What makes a difference to sound quality and why?

[admin_exported]

What makes a difference to sound quality and why?

I would like to know peoples opinions and am particularly intrested in links detailing the causes. The aim of a hifi I believe is to be transparent to the source, l do not use a graphic equalizer or dsp modes. So it is from that view point, improving sound quality = more transparent to source, that I am most intrested in.

My opinions of things are detailed below, as you can see I have been hanging out on other forums where everything sounds the same is popular. I may be wrong on some or all counts and am willing to change my mind given a convincing reason. Please provide a link or reference as well as opinion "l can hear the difference", if possible. I am sadly more convinced by measurements and test results than personal accounts.

Hifi racks I can find no reason for effecting sound quality, as long as they are stable. Isolation pads, I can not see making any difference to sound quality.

Power conditioners I believe are designed to remove noise from the mains if present, surge protectors to protect against power spikes. I can see them having an effect if you suffer from poor mains supply. Ground loop problems if equipment is linked to different wall sockets then linked together by analogue connections or if the loop is poorly grounded or something is on the same loop and generating noise, I can see having an effect.

Power cables and audiophile quality fuses I can find no reason for effecting sound quality, as long as they are not faulty.

There are claims that all cd players that meet the cd redbook standards sound the same. When level matched and time matched listeners can not apparantly tell them apart. The biggest difference in cd sound is apparantly that analogue output voltage which can vary alot, a higher voltage equals a louder sound, which if only slightly louder will not be heard as volume but clarity. Old cd players can loose their bottom end, bass response due to components wearing out. Things like jitter,etc.. are often quoted by those who claim a difference but the levels of distortion are massively below that which is audible. CD players can apparantly sound different when playing non-pristine cds or cdrs, or if the cd transport mechanism has dust in it, etc... I would like a link to a site detailing cd player sound what are the difference and why, like the one I give below for amplifiers if anyone knows of one.

Analogue interconnectors can make a difference apparantly if they suffer from impedence variation, due to poor connection, poor construction or damage. This causing reflections, return loss, that can effect sound quality. Poor shielding can also make the cable vunrable to interference.

Digital interconnectors I can find no reason for effecting sound quality if they are working.

Ross Elliott of Elloitt sound productions has an article Amplifier sounds what are the differences detailing some of the causes of amplifiers sounding different, particularly in how they handle clipping. Some like Richard Clark amplifier challange claim good quality amplifers all sound the same when not clipping, the exception being valve amplifers.

Speaker cable according to AES audio engineering society papers, does have an effect, causing mild frequency selective attenuation and finite impedance in the cable may cause harmonic voltages to appear across the loud speaker causing distortion. But double blind testing of speaker cables with the same gauge does not show results better than chance.

Speaker stands as long as they hold the speaker still and at the right height I can not see different stands having different effects on sound quality. Speaker isolation pads between the stand and speaker I can see the theory that they stop floor vibrations travelling up the stand into the speaker. So perhaps they have an effect, if it is audible I do not know. I can also see the logic behind placing a subwoofer on a paving slab to give it a solid rather than vibrating platform. A down firing subwoofer might also benefit due to concrete being more reflective of bass frequencies than carpet/underlay/floorboards.

Speaker design and placement have a massive impact on sound quality, that at least everyone agrees with.

Room Acoustics have a massive impact on sound quality, again everyone seems to agree.

My current setup is far from audiophile - highend, and is mostly well over 10 years old.

Manhattan XT-F satellite receiver with 1mtr motorized dish, connected via analogue cables to Sony RDR-HX525 Hard Drive & DVD Recorder connected via coaxial digital out to Sony STR-DB930 Home Cinema Receiver connected via Cable Talk 3.1 Speaker Cable to 2 pairs for front and rear Mission 731i Bookshelf/Stand Speakers, the version with silk dome tweeters, they are ontop of cd racks doubling as speaker stands, I do not use a center speaker (a JBL MR Center Speaker is gathering dust in cupboard). The receiver is also connected via 2 analogue cables to a Rega Vulcan Active subwoofer which is ontop of a paving slab and has another paving slab ontop of it. Image is provided by a dlp darkchip3 video projector on a 96 inch x 54 inch screen, the projector is connected to the Sony RDR-HX525 via component video cables. Speaker placement, listener seating position are prety much ideal to acoustic theory. First order reflections from the front stero pair have sound absorbers on walls and floor, a sound diffuser is behind the listening position. I do not currently use bass traps.

