Vaf DC-7 vs. Krix Equinox vs. Mission M52s
DataB
I am looking at spending as little over $2K as I can for a CD player,
an amp and speakers (stereo). Thus, I figure, about $1K on the
speakers, $500 on the CD and, oh, I don't know, about $700 on the
amp..... O.K., a little over $2K.....
At the moment, as far as I can see, I have three options. I don't want
to assemble the speakers...
Vaf DC-7 - can't hear these unless I go home to ADL - I live SYD north
shore
Krix Equinox - need to also buy stands for these - 1 frowny face
already
Mission M52s - these are on special at my local guy (pymble hifi) for
$999 from $1499.....
Can anyone recommend or know anything about these 3 speakers? I listen
to lots of different kinds of music, but rock, classical, vocals and
dance music would be a good indication!
The room is aucoustically bad..... Timber floors and only about 3.5m x
3.5m.....about 9ft ceilings....thus, from what I am reading, I don't
need that much bass....and because of this, I am unsure as to how much
top-end "brightness" I need....
I guess I want good clean music - fast bass, smooth mid range - I
notice both the Krix and Vaf options have 130mm cones - 2 on the VAF,
1 on the Krix.
The Misson option has a larger cone - not sure how big.
Do smaller cones indicated faster, cleaner bass?
Am a bit perplexed at the moment. I just want a nice, clean sounding
(warm?) stereo setup.
Cheers,
AB
Phil Allison
"DataB"
> The room is aucoustically bad..... Timber floors and only about 3.5m x
> 3.5m.....about 9ft ceilings....
>
> Am a bit perplexed at the moment. I just want a nice, clean sounding
> (warm?) stereo setup.
>
** Carpet the floor, hang lots of stuff on the walls.
Forget buying *any* speakers or amp until you have.
Buy some nice headphones - maybe.
........... Phil
El Bastardo
DataB wrote:
> I am looking at spending as little over $2K as I can for a CD player,
> an amp and speakers (stereo). Thus, I figure, about $1K on the
> speakers, $500 on the CD and, oh, I don't know, about $700 on the
> amp..... O.K., a little over $2K.....
I would recommend:
Amplifier
---------
I assume that you are only interested in 2-channel, and for around $700,
you can pick up some semi-decent gear. I would recommend budgeting for
more, if you can stretch it.
I see that Duratone are running out their Rotel RA-1060 2x60 stock at
$799 (http://www.duratone.com.au/dura.htm). It's a good little amp, and
I assume that closer Rotel dealers may also be reducing the prices on
this. See if you can stretch your budget to the RA-1062 however (RRP of
$1200, but haggle).
Otherwise, try the NAD C350, for about $799, or the NAD C320 BEE.
CD Player
---------
I know your budget is $500, but I would *strongly* urge you fork out a
little extra and try the Rotel RCD-1072. You can pick this little beauty
up for around $750 if you haggle. I got one of these a few weeks ago,
and it is superb. If you can match this with the Rotel RA-1062 that I
mentioned above, then you will be in 2-channel heaven (see
http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/Rotel-RA1062-RCD1072.html
for a review on just this combination).
Otherwise, there's the NAD C541i, which has some of the same features of
the RCD-1072 (such as HDCD decoding).
Speakers
--------
Difficult to recommend a good pair of speakers for around $1000.
I've been researching Paradigm speakers lately, and found this review
for the Phantom: http://www.eastwoodhifi.com.au/phantom_3.htm. It's
listed at $1200, but you can probably haggle them down.
Otherwise, I would recommend listening to the B&W DM602 s3, which lists
for around $1200 (but haggle 'em down, yadda yadda yadda). These are
bookshelf speakers, but they have quite a decent sound, surprising bass
extension, and pretty good imaging. If you decide to go multi-channel,
then these would make excellent rear speakers, and you can move to much
better fronts.
As always, listen before you buy.
-- Geoff
Steve Batt
"El Bastardo" <ew...@dogwater.org> wrote in message
news:kHd6d.7328$5O5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
$1000 speakers, try to audition a pair of Castle Durhams, RRp is bang on the
$1000 mark, they are bookshelf speaker, but you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Steve
DataB
The B&W speakers you mention have a few awards going their way.......
require speaker stands unfortunately.........
Has anyone heard anything about Harmon Kardon CDs and Amps? From
memory (like 10 years ago) they had a pretty good reputation.
