Slashdot Mirror

Very interesting commentary. Having had several friends which I considered insane audiophiles ($10,000 for a set of Nakamichi speakers, WHAAAA?!?!) I never knew the reality of the situation till I read this article referrenced by Gizmodo:

$350,000 amp!

I'm sorry, but a gamer will never reach those heights of absurdity.

Granted, you'll have a generic "loss of quality", but as long as you're playing from the CD, in theory the loss is no more or less than an encode directly from the CD (if using the device driver method, the audio cable may/may not kill some quality).

Pfft...what theory is that, your own? If you're converting something from digital to analogue, and then back to digital, you're going through your sound card's DAC and then its ADC. And, if you're most people, neither one is particularly high quality. In cheap, onboard cards, the DC offset will likely get all messed up, resulting in distortion, and loss of signal to noise ratio, and you'll also have loss of sound quality due to word-clock jitter. (http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1093jitter/) .

Or course it's always possible to go the analogue route, but that's not really the point. You could also copy it to a casette tape, but their goal is to prevent you from making perfect copies by working entirely in the digital spectrum. Which is stupid, of course, because someone inevitably will break the DRM, probably the day after it's released...if not the day before...

stereophile's ipod review

audiophile award

let me quote:

Best of all--and, to my ears, completely indistinguishable from the original CD--was AIFF. Dynamics were impressive, imaging was nuanced and detailed, and the frequency extremes sounded extended and natural. On my reference rig, I could listen with immense pleasure for hours on end to files ripped in AIFF. In fact, I did.

---

the ipod is an audiophile-quality product. now, where are the reviews of the rio players qualifying them as audiophile-quality?

note though, that they ran it through the line-out plug on the dock, that is probably why they got the best quality out of it.

btw, i live in australia and especially this year, i see ipods everywhere. hardly anyone owns any of the other players in comparison.

and here, ipods are seen to be the coolest mp3 player. actually, coolest consumer electronics device full stop.

the NYT article quotes the idiots at Stereophile. When your magazine recommends that people buy 200$ power cords for their reciever to "filter" out the bad power that your outlet gets, thats trouble.

Stereophile is also well known for shunning proper ABX sound listening tests because with such a test they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a $5000 amp and a $200 amp. link

The fact that the article doesn't even go into how AAC compression works, makes it pretty obvious that its a sham. This article seems to be written from a elitist, anti-logical stance. Sigh.

There has been an article on this in Stereophile, which is usually considered an audio industry shill. This has been discussed widely in various newsgroups and fora for some time before this article was published.

While you're there, read this.

There has been an article on this in Stereophile, which is usually considered an audio industry shill. This has been discussed widely in various newsgroups and fora for some time before this article was published.

While you're there, read this.

The iPod interface is unquestionably the easiest to use and most intuitive user interface of any portable digital audio player out there, with even the most technologically illerate people able to figure out how to use it in a few minutes with no guidiance.

Moreover, the sound quality of the iPod is excellent. Using completely objective and emperical tests of sound quality, Stereophile Magazine has concluded that the iPod is amongst the best there is in terms of sound quality, beating many high quality CD players in some respects.

The iPod interface is unquestionably the easiest to use and most intuitive user interface of any portable digital audio player out there, with even the most technologically illerate people able to figure out how to use it in a few minutes with no guidiance.

Moreover, the sound quality of the iPod is excellent. Using completely objective and emperical tests of sound quality, Stereophile Magazine has concluded that the iPod is amongst the best there is in terms of sound quality, beating many high quality CD players in some respects.

"The curious drop-out in the fifth bar turns out not to be Schnabel sneezing, but a rare neutrino interaction. Of course an inferior cartridge would just miss it completely..."

according to http://www.stereophile.com/news/032904news/ and many other news article that can be searched on google news, clear channel has part ownership of XM radio, so why is clear channel trying to stop XM radio? clearly, if XM radio prospers, then so does clear channel.

