Building a Hi-Fi advice

[CnoEvil]

My own home brew 6L6 / 6SN7, and ECC83 RIAA preamp, loads of Quads and Leaks, Eagle, Conrad Johnson, Concord. (I used to repair them) Not heard a class D, but what's the point in them apart from power saving? Once upon a time transistor amps were not great, now they are. Who wants a big hot lump in your listening room on a hot summer's day?

The limitation with a valve amp is poor damping at LF caused by the output transformers.

Thank you, that is interesting.

I don't know how old the Valve amps were that you were listening to, but recent offerings from Icon Audio, Pure Sound and VTL are dynamic, lifelike and musical...though I certainly take your point on heat and damping factor (some manage better than others).

Class D is probably where the future is at.....the likes of Bel Canto and Nad sound very good, and Devialet's AD mix is especially interesting.

 

[lindsayt]

A good CD will blow vinyl away, quality wise.

Well, in that case, good CD's are really hard to come by, whilst good vinyl is easy to come by.

Again I can quite easily demonstrate this, if you're interested?

 

[Overdose]

A recent DAC 'bake off'. The results are on post "263

Enjoy.

 

[matt49]

"Apparently the new Hugo chord dac has made cd sound just as good as records. "

What you mean distorted?

Chris

Yes, one often reads words to the effect of "this cd player/streamer sounds so good, it's like analogue". My response is: if this digital system sounds like analogue, it must be rubbish.

Matt

 

[CnoEvil]

"Apparently the new Hugo chord dac has made cd sound just as good as records. "

What you mean distorted?

Chris

Yes, one often reads words to the effect of "this cd player/streamer sounds so good, it's like analogue". My response is: if this digital system sounds like analogue, it must be rubbish.

Matt

IME. "Analogue Sounding" is just a generic way of saying less harsh, cold and analytical. ie. more natural (organic?)

"Science Brain" types don't do "poetic licence" or flowery adjectives.

Describing what you are hearing is far from easy, so certain stock phrases get wheeled out time and again.

 

[matt49]

IME. "Analogue Sounding" is just a generic way of saying less harsh, cold and analytical. ie. more natural (organic?)

"Science Brain" types don't do "poetic licence" or flowery adjectives.

Describing what you are hearing is far from easy, so certain stock phrases get wheeled out time and again.

I know what you mean, Cno, and it goes without saying that everyone who loves music wants to hear a natural sound. I just think “analogue” is a bad way to describe it.

A couple of months ago I did some trials of TTs. These were: SME 20/series V arm; Michell Orbe SE; Linn LP12 Majik. I had the Orbe at home for 10 days.

I did find some rock/pop recordings that had better dynamics on LP, but we all know why that is, and it has nothing to do with the replay equipment and everything to do with the mastering.

My reference point is classical music. I didn’t find a single example of a classical recording that sounded better on LP than on CD in any respect. In all cases the LP versions sounded undynamic, muddled, and less vivid.

So for me “analogue” just means "inaccurate".

:cheers:

Matt

 

[Vladimir]

A good CD will blow vinyl away, quality wise.

You're bluffing.

 

[the record spot]

A good CD will blow vinyl away, quality wise.

Well, in that case, good CD's are really hard to come by, whilst good vinyl is easy to come by.

Again I can quite easily demonstrate this, if you're interested?

Re: good CDs are hard to come by. Nonsense.

 

[the record spot]

A good CD will blow vinyl away, quality wise.

You're bluffing.

I'd suggest not Vladimir. Easily the equal and often exceeds though.

 

[lindsayt]

A good CD will blow vinyl away, quality wise.

Well, in that case, good CD's are really hard to come by, whilst good vinyl is easy to come by.

Again I can quite easily demonstrate this, if you're interested?

Re: good CDs are hard to come by. Nonsense.

That will be why with every album where I have both a CD version and a vinyl version, so far the vinyl version has sounded better.

If good CD's blow vinyl away and if good CD's were easy to come by, then by a simple deduction by now I'd have had at least 1 CD that would have blown away its vinyl equivalent.

To be fair to Matt, so far I don't have any classical albums on both formats, even though I have about 1200 classical lps.

I can also understand that other people will have a higher opinion of CD's than me. A big possible reason for this is that they may have better digitial sources than me, and the vast majority of people reading this will have a significantly worse sounding vinyl source than me. BTW, I'd rate the Michell Orbe as OK, but too boring sounding for me. I hate components that quash dynamics.

Although, to be honest, I don't see why it has to be CD or vinyl. Why not make it CD and vinyl? Vinyl for almost everything recorded before 1983. CD's for almost everything after 1990 and either for the years inbetween.

 

[Overdose]

I hate components that quash dynamics.

And yet you prefer dynamically compressed vinyl to CD.

How peculiar.