And Phil, well, I really don't want to cover over my beautiful 1920s
timber floors..... you can't tell me that Amp and speaker
manufacturers have not thought about hardwood floors????? - On this
note, has anyone heard the PM3 louderspeaker from Subsonic? They have
tuning switches on the front of them - one 4/8 ohm switch, one for
small/large room, one for hard/soft room (ie. timber floor vs.
carpet)........
Cheers,
AB
Phil Allison
>
> And Phil, well, I really don't want to cover over my beautiful 1920s
> timber floors.....
** Then * YOU * really don't want hi-fi sound.
> you can't tell me that Amp and speaker
> manufacturers have not thought about hardwood floors?????
** Not *ever* their problem.
The listening room is totally out of their control.
But your comment is noted - as possibly the STUPIDEST ever seen on this
NG.
ROT(carpeted)FLMAO ......
............... Phil
Marky
"DataB" <abam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6cd7b21f.04092...@posting.google.com...
> Thanks for the info Geoff......
>
> The B&W speakers you mention have a few awards going their way.......
> require speaker stands unfortunately.........
>
> Has anyone heard anything about Harmon Kardon CDs and Amps? From
> memory (like 10 years ago) they had a pretty good reputation.
>
> And Phil, well, I really don't want to cover over my beautiful 1920s
> timber floors..... you can't tell me that Amp and speaker
> manufacturers have not thought about hardwood floors????? - On this
Well, alteratively you could use a nice thick rug in front of the speakers,
this would be better than nothing and some of your nice floorboards will
still be visible.
Public Image Ltd
> CD Player
> ---------
>
> I know your budget is $500, but I would *strongly* urge you fork out a
> little extra and try the Rotel RCD-1072. You can pick this little beauty
> up for around $750 if you haggle. I got one of these a few weeks ago,
> and it is superb.
I thought RRP was around $1400. Who's doing it that cheap?
> Otherwise, there's the NAD C541i, which has some of the same features of
> the RCD-1072 (such as HDCD decoding).
That model is getting old, and has been superseded by the C542. The
tweakers at audioasylum seem to be at a loss for components to upgrade
on the C542, which I interpret as a good sign :-) As a general rule,
NAD's top CD player will be considerably cheaper than Rotel's
equivalent, and has been for some time. Whether that is reflected in
sound quality or not seems to be a matter of taste.
Tat Chan
> El Bastardo <ew...@dogwater.org> wrote in message news:<kHd6d.7328$5O5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
>
>
>>CD Player
>>---------
>>
>>I know your budget is $500, but I would *strongly* urge you fork out a
>>little extra and try the Rotel RCD-1072. You can pick this little beauty
>>up for around $750 if you haggle. I got one of these a few weeks ago,
>>and it is superb.
>
>
> I thought RRP was around $1400. Who's doing it that cheap?
>
The RRP was dropped to $899 a few months back.
> That model is getting old, and has been superseded by the C542. The
> tweakers at audioasylum seem to be at a loss for components to upgrade
> on the C542, which I interpret as a good sign :-)
one can tweak it, but does it actually make an audible difference?
;)
Oat
Hi, a word of warning about Phil in case you are not yet aware, he is
"unique" so don't get worked up over him.
Have you considered second hand? At your price range, the second-hand
market will give you a lot more buying power.
Ive only heard the Mission and DC-X/7. They are both good speakers,
I'd probably prefer the mission for its smoother sound especially with
what you like. The bookshelf speakers will sound really good in a room
of that size but you'd have to cost in the stand. Bookshelf speakers
will fill your room with music while a floorstander might be a little
overwhelming for a room of that size.
The new Harmon Kardon has good reviews but I've never heard of them.
The Cambridge Audio has been getting good praises from users as well
as a cheap dvd players by pioneer or sony. If you are going to mix n'
match cdp & amp then it would be advisible to listen to them in that
particular config, else NAD, Marantz are good value imo.
re speaker cone: yep, usually smaller cones will produce a tighter and
a cleaner bass as it doesn't go as deep or move as much air(fuller
sound).
finally, have fun(demo) don't let it be a chore!
TT
: timber floors..... you can't tell me that Amp and speaker
: manufacturers have not thought about hardwood floors?????
: Cheers,
: AB
You have two choices then.
1) Use another room with better dampening.
2) A nice set of headphones.