"Other major XM shareholders include radio giant Clear Channel Communications, Inc."

I commend timothy, a so-called "editor" at Slashdot, for trying to write a summary of his experiences at CES. However, the following reviews are done by more qualified journalists. I recommend them instead.

Wireless Week, High Fidelity Review, Stereophile, CNN.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Seth Finklestein
Media-Savvy Internet Pundit

I think you might want to take a look at the Stereophile Review of the iPod. If you read the article, what is actually (between the lines) reviewed is the DAC of the iPod, which is incredible. I'll attest to this*. Sure, MP3 generally sounds like ass, as to lower bitrate AAC files, but that's a product of lossy compression, not the player itself. iPods themselves sound absolutely wonderful, especially if you use the line out (often from the dock) into your stereo.

*At home I have my iPod dock in the living room hooked to a mid-range NAD receiver and some Gekko speakers. It just sounds amazing.

Matt...

See Sidebar 3: Measurements where you can see GRAPHS for things like " Fig.3 Apple iPod, 1/3-octave spectrum of dithered 1kHz tone at -90dBFS, with noise and spuriae, 16-bit AIF data (right channel dashed)."

Jeesh, RTFA!

See Sidebar 3: Measurements where you can see GRAPHS for things like " Fig.3 Apple iPod, 1/3-octave spectrum of dithered 1kHz tone at -90dBFS, with noise and spuriae, 16-bit AIF data (right channel dashed)."

Jeesh, RTFA!

What typical audiophile fluff. Why don't audiophiles ever give any opinion that is actually backed up with data.

Flip to the last page of the review, for exciting measurements.

and in next months stereophile magazine....

Our Computer Hardware: Not a Web-Server-Quality Device

But your choice of mic can make a big difference in the quality of the sound recording. The Stereophile Test CD has a passage where J. Gordon Holt speaks text as the recording alternaties between 18 different high-quality microphones (brands include Shure, Sennheiser, Neumann, and even a B&K measurement mic). The difference in timbre between the different mics is amazing.

http://www.stereophile.com/printarchives.cgi?113
So where's your evidence?

As many have noted, it's not that unusual to have over 1000 albums. And what's more, it's not *that* unusual to spend that kind of money on a music system.

Here's something that resembles the Onkyo in the article, which in itself costs $20 000:
Linn Knekt

(Of course it's on-topic, it runs Linux!

I was pretty convinced that "bit's were bits" and that jitter was just elitist hoodoo mumbo jumbo, but here's a couple links to jitter articles that made me question my views a bit:

Jitter on various transports [Stereophile mag]

Informative page by John Risch (DIY cable / EE and acoustics specialist[if memory serves]) link on cables and jitter along with links to more articles about jitter and wire design.

According to acquaintance of mine whose parents ran a high end audio equipment store, jitter does make some difference, but it's not that big a deal. As for me, I've only imagined that I found differences in some interconnects, but I wanted to do AB tests with higher end equipment under stricter test procedures before making any judgments I'd put my full credit behind.

Actually, from what I understand of the spec, SACD has a cryptographic handshake between the servo and the DSP, and in fact Sony is hoping to do all DSP/DAC conversions internally on one chip. David Rich of Stereophile suggests in his arcticle that DSD signals are inherintly easier to "watermark." I for one don't care if my media is digitaly copy protected. If I can convert my LPs to MP3, it's no less trouble to convert anything else... --Come and get one in the yarbles, if you have any yarbles.

Actually, from what I understand of the spec, SACD has a cryptographic handshake between the servo and the DSP, and in fact Sony is hoping to do all DSP/DAC conversions internally on one chip. David Rich of Stereophile suggests in his arcticle that DSD signals are inherintly easier to "watermark." I for one don't care if my media is digitaly copy protected. If I can convert my LPs to MP3, it's no less trouble to convert anything else... --Come and get one in the yarbles, if you have any yarbles.

