Source first still important, dumbed down hifi, or is there a problem with your system?

[steve_1979]

Some of Linn's 24bit music is mastered differently to the MP3/CD version. That's the difference that you're hearing.

You have some proof of this, that the mastering is the only difference?

Yes. Read all of these two threads:

Clicky

Clicky

When faced with the overwhelming evidence Linn eventually admited it themselves that some of the 24 bit recordings are mastered differently to the MP3 and CD versions.

 

[TrevC]

I think you are confused, fr0g.

Don't you know the facts yet about putting a system together - Get a very cheap digital source (as they all sound the same); then get a budget amp (as they sound very similar to expensive amps); put 80% of your budget into speakers (as this is all that matters); wire it with the cheapest copper you can find and feed it low bit rate (as all bit rates sound the same); avoid vinyl at all costs.

There is no need to audition, as this is too confusing....all you need is a spec sheet.

If the whole thing is too much effort, go Active. :twisted: :shifty:

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

Also a budget digital source is going to distort the sound far less than even the best speaker in the world.

If you say so.

Can you give examples of budget amps that you've heard, that have sounded like premium ones that you've heard?

Have you ever listened to a DCS (multi box) CDP or a Linn Klimax DS and compared them with budget offerings?

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

The difference is in the way the amplifier handles itself when operated close to and sometimes just beyond its 'limits' which happens a lot in real world situations.

I guess that if the written specifications were more complete and measured what happens in difficult situations they might tell you what is going on but I have never, ever, seen a written spec that comes anywhere close to that.

When Alan Shaw issued his now famous "Harbeth Challenge" he was at pains to point out that the amplifiers under test had to be working 'within their design parameters' something that is very often not the case in the real world.

So, when using a budget amp or a premium amp "within their parameters" they won't sound any different, which is the point I was making.

in the case of power amplifiers you are correct, integrated and pre-amplifiers can, and often are, deliberatly 'voiced' to sound differently so differences can be heard.

However this slightly sidesteps my point, which is that in an awful lot of systems, amplifiers and not just budget ones either, are not being used "within their parameters" and it is the way amplifiers behave under those conditions that makes the difference.

Naturally in an ideal world amplifiers would never be used in that way but the reality is that they are, and with the current trend for matching budget amplifiers with more demanding speakers this is becoming more common.

To "voice" a preamp would require some deviation from a flat frequency response, so I don't really agree with you on that point. Line level signals don't usually need any preamplification, so a selector switch and a pot will suffice.

Obviously using inefficient speakers on an underpowered amplifier won't sound good, but I'm not talking about that.

There are all kinds of ways an amplifier can be voiced without deviating from a flat frequency response but that is difficult to prove without actually showing how it can be done.

The power issue is, in my view, much more of an issue, I accept that a lot of modern music has a very limited dynamic range but when dynamic material is used, nominal 60 watt amplifiers can find themselves in distress very easily indeed, and not just into difficult speakers either.

Name one way to voice an amplifier without altering frequency response.

How about 300w? Only £150. http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/A500.aspx

Looks horribly cheap, but will fool an audiophile easily. http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm Also check out the interconnect and "rack".

 

[matt49]

Crossover distortion was a problem in tiny 60s Jap radios. In a modern amplifier? Highish bias removes it entirely.

Only full Class A operation can remove crossover distortion entirely. You might argue that "highish" bias makes crossover distortion inaudible, but that'd require empirical testing, e.g. listening to some Class A amps.

 

[John Duncan]

Read all of these two threads:

Clicky

Clicky

Or, alternatively:

http://www.dulux.co.uk/colours/

 

[TrevC]

Crossover distortion was a problem in tiny 60s Jap radios. In a modern amplifier? Highish bias removes it entirely.

Only full Class A operation can remove crossover distortion entirely. You might argue that "highish" bias makes crossover distortion inaudible, but that'd require empirical testing, e.g. listening to some Class A amps.

So even a Musical Fidelity A1 has some crossover distortion. Not.

No need to listen, you can monitor the quiescent current use a sinewave generator and oscilloscope and tweek it away to nothing if the bias is adjustable. You can then add 30mA or so for luck with no signal, which is what most manufacturers do.. No chance of crossover distortion after that. If you're in the mood you can add a dummy load and adjust for symmetrical clipping if there's an adjustment for it.