BTW if you are really that uninterested in "creating" a good
listening environment then save your money and invest in a
good MP3 player or Sony minidisc ;-)
Regards TT
PS I really hate it when I have to agree with Phil >:-(
roughplanet
news:2ruk4qF...@uni-berlin.de...
"DataB"
> > And Phil, well, I really don't want to cover over my beautiful 1920s
> > timber floors.....
> ** Then * YOU * really don't want hi-fi sound.
> > you can't tell me that Amp and speaker manufacturers have not thought
> > about hardwood floors?????
> ** Not *ever* their problem.
> The listening room is totally out of their control.
> But your comment is noted - as possibly the STUPIDEST ever seen on
> this NG.
Yep, that one takes the cake. Give the man a cigar. Can't you just see the
design team from Rotel, NAD, VAF, KRIX or MISSION wrestling with the
perplexing question of how to produce amps & speakers that will sound 'warm'
when used in rooms with 1920's timber floors?
I carpeted my 1950's timber floors to get that 'warm, clean sound'; I also
filled the room with furniture, paintings, heavy velvet drapes over the
windows etc. BEFORE I even thought about filling it with sound.
If you are really looking for advice, then do the same.You will save
yourself having to shell out heaps, when basic, good quality audio gear will
deliver everything you want PROVIDING the room is suitably treated.
To do otherwise is really stupid, unless, of course, it's the visual impact
that REALLY matters, and high fidelity is running a poor second.
ruff
> ROT(carpeted)FLMAO ......
>
>
>
>
> ............... Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
DataB
Thanks to all the people who have responded to my queries about my
possible speaker choices. You have made mention of some possible
choices and I thank the *helpful* participants for that.
However, due to a perfectly valid question about timber floors being
considered by speaker manufacturers (I know for a fact an Aussie mob
called Subsonic have considered this), I have been cut down, labelled
as "STUPID" by a certain rude individual on this usergroup and am now
deciding that I may go it alone.
Pity. Actually, it makes me start to question why I completed that
Honours degree in Information Technolgy all those years ago, studying
n-tier client/server architecture so that forums like this could
actually exist in the first place! The idea is that like minded
individuals can share ideas, not insult each other. It's amazing what
some gutless people will do hiding behind an ADSL connection.
Once again, thanks to all those who provided constructive feedback.
Cheers,
AB
Adam F
From your post, you would most likely find them a bit revealing though, bad
CDs hurt your ears more than with (similarly-priced) Missions and B&Ws (for
example). OTOH, with a nice recording the balance is juuuust right and the
tone is sweet. Think sennheiser 570s vs 590s (if you're familiar with
headphones) - most people advise the former for people with plenty of
less-than-perfect recordings (ie most pop and rock IME) because the latter
are just too revealing of flaws. I can also recommend JM Labs' lower-end
Cobalts for fine reproduction on a budget.
Amp - I have a Rega Brio and can't praise it enough - it is well-balanced,
punchy and relatively cheap (~$900 new, I got an old model NOS for $300!).
I have a pioneer stable-platter CDP but would second the NAD
recommendation - through my system even an old 521 sounds great and now
costs peanuts (tho their transports/remotes etc aren't the best-engineered
or longest-lived).
IMHO the suggested Rotel + Rotel + VAF combo = headache unless you're
playing a VERY good recording, when it can shine.
If it were me I'd put at least one "smooth" product in the chain -
mission/paradigm/B&W speakers, rega amp or NAD cdp. I suppose I'll be flamed
for this, but IME these products are designed with priorities other than
ultimate fidelity in mind.
//Adam F
PS I like the advice about the rug, and don't let PA get to you, he just
thinks everyone should have a fully-padded room like his...
"DataB" <abam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6cd7b21f.04092...@posting.google.com...
Phil Allison
"DataB",
>
> Thanks to all the people who have responded to my queries about my
> possible speaker choices. You have made mention of some possible
> choices and I thank the *helpful* participants for that.
>
** Only real dickheads help people do STUPID things.
Only complete fools then thank them for it.
> However, due to a perfectly valid question about timber floors being
> considered by speaker manufacturers (I know for a fact an Aussie mob
> called Subsonic have considered this),
** The fool knows not one jot of what he speaks.
> I have been cut down, labelled
> as "STUPID" by a certain rude individual on this usergroup and am now
> deciding that I may go it alone.
** DataB is far worse than merely stupid.
> Actually, it makes me start to question why I completed that
> Honours degree in Information Technolgy all those years ago,
* So DataB is another IT puke - classic.
