What was your most disappointing purchase for your audio system?

Nuance · « **Reply #120 on:** 10 Apr 2010, 08:07 pm »

Quote from: toobluvr on 10 Apr 2010, 03:50 pm

See that! Before ya know it we'll be tippin beers together, clasping hands and singing Kum-bay-a!

Hehe, cool cool.

Wayner · « **Reply #121 on:** 10 Apr 2010, 08:36 pm »

I think it was in 1990 or around there that I bought what was supposed to be the cat's meow CD player by DENON. I can't remember the model number, but the damn thing cost me $800 back then. Shortly after that, I bought one of Denon's high end cassette decks, too.

Within a year, the CD player's drawer would not close properly (and then not play, either) and the cassette decks main drive motor developed speed control problems (not from dirt) and both pieces became boat anchors.

I never bought a Denon POS ever again.

Wayner

soundbitten1 · « **Reply #122 on:** 10 Apr 2010, 09:52 pm »

A Radio Shack cd player bought new in 1986 that was bright beyond belief. Also a Marantz 2215B receiver .. too boomy. In all fairness it was a vintage piece and maybe needed some upgrading.

amandarae · « **Reply #123 on:** 10 Apr 2010, 10:24 pm »

Magnepan 1.6 QR!

Had two, one stock and one I played with the XO from all the suggestions in the MUG forum during that time. Spent many $$$$ on both SS and Tube amps and I was not satisfied with the sound and at the same time was bewildered about all the positive write ups about them. At first I thought it was good, then I drifted away from listening more as time goes by, instead, I was tweaking all the time. The famous "you do not own Magnepan speakers, they own you!" cliche I can relate truthfully as I spent more and more on tweaks to make the room suitable for the speaker sound.

For months, I was touring audio dealership that carries Magnepans in Southern Cal to listen to 3.6 and the 20 series (no way I will own this because it looks like a personal billboard to me!) trying to convince myself that the higher model has to be good and justify my decision for selling my Martin Logans.

Finally, I had it! Sold both the speakers and all the associated equipment I accumulated to make them sound decent. Blessing in disguise since I had a "paradigm shift" moment afterwards. I tried high sensitivity low power/ set up which is a 180 degrees from where I was from, and finally saw the light.

Some time ago, my curiosity to figure out what went wrong was somewhat answered through my research. I made a list of what speakers the owners of the 1.6 owned before buying the Maggies. Eureka! There lies the answers!

Quiet Earth · « **Reply #124 on:** 11 Apr 2010, 12:34 am »

Quote from: amandarae on 10 Apr 2010, 10:24 pm

Blessing in disguise since I had a "paradigm shift" moment afterwards.

Whoa. I had the same experience on a different train. I rode the Electrostat bus for 15 years before getting off to listen to music again. I'm not quite sure where I went or why I stayed so long. It's good to be back, isn't it?

david12 · « **Reply #125 on:** 12 Apr 2010, 07:26 pm »

Quote from: jsaliga on 6 Apr 2010, 02:07 am

I was pretty disappointed in the ZYX Airy3 MC phono cartridge I tried. It sounded pretty lifeless to me.

--Jerome

I have to agree, I used the high output Silver Airy3 and just did'nt enjoy it. Nothing wrong with it I am sure, others think it is wonderful. I found it detailed and accurate, but lacking the life and dynamics, I found in the benz Micro LP, I replaced it with.

My biggest failure was Townsend Supertweeters. I could'nt hear any difference whatsover. Probably my ageing cloth ears. Luckily the company is an excellent one and they gave me a full refund

*Scotty* · « **Reply #126 on:** 12 Apr 2010, 07:58 pm »

Live cymbals can have harmonics extending well past 25hKz, extension to 50kHz makes some kind sense in a speaker system. However the necessity for this frequency extension is dependent on the source material having recorded ultrasonic content. I am not surprised that you didn't hear hear any improvement. This has to be a hit or miss proposition at best.
Scotty

Brian Cheney · « **Reply #127 on:** 12 Apr 2010, 08:42 pm »

I am now a self-taught expert in recording and playing back cymbals, having wielded an 18" pair of concert "crash" cymbals during our live-vs-recorded CES demos in 2009 and 2010.

It is my opinion, based on this experience, that cymbals excite in and out of band digital artifacts in the Redbook CD recording process. I say that because no recorded cymbals I have in my extensive RBCD collection sound like the live pair. Strangely, the recorded cymbals lack the metallic 1kHz to 3kHz fundamentals which predominate when heard close up, exhibiting instead much more HF overtones and non-harmonically related hash and noise than the real thing. We recorded this year in both 24/88.2 and 5.6 Mhz DSD and both recordings sounded much closer to live than any Redbook playback I can find. DSD sounded definitely sweeter, smoother, and more extended to my ears than hi-rez, heard directly off the hard drives of our Korg and Alesis recorders in instant A/B comparison.