 

[Anonymous]

The biggest thing I've just found that makes a difference is positioning of the speakers. After having the TV stuck in the corner of the room for 15 years and my speakers either side I have now changed everything around, got a plasma and have the speakers along a flat wall rather than in the corners. Difference is absolutely amazing and it didn't cost me a penny! (apart from the redecorating, carpet, plasma etc

)

 

[Anonymous]

Mains spur

 

[chebby]

Generally I agree. The room has the most profound influence followed (obviously) by speakers.

Cables need to be made to a decent standard but frankly I think it gets silly beyond a point.

CD Red Book machines all the same? Dunno. I can see the idea but it does not tally with my experience. They have always been 'Red-Book' since inception yet many in my experience have sounded lousy or induced boredom in a very short time.

I guess Red Book defines the basic 'engine' but (continuing the automotive metaphor) the same unit can be found in an average 4 door saloon or a Caterham Superlight. It is all in the implementation.

All amps should sound 'ideal' after almost a century of development now, but they don't (even within the same price/performance/spec band) and that has to remain a mystery I suppose.

 

[matthewpiano]

The interaction between room and speakers; then the speakers themselves; then the quality of the source, amplification, cabling and supports/isolation all on a par with each other.

I am a big believer in the importance of quality interconnects and speaker cables. My main interconnect was half the price of my amp but if I swap it out for anything less I immediately lose a great deal of the quality.

 

[matthewpiano]

Oh, and with red book CD I believe the DAC makes the biggest difference. My entry level Cambridge Audio CD player sounds as good as any other CD player I've heard now its playing through the Musical Fidelity V-DAC, and that includes some pretty expensive machines.

 

[Anonymous]

They claim CD players only sound different if they are faulty, the design does not meet redbook standards or the volume level is different. The timing thing is stop people from being able to identify machines in blind testings via the time clue. The idea is that dac specifications are so close that the differences are massively below what is audible as long as the cd is in pristine condition and the transport is working correctly.

I also found this counter to my previous experiences with different cd players, I have only owned 4 or 5 if you count dacs, my current Sony HD/DVD recorder, Sony AV Reciever with dac, a Panasonic DVD player, a Sony cd player, and a Technics cd player. I beleived the Technics and the Sony sounded markedly different, the Technics being smoother the Sony sharper. But apparantly I was suffering from a delusion caused by my preconceptions or slightly different volumes.

I have yet to read a convincing argument, test results, measurements, logic explaination as to why they sound different, which would confirm my intial opinion that they do. So currently I have been persuade I was originally mistaken and they all sound the same. If I was buying a new player and going to be using the dac in it rather than the one in a AV Receiver I would definetly look in to it more deeply as I still have doubts lingering at the back of my mind.

I have also been convinced that speaker cable is not directional. My cable talk 3.1 speaker cables have little arrows on them and I have to admit I have the cable going the "right" way. This is out of habit more than doubt, or at least that is what I say.

 

[chebby]

matthewpiano:Oh, and with red book CD I believe the DAC makes the biggest difference. My entry level Cambridge Audio CD player sounds as good as any other CD player I've heard now its playing through the Musical Fidelity V-DAC, and that includes some pretty expensive machines.

At risk of sounding like a 'Salisbury hippy' (as I was recently accused of being) this new Naim CD5i player of mine is the only one I have owned so far, since about 1989 (I was late into the CD thing) that I have ever really enjoyed. I have owned Arcam, NAD, Denon and Technics machines over the years and had a lot of time listening to a friend's Rega Apollo over the last couple of years. (That came close.)

It may be synergy with the 'matching' amp or colouration due to badly designed electronics

(where is Eddie?) but I don't care. I have played more CDs in the last couple of weeks than in the last 2 years if you don't count ripping them. (Not exaggerating there I assure you.)