 

[davedotco]

I think you are confused, fr0g.

Don't you know the facts yet about putting a system together - Get a very cheap digital source (as they all sound the same); then get a budget amp (as they sound very similar to expensive amps); put 80% of your budget into speakers (as this is all that matters); wire it with the cheapest copper you can find and feed it low bit rate (as all bit rates sound the same); avoid vinyl at all costs.

There is no need to audition, as this is too confusing....all you need is a spec sheet.

If the whole thing is too much effort, go Active. :twisted: :shifty:

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

Also a budget digital source is going to distort the sound far less than even the best speaker in the world.

If you say so.

Can you give examples of budget amps that you've heard, that have sounded like premium ones that you've heard?

Have you ever listened to a DCS (multi box) CDP or a Linn Klimax DS and compared them with budget offerings?

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

The difference is in the way the amplifier handles itself when operated close to and sometimes just beyond its 'limits' which happens a lot in real world situations.

I guess that if the written specifications were more complete and measured what happens in difficult situations they might tell you what is going on but I have never, ever, seen a written spec that comes anywhere close to that.

When Alan Shaw issued his now famous "Harbeth Challenge" he was at pains to point out that the amplifiers under test had to be working 'within their design parameters' something that is very often not the case in the real world.

So, when using a budget amp or a premium amp "within their parameters" they won't sound any different, which is the point I was making.

in the case of power amplifiers you are correct, integrated and pre-amplifiers can, and often are, deliberatly 'voiced' to sound differently so differences can be heard.

However this slightly sidesteps my point, which is that in an awful lot of systems, amplifiers and not just budget ones either, are not being used "within their parameters" and it is the way amplifiers behave under those conditions that makes the difference.

Naturally in an ideal world amplifiers would never be used in that way but the reality is that they are, and with the current trend for matching budget amplifiers with more demanding speakers this is becoming more common.

To "voice" a preamp would require some deviation from a flat frequency response, so I don't really agree with you on that point. Line level signals don't usually need any preamplification, so a selector switch and a pot will suffice.

Obviously using inefficient speakers on an underpowered amplifier won't sound good, but I'm not talking about that.

There are all kinds of ways an amplifier can be voiced without deviating from a flat frequency response but that is difficult to prove without actually showing how it can be done.

The power issue is, in my view, much more of an issue, I accept that a lot of modern music has a very limited dynamic range but when dynamic material is used, nominal 60 watt amplifiers can find themselves in distress very easily indeed, and not just into difficult speakers either.

Name one way to voice an amplifier without altering frequency response.

How about 300w? Only £150. http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/A500.aspx

Looks horribly cheap, but will fool an audiophile easily. http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm Also check out the interconnect and "rack".

Phase response, distortion spectra, transfer charateristics, dynamic power response, the first two are most common, the second two power amp 'tweaks'.

The Behringer is 300 watts, try the same test with a 60 watt budget amplifier, as per your original claim.

Look trev, I agree with an awful lot of what you are saying so do not want the argument to go on, lets just say that whilst I agree with you in theory, in the real world a lot of common amplifiers are underpowered and have poor control over a lot of speakers, many of them supposedly easy to drive, hence the 'brightness' and 'boomy' bass issues that are so common on here.

I guess you could say that the amplifiers are not operating correctly and whilst this is probably true, this is how they are used much of the time and the reality that, as a dealer, I saw all the time. Given the current fad for pairing budget amplifiers with more expensive speakers I doubt if this issue is getting any better.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Some of Linn's 24bit music is mastered differently to the MP3/CD version. That's the difference that you're hearing.

You have some proof of this, that the mastering is the only difference?

Yes. Read all of these two threads:

Clicky

Clicky

When faced with the overwhelming evidence Linn eventually admited it themselves that some of the 24 bit recordings are mastered differently to the MP3 and CD versions.

Didn't read the AVI forum thread, frankly, yourself and a couple of others excepted, thanks to the forum owner most of the stuff there is fantasy.

On the Linn forum you made a good case, which is fair enough, for a couple of their downloads, and Linn have gave a good, honest response where they say the mp3s are always made from the CD, but the FLAC files from the highest quality master. Linn at no point have tampered with the mp3 to make it sound worse, it should be the same as the original CD master. Did you get to compare those, by the way? That would have been interesting to see if you could hear the difference.

