[totoro]

OK, so, when we go to something like this, the first question is whether we are dealing with a controlled test, where there IS a hypothesis and statistical analysis, or an individual report i.e. hearsay. I'm somewhat leaning to the position that in the latter case it's mildly pointless to attempt to apply concepts like these to an individual observation. "When I was listening to my system I heard aliens discussing the next invasion of the Earth." OK, it seems unlikely but in isolation and with a rigorous approach it's actually not possible to disprove any such claim.

That's an alarming and uncomfortable conclusion for me to reach at this point, but I believe it's correct, if we follow the logic.

Right. But it can be extremely unlikely, given the other things we know. If its probability given our priors is below some point (which can be a little arbitrary), then we don't have to worry about it too much. If this sort of thing is interesting to you, you might want to do some poking on the topic of Bayesian epistemology, which I think is pretty interesting stuff, but now I'm getting awfully OT, so I'll just leave it there.

[Letitroll98]

Analog recording on 2" tape is/was way more expensive than the current digital. This said, the computer technology back in the late 1970's when the first cd's were produced sound less than desirable.  In the early 1980's the technology and mastering began to improve, yet many LP's literally were converted to cd's using the original analog tapes without remastering.

Just a couple of technical nitpicking points.  The tape recording referred to was on cassette tape, way, way cheaper than any RTR tape.  CD's came out in 1982.  In the bad ol' days of early CD, we considered AAD CD's to be superior to DDD and ADD exactly because they were produced from the analog masters and not the horrible Sony PCM-1600.  Apologies for the nits, but as an ol' head who lived through these days, I remember them vividly.

[doug s.]

Just a couple of technical nitpicking points.  The tape recording referred to was on cassette tape, way, way cheaper than any RTR tape.  CD's came out in 1982.  In the bad ol' days of early CD, we considered AAD CD's to be superior to DDD and ADD exactly because they were produced from the analog masters and not the horrible Sony PCM-1600.  Apologies for the nits, but as an ol' head who lived through these days, I remember them vividly.

i yust remember it all sounding so bloody godawful, i didn't really listen to digital until about 2000 or so...

doug s.

[medium jim]

Just a couple of technical nitpicking points.  The tape recording referred to was on cassette tape, way, way cheaper than any RTR tape.  CD's came out in 1982.  In the bad ol' days of early CD, we considered AAD CD's to be superior to DDD and ADD exactly because they were produced from the analog masters and not the horrible Sony PCM-1600.  Apologies for the nits, but as an ol' head who lived through these days, I remember them vividly.

I was there as well...the first commerically released CD's were in 1982, however, Sony demo'd theirs in 1978, Phillips on 1979.   I used to think that the AAD's were better as well, but time proved that to be false.   The problem with direct transfer from the 2" master tapes was a difference in media's and DAC technology of the time.  As DAC's got better, the AAD CD's sounded like crap.

The benchmark CD was Brothers in Arms by Dire Straights....then Steely Dan started to remaster their albums for CD and they got it right...the first in my opinion to do so from the original tapes. 

With the state of the current technology, I feel that analog recording is superior to digital and that is why I referenced 2" tape, not as a comparasion to casette tapes that in any arena are inferior.  The problem is that Analog recording is rather expensive in comparison to digital, yet the quality more than makes up for the additional expense.  Then there is the fact that most of the old analog recording studios are no longer in existence. 

Another hurdle was the SPL wars wherein there was a such a narrow bandwidth being used in order to create loudness at the cost of the drum swells, note bloom, decay and soundstage.   But we were in a world of ipods and walkman's.   Yes, the the audiophile was tossed out in the mix as we only represent a small piece of the marketplace.

Then the con was to charge double and triple for remastered CD's or Hi Resolution that to me is money wasted as 44.1 is fast enough and has more than enough resolution given the limitations of the capabilities of the human ear to process sound.  But again, this is my opinion and yours may be different.

Today, there are more and more properly remastered CD's that rival the original Tape to Vinyl and are on Redbook.   The sad thing is that the current generation is driving the market to file downloads and that may spell the doom of the CD altogether.  Some say that downloaded files are actually better, I just don't think so....

Jim

[totoro]

I was there as well...the first commerically released CD's were in 1982, however, Sony demo'd theirs in 1978, Phillips on 1979.   I used to think that the AAD's were better as well, but time proved that to be false.   The problem with direct transfer from the 2" master tapes was a difference in media's and DAC technology of the time.  As DAC's got better, the AAD CD's sounded like crap.