The speakers we employed had ribbon tweeter arrays good to about 40kHz, I might add. There was no substantial difference between live cymbals vs. recorded to be heard in our demo, held in a 28x32x9ft ballroom with about 30 listeners on hand.

B Cheney
VMPS ribbon
www.vmpsaudio.com

Nuance · « **Reply #128 on:** 12 Apr 2010, 08:59 pm »

Quote from: Brian Cheney on 12 Apr 2010, 08:42 pm

I am now a self-taught expert in recording and playing back cymbals, having wielded an 18" pair of concert "crash" cymbals during our live-vs-recorded CES demos in 2009 and 2010.

It is my opinion, based on this experience, that cymbals excite in and out of band digital artifacts in the Redbook CD recording process. I say that because no recorded cymbals I have in my extensive RBCD collection sound like the live pair. Strangely, the recorded cymbals lack the metallic 1kHz to 3kHz fundamentals which predominate when heard close up, exhibiting instead much more HF overtones and non-harmonically related hash and noise than the real thing. We recorded this year in both 24/88.2 and 5.6 Mhz DSD and both recordings sounded much closer to live than any Redbook playback I can find. DSD sounded definitely sweeter, smoother, and more extended to my ears than hi-rez, heard directly off the hard drives of our Korg and Alesis recorders in instant A/B comparison.

The speakers we employed had ribbon tweeter arrays good to about 40kHz, I might add. There was no substantial difference between live cymbals vs. recorded to be heard in our demo, held in a 28x32x9ft ballroom with about 30 listeners on hand.

B Cheney
VMPS ribbon
www.vmpsaudio.com

Do you think this phenomenon has something to do with the recording industry having no standard on how to properly place microphones when recording instruments (such as cymbals and drums)? Sounds like, based on your experience, you determined the proper way to do it, at least to your ears. So might I ask, how did you accomplish it? Did you use special mics, or a variety of placements?

It would seem the recording industry could learn a thing or two about your techniques.

DanTheMan · « **Reply #129 on:** 12 Apr 2010, 09:33 pm »

Quote from: david12 on 12 Apr 2010, 07:26 pm

I have to agree, I used the high output Silver Airy3 and just did'nt enjoy it. Nothing wrong with it I am sure, others think it is wonderful. I found it detailed and accurate, but lacking the life and dynamics, I found in the benz Micro LP, I replaced it with.

My biggest failure was Townsend Supertweeters. I could'nt hear any difference whatsover. Probably my ageing cloth ears. Luckily the company is an excellent one and they gave me a full refund

Yea, there's no way you could hear ultrasonic content:
http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548
but that doesn't mean it can't be sensed and enjoyed. The real question is how?

Actually the real question is, is it then worth it?
Here's a quote from me in the single driver circle:

Quote

There is life up there.
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
and a plausible reason to reproduce it:
http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

That said. You better have either a great analog source or high def digital source and wide band amplifier to make it worth your while. Also this is where your cables may need some real engineering. Some amps can have issues oscillating in this frequency range. This is one area where transmission line theory may be applicable to audio. Cool
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=59717.0

Dan

Sorry for the continued diversion.

Quote from: Nuance on 12 Apr 2010, 08:59 pm

Do you think this phenomenon has something to do with the recording industry having no standard on how to properly place microphones when recording instruments (such as cymbals and drums)? Sounds like, based on your experience, you determined the proper way to do it, at least to your ears. So might I ask, how did you accomplish it? Did you use special mics, or a variety of placements?

It would seem the recording industry could learn a thing or two about your techniques.

Excellent post Nuance! I believe the only recording industry to ever standards for recording music was in communist East Germany!

I may be wrong about that, but it's the only one I know of and I don't know how detailed their standards were or how well they worked. That would be an interesting bit of research.

Dan

Brian Cheney · « **Reply #130 on:** 12 Apr 2010, 10:17 pm »

Nuance:

I could go on at great length but will try to be brief, instead.

Recording in 16/44 severely limits headroom. Cymbals are extremely energetic over a broad bandwith, loud enough to be heard prominently even over full orchestra and chorus playing and singing triple fortissimo. I conclude that the instrument simply overloads Redbook recorders and, in the process, generates myriad distortion products which color its sound
on playback.

With 24/88.2 and 5.6 MHz DSD I have about 18dB or more additional headroom and, with just one stereo mic (12ft away elevated at least 6ft off the floor), I can hit a cymbal with a drumstick as hard as possible, or crash a pair together with all my strength, and not get close to digital "zero" without gain riding. We also recorded with no EQ, compression, or processing, and in only 2 channels. Everything remains simple and true to life this way. There was no mixing board so no additional noise or distortion introduced there, either.

I think that it is possible with today's gear (amplifiers, speakers, CD players) to record just about any size ensemble in hi-rez or DSD, downconvert to 16/44, and get nearly perfect fidelity, sound virtually indistinguishable from live. I have the redbook CD's cut from our hard drives to prove it. You should hear them. All audiophiles should.