Incidentally, I think Sony did the same with some of their dual SACD/CD offerings.

Have you tried my suggestion by the way? That way you'll know for sure that the masters are the same

 

[TrevC]

I think you are confused, fr0g.

Don't you know the facts yet about putting a system together - Get a very cheap digital source (as they all sound the same); then get a budget amp (as they sound very similar to expensive amps); put 80% of your budget into speakers (as this is all that matters); wire it with the cheapest copper you can find and feed it low bit rate (as all bit rates sound the same); avoid vinyl at all costs.

There is no need to audition, as this is too confusing....all you need is a spec sheet.

If the whole thing is too much effort, go Active. :twisted: :shifty:

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

Also a budget digital source is going to distort the sound far less than even the best speaker in the world.

If you say so.

Can you give examples of budget amps that you've heard, that have sounded like premium ones that you've heard?

Have you ever listened to a DCS (multi box) CDP or a Linn Klimax DS and compared them with budget offerings?

A budget 60 watt per channel budget amp (that meets specification) with vanishingly small distortion is going to sound exactly like a premium priced one. How could it possibly be any different?

The difference is in the way the amplifier handles itself when operated close to and sometimes just beyond its 'limits' which happens a lot in real world situations.

I guess that if the written specifications were more complete and measured what happens in difficult situations they might tell you what is going on but I have never, ever, seen a written spec that comes anywhere close to that.

When Alan Shaw issued his now famous "Harbeth Challenge" he was at pains to point out that the amplifiers under test had to be working 'within their design parameters' something that is very often not the case in the real world.

So, when using a budget amp or a premium amp "within their parameters" they won't sound any different, which is the point I was making.

in the case of power amplifiers you are correct, integrated and pre-amplifiers can, and often are, deliberatly 'voiced' to sound differently so differences can be heard.

However this slightly sidesteps my point, which is that in an awful lot of systems, amplifiers and not just budget ones either, are not being used "within their parameters" and it is the way amplifiers behave under those conditions that makes the difference.

Naturally in an ideal world amplifiers would never be used in that way but the reality is that they are, and with the current trend for matching budget amplifiers with more demanding speakers this is becoming more common.

To "voice" a preamp would require some deviation from a flat frequency response, so I don't really agree with you on that point. Line level signals don't usually need any preamplification, so a selector switch and a pot will suffice.

Obviously using inefficient speakers on an underpowered amplifier won't sound good, but I'm not talking about that.

There are all kinds of ways an amplifier can be voiced without deviating from a flat frequency response but that is difficult to prove without actually showing how it can be done.

The power issue is, in my view, much more of an issue, I accept that a lot of modern music has a very limited dynamic range but when dynamic material is used, nominal 60 watt amplifiers can find themselves in distress very easily indeed, and not just into difficult speakers either.

Name one way to voice an amplifier without altering frequency response.

How about 300w? Only £150. http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/A500.aspx

Looks horribly cheap, but will fool an audiophile easily. http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm Also check out the interconnect and "rack".

Phase response, distortion spectra, transfer charateristics, dynamic power response, the first two are most common, the second two power amp 'tweaks'.

The Behringer is 300 watts, try the same test with a 60 watt budget amplifier, as per your original claim.

Look trev, I agree with an awful lot of what you are saying so do not want the argument to go on, lets just say that whilst I agree with you in theory, in the real world a lot of common amplifiers are underpowered and have poor control over a lot of speakers, many of them supposedly easy to drive, hence the 'brightness' and 'boomy' bass issues that are so common on here.

I guess you could say that the amplifiers are not operating correctly and whilst this is probably true, this is how they are used much of the time and the reality that, as a dealer, I saw all the time. Given the current fad for pairing budget amplifiers with more expensive speakers I doubt if this issue is getting any better.

I was talking of premium and budget amps with the same rated power and distortion sounding the same. Which they will.

 

[manicm]

Er, Way to create a battleship sized strawman.

No, of course not. Think about the leap you just made and realize how silly your post is.

The problem with chucking money at "buying" lossy MP3 or AAC is when you want to transcode it. If for some reason, say Apple start using a different codec, and in time stop supporting AAC, then all the music bought in AAC will need to be converted. Except now you haven't got all the data. Different codecs work in different ways and any converted files will almost certainly lose quality.

