD.
>
> DSD is in most respects inferior to 24/96, and 24/192 is the basic
> standard of 2-channel DVD-A, which is already with us.

To each their own - 24 bit / 96kHz is the current standard for mastering -
the hardware is much more affordable and easier to use. More software is
available, too.

>> For the home studio - there is a very good D/A converter that is probably as
>> good as you will ever get for CD conversion and does an excellent job in
>> listening to the masters (24bit/96kHz) as well. Costs about $900 - the
>> Benchmark DAC1 - and will probably be all you would ever need for an
>> audiophile setup if ultimate transparency is your goal.
>
> There are literally *dozens* of 24/192 DACs on the market, and the new
> breed of 'universal' players such as the Pioneer 868/59 and Denon 2900
> are excellent exemplars of this technology.

Agreed. And it also takes a careful design to make use of all 24 bits, even
today. Fortunately, most companies can afford to hire engineers capable of
using them!

>> And, of course, there are some really nasty designs, though I suspect that
>> most of the brands talked about here aren't those.
>
> Indeed not, that sort of incompetence tends to be restricted to the
> so-called 'high end' brands such as Audio Note and YBA..........

Wow - you *do* like to fling mud around!
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 4:03:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> This reminds me of a friend of mine that is a vinyl-head (doesn't own a CD
> player - even. But with 500+ LP's why would you?)

To also have recordings that are only to be had on CD?

And vice versa.

Hence, the fultility of eschewing one type of media over the other. (unless
ones goal is the elevation of hardware over that of recorded music)
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 8:33:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 3 Jun 2004 23:36:39 GMT, outsor@city-net.com wrote:

>"If you have the benefit of access to good recording studios, you will
>find
>the limits of their technology is high sample rate high bit rate PCM
>(24bit/96kHz is where most mastering takes place and the A/D and D/A
>converters are rather pricey at that level. I expect to see 192kHz as a
>PCM
>standard before too long as well) - and some have DSD.
>
>For the home studio - there is a very good D/A converter that is probably
>as
>good as you will ever get for CD conversion and does an excellent job in
>listening to the masters (24bit/96kHz) as well. Costs about $900 - the
>Benchmark DAC1 - and will probably be all you would ever need for an
>audiophile setup if ultimate transparency is your goal."

Agreed - I only recently became aware of this remarkable device, which
does indeed appear to represent the bleeding edge of D/A technology,
and can safely be recommended for any system, however exotic. Finally,
one can use one of those gorgeous 'high end' transports without
worrying that the sound will not be as good as a $500 Sony DVD player!

>Many here think the red book cd 44/16 is all that is needed for the same
>goal, as the contrary has yet to be shown. Studioes like higher rates
>because of the headroom it gives them to play around in mastering.

Quite so, on both counts. Since there exist *no* master tapes with a
dynamic range higher than 80dB, there is certainly no need for more
than 16 bits (93dB) in the *distribution* medium, although 24 in the
*recording* medium are certainly useful for avoiding mic overloads and
allowing plenty of EQ.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 8:38:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<a_Nvc.14148$sI.1598@attbi_s52>...
> On 2 Jun 2004 23:24:43 GMT, tchelvam@hotmail.com (TChelvam) wrote:
>

Ok let's start again. I damped a low priced player and heard
differences that is not to my liking.

You are telling that is not possible. Despite the fact that all
electrical component do resonate.

Anymore debate on this is going to be a repetition of what has been
previously discussed in this group under various headings.