 

[ID.]

I love these threads where the last post from thge OP was post #3, and yet here we are on page 8 of the thread.

Carry on, gentlemen. Fascinating reading.

 

[TrevC]

I can buy a Behringer amplifier for £150 that exhibits all the desirable qualities that anyone could wish for in an amplifier at any price. High damping factor, low distortion, huge power and a doubling of the available power at 4 ohms compared with 8 ohm impedance loads. I could match this with speakers that cost thousands and the speakers would still remain the weakest link in the setup.

OK, so it looks like carp.

I like pianos to sound like pianos. The Behringer isn't very good at making pianos sound like pianos. It's OK with pop music.

What utter nonsense. There is no difference between a Behringer producing 100 wats at 0.01% distortion than a Krell doing the same thing.

I don't know about a Krell as I don't know which Krell you're referring to.

There is a difference between the £150 Behringer and my class A and class A/B amplifiers with solo piano music.

A difference that I can quite easily demonstrate, if you're interested?

If the Behringer couldn't accurately reproduce the complex waveform of a piano it would have correspondingly high distortion figures. Electronics is cheap. In any premium product you are paying for the name and the clothes it's dressed in. On another forum (the one that's in a tent) The Behringer has been highly praised.

Time to wheel this out again.

http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

 

[TrevC]

Example (a) I'm thinking of buying an amplifier. It would cost about one quarter as much as my speakers. This amplifier can only provide a small fraction (4%) of the power my speakers can handle (24/7/365).

Will this amplifer be a good match for my speakers? Should I buy this amplifer or should I buy something else?

Example (b) I'm thinking of buying an amplifier. It will cost five times more than my speakers. It will provide more than sufficient power for my needs.

Will this amplifer be a good match for my speakers? Should I buy this amplifer or should I buy something else?

What solution is likely to get me the best sound? Example (a) or example (b)?

Example a. I contruct an elaborate strawman argument, then in example b I demolish it.

 

[lindsayt]

I hate components that quash dynamics.

And yet you prefer dynamically compressed vinyl to CD.

How peculiar.

The only answer to that is to recommend that you come round to my house (or buy the exact same sources that I have) and compare the exact same albums that I have.

Where differences in dynamics have existed, it's been the vinyl that has had better dynamics so far with my CD vs vinyl listening tests.

How peculiar that you have not done the same listening tests that I have done and yet you are telling me what the results of my tests have been?

 

[lindsayt]

Example a. I contruct an elaborate strawman argument, then in example b I demolish it.

Have you ever read the New Testament?

Parables can be a great way to illustrate a point.

 

[matt49]

That will be why with every album where I have both a CD version and a vinyl version, so far the vinyl version has sounded better.

If good CD's blow vinyl away and if good CD's were easy to come by, then by a simple deduction by now I'd have had at least 1 CD that would have blown away its vinyl equivalent.

To be fair to Matt, so far I don't have any classical albums on both formats, even though I have about 1200 classical lps.

I can also understand that other people will have a higher opinion of CD's than me. A big possible reason for this is that they may have better digitial sources than me, and the vast majority of people reading this will have a significantly worse sounding vinyl source than me. BTW, I'd rate the Michell Orbe as OK, but too boring sounding for me. I hate components that quash dynamics.

Although, to be honest, I don't see why it has to be CD or vinyl. Why not make it CD and vinyl? Vinyl for almost everything recorded before 1983. CD's for almost everything after 1990 and either for the years inbetween.

Again back to my point about classical recordings. It doesn't matter which period they're from, the CD versions, whether recorded digitally or transferred from analogue tape, sound better than the LP versions. They sound better in every respect -- in particular the dynamics are superior.

The one compelling argument in favour of vinyl is that many rock/pop CDs of the last 15 years or so are nastily compressed, whereas vinyl versions tend to be less compressed.

So you're certainly right that there's room for both formats; what I don't get is that people set up the analogue replay medium as a benchmark, when on every objective criterion it's inferior.

Matt

 

[TrevC]

A good CD will blow vinyl away, quality wise.

Well, in that case, good CD's are really hard to come by, whilst good vinyl is easy to come by.

Again I can quite easily demonstrate this, if you're interested?

I can prove your case myself, using certain CDs and LPs. But as a general rule the CD is far and away the better music carrying medium. There's little point in buying modern vinyl anyway when you consider that the masters are all digital. To make a vinyl album you have to convert to analogue, compress the dynamic range, limit the bass so the grooves don't bump into each other, apply de-essing if necessary and then the signal is fed into a mechanical transducer that cuts the groove.

How can that possibly sound better than simply converting the digital signal to analogue?

 

[Overdose]

I hate components that quash dynamics.

And yet you prefer dynamically compressed vinyl to CD.

How peculiar.

