0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 16354 times.
That's the theory. If you sample at at least twice the highest frequency, you theoretically can recreate the original waveform. That's why they use 44.1 kHz, sampling twice 22 kHz.Is the waveform actually exactly the same as the original? Therein lies the controversy.
Once again this appears to be a case of music listeners and audiophiles grasping for technical reasons to justify their subjective preferences. Why they persist in doing this I'm not sure - perhaps it has something to do with a need to be "right"
In my experience the "need to be right" is as prevalent amongst engineers as it is in audiophiles. Pretty much everyone needs to be right...Lets be frank; that's what this entire thread is about.
As far as vinyl vs. digital, let's acknowledge that for some of us, there are collecting/ historical aspects to the love of vinyl. When I go into a large record store and start browsing, I feel a connection with the history of recorded music. The smell, feel, typography, and photography of a vinyl lp can enhance a deeper connection with the recording than pulling up a playlist on a screen. The act of engaging with vinyl recordings and all the rituals it entails can reinforce the likelihood that you'll listen more closely to the music. Those aspects of vinyl appreciation are totally subjective of course, but art appreciation IS a subjective experience. I think that's a large part of the reason younger people are buying vinyl even if they don't appreciate good sound reproduction. Rather like some prefer a drive in a wooden chassis three wheel Morgan to a quasi-autonomous high tech Tesla I suppose.
If all you care about is specs and measurements, you will be missing out on a lot of great audio quality IME.Steve N.
As one who grew up listening to records, (I'm 64 and started collecting records at 14) I have none of the feelings toward vinyl you describe. Although I do occasionally put a record on the turntable for a listen, I don't feel any closer to the music when doing so. Nor do I feel any differently about an album found in a record store vs an album purchased through Discogs. Some of the most moving musical experiences I've had during my life happened while listening to a crappy car radio. It's the music, not the medium as far as I'm concerned. As for your auto analogy, I suppose the Morgan would be more fun ONCE. For my daily driver though, I'd take the Tesla.
I will back you in the above position Steve N. In addition for public consumption, using a particular analog design but exchanging different quality parts, and using the specs we generally used in manuals, the specs will remain the same, but the sonics will be quite different. Cheerssteve
I've experienced this first hand with DIY tube preamps and amps. For example, changing out resistors to non-inductive types can make a difference sonically. Coupling caps can make a big difference with the sonic presentation. The quality of audio output transformers can make a difference as well.
I've had a look through the archives of Hi-Fi News & Record Review, the British magazine, and can't find it, but I do remember them doing a test about 25 years ago in response to the apparently paradoxical disparity between the perceived performance of two really good sounding amplifiers and their measured performance which was really poor. The amps were an Ongaku and a Jadis.The result of this fairly comprehensive teast was that perceived sound quality had surprisingly little to do with most measurable forms of distortion, like harmonic and intermodulation. In fact the only measurable parameters that seemed to correlate with sonic quality seemed to be1. speed of settling time after a clipping event, and2. benign reaction to RF contamination of the input signal.I think Martin Colloms was one of the testers and the other was a similarly respected man.
There are a lot of options and choices when putting together a good sounding audio system. I get why single ended triode (SET) amps have appeal. They tend to focus on the mid-range (presence) region, which much of the musical information resides. One of the big reasons so many audiophiles still love tubes is because tubes just seem to reproduce this range with more natural sounding timbres over solid state. (In general, there are always exceptions). The limitation with SET is one cannot get the frequency extremes reproduced accurately. A single 6" driver is simply not going to provide the lower bass registers or the upper frequencies with any real authority. For some audiophiles, that is not important to them. For others, it's a deal breaker. SET's also tend to be low power, so the speakers need to be real efficient to get live music levels. For me, in order to get close to a live symphony, large floor standing speakers and lots of wattage is the way to go. The tube amps I have on hand are higher wattage units in pentode, which is needed to drive the speakers. The best overall sound I've achieved with the speakers has been with Devialet integrated units. They are one of the very few SS setups that have a pristine sounding presence region, a dead quiet background, and support the frequency extremes without compromise.
I don't have any problem getting the full frequency spectrum from my SET monoblocks. 35W each. Better, tighter bass than a 600W SS monoblock and better highs as well. No limitations that I can hear.Maybe you don't have the right SETs for your speakers.Steve N.
A 600W monoblock does not say much, outside of the fact it's got lots of power. A pair of Devialet Expert Pro amps (in mono) will in all probability sound better than the vast majority of systems put together, regardless of price. And, it Won't run out of power when playing back a Mahler Symphony at realistic concert hall levels. (Not sure 35 watts will be able to achieve that).