I can't sit here and hope to convince you anything about SACD, since most of you are too busy speculating and screaming your heads off because you can't go and copy an SACD of a disc that has most likely been out in CD for quite some time. What I can do is tell you the following things and hope maybe at least one of you will actually go out and hear a high-res format sometime before posting without once even givng an honest listen to the format.

First off, there definately are SACD/DVD-A combo players. There's quite a few of them covering the entire spectrum of how much you want to spend on gear. Personally, I think a good purchase would be the Pioneer Elite 47Ai, which also has digital outputs, another thing that article is completely wrong about. The 47Ai has, by quite a few people's accounts including my own, some of the best video output of any DVD-Video player out there, especially at its price point.

Second off, most DVD-Audio discs *can* reach 192Khz for a sampling rate, however, most of them are released at 96Khz. Another thing is that Verance has actually changed their statement of their watermarking from being unperceptable to 'unnoticable'. That's because, well, you can actually hear it! This isn't a faint different, it actually colors the sound a bit from the original. There was a small test conducted by a person who obtained the Verance software and after doing a compare between the source and the watermarked version decided to isolate the difference between the two into a single .wav. It sounded like a poor AM radio version of the song playing, but that goes to show just how much info between the two were actually changed.

Third, SACD can be produced by independant artists if they wish to, there's actually several mastering kits out there ranging from $5k and up that you can save up, snag, take home and master stuff to. Products like SADiE, Pyramix, Sony's own Sonoma, are all available to be purchased by anyone who wishes to produce their own SACDs. Just searching on the web for 'SACD Mastering' brings up a lot of smaller production houses willing to do it for you as well. Slowly, places capable of pressing SACDs are catching up in pace as more plants are opened and the tech gets out there.

Also, claims about SACD not being higher than '24kHz' (when it's really around 100kHz) and the like are also rather bunk. There's a lot of people trying to test DSD by methods meant for PCM, which simply does NOT work because they are two completely alien methods of handling sound from each other with just enough in common that they both can be handled by some of the same processors. A good article found here will explain a bit more actually what's going on with DSD. There's been some people claiming that from a 'mathmatical standpoint' SACD is on par with a cassette tape (!), but even your layman doing an A->B between the two could tell you that's not the case. As a friend put it "If it measures bad, but your output is good, then you're measuring wrong".

Lastly, the bit about the CD layers of hybrid discs not sounding as good is also a lot of bunk thrown out by groups like Warner (DVD-Audio's big pusher) whom want to scare a lot of people away. However, one thing to keep in mind, is that SACD hybrid discs are being snuck in without any such labeling as to their hybrid status on the packaging. For example, that brand new set of Rolling Stones remastered stuff in digipak packaging are all SACD hybrids. Vivendi Universal has just begun releasing hybrid discs with the possible intention of switching over to exclusively releasing hybrids in the next year or so.

They don't cost anything more than the actual CD, and since SACD players can be snagged as low as $120 now, it's a bit easier to get into playing the the high-res layer. However, at $120, players I'd consider 'amazing' aren't many, in fact, it'd be just one that was recently discontinued. The Sony SCD-CE775 5-Disc SACD changer is one of the best players I've heard under $200, easily doing Redbook playback comparable to some $1k decks I've heard. Internally the SCD-CD775 is almost exactly the same as Sony's $450 SCD-C222ES SACD player, save its cheaper casing, slightly different power supply and a bit cheaper capacitors. If you really wish to get serious, you can have people like this guy spend some quality time with your SCD-CD775 or a few other models of players and have him upgrade and change a lot of the parts for better sounding playback. However, I doubt that'll appeal to everyone who doesn't own at least a good set of headphones (Sennheiser HD-600s, Sony MDR-CD3000s, Grado RS-1s, Audio Technica ATH-W100s, Etymotic ER-4S, etc.)