I personally think MP3 and AAC and OGG are perfectly good for playback if they are high resolution first generation files, but I avoid buying them for the reason above.

I have never bought anything from iTunes and unless they start to offer lossless files, I won't.

You do realise Microsoft developed WAV as an uncompressed file representation of CD audio, don't you? And you gladly sit at the altar of CD representing perfect playback don't you? So by saying WAV contains 'unnecessary' informtaion then 16/44.1 playback in any shape or form - be it CD, FLAC or otherwise also contains 'unnecessary' audio.

In other words, if you worship redbook CD, yet scorn CD resolution files like WAV, who is being silly? Also note that for the end-user FLAC is compressing a WAV file, whether you use EAC or dbpoweramp or whatever - they all actually rip to WAV first and then compress to FLAC.

If my post was silly, then your toe must be pretty sore by now.

 

[steve_1979]

Didn't read the AVI forum thread, frankly, yourself and a couple of others excepted, thanks to the forum owner most of the stuff there is fantasy.

On the Linn forum you made a good case, which is fair enough, for a couple of their downloads, and Linn have gave a good, honest response where they say the mp3s are always made from the CD, but the FLAC files from the highest quality master. Linn at no point have tampered with the mp3 to make it sound worse, it should be the same as the original CD master. Did you get to compare those, by the way? That would have been interesting to see if you could hear the difference.

Incidentally, I think Sony did the same with some of their dual SACD/CD offerings.

Have you tried my suggestion by the way? That way you'll know for sure that the masters are the same

Yes I did also compare some of the 16 bit CD and 24 bit studio versions and they were mastered to different to each other.

When I compared the the 16 bit CD versions to the MP3 versions they were both from the same mastered version and sounded identical.

 

[steve_1979]

Read all of these two threads:

Clicky

Clicky

Or, alternatively: http://www.dulux.co.uk/colours/

Reading JD's attempts to 'poo poo' my posts. That's my third favourite forum game.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Didn't read the AVI forum thread, frankly, yourself and a couple of others excepted, thanks to the forum owner most of the stuff there is fantasy.

On the Linn forum you made a good case, which is fair enough, for a couple of their downloads, and Linn have gave a good, honest response where they say the mp3s are always made from the CD, but the FLAC files from the highest quality master. Linn at no point have tampered with the mp3 to make it sound worse, it should be the same as the original CD master. Did you get to compare those, by the way? That would have been interesting to see if you could hear the difference.

Incidentally, I think Sony did the same with some of their dual SACD/CD offerings.

Have you tried my suggestion by the way? That way you'll know for sure that the masters are the same

Yes I did also compare some of the 16 bit CD and 24 bit studio versions and they were mastered to different to each other.

When I compared the the 16 bit CD versions to the MP3 versions they were both from the same mastered version and sounded identical.

Thing is, I compared iPad files taken from CD and the original CD, and there was a lot of difference. The iPad files weren't bad, but the CD original was much better.

 

[Overdose]

Thing is, I compared iPad files taken from CD and the original CD, and there was a lot of difference. The iPad files weren't bad, but the CD original was much better.

What's an iPad file and how did you manage to get it from the CD to presumably, the iPad?

 

[steve_1979]

Thing is, I compared iPad files taken from CD and the original CD, and there was a lot of difference. The iPad files weren't bad, but the CD original was much better.

Not sure what an iPad file is or how you compared them?

When I compared the Linn 16 bit CD files to the 24 bit studio files I didn't just listen to them. When I compared them I also used the audio software program 'Audacity' to look at the shape of the audio waves. By looking at the waves you can easily see any differences between them no matter how small. It's a much more sensitive/accurate method of comparison rather than just trying to spot differences using only your ears.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Thing is, I compared iPad files taken from CD and the original CD, and there was a lot of difference. The iPad files weren't bad, but the CD original was much better.

What's an iPad file and how did you manage to get it from the CD to presumably, the iPad?

There's a real neat programme called iTunes that does this sort of thing for you. You connect your iPad to your mac, and hey presto! Also, you can use the iPad wirelessly to an Airport Express (that's another complicated Apple gizmo, but don't worry about it, I didn't, it just works) or you can use the USB adapter to get it to your DAC - Digital to Analog converter - which plugs into your amp.

The iPad file is a file on your iPad, it's compressed, that's all I know.