> studying
> n-tier client/server architecture so that forums like this could
> actually exist in the first place!
** Shame you never studied electronics engineering , acoustics or audio.
The real sciences to tough for your tiny brain ??
> The idea is that like minded
> individuals can share ideas, not insult each other.
** Whose mind is yours like then - DataB ??
What sort of mind rejects expert advice as rudely as you just did ?
A closed shut one I suspect.
> It's amazing what
> some gutless people will do hiding behind an ADSL connection.
>
** I am not hiding behind anything.
> Once again, thanks to all those who provided constructive feedback.
** More insults form a pig ignorant IT jerk.
Bet he writes code for Telstra's billing section.
................. Phil
paul packer
<phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>** Only real dickheads help people do STUPID things.
>
> Only complete fools then thank them for it.
>** The fool knows not one jot of what he speaks.
>** DataB is far worse than merely stupid.
> * So DataB is another IT puke - classic.
>** Shame you never studied electronics engineering , acoustics or audio.
>
> The real sciences to tough for your tiny brain ??
>** Whose mind is yours like then - DataB ??
>
> What sort of mind rejects expert advice as rudely as you just did ?
>
> A closed shut one I suspect.
> ** More insults form a pig ignorant IT jerk.
>
> Bet he writes code for Telstra's billing section.
>
>
>
>
>................. Phil
Ever wonder why people avoid you at parties, Phil?
Phil Allison
"paul packer"
>
> Ever wonder why people avoid you at parties, Phil?
** Still living in that caravan with NO speakers - arsehole ?
Or is it a jail cell.
............. Phil
TT
Get some nice medication back into yourself and it will all be a lot nicer.
The men in the white coats with the net are *really* your friends. Go with
them and you will feel a lot better - soon.
SS
Phil Allison
"TT"
> >
> Phil, the bottle has a child proof lid - press down and then twist.
** To pissed to see this post - arsehole ????
" ' Interconnects for Rotel ? '
21- 9 2004
"paul packer"
I should have made it clear that I was referring only to
interconnects, as I don't use speakers at all. (Headphones only). "
........... Phil
TT
What you must realise that by being a successful uni graduate you have done
something that Phil tried and failed at. He did last nearly two years though
before they worked out he was a total waste of space. So good on ya' for
succeeding.
BTW what do you mean by "hiding behind ADSL"? I have ADSL and I am not
hiding? Or are you referring to Phil going through his German news server?
Regards TT
TT
before a heavy night on the turps ;-)
Your post "To pissed to see this post - arsehole" should have used the
word "TOO" meaning a lot of or overly.
Phil your grammar and spelling isn't *TOO* clear if I could go *TO* that
extent *TO* point it out *TO* you!!
SS
Phil Allison
"TT" = drunk + arsehole
>
> "DataB"
> >
> > Thanks to all the people who have responded to my queries about my
> > possible speaker choices. You have made mention of some possible
> > choices and I thank the *helpful* participants for that.
>
>
done
> something that Phil tried and failed at.
1. I did not fail any Uni course.
2. DataB is a prime example of the thousands of mindless idiots that have
got worthless IT degrees.
Question for DataB: Why is "Computer Science" called that when is has not
about computers and is not a science.
> He did last nearly two years though
> before they worked out he was a total waste of space.
** There is no lie to malicious for TT ( aka The Grease Monkey ) to post.
>
> BTW what do you mean by "hiding behind ADSL"? I have ADSL and I am not
> hiding? Or are you referring to Phil going through his German news
server?
>
** The one dishing out the gratuitous insults while hiding himself is
DataB.
Bound to be one of Telstra's puke.
.......... Phil
Phil Allison
Francis Xavier Holden
>Hi,
>
>I am looking at spending as little over $2K as I can for a CD player,
>an amp and speakers (stereo). Thus, I figure, about $1K on the
>speakers, $500 on the CD and, oh, I don't know, about $700 on the
>amp..... O.K., a little over $2K.....
I've posted these bits before. Its still good advice. So I'm posting
again.
=====
I noticed that the DSE Two Channel Amp is back on sale for $146. I
reckon at this price with the addition of a cheap cd/dvd player - say
$100 and then with the M6 kit from TheLoudspeakerkit company at $499
you could have yourself a pretty bloody good entry system that set up
in the right way in a well damped room would outperform systems
costing thousands more.