Also, most audiophile have been raving about some SACD players and their Redbook playback ability. I don't know about this Arizona group of '53 people' or one particular shop whom wasn't even aware of decks capable of DVD-A and SACD while also providing digital out, but you look for reviews of Sony's 'SCD-XA777ES' player and you'll find many saying it does some of the best CD playback you can possibly buy. Phillips, Denon and others are getting in on players of the same quality at comparable prices.

In short, I've found that article to be rather a lot of FUD, and the reactions of quite a few here to be playing into that quite nicely. Personally I own both a DVD-A and SACD player and titles for both, but I rather prefer SACD after spending a bit of time on each using decent gear (Carver CM-1090 amp, custom amps, Sennheiser HD-600 headphones, etc.) I also own about 350 legitimate CDs and continue to purchase CDs on top of higher-res formats. Am I at all alarmed that my ability for backups of these newer formats are limited? No, not really. I take care of my discs and my need to back them up or play them on my PC (although the new SB Audigy 2 can play back DVD-Audio on PCs) or portable unit is pretty unnessicary. One thing I will say, is that if interest picks up enough, I'm sure a DeCSS-alike will surface and so will another hailstorm of controversy and merry fun that Slashdot readers thrive on.

Then you aren't listening very hard (but I guess that's the point).

Many people now own 5.1 speaker systems for home theatre or computer games and would like more than stereo sound. Also, the quantization noise of the Redbook standard is audible on a good stereo and audiophiles have been pushing for higher-resolution digital recordings for years. A quick search of Stereophile gives about 100 articles hosted on that site alone. Whatever you think about audiophiles (and some of their beliefs are rather dubious to say the least), they represent a significant group of wealthy people who are willing to spend a lot of money on music.

The Disklavier system (unless they've made a recent upgrade that I'm not aware of) is not precise enough to completely mirror the original performance. In general, Disklavier files are MIDI with some metadata. If they were looking for true competition grade reproducing pianos, they should have gone with the Bosendorfer 290SE. The files it creates are much higher resolution (higher sampling rate of the hammers) and in general a higher bitrate file format. The Bosendorfer has been used in competitions before (of course, you expected that with /.), although only one piano was used (no variation). It's been used commercially in Stereophile's collection of Beethoven's Sonata's and by Telarc to bring Rachmaninoff back from the dead. Alan Dang www.firingsquad.com Random Fact: While developing one of the early reproducing pianos, Clarence Hickman developed a high speed camera system that he later used in WW2 to develop the bazooka.

I don't know about its use in virtual concerts, but I have a set of CDs of all 32 of Beethoven's Piano Sonatas that were recorded in a single weekend (that's 10 CDs!) by concert pianist Robert Silverman. Silverman believes the system records his performances with such fidelity that its playback is equivalent to his presence at the keys. I can attest these Sonatas sound wonderful. The engineering behind this piano and recording system is quite a story.

The Bosendorfer technology has also been used in recreating performances by Sergei Rachmaninoff from original player piano rolls on the two CD volumes "Window in Time". It's amazing hearing the great Russian composer and pianist playing his own works (and works of others) on a new CD when he's been dead for almost 60 years.

I don't know about its use in virtual concerts, but I have a set of CDs of all 32 of Beethoven's Piano Sonatas that were recorded in a single weekend (that's 10 CDs!) by concert pianist Robert Silverman. Silverman believes the system records his performances with such fidelity that its playback is equivalent to his presence at the keys. I can attest these Sonatas sound wonderful. The engineering behind this piano and recording system is quite a story.

The Bosendorfer technology has also been used in recreating performances by Sergei Rachmaninoff from original player piano rolls on the two CD volumes "Window in Time". It's amazing hearing the great Russian composer and pianist playing his own works (and works of others) on a new CD when he's been dead for almost 60 years.