The benchmark CD was Brothers in Arms by Dire Straights....then Steely Dan started to remaster their albums for CD and they got it right...the first in my opinion to do so from the original tapes. 

With the state of the current technology, I feel that analog recording is superior to digital and that is why I referenced 2" tape, not as a comparasion to casette tapes that in any arena are inferior.  The problem is that Analog recording is rather expensive in comparison to digital, yet the quality more than makes up for the additional expense.  Then there is the fact that most of the old analog recording studios are no longer in existence. 

Another hurdle was the SPL wars wherein there was a such a narrow bandwidth being used in order to create loudness at the cost of the drum swells, note bloom, decay and soundstage.   But we were in a world of ipods and walkman's.   Yes, the the audiophile was tossed out in the mix as we only represent a small piece of the marketplace.

Then the con was to charge double and triple for remastered CD's or Hi Resolution that to me is money wasted as 44.1 is fast enough and has more than enough resolution given the limitations of the capabilities of the human ear to process sound.  But again, this is my opinion and yours may be different.

Today, there are more and more properly remastered CD's that rival the original Tape to Vinyl and are on Redbook.   The sad thing is that the current generation is driving the market to file downloads and that may spell the doom of the CD altogether.  Some say that downloaded files are actually better, I just don't think so....

Jim

I don't understand that last statement. Suppose someone like passionato does the licensing, then rips a cd to flac, and in the process fills in all the metadata, then offers the files for sale. In what way are the resulting flac files inferior to the cd? The flac files contain provably the same data, as long as a good ripper is used with an undamaged disc.

This is analogous to the situation where one of us rips one of our cds. No information is lost. If you are talking about downloads of lossily compressed files, I see your point. Places like itunes where you download lossily encoded files will always predominate. But as storage and bandwidth have gotten cheaper, the number of places selling losslessly encoded files for download has increased as well. It's actually pretty easy for me to download flac files of almost any classical music I can get on cd at this point, and this wasn't true even a year or two ago. I don't think of this as a bad thing.

[JohnR]

i just wanted to come back to this one...

But they are doing no more work nor are they promoting your $10k preamp any more than Joe's $150 Bottlehead yet they will charge you $197 more than Joe for exactly the same service. ...

... So exactly what service is your 2% consignment fee paying for?

One thing i've learned (I think) recently is that a web-based business cannot charge by what the consumer perceives as value, nor by what the consumer (or anyone) perceives as the cost to deliver the service. As soon as you engage in that argument, in fact, you will lose - whichever one is cheaper is what you are "supposed" to charge. But in reality, while any individual example could be a loss or a huge profit, it's the totals that keeps the business afloat (or not). And the "losses" are still valuable, because they keep people using the site, getting traffic from search engine hits, etc.

[wushuliu]

If I had my own audiophile business I would absolutely have products that are priced very high along with moderately priced offerings. We can play pragmatic-i know better-guys on the internet but it's human nature to associate attainability with self-worth and prestige. You could offer the awesomest component ever at $100. It won't fly off the shelves. Even if stereophile creamed over it. Modest sales to the budget crowd sure, but most folks will be suspicious. And even if they do take plunge I would guarantee quick rotation for a higher priced item even if the they love the $100 amazing product. So if you are a business and you need to maintain a profit you have to take this part of human nature into account. Whether it's audio, cars, women, doesn't matter. I am wary of people who go to great lengths to poo poo high priced audio because I am sure there are other facets of their lives where they give in to this impulse, whatever their excuses may be (science v. no science,  accountability vs. non, standards, etc.)

So heck yeah I would charge $100k for a product that only costs a fraction, operating costs aside.

[SteveFord]

I don't think that I'm confusing the industry doing a wholesale dumping of analog to embrace the digital age as I was there when all of the albums were on blowout because CDs were coming in.
I held out until around 1995 or so and did like everyone else and replaced their album collection on CDs plus picked up new releases which were not available on vinyl. 
We really weren't given a choice.
The funny thing is after I got over how wonderful the lack of surface noise was I ended up listening to cassette tapes on a little boom box in the garage.
Right now I have a Carver tuner going but I walk away from the music to go do something else; I don't do that with the tube tuners as the sound quality is different.
My guess is that getting away from analog recordings made the music less enjoyable to listen to so people wandered off to do something else.
The record stores (which turned into CD stores) all seem to be gone as is the town stereo store - oftentimes they were one and the same.
Maybe the upcoming Hi Res digital downloads will be better and revive the audio biz but I don't think I'll throw my turntables away anytime soon.
The gear we own is (mostly) world's better than what we had years ago but I can't honestly say that much of what we listen to is more enjoyable than in years past.
I guess that makes me a certifiable old fart! 