Most of the CD storage boxes were in the back of a cool, dark, dry cupboard under the stairs after I had ripped my favourite stuff to iTunes. Now they are emerging again. It is a PITA and I am in the process of chucking all the crappy plastic covers and bulky storage boxes away and filing CDs neatly in 'album' style folders to save space. Until the CD5i, it was only my wife's preference for playing CDs that kept me from slinging the discs as well after ripping them!

Now I can just have iTunes for downloads and use the DAC for Freeview radio, internet radio and iPlayer, youtube etc. I have decided to 'rebuild' my iTunes in the form of Jazz, Classical and Rock/Pop 'jukeboxes' at 320 kbps (and all my archive of documentary stuff and old radio plays that has always been on it and are irreplaceable).

Worse still, I am plotting next year's Nait XS/CD5X/PMC (something)B1i upgrade unless Naim throw all that gear into some kind of SuperNaimUnitiXS box by this time next year

.

(I guess the point of that was that all the boredom I have experienced at the hands of CD were from machines that were just as 'Red Book' as any other - including the one I have now - and there is no amount of 'timing' or level adjustments that would have made them all sound good.)

 

[up the music]

Firstly I'll play my get out of jail free card before diving head long into territory which is liable to get me flamed.

I'm not going to provide any references or proofs for what follows. The OP has given enough to comment on without turning each subject into a technical essay. Besides I'm not really a techy by nature so that's my cop out. With a little digging I could find some references which partly back me up but it's too much effort. Instead I'll draw primarily from my limited experience of, in the scale of things, a fairly small range of kit I've owned and heard. Very few of my opinions are 100% fixed and they may well be wrong.
I'm not a cable nay sayer, rather I think that any differences that I've heard are at best small. My general attitude is to buy a £30 cable rather than a £3 or £130 cable. Go for some level of quality of construction and materials but try to focus the budget on areas where greater differences are more readily apparent.

Racks
Personally I've not found differences in rack (or rigid coffee tables) except for with regard to turntables and microphonic transmission. I've used the same Target table for 20 years. When my system outgrew this I've supplememted it with other items at various times. I'm currently using 2 old PA speaker cabinets with baffles and bracing removed and shelves added. These weigh 35KG each without kit and are rigid.

Mains
I do suffer from a poor mains supply and have noticed slight benefits in adding BT conditioning units (isolating transformers) to the PC, DAC and pre amp. Any gains that were there using a 1KW isolating transformer for the power amp were more than outweighed by hum from the transformer itself.
I have a few cheap shielded mains cables and can only report that since adding them and physically tidying cable routing I've had less humming when using an Exposure amp susceptible to picking up hums.

CD Players
Well the first generations of CD players sounded horrendous. Transports might sound similar but I'd have thought analogue stages accounted for quite a lot of the differences between players other than output voltage.
I think there are real differences between my first Matsui CD player even before it got 'worn out or dusty', my Panasonic DVD playing CD, and my Cambridge 640 CD player. From new and with the same disks the Matsui was ear splittingly sharp and tizzy, the Panasonic DVD soft and mellow and the Cambridge comparatively focused and detailed.

Analogue Interconnects
Over the ages I've moved from cheap freebies to £10 Cambridge Pacific and finally to cambridge Atlantic and QED Silver 4RS for shorter connections. For longer I first used a collection of Nikkai from maplins and now use Chord Crimson for my subwoofers. There's less of the above mentioned humming once better shielded cables were used and cable runs tidied. I've almost concluded that beyond shielding and getting a good connection cable differences to the extent they exist are relatively minor.
That said your impedance comment seems right. When using a pasive Creek volume pot it drove the power amp better using a 1m cable than a 5m cable.

Digital Connections
I've only tried a couple of nothing special optical and coaxial cables. My preference if I had the choice would be for optical cables to eliminate the possibility of earth loops. That said coaxial cables tend to make for a more secure contact.
I have had experiences with optical cables when not fully engaged into their sockets of hearing a sort of digital hash under the music. When pushed in properly this disappeared. Interestng.