Also announcements of new companies making SACD players. dCS, Linn, Luxman, Lindemann, Denon, Kenwood, Onkyo, and Yamaha are to release SACD players shortly, according to Sony's Shizuo Takashino, adding to offerings by Marantz, Classé, Accuphase, Pioneer, Sony, and Philips.

The above is courtesy Stereophile's CES 2002 coverage.

I'm still a bit away from buying into SACD(or DVD-A, for that matter); I'm planning on plunking down for a decent turntable at some point this year for all the olf LPs I have...

For those not familiar with it, SACD is similar to (and competes with) DVD-Audio, as it uses much more storage space than an ordinary CD in order to garner higher quality (while still just a single disc).

By all accounts that I've read, SACD sounds significantly better than ordinary CDs, and better than DVD-Audio, even. So, I'm probably going to buy a combination DVD/SACD player within the next few months. Anyhow, has anyone heard any CES announcements on upcoming DVD/SACD players?

I only saw one post of this here, but I really must amplify (pardon the pun) the fact that Yamaha's CAVIT systems are great! This is the difference between consumer computer audio, and audiophile sound. Check out Stereophile's review.

These can be reproduced without tubes more reliably, consistently, and cheaper.

Eee? The point is not to produce distortion. The point is that while tubes produce more distortion, it is even-order harmonics, and that the ear is far less sensitive to it, such that there is less "effective" distortion than the small amounts of odd-order produced by a solid state, to which the ear is far more sensitive. Tests show that 0.5% odd-order THD is easily heard by the ear, but that a few integral percentage points of even-order are necessary for detection.

And you are a pregnant teenage mother with a history of ear infections _and_ asthma? If not, you can't hear that waste of audio spectrum. Your dog might appreciate it, however.

Your point was that Vinyl had compressed frequency response. It does not. It may have compressed dynamic range, but that's another point. Whether or not humans can hear 30+ kHz frequencies is not a closed question -- why does SACD and DVDA spec out to 100 kHz? Surely they are not meant for my dog?

Another point: better frequency response allows for higher-order noise-shaping algorithms that do far less damage to the high frequencies that humans are proven to be able to hear. (20 kHz)

Jitter: I am referring to general clocking inaccuracies in things like the SPDIF interface. This is a measurable phenomenon, and is greatly minimized in some of the highest-end CD transports, like this one

As for what tubes can do that equivalent solid states cannot? See here. Tube amplifiers of equivalent power give far greater voltage swings, and moreover, clip far more gently than solid-states.

These can be reproduced without tubes more reliably, consistently, and cheaper.

Eee? The point is not to produce distortion. The point is that while tubes produce more distortion, it is even-order harmonics, and that the ear is far less sensitive to it, such that there is less "effective" distortion than the small amounts of odd-order produced by a solid state, to which the ear is far more sensitive. Tests show that 0.5% odd-order THD is easily heard by the ear, but that a few integral percentage points of even-order are necessary for detection.

And you are a pregnant teenage mother with a history of ear infections _and_ asthma? If not, you can't hear that waste of audio spectrum. Your dog might appreciate it, however.

Your point was that Vinyl had compressed frequency response. It does not. It may have compressed dynamic range, but that's another point. Whether or not humans can hear 30+ kHz frequencies is not a closed question -- why does SACD and DVDA spec out to 100 kHz? Surely they are not meant for my dog?

Another point: better frequency response allows for higher-order noise-shaping algorithms that do far less damage to the high frequencies that humans are proven to be able to hear. (20 kHz)

Jitter: I am referring to general clocking inaccuracies in things like the SPDIF interface. This is a measurable phenomenon, and is greatly minimized in some of the highest-end CD transports, like this one

As for what tubes can do that equivalent solid states cannot? See here. Tube amplifiers of equivalent power give far greater voltage swings, and moreover, clip far more gently than solid-states.

It appears that they also have some kind of downloadable music format; the player for it apparently checks to see if the CD is present. Their website is maddeningly vague (understandably) and, to add insult to injury, it requires Flash. But there's a mention of using "Microsoft's DRM technology for music downloads".