So amp= $146 = 80watts per channel
cd/dvd commodity item = ~$100
Speakers = M6 @ $499 from www.theloudspeakerkit.com
Get a few cables tossed in for free somewhere along the line.
For about less than ~$750 you will have a sound that audiophools who
spend thousands more and whose musical tastes extend only to Elton
John Greatest Hits - or Meatloaf revived can only dream about.
===
==
Just as there are a million stories in the Naked City there are also a
million ways to set up your speakers. Although the Golden Rule is a
good set of "principles" for getting a good sound out of speakers it
is better to treat the Golden Rules as principles rather than hard and
fast measurements.
That is - think in triangles and get your speakers out from the walls
are the general principles. Another set of principles is to try and
get the tweeter/s about ear height. Even these rules can be violated
successfully. I (and many others) have one room with a set of speakers
bang up against a wall, two feet apart on their side kicked in and I
listen about a metre away - great sound.
Try your speakers about a metre apart and as far from each wall as
possible with your listening position about a meter or so in front of
speakers. You will be surprised how good it can sound. (However it
might sound bad). Experiment from there. I even suggest starting with
speakers bang up together then gradually moving them out from each
other. Get some other idiot to move speakers around while you sit
still and listen, should cost you less than a slab.
Dont forget to damp the room down as much as possible. A simple
temporary way to do this is to prop or hang up about 6 doonas around
the room. You can props them up against walls with brooms and sticks
for a day. Damping can even make shitty boom box speakers sound better
than most expensive set ups that are undamped.
===
======
GETTING INTO HI(er) FI WITHOUT SPENDING TOO MUCH.
Get a decent second hand amp.
Buy a second hand CD player for <$50 or buy a good enough walkman CD
player and you can plug it into the amp and also have a portable CD
player.
The only real difference in CD players these days is in features,
reliability, visual styling or audiophile snobbery. Of all of these
the last will be the most important to most people. If you can bypass
this you will always save yourself dollars.
Throw the rest of the money into some Australian speakers and having a
small amount of money for fiddling with your room. Even with the
crappiest system you will always get a better sound from an hour or
two or three fiddling with the room and set up rather than spending
money on anything. In simple words - damp the room down until you feel
you've gone too far - then damp it down again. Then fiddle with
speaker placement and listening position.
You'll get more bang for buck by getting a ckd type (Completely
Knocked Down) speaker kit. You can listen to music on the walkman
while putting the kit together over about 3 nights of an hour or so an
night.
Be warned - this approach will have the audiphools competing to shame
you into spending more money. Oh and people will make it much more
complicated but it isn't really hard to get very good sound on a
budget, sound that will be objectively and subjectively better than
achieved by those who have spent 4, 5 or 10 times what you have.
DIFFERENCES IN CD PLAYERS
In most cases most people won't hear a difference in reasonable CD
players and especially in properly designed tests almost no one will
hear differences better than chance. Those differences heard will be
minute. The difference between a reasonable walkman and a $600 machine
probably wont be detectable and very likely not even very different
from a $12,000 CD machine.
The task is to decide if this small difference that may, or may not,
exist, is worth $500 or $11,800 to the buyer. For some people the
inherent brand value will be worth it for their own inner peace others
will buy what impresses friends or imagined peer groups on the net or
elsewhere - its no different to hair shampoos, underwear, cars,
sugar, salt, watches. Its a lot like watches, if it tells the time
and can be easily seen and wears ok all the rest is personal
preference or brand snobbery or a jewelry decision. Look at the price
points and sales bullshit for watches.
Getting back to a starter system. This is an area where most people
are ripped off.
I dont really care if a seasoned player wants to spend $8,000 on
speakers and $6,000 on a pre / amp and $4,000 on a CD player and
squillions on a loopy turntable with titanium flywheels if they have
that sort of loot to splash around.
There is no question at all that I can set some one up for about
$1,000 with a system that will sound as good as most $3,000 - $6,000
systems around. I and others have done it plenty of times. Don't
forget this leaves the punter with the difference in their pocket
which they can go out and spend on music, instead of being stuck with
only the 5 re masters of Dark Side of the Moon and / or <sigh> The
Eagles re releases or they can spend the loot on drugs and sex and
rock and roll OR and this is my IMPORTANT point - they can go out and
"upgrade" their system with the hifi sales reps recommendation. All
that happened is: they still have the money, and at worst they have a
perfectly good second hand amp and cd player spare.