Amplifiers
I take it you mean power amps not integrateds or pre amps. I read a comment from a guy who has a offers modification services that power amps are well understood by now and good basic design is simple. He suggested they should have pretty much the same sound. However, cost cutting at the cheaper end of the market and the desires of the audiophile manufacturers to create a house sound means that in practice they do have different sounds.
I don't know how true this reasoning is but I personally think there's a nugget of truth in that. Maybe it's the case that rather than deliberately introduce colorations or uneven frequency responses etc deliberately to achieve the house sound, designers are genuinely balancing competing and mutually exclusive goals.
the differences do seem real, but are far less than room and speakers.

Speaker Cables
Given a sensible guage I've not noticed definite difference between the 5 or so cables I've had at various times. None have been very exotic though.
I became half familiar with my next point a few months ago when considering changing cables on my Exposure amps but tbh I' can't give you a proper tech explanation of this that won't get shot down into tiny pieces by somebody with good technical knowledge, but I think there's a case for amps without output buffering Zobell stages (Exposure, Naim and NVA) to use cables with suitable properties to stop the amps oscillating. I think I'venoticed over the years that Linn LK20 tends to get deeply unimpressive reviews. I suspect this is because it's not designe to work with the sort of amp that the reviewer is using.

Speaker Design and Placement
Agreed, a massive difference. Turn your speakers to point away from you with one behind and one in front of you and tell me they dont sound radically different from your optimal location.
Compare a tiny budget standmount under £100 to a £10K super speaker. They're hugely different.

Room Acoustics
Again there is a huge difference. Try placing your speakers in a swimming baths, a bathroom, a concert hall, a subway tunnel or a living room. The results will vary enormously. In practice as we pretty much all use a domestic environment the effects are less marked than in the extreme locations I've just suggested. The differences in sizes and treatment of domsetic rooms is still pretty large.
I did a count yesterday. I've had systems set up in 17 different rooms. I wish I could recapture the sound of the best of these rooms. That room was one of the biggest upgrades I've ever made.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm really enjoying this quite sane conversation, thanks.

I bought an amp and speakers last autumn and followed best practice as I understood it. I've got nice speaker cable, my speakers are in free space on solid weighted stands. My kit is on a crowded table and stacked, amp uppermost on top of a CDP a mate gave me. I bought a recommended Chord Crimson ic to connect it to the amp.

I kind of wish I'd done some of those things gradually, but a two year old and another baby in November meant they "got done".

I did catch myself looking at a nice quadraspire table, but it would cost more than my amp did. So I'll make do.

The two biggest changes I think I've experienced have been getting proper speakers over what I had before and avoiding the double amplification that happens with computer audio without a DAC. I've listened to a friends Predator headphone amp/dac and it makes a big difference over the headphone out on my mac.

Proper speakers and good positioning is the biggest change, well and turning it up loud =)

 

[Anonymous]

One other thought, in art once we got to the point of super realism the art world became more about interpretation, hence surrealism and other movements.

Once you get beyond a system which functions without pops, whistles and hums we are at the same level of realism as the art world was at the turn of last century. Some of us will choose a "colouration" over a perfect nearfield monitor neutral. I choose (with my wife) the rotel / ma system over a marantz / ma system as the rotel sounded less bright, but also more fun.

Another month I might have gone for a more neutral sound. There is no absolute truth or right sound once we get beyond accurate reproduction. I like the pictures my iPhone takes, I have a better SLR which takes better pictures, but I like the look of the iPhone pics. In a similar vein I had a preference for a particular slide film Provia 100F. It had a look I liked too.

 

[Craig M.]

no evidence i'm afraid, other then what my ears provided. when i changed from my tv's cabinet (which had my cdp and amp on it) stand to a attacama rack there was a definite all round improvement, everything got a lot clearer and heard some details on cd's i hadn't noticed before, i don't know if my cabinet stand wasn't level but the difference was easily noticeable. cd players do not all sound alike, when i had a caspian and cd6se on home dem to compare with my kandy cdp i reckon i could have easily told them apart blind, the sound was so different from each one. integrated amplifiers don't all sound the same, again just from the ones i have had at home (cambridge audio, roksan, primare, moon) i think i could tell them apart blind. i thought the differences were just as big as cdp's. don't know about cables as i have never compared them. speakers and the room they are in make the biggest differences (imo), in my room the smallest change to positioning makes a big difference.