Cheers.

p.s. Opps.., I mixed up BT Openspace with another engineering
organisations.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 3:01:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4 Jun 2004 00:54:05 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On 6/3/04 6:51 PM, in article pXNvc.2394$Sw.1505@attbi_s51, "Stewart
>Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:11:06 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, the process of A to D and D to A has been developing rather
>>> rapidly over the last 10 years especially. The chips are better, the
>>> understanding of distortion in signals - in the process and in the recording
>>> (or A to D ing) have all improved greatly - and has allowed the development
>>> of some truly excellent D/A converters whose ability to convert CD's are
>>> nearly as good as the D/D converters that made the CD's.
>>
>> Actually, real engineers are well aware that DACs have *always*
>> exceeded the performance of ADCs.
>
>'real' engineers? Is that a subjective judgement there, hmmmmmm? ;-)

Nope - a simple statement of fact, at least if we take it that we're
discussing electronics engineers rather than civils! :-)

>ADC's are much more difficult to do properly, yes, but understanding and
>improving the science has happened mostly in the last 10 years - the
>previous 10 was just trying to get the technology and physical hardware to
>work properly.

Hooey - I was building ADCs and DACs in the early '70s, and even then,
Burr-Brown had a pretty good handle on the technology - although you
wouldn't want to be paying the price of a pair of *those* DACs in your
CD player (about the price of a VW Golf)! Nowadays there are at least
half a dozen companies, from giants like AD to 'back-street' outfits
like Wolfson, making excellent 24/192 DACs which *vastly* exceed the
requirements of CD replay. The science has not changed in the last ten
years, and there haven't even been any significant changes in the
engieering, with the possible exception of hybrid 'low-bit' solutions
such as the dCS RingDAC.

>> There are literally *dozens* of 24/192 DACs on the market, and the new
>> breed of 'universal' players such as the Pioneer 868/59 and Denon 2900
>> are excellent exemplars of this technology.
>
>Agreed. And it also takes a careful design to make use of all 24 bits, even
>today. Fortunately, most companies can afford to hire engineers capable of
>using them!

Actually, those engineers are well aware that it's *impossible* to
make use of more than about 21 bits in even the best available DACs,
when the full-scale output is the standard 2 volts rms.

>>> And, of course, there are some really nasty designs, though I suspect that
>>> most of the brands talked about here aren't those.
>>
>> Indeed not, that sort of incompetence tends to be restricted to the
>> so-called 'high end' brands such as Audio Note and YBA..........
>
>Wow - you *do* like to fling mud around!

Indeed - and it *needs* to be flung at such overpriced dross. At the
other end of the scale, the absolute pinnacle of D/A technology is
undoubtedly the remarkable Benchmark DAC-1, which sells for less than
a tenth of the price of say the Mark Levinson 'Reference' DAC, yet
massively outperforms it. Heck, it costs less than some people spend
on *cables*!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 3:09:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/3/04 7:36 PM, in article c9ocm70bmd@news1.newsguy.com,
"outsor@city-net.com" <outsor@city-net.com> wrote:

> "If you have the benefit of access to good recording studios, you will
> find
> the limits of their technology is high sample rate high bit rate PCM
> (24bit/96kHz is where most mastering takes place and the A/D and D/A
> converters are rather pricey at that level. I expect to see 192kHz as a
> PCM
> standard before too long as well) - and some have DSD.
>
> For the home studio - there is a very good D/A converter that is probably
> as
> good as you will ever get for CD conversion and does an excellent job in
> listening to the masters (24bit/96kHz) as well. Costs about $900 - the
> Benchmark DAC1 - and will probably be all you would ever need for an
> audiophile setup if ultimate transparency is your goal."
>
> Many here think the red book cd 44/16 is all that is needed for the same
> goal, as the contrary has yet to be shown. Studioes like higher rates
> because of the headroom it gives them to play around in mastering.

Also if you mater at higher resolution than what goes out the door there is
more room for error as well.