[wushuliu]

I have no idea what any of us are actually talking about.

I love lamp.

[SteveFord]

I have no idea what any of us are actually talking about.

I couldn't have put it better myself!
Have a good evening, gentlemen (and ladies).
I have to go feed my tortises.
P.S.
I found the word I was groping around for: involvement.
Digital recordings removed my feeling of involvement with the music and that (whatever "that" might be) is what is missing from the ones and zeros and my reliable SS tuner which has served me well for decades. 
I turn it on and walk away as what comes out isn't involving.
That is why I feel the industry ripped me off.
If this makes any sense well, you may need professional help.

[werd]

I have no idea what any of us are actually talking about.

I love lamp.

nanu nanu

[doug s.]

...I held out until around 1995 or so and did like everyone else and replaced their album collection on CDs plus picked up new releases which were not available on vinyl. 
We really weren't given a choice.
The funny thing is after I got over how wonderful the lack of surface noise was I ended up listening to cassette tapes on a little boom box in the garage.

fortunately, i never gave up my winyl; and i only purchased cd's that i couldn't find on winyl.  that was a much better choice than replacing all my winyl.

Right now I have a Carver tuner going but I walk away from the music to go do something else; I don't do that with the tube tuners as the sound quality is different.

as you know, i love my tubed tuna.  but, don't sell s/s tuna short - there's some mitey-fine sounding s/s tuna out there.  many awailable for <$100.  you won't find one w/the "carver" logo on it, tho.   

My guess is that getting away from analog recordings made the music less enjoyable to listen to so people wandered off to do something else.
The record stores (which turned into CD stores) all seem to be gone as is the town stereo store - oftentimes they were one and the same.

for the audiophiles, perhaps.  but every time i go out anywhere, i see everyone w/li'l earbuds stuck in their ears, plugged tiny plastic & glass boxes...   

Maybe the upcoming Hi Res digital downloads will be better and revive the audio biz but I don't think I'll throw my turntables away anytime soon.
The gear we own is (mostly) world's better than what we had years ago but I can't honestly say that much of what we listen to is more enjoyable than in years past.
I guess that makes me a certifiable old fart!

+1, i hope hi-rez rewives the audio biz, but i doubt it.  and my turntables certainly aren't going anywhere.

+1, but i still have lotsa analog software.  and fm.    not sure why, but cd's on fm seem to sound better.  even tho i can still tell when winyl is cue'd up...

+1. 

doug s.

[totoro]

I don't think that I'm confusing the industry doing a wholesale dumping of analog to embrace the digital age as I was there when all of the albums were on blowout because CDs were coming in.
I held out until around 1995 or so and did like everyone else and replaced their album collection on CDs plus picked up new releases which were not available on vinyl. 
We really weren't given a choice.
The funny thing is after I got over how wonderful the lack of surface noise was I ended up listening to cassette tapes on a little boom box in the garage.
Right now I have a Carver tuner going but I walk away from the music to go do something else; I don't do that with the tube tuners as the sound quality is different.
My guess is that getting away from analog recordings made the music less enjoyable to listen to so people wandered off to do something else.
The record stores (which turned into CD stores) all seem to be gone as is the town stereo store - oftentimes they were one and the same.
Maybe the upcoming Hi Res digital downloads will be better and revive the audio biz but I don't think I'll throw my turntables away anytime soon.
The gear we own is (mostly) world's better than what we had years ago but I can't honestly say that much of what we listen to is more enjoyable than in years past.
I guess that makes me a certifiable old fart!

I had that old fart moment recently at work when an intern tried to convince me that Skrillex was really amazing groundbreaking music. My first response was, "wait, you have a whole genre whose main defining feature is that it's at 140 bpm? Wtf, how the f_ can a whole genre have the same tempo. And anyway, if you want something transgressive or wild, there are things from lots of eras that are wilder and more transgressive" (naked city from my own youth came to mind). At that point, I was declared an old fart by all the interns. Has to happen sometime I guess.