 

[the record spot]

Well, no links to various technical whitepapers and so on I'm afraid (I'm assuming you've got the same access to Google everyone else does!), but 30-odd years of listening to a huge variety of music and on a wide variety of systems gives me some relevant experience I think.

All of the following is IMO only, feel free to disagree however!

Biggest influence on sound are the main components in your system, accessories can make a fine tuning kind of difference, but forget doing it the other way round. It doesn't work.

For me, the source is always going to be the most important - vinyl, CD, whatever, it's what provides the initial information from which everything else is built round. Playing a Matsui CD player through a set of high end speakers will only serve to show the fundamental limitations of the source. An extreme example maybe, but you get the jist.

I do find that the discussions around which has the most influencing factor on sound quality virtually redundant. In the past year, I've changed amp, source, speakers and interconnects. Only the speaker cable has remained constant (Audioquest Type IV). Each change made its own difference to the overall sound I heard.

I've tried four CD players, three amps, two sets of speakers and three interconnects and of these, the biggest change...well, there wasn't one. They all made a difference, but it's a fallacy to say the speakers make the most significant impact to the sound you hear. Maybe, perhaps, if the other changes are similar sounding sources or similarly warm/bright amps, then that holds true, otherwise it doesn't stack up. Comparing Audio Analogue to Linn to Marantz CD players here, two sets of Mission speakers (no, they don't just sound the same; two completely different series of speakers) and Nordost, Audioquest and Van den Hul interconnects. Huge differences with some elements (CD and speakers) more subtle with others (amps and cables).

In the last year, I've come to the conclusion in addition to the above, that the single most influencing factor is the production and mastering quality on an album or disc. It proves without any question that garbage going in really does result in garbage going out. You might have better quality gear, but all that does is show how bad the original source feed is.

I'd suggest you also have a look at a CD booklet or album sleeve and find out, if it's credited, who the mastering engineer was. I look out for anything that's been done by Joe Gastwirt, Steve Hoffman, Bernie Grundman and a couple of others almost religiously now. Not only do I get albums by bands I like, I discover new stuff that way too.

Doubt me? Play the remixed Genesis album "Trick of the Tail" from the 2008 remaster. Then, get a copy of the same album but on the Virgin/Charisma original CD release. The difference is like night and day. Trick 2008 is squashed, compressed, EQd to death and brickwalled beyond hope. It kills the album as a musical experience. The original CD is dynamic, musical and the kind of listen you could take all night. Even better if you can get the US/Japan release of the same album manufactured by Sanyo. This is like a hi-res recording on my system - mile wide and deep soundstage. The sad thing is, the 2008 remix is on SACD. As the Americans say, 'go figure'.

My system is Marantz amp and CD (PM6010 KI Signature amp, SA7001 KI Signature CD) and Mission 752 floorstanders. The cabling is by Audioquest; the aforementioned Type IV single strand copper core biwire for the speakers and their Copperhead interconnect which is excellent VFM at £60 or so from CD to amp. I find the combination makes for a very transparent, revealing and musical system which details on a fine midband and nicely rolling off treble with a lean, but not overly flabby bass. I think it is very lifelike on some recordings and that's precisely what I want.

Worry about what you can realistically control and are happy to do. Don't get too hung up on the next upgrade; it'll always be there. Some of my finest musical memories involve a Dansette Viva record player we had at home when I was a child and I was discovering it all back then. There was a simplicity to that experience that probably has some contribution to my system building choices today; clean, neat pathways, as few interruptions for the signal as possible and all I need to do is sit back. And enjoy.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the tip on cd mastering credits.

The reason I list speaker design, placement and room acoustics as having the biggest impact on sound quality is because you would be hard pressed to find someone vehemently stating they do not have an effect. Virtually everything else seems to have groups of people adamantly claiming they sound the same, and anyone who disagrees is mistaken. I have been convinced at least for now that many things have little or no impact on sound quality and the it sounds the same arguments have mostly convinced me on some others, despite lingering doubts.