 

[steve_1979]

Thing is, I compared iPad files taken from CD and the original CD, and there was a lot of difference. The iPad files weren't bad, but the CD original was much better.

What's an iPad file and how did you manage to get it from the CD to presumably, the iPad?

There's a real neat programme called iTunes that does this sort of thing for you. You connect your iPad to your mac, and hey presto! Also, you can use the iPad wirelessly to an Airport Express (that's another complicated Apple gizmo, but don't worry about it, I didn't, it just works) or you can use the USB adapter to get it to your DAC - Digital to Analog converter - which plugs into your amp.

The iPad file is a file on your iPad, it's compressed, that's all I know.

How did you compare them?

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Sorry mate, bit busy. Listened.

 

[matt49]

So even a Musical Fidelity A1 has some crossover distortion. Not.

OK, as a layman, I'm dependent on and willing to learn from expert knowledge, if delivered without sarcasm.

 

[steve_1979]

Sorry mate, bit busy. Listened.

Did you listen to the analogue output from an iPad playing an AAC file compared to a CD played in a CD player? If that was the case there would be many other variables which could have affected the sound quality.

Also what bit rate was the AAC file ripped to?

 

[Overdose]

Thing is, I compared iPad files taken from CD and the original CD, and there was a lot of difference. The iPad files weren't bad, but the CD original was much better.

What's an iPad file and how did you manage to get it from the CD to presumably, the iPad?

There's a real neat programme called iTunes that does this sort of thing for you. You connect your iPad to your mac, and hey presto! Also, you can use the iPad wirelessly to an Airport Express (that's another complicated Apple gizmo, but don't worry about it, I didn't, it just works) or you can use the USB adapter to get it to your DAC - Digital to Analog converter - which plugs into your amp.

The iPad file is a file on your iPad, it's compressed, that's all I know.

Ah, I see.

So you don't actually know what sort of file you are listening to or at what bit rate it was created?

Nice one.

 

[BigH]

Listening to Linn radio proves that 320 Kbps is a great medium.

It certainly does......and can sound better than some CDs.

I have some Linn tracks at the three resolutions (320 kbps / CD / 24 bit)....and they get progressively better with the increase in bit rate. What I can't say with certainty, is whether it's down to the bit rate.

What I find, is that there is more ambient info and atmosphere on the 24 bit stuff, making it more like a live event, rather than a replication of one.

Yes we know that Linn doctor their lower res. versions so that is not a true comparison.

 

[chebby]

So you don't actually know what sort of file you are listening to or at what bit rate it was created?

I know what kind of file (and the bit rate) because I ripped them from CD at 320K AAC VBR (with 'Error correction' selected). So that's what they are.

There is an option to 'Convert higher bit rate song' to lower bitrates (under 'Devices' and 'Summary' for the iPhone or iPad connected). But I don't use it.

The drop-down for 'Convert higher bit rate song' offers 128K / 192K or 256K but I never use it as I find 320K AAC VBR optimal.

I don't use defaults when ripping or use any further compression when syncing.

 

[CnoEvil]

Yes we know that Linn doctor their lower res. versions so that is not a true comparison.

Yup, but I was trying to make the point that some of the improvement "may" have been down to the hi-res format......though to what (if any) extent, is more than I would know. :?

To my ears, Blu-ray sounds better than DVD......is that all down to the mastering as well?

 

[JamesMellor]

@ matt49 , is there anything you can't change on you're new amp ?but I am happy you are happy

 

[Overdose]

So you don't actually know what sort of file you are listening to or at what bit rate it was created?

I know what kind of file (and the bit rate) because I ripped them from CD at 320K AAC VBR (with 'Error correction' selected). So that's what they are.

There is an option to 'Convert higher bit rate song' to lower bitrates (under 'Devices' and 'Summary' for the iPhone or iPad connected). But I don't use it.

The drop-down for 'Convert higher bit rate song' offers 128K / 192K or 256K but I never use it as I find 320K AAC VBR optimal.

I don't use defaults when ripping or use any further compression when syncing.

Indeed, but the comment was in reply to AL not seeming to have a clue about digital audio file management whilst at the same time claiming he can hear differences between 320Kbps mp3s and CD.

A little bit unusual don't you think if he doesn't seem to know what a 320Kbps mp3 file is or how to create one?