The only answer to that is to recommend that you come round to my house (or buy the exact same sources that I have) and compare the exact same albums that I have.

Where differences in dynamics have existed, it's been the vinyl that has had better dynamics so far with my CD vs vinyl listening tests.

How peculiar that you have not done the same listening tests that I have done and yet you are telling me what the results of my tests have been?

Why would I need to conduct any tests at all?

Do you disagree that vinyl as a medium, has much less dynamic range than CD?

You state the preference for greater dynamic range, yet you maintain the superiority of vinyl with all its shortcomings not least of all, limited dynamic range.

You also (by your own admission) do not have any CDs of your classical vinyl collection to compare against, so your argument, such as it is, doesn't really hold any water in my opinion.

 

[CnoEvil]

Again back to my point about classical recordings. It doesn't matter which period they're from, the CD versions, whether recorded digitally or transferred from analogue tape, sound better than the LP versions. They sound better in every respect -- in particular the dynamics are superior.

The one compelling argument in favour of vinyl is that many rock/pop CDs of the last 15 years or so are nastily compressed, whereas vinyl versions tend to be less compressed.

So you're certainly right that there's room for both formats; what I don't get is that people set up the analogue replay medium as a benchmark, when on every objective criterion it's inferior.

Matt

The only Classical album I've owned on both formats, is this one:

I bought the CD because I'd enjoyed the Vinyl so much, back when I owned a TT.

While the CD is good, it is nothing like as dramatic as I remember the Vinyl version....but.....it was a long time ago and on a different (not as good?) system.

 

[Vladimir]

A simple test that says it all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFxiLeQmb5k

Test performed by Harbeth's Alan A. Shaw.

 

[the record spot]

A good CD will blow vinyl away, quality wise.

Well, in that case, good CD's are really hard to come by, whilst good vinyl is easy to come by.

Again I can quite easily demonstrate this, if you're interested?

Re: good CDs are hard to come by. Nonsense.

That will be why with every album where I have both a CD version and a vinyl version, so far the vinyl version has sounded better.

If good CD's blow vinyl away and if good CD's were easy to come by, then by a simple deduction by now I'd have had at least 1 CD that would have blown away its vinyl equivalent.

To be fair to Matt, so far I don't have any classical albums on both formats, even though I have about 1200 classical lps.

I can also understand that other people will have a higher opinion of CD's than me. A big possible reason for this is that they may have better digitial sources than me, and the vast majority of people reading this will have a significantly worse sounding vinyl source than me. BTW, I'd rate the Michell Orbe as OK, but too boring sounding for me. I hate components that quash dynamics.

Although, to be honest, I don't see why it has to be CD or vinyl. Why not make it CD and vinyl? Vinyl for almost everything recorded before 1983. CD's for almost everything after 1990 and either for the years inbetween.

I don't see why it has to be one or the other either. Then again, id be hard pushed to believe anyone who's never yet heard a good sounding CD. I have no idea what you're listening to, or what masterings you've got, but it's kind of irrelevant as I suspect your mind is pretty closed on this regard.

 

[TrevC]

A good CD will blow vinyl away, quality wise.

Well, in that case, good CD's are really hard to come by, whilst good vinyl is easy to come by.

Again I can quite easily demonstrate this, if you're interested?

Re: good CDs are hard to come by. Nonsense.

That will be why with every album where I have both a CD version and a vinyl version, so far the vinyl version has sounded better.

If good CD's blow vinyl away and if good CD's were easy to come by, then by a simple deduction by now I'd have had at least 1 CD that would have blown away its vinyl equivalent.

To be fair to Matt, so far I don't have any classical albums on both formats, even though I have about 1200 classical lps.

I can also understand that other people will have a higher opinion of CD's than me. A big possible reason for this is that they may have better digitial sources than me, and the vast majority of people reading this will have a significantly worse sounding vinyl source than me. BTW, I'd rate the Michell Orbe as OK, but too boring sounding for me. I hate components that quash dynamics.

Although, to be honest, I don't see why it has to be CD or vinyl. Why not make it CD and vinyl? Vinyl for almost everything recorded before 1983. CD's for almost everything after 1990 and either for the years inbetween.

I don't see why it has to be one or the other either. Then again, id be hard pushed to believe anyone who's never yet heard a good sounding CD. I have no idea what you're listening to, or what masterings you've got, but it's kind of irrelevant as I suspect your mind is pretty closed on this regard.

My grandmother used to listen to classical music on a radiogram with the tone control set to maximum muffle. She said she preferred the sound that way. This could be similar.

 

[the record spot]

Yep, could well be. Heaps of guys on the Hoffman board are the same.

 

[Covenanter]

A simple test that says it all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFxiLeQmb5k

Test performed by Harbeth's Alan A. Shaw.

Not seen that before so thanks, it is very clear.

Chris