The thing is take speaker cables. Originally many years ago I bought cable talk 3.1 as they got a rave review in what hifi. I diligently connected them the right direction and same length. Years latter I get convinced I was foolish to connect them for directionality or even use the same lengths, and get convinced that all speaker cables of the same gauge are indistinguishable in blind testing. Then I happen upon papers detailing the differences between cables and that they are within the capabilities of human hearing to distinguish. So I now believe speaker cables can sound different but it is usually a subtle difference and the amount of difference is partially dependent on the speakers and amplifiers design.

Same for amplifiers, people say in blindtesting you can not identify one good quality amplifier from another. Then I read papers detailing how they sound different and that humans can hear the difference. Admittedly the differences are mainly caused by how the amplifier handles clipping, but they are there and apparantly amplifiers are often driven to the point of clipping. Apparantly to avoid clipping you want an amplifier rated at 2 to 4 times the speakers continuous power rating per channel to allow for 3 to 6 dB of headroom for peaks in the audio signal that the speaker is designed to handle. When calculating speaker sensitivity - amplification needed you have to figue in music has transient peaks that are 6 to 25 dB above the average level. Speaker impedance - load, also varies alot with frequency. So as I understand it most amplifier - speaker setups are clipping some of the time, while the blind testers "they all sound the same" specifically state the amps must not be clipping.

Thing is when it comes to other things like CD players and interconnectors, etc..., the arguments they all sound the same are quiet persuasive to me. Even the fact I use to hear a difference between technics and sony cd players starts me doubting my own perceptions rather than all the evidence they can produce that I was mistaken. So I thought I would ask people their opinions.

I am planning to upgrade to blu-ray and so am trying to convince myself if it is worth upgrading anything else at the same time. If they all sound the same crowd are correct I would be foolish to do so. So hoping to be convinced they dont so I can treat myself with out feeling foolish.

 

[SteveR750]

Some of the above, but would add that some isoaltion pads work in some situations - remember vibrations can also affect the performance of a capacitor as the spacing between the poles could change as it vibrates - likewise most compenents that rely on a fixed spatial relationship between the mechanical components to provide an electrical response, and since they have a mass are therefore subject to newtons laws as much as a Linn Sondek is

 

[JoelSim]

No proof except my own ears

ÿ

All based on my current system and the effects when I bought new items

1) New rack (Hifiracks.co.uk) - tighter and more substantial bass, sweeter treble

2) New CD player (Arcam CD92-CD192) - ÿVastly different sound, much sharper, faster, more treble, less emphasis on midrange, tighter bass

3) Power amp (Arcam P85) - More detail, finesse, separation between instruments, clarity, performance

4) New power lead on CDP (Merlin Black Widow - Nordost Shiva) - a great improvement in air around voices, better symbols, more resonance on strings (in a good way), more natural

5) New power leads on amps (Merlin & RA - Clearer Audio Silverline) - As 4 above but not as pronounced as that particular change

6) New speaker cable (old Furukawa - QED SA XT) - higher highs, brighter, more detail across range. Altogether nicer. Since trying some 6mm copper even more pleased with the QED's sound.

7) New speakers (Linn Index LS120 - Dali Ikon 6) - better in every way shape and form, more presence, more bass, better mids, better treble, better soundstage etc

8) New interconnect between amps (Furukawa - Crystal Cable Piccollo) - big improvement in quality throughout sound range, tighter and more defined

9) New interconnect on CDP/amp (vdh D102 III - Chord Chameleon) - Much bassier sound, and a better all round replay

ÿ

ÿ

 

[Anonymous]

Well I have just tried comparing the dacs in my sony hd/dvd recorder and sony AV amplifer, by switching between cd analogue inputs and digital inputs. Turns out they sound the same, maybe because they are both Sony.