However when some newbie comes along and says CLEARLY that they have a
limited budget and want a reasonable entry sound then I believe the
denizens of this group or anywhere else have an obligation to give
good advice not based on personal biases or at least state the biases
up front.
To repeat, that means:
A FEW SIMPLE RULES
Believe people when they name their budget.
Spend most of the money on the speakers.
Listen to speakers wherever you can - speakers vary a lot and personal
preference is important.
Best bang for buck will be assembling a kit of choice from Australian
made speaker kits.
Next bang for buck will be second hand good nick australian speakers.
Next will be new built australian speakers
Next or equal will be second hand imported speakers.
Get a good second hand amp to drive speakers based on speaker makers
recommendation, chances are it will be given to you free or cost less
than $200.
Get a good second hand CD player. Pay no more than $75, or get a new
or second hand walkman, or get a new DVD/cd/MP3 player for around
$200.
You'll get more value out of stuffing around with damping your room
and positioning speakers than you will from spending more $$ on
sources.
Now in my defence of this advice - even if my advice is wrong (and I
dont believe it is) you will still not be out of pocket very much and
will be able to afford that spiffy amp or CD player IF IT IS NEEDED.
A NON COMMERCIAL USEFUL WEB SITE
You will find TNT audio a delightfully human site with a wide mixture
of advice and information. It ranges from the cable cabal crazies and
mad mystic tweakers to straight forward advice on eminently doable
cheapskate improvements. F'instance their DIY stands are a gem.
They do however have great advice on building up a decent system
through second hand components. The occasionally strange english from
the Italian site owners and tweakers is a source of enjoyment rather
than an impediment and anyway is usually more able to be understood
than the stuff found on most english language newsgroups.
Reading this guide to setting up a second hand system is MOSTLY bloody
good advice:
www.tnt-audio.com/guide/index.html
AUSTRALIAN SPEAKERS
Here is an incomplete list of Australian speaker makers and some kits.
Others may care to flesh this out with manufacturers I've missed.
www.acousticconcepts.com.au/
www.aksaonline.com/
www.ambiencespeakers.com.au/
www.audiosoundlabs.com.au
www.duntech.com.au
www.electrostaticspeakers.com/
www.eraudio.com.au/
www.asm.com.au
www.equinoxaudio.com.au
www.krix.com.au
www.legendspeakers.com.au
www.theloudspeakerkit.com/
www.noteperfect.com.au/
www.orpheusaudio.com.au
www.osbornloudspeakers.com.au
www.perigee.com.au
www.revolutionloudspeakers.com.au/
www.spot.com.au/aaron
www.sonique.com.au
www.subsonic.com.au
www.vaf.com.au
www.wescomponents.com/SSS/
www.whatmough.com.au/
www.whise.com.au/
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/gradds/Argos%20Loudspeakers.asp
http://users.chariot.net.au/~pennington/
http://users.gravity.net.au/sonicart/loudspeakers.htm
http://users.chariot.net.au/~vsound/vsound/
www.caliph.net.au/~panda/bocchtech/bocchinoaudio/bocchaudshort.htm
E&OE
OMDG
..
F X Holden
TT
:
: "TT" = drunk + arsehole
:
*DID NOT COMPLETE* = *FAIL* i.e. you *failed* to pass, you
did not go the distance, you dropped out early, you *failed*
to complete the course, you tried and *failed*, DNF,
unfinished, lacking, lost the plot etc.
If I am in any way erroneous please set me straight?
BTW it is patently obvious to even the most casual observer
here that you covet a degree (in anything) and despise
anyone with qualifications!
Try here again
http://www.instantdegrees.com/mainframepage.html if you like
I will pass the hat around and take up a collection for you.
If you still can't afford it ;-)
SS
Tat Chan
> "Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> news:2rvr1dF...@uni-berlin.de...
> :
>> : 1. I did not fail any Uni course.
>> :
>> :
> *DID NOT COMPLETE* = *FAIL* i.e. you *failed* to pass, you
> did not go the distance, you dropped out early, you *failed*
> to complete the course, you tried and *failed*, DNF,
> unfinished, lacking, lost the plot etc.
>
> If I am in any way erroneous please set me straight?
>
uhm, not that I am going in to bat for PA here, but
DID NOT COMPLETE != FAIL
one can only fail a uni course if they actually sat the exam and did not
get the marks required to pass. You can't fail if you pulled out of a
course (though nowadays if you pull out after the cut off date, you will
incur a HECS penalty).
