Post by Bobpaule March 14, 2008 (81 of 103)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
[Transferred from the "Why are we getting recent threads about DVD-Audio?]
Post by FunkyMonkey Today 02:58 am (29 of 29)
reply
Julien said:
Dan, I'm well aware that Oppo/Receiver in pure DSD via HDMI can give great results for the buck. But you must be aware that the very high prices that many audiophiles pay for their equipment are not only for psychological satisfaction. And I can tell you that with the best CD players out there, very few SACD players will outperform their sound. I'm talking 5000$ and more SACD players here. Not even to mention Oppo that will easily be outperformed by even the cheapest Marantz SACD player.
About digital connection, it is theoretically good, but the circuitry inside a receiver is so miles away from that of a proper audiophile amplifier that in most cases digital interconnects can only mean cheap but good for the price. This will change some day though, and many active speakers already show an impressive advantage by shortening the analogue path.
Good sound reproduction is often much more about careful application of physics than technology. So of course, when you are used to the quality of top audiophile components, you will hear a huge sound distortion as soon as there is a receiver in a system. Comparatively, that would mean no air in the sound, a messy soundstage (obvious only with "accoustic" music, which mostly means classical), much less "be there" feeling, much less details which also means hardly any of that hall sound that creates the live feeling, etc. And while even cheap multi-channel still brings some kind of spatial "be in the hall" feeling, assuming that its live experience is more real than an expensive stereo system would be either stubborn, biassed or blind (please anyone don't start me on mch vs stereo, I love both and still prefer very carefully set multi-channel).
I think we all find what we prefer, and more important what suits our room. But to sum it up, in this market quality always comes at a price, unless you are a very skilled DIY guy.
I hope I was answering your question.
Funkey Monkey replied:
I must say, whilst one cannot argue against your reasoning or experience, to say that quality music can ONLY be achieved at a certain price point is absolute drivel (for want of a better word) best consigned to the pre-HDMI age. Not that HDMI is a great connection, but the generation of electronics that utilise it are indicative of a new generation of machines that give what you might have once called audiophile performance at mid-quality home theatre prices.
That is to say, for the price of a mid-level home theatre, one can simultaneously acquire an audiophile level (as of 5 years ago, to pick an arbitary timespan) SACD system.
I think people are too quick to dismiss such an idea based on theory or more likely based on their own old-school prejudices about what you must pay or what electronics must be contained to get a good sound.
Or maybe I really do have very bad hearing.
I wholeheartedly agree.
We see an army here defending their investments along with the virtues of analog or MPCM, when we all know these involve multiple conversions.
I also have an Oppo980-DSD/HDMI-Yamaha3800 and the sound is fabulous on my separates system.
One conversion, the DSD decoder,receiver in Pure Direct, then analog to amplifiers. Simple and sweet, i am thankful that my fronts handle all the way to 28 Hz, allowing for great 2 channel enjoyment.
A new dawn has come, it is not a matter or WHY, but of WHEN :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobpaule, I'm glad there is someone else who holds the same view as me based on personal experience on "similar" equipment. Sometimes I doubt myself or my experience and wonder if there is really a magical level beyond what I am achieving with my relatively humble (although relatives think it's exotic) hifi equipment.
|
|
|
Post by Julien March 16, 2008 (83 of 103)
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
Sometimes I doubt myself or my experience and wonder if there is really a magical level beyond what I am achieving with my relatively humble (although relatives think it's exotic) hifi equipment.
I think you should go listen for yourself, go to the big hi-fi shows or find where the best hi-fi stores are and listen to at least a few different high-end systems. It's not better, it's simply two different worlds. And even if you just replace your receiver with proper audiophile amplification, your speakers should sound a LOT better. That is simply a fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julien said:
I think you should go listen for yourself, go to the big hi-fi shows or find where the best hi-fi stores are and listen to at least a few different high-end systems. It's not better, it's simply two different worlds. And even if you just replace your receiver with proper audiophile amplification, your speakers should sound a LOT better. That is simply a fact.
I don't doubt that replacing my receiver with "proper audipohlie" amplification would make my speaks sound better, but how will I know what is "proper audiophile" amplification, but in my "average" sized living room, why exactly will I get a significant benefit? What I mean is, my speakers are not particularly hard to drive, with teh fronts beign bi-amped - that's around 200 watts (easily) available to the front speakers.
|
|
|
Post by Julien March 17, 2008 (85 of 103)
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
that's around 200 watts (easily) available to the front speakers.