At first I was immediately hit by the difference, the analogue input sounded more natural probably slightly muddier but overall much nicer, while the digital input sounded much crisper in the bass. Checking the manual for the AV receiver I found that in AFD mode with the equalizer off the sound is supposed to be produced unmolested as recorded, with stereo being produced using the front pair of speakers and subwoofer. However for some reason when in AFD mode when CD is selected as the input it is altering the bass management differently to when DVD is selected. The manual does not state it does this, in fact as written it should not be doing it, but I can clearly hear it is. I confirmed this by switching it to 2 Channel mode where the subwoofer is not used, then the sound from DVD digital and CD analogue seemed identical.

Now I have figured it out, it is the HD/DVD recorders audio setup menu options setting on downmixing, it was on dolby surround, when I switched it to normal, it worked properly with the AV receiever on AFD mode. However according to the HD/DVD recorders manual this setting should only have an effect if digital output signal is set to D-PCM for connection to audio components lacking dolby digital decoders, when it is set to Dolby Digital which it is for audio components with dolby digital decoding it is supposed to do nothing. I think they need to write better manuals, or at least more idiot proof ones. The manufactures default settings are wrong for cd audio over digital to the same manufactures AV receiever, and according to the manual changing it should have no effect when not downmixing a surround sound signal or if dolby digital audio output is enabled, when in fact it does.

I will try a Panasonic dvd players analogue outputs and see if I can hear a difference to the Sonys.

 

[Anonymous]

Buying the substation made the biggest difference as far as I was concerned. I mean, apart from the ensuing bankruptcy.

 

[SteveR750]

JoelSim:
No proof except my own ears

All based on my current system and the effects when I bought new items

1) New rack (Hifiracks.co.uk) - tighter and more substantial bass, sweeter treble

2) New CD player (Arcam CD92-CD192) - Vastly different sound, much sharper, faster, more treble, less emphasis on midrange, tighter bass

3) Power amp (Arcam P85) - More detail, finesse, separation between instruments, clarity, performance

4) New power lead on CDP (Merlin Black Widow - Nordost Shiva) - a great improvement in air around voices, better symbols, more resonance on strings (in a good way), more natural

5) New power leads on amps (Merlin & RA - Clearer Audio Silverline) - As 4 above but not as pronounced as that particular change

6) New speaker cable (old Furukawa - QED SA XT) - higher highs, brighter, more detail across range. Altogether nicer. Since trying some 6mm copper even more pleased with the QED's sound.

7) New speakers (Linn Index LS120 - Dali Ikon 6) - better in every way shape and form, more presence, more bass, better mids, better treble, better soundstage etc

8) New interconnect between amps (Furukawa - Crystal Cable Piccollo) - big improvement in quality throughout sound range, tighter and more defined

9) New interconnect on CDP/amp (vdh D102 III - Chord Chameleon) - Much bassier sound, and a better all round replay

Interesting - can you score them reative to each other..?

I have just fired up the Spendor's and they have blown my sock off that frankly no interconnects, racks, moondust etc has ever remotely come close to....

 

[the record spot]

knightout:

At first I was immediately hit by the difference, the analogue input sounded more natural probably slightly muddier but overall much nicer, while the digital input sounded much crisper in the bass. Checking the manual for the AV receiver I found that in AFD mode with the equalizer off the sound is supposed to be produced unmolested as recorded, with stereo being produced using the front pair of speakers and subwoofer. However for some reason when in AFD mode when CD is selected as the input it is altering the bass management differently to when DVD is selected. The manual does not state it does this, in fact as written it should not be doing it, but I can clearly hear it is. I confirmed this by switching it to 2 Channel mode where the subwoofer is not used, then the sound from DVD digital and CD analogue seemed identical.

I will try a Panasonic dvd players analogue outputs and see if I can hear a difference to the Sonys.

Doesn't all of this just seem everso complicated...?!

 

[Anonymous]

The first post pretty much reflected my views and experiences (see http://community.whathifi.com/forums/post/235740.aspx although I forgot to mention the amount and genetic type of earwax..).

A few more thoughts: redbook was created ages ago, with very limited technology and computing power. It is not difficult to understand that an uncompressed 44.1Hz/16bits format really does not give a lot of leverage for representing complex music. It is amazing that it survived and amazing what can be achieved sonically, but a pity that its follow ups (SACD/DVD-A) failed so miserably. Maybe the computer age will change this, once we can choose the quality of our downloads (we will have to buy a DAC that accepts these formats though).