The same thing happens in printing.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 3:15:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/4/04 12:33 PM, in article Lv1wc.50499$Ly.48333@attbi_s01, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>> For the home studio - there is a very good D/A converter that is probably
>> as
>> good as you will ever get for CD conversion and does an excellent job in
>> listening to the masters (24bit/96kHz) as well. Costs about $900 - the
>> Benchmark DAC1 - and will probably be all you would ever need for an
>> audiophile setup if ultimate transparency is your goal."
>
> Agreed - I only recently became aware of this remarkable device, which
> does indeed appear to represent the bleeding edge of D/A technology,
> and can safely be recommended for any system, however exotic. Finally,
> one can use one of those gorgeous 'high end' transports without
> worrying that the sound will not be as good as a $500 Sony DVD player!

Heck - use the DVD player as your source - use the TOSLINK to go to the
Benchmark and that to the preamp or receiver's "CD" input.

But you had better like your CD's recordings - good ones sound pristine, the
bad ones will be revealed in all their glory to be bad.

And, it is *not* the bleeding edge. You have to go to EMM labs (another pro
gear house) for that.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 8:08:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<Lv1wc.50499$Ly.48333@attbi_s01>...

> Quite so, on both counts. Since there exist *no* master tapes with a
> dynamic range higher than 80dB, there is certainly no need for more
> than 16 bits (93dB) in the *distribution* medium, although 24 in the
> *recording* medium are certainly useful for avoiding mic overloads and
> allowing plenty of EQ.

Agreed. The extra bits of headroom effectively allow you to move
dynamic processing (such as compressors and limiters) from the analog
realm into the digital realm. Software is cheaper than hardware, and
software has a neat feature called "Undo." Now, is 24 really
necessary? That seems a moot point since ADC's and storage bytes are
both getting cheaper and cheaper.

I know that on my lowly MiniDisc recorder, I have to give up at least
the upper 12 dB (2 bits) of dynamic range to provide sufficient
headroom for peaks. This is in a situation where I can't pay close
attention to the recording levels because I am busy making the music.

I worried about this until I discovered that my microphone doesn't
really have a 96 dB dynamic range -- probably more like 80 under
normal playing conditions.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 6:04:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/4/04 7:01 PM, in article c9quvi013pu@news3.newsguy.com, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

> On 4 Jun 2004 00:54:05 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/3/04 6:51 PM, in article pXNvc.2394$Sw.1505@attbi_s51, "Stewart
>> Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:11:06 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, the process of A to D and D to A has been developing rather
>>>> rapidly over the last 10 years especially. The chips are better, the
>>>> understanding of distortion in signals - in the process and in the
>>>> recording
>>>> (or A to D ing) have all improved greatly - and has allowed the development
>>>> of some truly excellent D/A converters whose ability to convert CD's are
>>>> nearly as good as the D/D converters that made the CD's.
>>>
>>> Actually, real engineers are well aware that DACs have *always*
>>> exceeded the performance of ADCs.
>>
>> 'real' engineers? Is that a subjective judgement there, hmmmmmm? ;-)
>
> Nope - a simple statement of fact, at least if we take it that we're
> discussing electronics engineers rather than civils! :-)
>
>> ADC's are much more difficult to do properly, yes, but understanding and
>> improving the science has happened mostly in the last 10 years - the
>> previous 10 was just trying to get the technology and physical hardware to
>> work properly.
>
> Hooey - I was building ADCs and DACs in the early '70s, and even then,
> Burr-Brown had a pretty good handle on the technology - although you
> wouldn't want to be paying the price of a pair of *those* DACs in your
> CD player (about the price of a VW Golf)! Nowadays there are at least
> half a dozen companies, from giants like AD to 'back-street' outfits
> like Wolfson, making excellent 24/192 DACs which *vastly* exceed the
> requirements of CD replay. The science has not changed in the last ten
> years, and there haven't even been any significant changes in the
> engieering, with the possible exception of hybrid 'low-bit' solutions
> such as the dCS RingDAC.

I talked to my digital guys at work (as you can tell, I am an RF/analog
gEEk) - and they told me that while you are right - the majority of the work
has been done in bit handling in the last 10 (one said 20 years) - the
hardware topologies have had very little work done - one of the graybeards
said that the basics of D to A and A to D have been understood for 40+ years
(his entire career)!