"failed to pass" because they did not sit the exam as they pulled out of
the course does not equate to "failing a course".
paul packer
<fxho...@softhome.net> wrote:
>I noticed that the DSE Two Channel Amp is back on sale for $146. I
>reckon at this price with the addition of a cheap cd/dvd player - say
>$100 and then with the M6 kit from TheLoudspeakerkit company at $499
>you could have yourself a pretty bloody good entry system that set up
>in the right way in a well damped room would outperform systems
>costing thousands more.
Yes, unless you happen to want to plug in headphones.
TT
"Tat Chan" <le_kin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2s12v6F...@uni-berlin.de...
In that context, yes you are correct. That is why I tried
to expand on the definition with my post to explain the
context I viewed it in. It was still a waste of time and
recourses for two years.
BTW What is the politically correct term for a Uni drop out
now?
Besides I was just trying to give the new poster an insight
into why PA abhors anyone's qualifications.
Regards TT
Phil Allison
"Tat Chan"
> TT wrote:
>
> > "Phil Allison"
> > :
> >> : 1. I did not fail any Uni course.
> >> :
> > *DID NOT COMPLETE* = *FAIL* i.e. you *failed* to pass, you
> > did not go the distance, you dropped out early, you *failed*
> > to complete the course, you tried and *failed*, DNF,
> > unfinished, lacking, lost the plot etc.
> >
> > If I am in any way erroneous please set me straight?
> >
>
> uhm, not that I am going in to bat for PA here, but
>
> DID NOT COMPLETE != FAIL
>
> one can only fail a uni course if they actually sat the exam and did not
> get the marks required to pass. You can't fail if you pulled out of a
> course (though nowadays if you pull out after the cut off date, you will
> incur a HECS penalty).
>
> "failed to pass" because they did not sit the exam as they pulled out of
> the course does not equate to "failing a course".
** As TT well knows, I was enrolled in the honours level Electrical
Engineering course at the University of Sydney in 1971/72. All my exams
were passed with either a credit or honours. By the end of the second year I
was forced to discontinue for personal and financial reasons. Basically, I
had to get a job to earn an income.
I have worked in professional audio as a tech / designer ever since.
Since 1980 I have been running my own business in that area.
............ Phil
Phil Allison
"paul packer"
Francis Xavier Holden
>
> >I noticed that the DSE Two Channel Amp is back on sale for $146. I
> >reckon at this price with the addition of a cheap cd/dvd player - say
> >$100 and then with the M6 kit from TheLoudspeakerkit company at $499
> >you could have yourself a pretty bloody good entry system that set up
> >in the right way in a well damped room would outperform systems
> >costing thousands more.
>
> Yes, unless you happen to want to plug in headphones.
** No speakers allowed in that hostel you live in ???
........... Phil
Public Image Ltd
> 3.5m.....about 9ft ceilings....thus, from what I am reading, I don't
> need that much bass....and because of this, I am unsure as to how much
> top-end "brightness" I need....
The bass-treble balance is _largely_ set by your speakers. You don't
sound like you can fit in bassy floorstanders anyway, and it is hardly
likely that any monitors you put in are going to be too much. I would
still avoid anything too anaemic, like Bose :-) The M6s mentioned are
pretty good value if you can handle some minor assembly work. You
could even get away with upgrading in future simply by adding a sub,
or preferably two.
What some of the "fix the room" devotees are failing to mention is
that the most noticeable impact of doing this is often on soundstage
and imaging, and those qualities don't sound like big concerns of
yours at the moment. Yes, sonic reflections can cause both holes and
bumps across the frequency range, but the effect is rarely as if
someone has simply yanked on one of the tone controls.
Public Image Ltd
>
> DIFFERENCES IN CD PLAYERS
> In most cases most people won't hear a difference in reasonable CD
> players and especially in properly designed tests almost no one will
> hear differences better than chance. Those differences heard will be
> minute. The difference between a reasonable walkman and a $600 machine
> probably wont be detectable and very likely not even very different
> from a $12,000 CD machine.
>
> or second hand walkman, or get a new DVD/cd/MP3 player for around
> $200.
This is the only bit I have a problem with. Many commodity DVD players
have an excruciating top end, and the effects are not subtle. This is
most noticeable as cymbals, etc, either break up and turn to noise, or
roll-off in an unnatural fashion. Some of these players redefine the
concept of digital harshness. If warmth is the goal, avoid at all
costs.