I think the experts raise some valid points in the end of the article about poor sound quality not necessarily being excusable. But then, I'm a musician, so I may have different views on the matter.

It was the article I have been waiting someone to write. With all the attention the mass media has given to MP3, no one has really brought up the fact that MP3s simply suck as far as sound quality is concerned. Just because most people don't pay much attention, doesn't mean it is OK to sacrifice quality. I'm really quite surprised that this story appeared in mainstream press. It reads like an article you would find in Stereophile .

Most people think that they can't hear good sound. Fact is, they just never have. If more people would invest in quality audio components from companies like NAD and Paradigm, they would find better sound really does improve the enjoyment of the music, and can be quite affordable.

Flat speakers (aka electrostatic speakers), though not exactly mainstream, aren't unusual in the audiophile world. If you're really curious, you might check out Magnepan or MartinLogan or Quad. Also try looking for reviews at Stereophile. There used to be a user-review site at www.audioreview.com, but it's not resolving for me so maybe they're offline at the moment.
--

The most important thing is that speakers be positioned properly and mounted on rigid stands. Speaker positioning is a large topic that I can't go into depth here but there are many excellent articles on the web (use Google). Important things to remember are that corners are never a good spot for speakers. The stands should be heavy (most can be filled with sand or lead shot) and mounted on adjustable spikes. The spikes are adjustable so you can match the contours of your floor (which is never perfectly flat). This allows you to set the stands so when you put your hand on top of the speaker and try to wiggle it the speaker will not move. This is important as if the speaker can wiggle than some energy will be lost. Any setup can get you 90% of the way there, but in high performance audio it's that last 10% where all the action is (and your ears/brain can really tell the difference). Trust me on this one, spending some bucks on nice rigid speaker stands with spikes on the bottom (use floor protectors under them if you have a hardwood floor) makes a big difference, it's not just cosmetic.

Subwoofers also need careful placement. While your brain cannot localize deep bass, improper placement can cause phase cancellation with the other speakers which creates comb filtering that sounds bad. Many subwoofers have phase adjustment but there is no substitute for proper placement in the first place.

In short, it's not worth spending a lot of money on good audio equipment if you don't bother to learn to set it up properly. Spending a few days with trial and error speaker placement, using your favorite and best sounding CD for reference, can make all the difference.

Stereophile, a magazine dedicated to ridiculously expensive audio reproduction equipment, has some nice articles on low/zero cost "tweaks" (such as speaker placement) that can greatly improve the sound of your system. Some of it may sound pretty tweaky, and some of it is, but by and large it is sound advice (no pun intended). Search their archives for "Fine Tunes"

Burris

"Why Professional 1-Bit Sigma-Delta Conversion is a Bad Idea", Stanley P. Lipshitz and John Vanderkooy, University of Waterloo

This is a mathematical proof that SACD (i.e. 1-bit sigma-delta conversion) is the wrong approach. It is better to stick with standard sampling technology--though with a greater sampling frequency and more bits/sample than used by CDs (i.e. DVD-Audio). Lipshitz and Vanderkooy are well-respected applied mathematicians.

The paper is available as AES preprint #5188, but at a charge. There is a brief write up about it in Stereophile at http://www.stereophile.com/shownews.cgi?860, which also discusses some related issues.

See also comment #211.

The controversy is far from resolved. It's perhaps cold comfort to audiophiles, but the always-trenchant David Chesky reminded all in attendance that record labels like his, which specialize in jazz and classical recordings, are as unlikely to use watermarking as pirates are to mass-produce copies of such labels' recordings. As he put it, the stuff that's going to be hammered hard with watermarks is so nasty that "you could mark it with a lawnmower and never hear the difference."

Rockport Capella sells for around $60.000 I belive. Go get some stereophile and see for yourself how can you spend 1/2 mil on a hi-fi system.