So I suppose the real advances has been (as you said) the *price* of high
quality gear going down, not the techniques. Though the algorithms and
other software bits have made use of the extra power (you see the effects of
the HT RX, and the upsampling so you can play with the signals, etc.)

>>> There are literally *dozens* of 24/192 DACs on the market, and the new
>>> breed of 'universal' players such as the Pioneer 868/59 and Denon 2900
>>> are excellent exemplars of this technology.
>>
>> Agreed. And it also takes a careful design to make use of all 24 bits, even
>> today. Fortunately, most companies can afford to hire engineers capable of
>> using them!
>
> Actually, those engineers are well aware that it's *impossible* to
> make use of more than about 21 bits in even the best available DACs,
> when the full-scale output is the standard 2 volts rms.

Yup - the noise floor is waaaaaay too low - so substitute '21' for '24' in
my above sentence.



>>>> And, of course, there are some really nasty designs, though I suspect that
>>>> most of the brands talked about here aren't those.
>>>
>>> Indeed not, that sort of incompetence tends to be restricted to the
>>> so-called 'high end' brands such as Audio Note and YBA..........
>>
>> Wow - you *do* like to fling mud around!
>
> Indeed - and it *needs* to be flung at such overpriced dross.

Well, in the light of pro gear, they have a lot of justification for the
price to address, that¹s for sure. But then again, the 'pro audio' market
is *not* the luxury good markets.

I mean the same crowd that sees value in ML gear would see value in a high
end BMW or Mercedes - though there are cars that will do just as good, if
not better, in realistic driving conditions than them on the road for less.

> At the
> other end of the scale, the absolute pinnacle of D/A technology is
> undoubtedly the remarkable Benchmark DAC-1, which sells for less than
> a tenth of the price of say the Mark Levinson 'Reference' DAC, yet
> massively outperforms it. Heck, it costs less than some people spend
> on *cables*!

Isn't it a great piece of equipment? I think the real nice thing about it,
is that given a sufficiently well recorded, large CD collection, it is
totally justifiable, especially if you have no intention (like me) of
switching formats!

I also do a bit of home recording, and it would be nice to hear the master
in relation to the 'mix down' to 16/44.1 to make sure I got it right.

Also, it uses a new chipset (not Crystal, which has been used by most high
end 'dross' as you put it for the last round of development) - I would
expect other high end companies to follow suit - I don't know about them
keeping the price low, though!

I think that the other nice thing about this particulr desig is that the
distortion is so darn low as it is unmeasurable by the human ear - and even
at maximum output.

Oh well, I listened to it, but haven't scraped the money together to buy one
- yet.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 8:10:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4 Jun 2004 23:15:30 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On 6/4/04 12:33 PM, in article Lv1wc.50499$Ly.48333@attbi_s01, "Stewart
>Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> For the home studio - there is a very good D/A converter that is probably
>>> as
>>> good as you will ever get for CD conversion and does an excellent job in
>>> listening to the masters (24bit/96kHz) as well. Costs about $900 - the
>>> Benchmark DAC1 - and will probably be all you would ever need for an
>>> audiophile setup if ultimate transparency is your goal."
>>
>> Agreed - I only recently became aware of this remarkable device, which
>> does indeed appear to represent the bleeding edge of D/A technology,
>> and can safely be recommended for any system, however exotic. Finally,
>> one can use one of those gorgeous 'high end' transports without
>> worrying that the sound will not be as good as a $500 Sony DVD player!
>
>Heck - use the DVD player as your source - use the TOSLINK to go to the
>Benchmark and that to the preamp or receiver's "CD" input.

No, the point is that one can have the pride of ownership of a
beatifully crafted mechanism without having to worry about the sound
being inferior. Kinda like having a Patek Philippe Tourbillon watch -
even though in that case you *know* that a $10 Casio keeps better
time!