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #131 on:** 12 Apr 2010, 10:37 pm »

Actually at 6 dB per additional bit, 16 bits yields 96 dB dynamic range and 24 bits is good for 144 dB. Of course the analog circuitry is the limitation here. The real advantage of 24 bit recording is partly the ability to record with a large safety buffer above the peaks.

When I recorded in the early days of digital with my Sony PCM F-1 at 16 bits, I needed to make sure my levels were accurately set so that I could get as near as I dared to 0dB on peaks (without going over) so as to have a reasonable number of bits to handle the very low level signals, like room reverb, with any degree of fidelity.

Digital in this way is opposite to analog - distortion goes down as signal level goes up, because more bits are employed to describe the waveform, whereas with analog, distortion goes up with increasing signal level (although signal to noise ratio improves).

It is also important to realize that no metering system of which I am aware shows absolute peak levels accurately. As a result, certain instruments - piano, for example - have to be recorded with a surprising number of dB (5-10) apparent headroom showing on the meters in order not to record obvious overload distortion.

I have found this to be true even with the best "pro" grade equipment.

With appropriate level setting into a 16 bit recording system you could crash your cymbals as hard as you wanted without going over; it's just the final tail of the sound would be a tiny bit grainy by comparison to 24 bit. Most of the "ears" in the business whom I respect would take sampling rate over wordlength if they had to choose, Tony Faulkner going on record years ago as saying he would rather work with 16/176 than 24/44 (not sure about 24/88, though).

Based on something that Tim De Paravicini said, I would take 16/176 over 24/88, but I don't have that choice at the moment.

In a nutshell, Tim said 44.1k sampling was good up to 3.5kHz, 88.2k was good to 7kHz and 176.4k was good to 14kHz, which fits with my subjective experience.

The corollary is that CDs struggle over 3.5kHz due to the limitations of the 44.1k sampling rate, which would also explain why many like he DSD/SACD system in spite of some technical minded engineers' protestations.

(edited for punctuation - to please Nathanm - and to add relevant info.)

Brian Cheney · « **Reply #132 on:** 12 Apr 2010, 10:50 pm »

Russell,

What you said, for the most part.

144dB is beyond the range of any reproduction gear I know of. Even with efficient speakers you're talking megawatts of power on playback if softest to loudest sounds are to be clean and audible in a normal size room.

I found that switching from redbook to DSD gave me about 18dB more headroom to play with, as a practical limit. This allowed me to forget about a vocalist standing too close to the mic, or a bass drum (we had a thirty-incher tuned to its lowest two fundamentals) thwacked with too much enthusiasm. We got amazing fidelity.

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #133 on:** 12 Apr 2010, 10:54 pm »

I forgot to include this link to a well written run-through of dynamic range considerations in reproduced sound:

http://www.axiomaudio.com/dynamicheadroom.html

jkelly · « **Reply #134 on:** 12 Apr 2010, 10:55 pm »

Sam Tellig AR RCA Interconnect cables!

*Scotty* · « **Reply #135 on:** 12 Apr 2010, 11:51 pm »

Russell,I remember reading somewhere that in a 16 bit system -60dB corresponds to 3% THD,can you confirm this?
Scotty

Ericus Rex · « **Reply #136 on:** 13 Apr 2010, 01:09 am »

I really like this thread! The saying about one man's trash being another's treasure is very true isn't it?

timind · « **Reply #137 on:** 13 Apr 2010, 02:24 am »

Quote from: jkelly on 12 Apr 2010, 10:55 pm

Sam Tellig AR RCA Interconnect cables!

Seriously? For $10 on ebay what do you expect? I thought they were a bargain.

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #138 on:** 13 Apr 2010, 03:25 am »

Quote from: *Scotty* on 12 Apr 2010, 11:51 pm

Russell,I remember reading somewhere that in a 16 bit system -60dB corresponds to 3% THD,can you confirm this?
Scotty

I can't recall the exact numbers, but that sounds about right, Scotty - although I would like to think that's a little high. This, I think, is the major reason that digital, especially if not treated with kid gloves (and by that I mean recording at high resolution and staying in high resolution all the way to the end of the processing before dithering down to 16 bits for delivery) can sound lifeless with material that depends on ambiance cues for veracity, such as quiet acoustic stuff. Room ambiance typically lies below 50dB and too low a digital resolution will "granulate" the reverb tails, both natural and artificial.

The most relevant data I could find in a hurry was this: http://tinyurl.com/y2wkm9p

*Scotty* · « **Reply #139 on:** 13 Apr 2010, 03:54 am »

If I recall,analogue tape is typically allowed to go 3dB or a little more past zero VU on peaks. The problems at -60 in a 16 bit digital system effectively limits it's actual low distortion dynamic range to about 60 dB which is no better than the dynamic range of a good piece of vinyl. It's enough to make me wish for a way to buy my favorite recordings in a 24bit format.
Thanks for the link.
Scotty