Pete

 

[idc]

Just being happy with your system and enjoying the music. That makes a huge difference to sound quality.

I have times, long times when I have been happy with my system and its sound and the quality of that sound is good. But somehow, upgradeitis descends and I no longer enjoy the sound, somehow it loses quality and that remains till I change part of it. Getting back to that place where I am happy with the system makes such a difference.

 

[manicm]

Pete10:

The first post pretty much reflected my views and experiences (see http://community.whathifi.com/forums/post/235740.aspx although I forgot to mention the amount and genetic type of earwax..).

A few more thoughts: redbook was created ages ago, with very limited technology and computing power. It is not difficult to understand that an uncompressed 44.1Hz/16bits format really does not give a lot of leverage for representing complex music. It is amazing that it survived and amazing what can be achieved sonically, but a pity that its follow ups (SACD/DVD-A) failed so miserably. Maybe the computer age will change this, once we can choose the quality of our downloads (we will have to buy a DAC that accepts these formats though).

Pete

SACD is not a total failure - you can still find some legacy stuff - DSOTM, Bob Dylan etc. And all Linn's discs are SACD too. DVD-A wrought its demise itself entirely - the sound may have been spot on but the implementation was comprehensively dreadful.

 

[Anonymous]

manicm:

SACD is not a total failure - you can still find some legacy stuff - DSOTM, Bob Dylan etc. And all Linn's discs are SACD too. DVD-A wrought its demise itself entirely - the sound may have been spot on but the implementation was comprehensively dreadful.

Ok - but it could/should have become main stream. I have a multiplayer but own hardly any SACDs. The music industry is not willing to produce hybrid sacd/cd's as default, and we audio consumers are not willing to pay the extra money so it seems (or prefer to invest in cables . I think the industry gave up and are waiting for the next step, be it online sales or maybe blue ray with 'extra's'. Let's hope that simple stereo will survive, I must confess that so far I really dislike multichannel. Maybe also because a lot of multichannel material is produced more to create special effects (the bass apparently has to sound as an earthquake) rather than to recreate real life music.

 

[JoelSim]

SteveR750:JoelSim:
No proof except my own ears

ÿ

All based on my current system and the effects when I bought new items

1) New rack (Hifiracks.co.uk) - tighter and more substantial bass, sweeter treble

2) New CD player (Arcam CD92-CD192) - ÿVastly different sound, much sharper, faster, more treble, less emphasis on midrange, tighter bass

3) Power amp (Arcam P85) - More detail, finesse, separation between instruments, clarity, performance

4) New power lead on CDP (Merlin Black Widow - Nordost Shiva) - a great improvement in air around voices, better symbols, more resonance on strings (in a good way), more natural

5) New power leads on amps (Merlin & RA - Clearer Audio Silverline) - As 4 above but not as pronounced as that particular change

6) New speaker cable (old Furukawa - QED SA XT) - higher highs, brighter, more detail across range. Altogether nicer. Since trying some 6mm copper even more pleased with the QED's sound.

7) New speakers (Linn Index LS120 - Dali Ikon 6) - better in every way shape and form, more presence, more bass, better mids, better treble, better soundstage etc

8) New interconnect between amps (Furukawa - Crystal Cable Piccollo) - big improvement in quality throughout sound range, tighter and more defined

9) New interconnect on CDP/amp (vdh D102 III - Chord Chameleon) - Much bassier sound, and a better all round replay

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

Interesting - can you score them reative to each other..?

ÿI have just fired up the Spendor's and they have blown my sock off that frankly no interconnects, racks, moondust etc has ever remotely come close to....

Yes I can try. A bit of a non science though because some compltely change the character and some just refine. Anyway here goes in order of magnitude.

1) Speakers 50% total change

2) CDP 30% total change

3) Power amp 30% refine

4) Rack 30% total change in character

5) Speaker cable 20% refine

6) I/c CDP to amp 15% refine

7) I/c amps 10% refine

8) Mains lead CDP 10% refine

9) Mains leads amps 5% refine

ÿ