>But you had better like your CD's recordings - good ones sound pristine, the
>bad ones will be revealed in all their glory to be bad.

Well, that's the whole point of high fidelity, now isn't it? :-)

>And, it is *not* the bleeding edge. You have to go to EMM labs (another pro
>gear house) for that.

Hmmmm. *Very* arguable, IMNVHO, as the technology in the Benchmark
unit exceeds anything I've seen touted by EMM (aside from number of
channels, of course!).

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 4:13:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/5/04 12:10 PM, in article Nfmwc.48861$eY2.47832@attbi_s02, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>> Heck - use the DVD player as your source - use the TOSLINK to go to the
>> Benchmark and that to the preamp or receiver's "CD" input.
>
> No, the point is that one can have the pride of ownership of a
> beatifully crafted mechanism without having to worry about the sound
> being inferior. Kinda like having a Patek Philippe Tourbillon watch -
> even though in that case you *know* that a $10 Casio keeps better
> time!

We both could go into the business of producing really imposing blocks of
machined 6061 Aluminum, with the fashionable clear alodyne pwople like these
days (we could, for an extra $750 offer black or grey hammertone) - and put
in something akin to the Benchmark....
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 5:53:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/5/04 12:10 PM, in article Nfmwc.48861$eY2.47832@attbi_s02, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>> And, it is *not* the bleeding edge. You have to go to EMM labs (another pro
>> gear house) for that.
>
> Hmmmm. *Very* arguable, IMNVHO, as the technology in the Benchmark
> unit exceeds anything I've seen touted by EMM (aside from number of
> channels, of course!).

I have not tested the EMM labs stuff - though some friends I know from my
early days in broadcast equipment swear by them for recording and playback.

I will admit, though, they *are* doing work with PCM at 24 bit and 192kHz
and some DSD where this will matter a lot more.

With plain old CD - while the Benchmark may not be bleeding edge (I will
agree that it is arguable) it certainly will be more than most people will
even need. Though it is pretty tempting for a good DAC + headphone amp.

While I do believe technology has imprved, my NAD C541i is a darn good
machine - I haven't found anything so much better than I would be able to
justify purchase - unless it would be the Benchmark since that would have
use in my back studio and in the front listening area!
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 9:24:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 5 Jun 2004 14:04:49 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On 6/4/04 7:01 PM, in article c9quvi013pu@news3.newsguy.com, "Stewart
>Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>> At the
>> other end of the scale, the absolute pinnacle of D/A technology is
>> undoubtedly the remarkable Benchmark DAC-1, which sells for less than
>> a tenth of the price of say the Mark Levinson 'Reference' DAC, yet
>> massively outperforms it. Heck, it costs less than some people spend
>> on *cables*!
>
>Isn't it a great piece of equipment? I think the real nice thing about it,
>is that given a sufficiently well recorded, large CD collection, it is
>totally justifiable, especially if you have no intention (like me) of
>switching formats!
>
>I also do a bit of home recording, and it would be nice to hear the master
>in relation to the 'mix down' to 16/44.1 to make sure I got it right.
>
>Also, it uses a new chipset (not Crystal, which has been used by most high
>end 'dross' as you put it for the last round of development) - I would
>expect other high end companies to follow suit - I don't know about them
>keeping the price low, though!
>
>I think that the other nice thing about this particulr desig is that the
>distortion is so darn low as it is unmeasurable by the human ear - and even
>at maximum output.
>
>Oh well, I listened to it, but haven't scraped the money together to buy one
>- yet.

Having investigated the matter more deeply, I am even more impressed
by this unit, and I'm now casting about for a good supplier to create
'My Last CD Player' with a 'big boys toy' transport and the DAC-1,
secure in the knowledge that the *sound* quality cannot ever be
surpassed - and indeed the numbers are not likely to be, either.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
!