This same intern thought the kyrie from Mozart's mass in c minor would sound better with a dubstep beat under it (which to me would make as much sense as putting an oom pah pah tuba beat under it, but i guess i really am old).

[thunderbrick]

Shoot the interns, but only after they've heard great music on your system.

[totoro]

Shoot the interns, but only after they've heard great music on your system.

They'd only want to put a dubstep beat under it. And I'm pretty sure they'd want to turn my subs up to max volume, integration be damned .

[wushuliu]

I know I've been hitting the dispensaries a lot lately, but I could swear The Lab is missing from the circles page. Am I wrong?

[Letitroll98]

I know I've been hitting the dispensaries a lot lately, but I could swear The Lab is missing from the circles page. Am I wrong?

Yes you are dear sir, it's under the "Audio Circle" section as a child board.

[wushuliu]

Yes you are dear sir, it's under the "Audio Circle" section as a child board.

Phew. Thanks!

[Letitroll98]

I don't understand that last statement.

Actually, I'm somewhat unclear on any statements from the post you're referring to.

But continuing on anyway, I assume the thrust is that Redbook sounds every bit as good as Hi-rez, which I suppose we could say is 24/96 and above.  I would disagree, while there are many fine sounding Redbook CDs, I enjoy many of them, they don't reach the fidelity of the best Hi-rez files.  For simplicity we can dispense with bad examples of either format.  Are they worth the $24 per download (or DVD disc) vs a $12 CD?  Hard to say, the best Redbooks can sound really good, the best Hi-rez files spectacular.  I would (nearly) always pick the LP version of a recording over the CD.  My experience with Hi-rez is fairly limited so far, but I might pick either LP or Hi-rez file, both going for premium prices over CD.  In the context of this thread, I would consider all viable options with none of them getting anywhere close to rip-off territory.         

[Elizabeth]

I read all 22 pages tonight. Whew.
The biggest ripoff IMO are the Shakti ?sticks, which are in the room and just are three twisted sticks on a pole. Along with those bell shape tuning  gizmos, and the old 'tice clock'.
No other gizmos are as much a rip off IMO as those.

Comments on discussions:
DBT: one point no one mentions is the 'fact' (my fact, so in quotes)
that the part of the mind best at discerning audible differences, is NOT the same part being forced to make the distinction in DBT's.
This is a serious problem, not addressed by any DBT concerning audio equipment. It is a basic fault with the way the mind works vs the way the test is structured.
And one reason it is really hard to DO an audio DBT, but easy for most to say they can hear differences at home.
I neither approve of DBT, nor diapprove. I am just pointing out a discrepancy which is never taken into account.

The best comment out of all the stuff written about in these pages so far was: "Buying equipment based on others opinions, not on one's own" as the worst rip off... Great and wonderful. It was a ways back and I do not have the persons' quote, nor name, but it was the 'winner' in my book of ALL comments.

Tweaks in general, but if one makes one's own, or buys parts cheap, locally, and plays around, that is not being ripped off, it is having fun fooling around in one's hobby. it is when those same nearly free ideas get turned into expensive stuff, with endless gibberish theories to sell them..
Cable risers come to mind: For 'Zero' cost: empty toilet paper tubes, cut and used. free. Aftermarket ones cost up to hundreds of  dollars each.
Plenty of other examples...

Yeah cables can be problematic.... I have a variety of low/midpriced ones. And find they can make a minor difference. So i hold off on big money, just because i am cheap. (5% of system cost is my goal)

I wanted to mention RCA caps DID  make my Plasma TV picture cleaner/less grain, covering unused RCA on the back of Plasma panel.. Just sayin'
Finally the whole high end discussion.. Not much to say. Folks with money certainly can spend it as the choose.
I spend more than i should on equipment, and on music. But now I am retired and listen TO music 16 hours a day minimum every single day.. So i am happy i spent it.

Finally no one mentioned power conditioning, not power cords.. i am suprised. i use both. Two expensive conditioners I bought used. And dozens of Pangea ((cheap(er) when they first came out)) Power cords.
One famous (notorious) seller used Home Depot wire inside garden hose with a nylon cover, sold them for thousands, and folks LOVED them. Turned out he was a huckster, and ran off with a lot of money in the end.. i do not know his name, just the story.

Anyway, I love the way my setup sounds..