I know some 18 watt tube amps that would drive your speakers just wonderfully. Real life big volume and ten times less distortion than the most expensive receiver in the world. And they cost 20.000 euros a pair. The power available has not much to do with distortion, certainly not with sound quality. This world is like art, without personal experience numbers and science just don't mean anything. You have good speakers, anyone that has ears would hear a big difference between good amplifiers and a receiver. This is a fact, you don't have to change anything, but never try to lie to yourself thinking what you're obtaining is close to the best. There will always be a lot better, and the danger is to get used to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julien said:
I know some 18 watt tube amps that would drive your speakers just wonderfully. Real life big volume and ten times less distortion than the most expensive receiver in the world. And they cost 20.000 euros a pair. The power available has not much to do with distortion, certainly not with sound quality. This world is like art, without personal experience numbers and science just don't mean anything. You have good speakers, anyone that has ears would hear a big difference between good amplifiers and a receiver. This is a fact, you don't have to change anything, but never try to lie to yourself thinking what you're obtaining is close to the best. There will always be a lot better, and the danger is to get used to it.
I have not been following this thread all that closely but what you said Julien, really depends a LOT on the speakers themselves. My Apogees would not like any tube amp that I know of, regardless of how expensive. They need LOTS of power into 4 ohms and the amp should be capable of driving even lower impedance loads, for the odd passage that results in a complex impedance, although Apogee's crossover may not be so subject to that condition as some others.
|
|
|
Post by Julien March 17, 2008 (87 of 103)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
My Apogees would not like any tube amp that I know of, regardless of how expensive.
The pair of tube amps I was talking of are made by Allen Wright of Vacuum State, and since he also owns and loves Apogees, he designed a pair of 150 watt amplifiers that can drive the hardest to drive Apogees. You can check his website. And in my humble opinion, if you think of quality for the buck, even at those expensive prices Allen's stuff are among the best quality you can find for this price. You can check Vacuum State's website, or reviews about his RTP3D pre amp. The details coming out of his Sony modded players are hard to believe also.
I had checked on Monkey's speakers before, I think they are 8 ohm and 89 db, which is not very sensitive, but in a small room not that hard to drive either. The efficiency of 18 watts of 300b tubes is a lot higher than 18 watts of sloid state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can only base my expectations on past experience or faith [in the words of the experienced]. So let me explain my thought processes and why I will be less than likely to do any further upgradign until one of my components conks out:
In the past I have owned a couple of budget stereo systems and I liked them but I never loved them, and I just KNEW there was a long long way to go before I got anywhere close to hearing what I was meant to hear from a CD.
Then I got my current setup with a view of getting the best out SACD AND home theatre that I could at the time, and for the best value, i.e. best sound for pound (£) that I could.
And you know the biggest revelations? How good movies and CD's sounded comapred to what I had heard before. The primary reason was my speakers - I think they are very transparent, revealing, and have loads of power in my 18x12foot (approx) room. I played a lot with Audyssey and Sony came up trumps with Bitmap 3 on the PS3. Basically, modern technology allowed me to experience CD and movies to the best level I had heard ever - and that includes VERy expensive stereo systems I had heard in demo rooms. Of course, with my kit I spend hours getting the perfect setup in my room. But still, I got amazing sound for relatively little outlay.
Now I'm thinking, with so much detail and refinement coming through from my CD's, would there be such a massive step-change in my SACD-listening if I spent, for example, twice as much on better SACD-related gear, or even as Julien recommends, new power amps? That's where I lose faith, you see. I can't imagine that my SACD's could sound MUCH better than they already do.
Take one example - the Blue Coast collection. I bought this because it was reviewed as a true reference SACD/CD recording (with decent music to boot!). And, yes, I coudl close my eyes and really be in that studio. So how much more real can music sound?
The only other test I can do is compare a renowned, life-like classical SACD and comapre that to how an orchestra sounds in a good symphony hall. That is the next step on my journey I guess. But then, I don't really listen to that much classical, so is there any point?
Sigh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have heard enough to think I would like to invest in an Oppo for my upstairs system which currently has a Sony DVP 9000 ES - it's stereo only, doesn't play CD-R or CD-RW and while it is a very good performer (soundwise), sometimes it fails to read some hybrid SACDs.
OK, the question is which Oppo player and which MCH receiver:
1) when price is not a huge consideration (talking in the range of Oppo and Onkyo or Yamaha)
2) If I want to recommend something for some impecunious friends - some of whom are just getting started in a career, another is still in school etc, what pairing would you recommend then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windsurfer said:
I have heard enough to think I would like to invest in an Oppo for my upstairs system which currently has a Sony DVP 9000 ES - it's stereo only, doesn't play CD-R or CD-RW and while it is a very good performer (soundwise), sometimes it fails to read some hybrid SACDs.
OK, the question is which Oppo player and which MCH receiver:
1) when price is not a huge consideration (talking in the range of Oppo and Onkyo or Yamaha)
2) If I want to recommend something for some impecunious friends - some of whom are just getting started in a career, another is still in school etc, what pairing would you recommend then?
1) Price no object: SACD-capable PS3 with Onkyo 905.
2) Onkyo 605 and Oppo DV-980.
|
|
