Post by Chris August 10, 2011 (31 of 136)
|
|
DSD said:
In some ways it was better, but not all. And it didn't have the profoundly positive audio effect that demagnetizing does.
Dear Teresa,
excuse me but I find it a bit difficult to follow your ""logic" or way of reasoning again.
Since you say "in some ways... but not all".Could you please specify in which ways there was an improvement and also in which ways there wasn't?
If demagnetising has such a "profound effect" that in your opinion, it even overrules a 2000 dollar DAC why do you waste your hard earned money on SACDs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSD said:
I have used an excellent DAC with my Mac Mini, the $2,000 Bryston BDA-1 http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue49/bryston.htm , which I reviewed, so I had it for slightly more than a month. In some ways it was better, but not all.
When you connected the DAC to Mac mini, did you have an option to choose an external source clock for Mac mini?
|
|
|
Post by DSD August 10, 2011 (33 of 136)
|
|
Chris said:
Dear Teresa,
...Could you please specify in which ways there was an improvement and also in which ways there wasn't?
If demagnetising has such a "profound effect" that in your opinion, it even overrules a 2000 dollar DAC why do you waste your hard earned money on SACDs?
Here is my review explaining everything I heard http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue49/bryston.htm In short the Bryston had more detail but the internal Mac Mini DAC was warmer and more analog-like, overall I like it better with high resolution 24 bit music sources.
Even demagnetizing cannot perform miracles, it neutralizes the magnetic field improving performance. Thus SACDs have considerable more resolution than CDs no matter what one does. While I do not feel the need currently for an external DAC, SACDs and high resolution downloads make the biggest difference in my system and make music I love and that is what is important to me. When the system goes flat and lifeless I just run the demagnetizing tones, the full beauty is once again restored and I am happy again!
|
|
|
Post by DSD August 10, 2011 (34 of 136)
|
|
audioholik said:
When you connected the DAC to Mac mini, did you have an option to choose an external source clock for Mac mini?
I have no idea. I went from Mac to DAC using the optical outs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSD said:
I have no idea. I went from Mac to DAC using the optical outs.
Thanks for the reply.
Normally the source clock is set to default (you can check it clicking on applications->utilities->audio MIDI setup), I wonder if one can change this option when connecting an external dac over digital out.
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa August 10, 2011 (36 of 136)
|
|
seth said:
What, you don't believe in Alchemy?
No, I believe in the Scientific Method. For that reason I play, at night time, all the disks and files I had listened backwards and with polarity reversed. This is by far the best method to undo all the residual magnetism glogging the system. Actually playing the disk backwards first really opens up the sound and I can hear the music really unwind towards the end of the piece!
|
|
|
Post by Chris August 11, 2011 (37 of 136)
|
|
DSD said:
In short the Bryston had more detail but the internal Mac Mini DAC was warmer and more analog-like, overall I like it better with high resolution 24 bit music sources.
Even demagnetizing cannot perform miracles,... and I am happy again!
Dear Teresa,
thanks for your response.
From my point of view and what I consider "reasonable and logical" in the context of HI FI and SQ, I can only conclude,that you once again prefer low res over hi res.
You state that the Bryston "had more detail but the mac Mini DAC was warmer and more analogue-like".
If I remember correctly you came to a similar conclusion regarding SQ differences between rbcd and Mp3 once.
You stated that you preferred even more data reduced MP3 sound over 16/44.1. didn't you?
I haven't heard the Bryston, you "reviewed" but a lot of other DACs, ranging in price from the very cheap USB Dacport that I use when travelling, to Weiss, DAD and other pro equipment both PCM and DSD and the Hegel HD 20 I am currently using at home. To my ears they all have ONE thing in common. THEY ALL HAVE CLEARLY HIGHER RESOLVING POWER THAN STRAIGHT OUT OF MAC COMPUTERS.
To me higher resolving power ,what you call "more detail" is a clear sign of better quality ,higher SQ.
You may not have liked it,but what you were hearing was IMO actually most probably MORE of what was actually on the recording.
If you prefer "less detailed" less resolution you are in fact, once again revealing the fact that you prefer midfi over hifi."Fine with me".
It makes it easier for me to understand why you find it unecessary to upgrade your equipment.
Teresa's law number 2:?
Why get better equipment when you can "demagnetise your midfi" and get profoundly better sound than you would by getting Studio Standard Equipment? Teresa, take my advice,"tone down" your often far too strong opinions and IMO unfounded conclusions regarding the actual SQ, lack of deep bass or whatever other SQ related points,you have strong opinions on, of recordings you either review here or just comment on.IMHO your credibility is once again, undermined ,by your almost complete lack of logic.
But if "Snake Oil solutions","make you happy" now that is of course a completely different matter, and is "fine with me".
Happy listening Chris
|
|
|
Post by DSD August 11, 2011 (38 of 136)
|
|
Chris, warm enjoyable comfortable sound is more important to me than raw resolution, I have said this for over 20 years. Low resolution digital has a problem of cold, analytical uncomfortable sound, some call it over-etched. For me it is LOGICAL to prefer comfortable sound to uncomfortable sound.
Realistic accurate deep bass is important to me as it is the very foundation of orchestral music! Most DACs I have heard sound too "digital" for me, if the fact that I love tubes, analog, high resolution downloads and SACDs makes me mid-fi in your eyes so be it, the important thing to me is I enjoy the music that reaches my ears.
People upgrade their equipment because they are unhappy with how it sounds, if one is satisfied then it is unnecessary. My logic is totally logical to me, I do a lot of research and value what I write!
|
|
|
|
|
|
So after some reading and thinking I have concluded that the way forward is to have two separate machines. One sacd changer that is capable of DSD out. The other is a blu ray changer that is fully network enabled. This would cover all angles. Oh the blu ray must be 3d capable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AmonRa said:
I believe in the Scientific Method.
I myself use the Botanical Method. Spider plants haven been shown to absorb radiation, so I place them in strategical spots in the listening room, and voila, they suck up all those nasty little rays interfering with my power cable operation while cleaning up the signal from my remote. The sound becomes amazingly clear and analogue-like with absolutely no digital harshness in even the upper strings! And I particularly enjoy what these plants do in increasing the front-to-back (as opposed to side-to-side) depth of the soundstage: while many redbook CDs cause it to just out and out collapse, now it's back there in full glory. Even the wife appreciates the difference she hears all the way to the kitchen!
In addition, for critical listening when I really want to squeeze even that last drop of juice out of my SACDs, I place an add-on cushion filled with magnets on my listening chair and wear a magnetic bracelet in both wrists together with a magnetic inner sole in my slippers. You would not believe the improvement in SQ that these bring! Even MP3s sound like reel-to-reel!
I thank my taxi driver for this useful tip that I follow every time my system sounds lifeless and tired. No need anymore to worry about better speakers or a decent DAC.
It's been recommended by others on the web so I know it's not just me or my system (although I initially suspected transport fatigue or laser beam disorientation): http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=441351. Teresa take note: an "article" in the making for the next Positive Feedback issue?
I'm sure Rammiepie, too, has already tried this excellent tweak. Would you like to share your experiences?
Happy listening,
PT
P.S. You can also place large spider plant pots (preferably of clay) on massive wooden or metallic (although marble is ideal) stands right in front of your speaker units so that they line up perfectly with the two sides of the equilateral triangle connecting the speakers' tweeters with your ears. This will eliminate unpleasant "digital-like" resolution from the sound signal, making it much more enjoyable and "tube-like" to listen to.
|
|