Phil Allison
"TT" = malicious liar
> In that context, yes you are correct. That is why I tried
> to expand on the definition with my post to explain the
> context I viewed it in. It was still a waste of time and
> recourses for two years.
** The context TT views all thing in the the mindset of a psychopath.
>
> Besides I was just trying to give the new poster an insight
> into why PA abhors anyone's qualifications.
** TT has the usual fuckwits ideas about qualifications.
......... Phil
Tat Chan
> ** As TT well knows, I was enrolled in the honours level Electrical
> Engineering course at the University of Sydney in 1971/72. All my exams
> were passed with either a credit or honours.
Hmm, back in those days, the first two years of the EE degree would have
been predominantly maths and physics courses, with the odd bit of
circuit theory thrown in?
> By the end of the second year I
> was forced to discontinue for personal and financial reasons. Basically, I
> had to get a job to earn an income.
Sorry to hear that.
> I have worked in professional audio as a tech / designer ever since.
>
> Since 1980 I have been running my own business in that area.
>
does that explain why you deplore some of the kooky, flawed designs (and
ideas!) that only exist in the home audio industry?
Btw, since you are in the pro audio biz, here's a question:
There was a recording studio in Annandale that used to be a factory (I
think Midnight Oil could have recorded there). A picture of the studio
was shown in last week's AFR. In the picture was a piano, some otehr
instruments and mics. All these on wooden parquet floors! Could that
have just been a rehearsal room? I thought a recording room would be an
enclosed sound booth.
Phil Allison
"Public Image Ltd"
>
> What some of the "fix the room" devotees are failing to mention is
> that the most noticeable impact of doing this is often on soundstage
> and imaging, and those qualities don't sound like big concerns of
> yours at the moment.
** The effect of damping a live listening room is to dramatically improve
EVERYTHING about the sound quality by REMOVING a totally unnecessary,
destructive and distracting continuous reverberation from the game.
If you are not concerned by this then you are not interested in hi-fi at
all !!!!
What you have just posted " PIL " suggests you have not the slightest idea
what good hi-fi sounds like or have never listened in a well damped room.
............ Phil
Tat Chan
I believe that after a certain price point (not as low as $75!) there
should be no differences in competently designed and manufactured CD
players. The transport and DAC bits would be cheap, but the analogue
components would be relatively expensive.
The power supply, reconstruction filter and analogue output stage would
be better in a more expensive player.
Having said that, I would like to participate in a blind, level matched,
time synched comparison between CD players of different prices.
Phil Allison
> Phil Allison wrote:
>
> > ** As TT well knows, I was enrolled in the honours level Electrical
> > Engineering course at the University of Sydney in 1971/72. All my exams
> > were passed with either a credit or honours.
>
> Hmm, back in those days, the first two years of the EE degree would have
> been predominantly maths and physics courses, with the odd bit of
> circuit theory thrown in?
>
** Not forgetting Chemistry 1, Workshop Technology at Sydney Tech on
Friday nights, a Tech Drawing course, 3 - 4 hour Physics and Chemistry
experimental sessions each week and Circuit Theory lectures and prac
sessions. Added up to 42 hours of class time a week, plus 5 hours for
lunch breaks, 7 - 8 hours travelling time, plus 15 to 20 hours home study
makes about 72 hours per week.
At each term break they though it fun to hand out long maths problem
assignments to return on the first day of the next term as well - with the
marks counting towards the year's results.
BTW There were no printed notes handed out - everything had to be hand
copied from * blackboards* or overhead projectors as the lecturers spoke. I
learned years later that this insane state of affairs was a result of the
fact that individual lecturers owned the copyright in their notes and would
not let the Uni print them.
>
> > By the end of the second year I
> > was forced to discontinue for personal and financial reasons. Basically,
I
> > had to get a job to earn an income.
>
> Sorry to hear that.
>
>
> > I have worked in professional audio as a tech / designer ever since.
> >
> > Since 1980 I have been running my own business in that area.
> >
>
> does that explain why you deplore some of the kooky, flawed designs (and
> ideas!) that only exist in the home audio industry?
>
** I also deplore the "flawed" designs in commercial equipment too.
>
> Btw, since you are in the pro audio biz, here's a question:
> There was a recording studio in Annandale that used to be a factory (I
> think Midnight Oil could have recorded there). A picture of the studio
> was shown in last week's AFR. In the picture was a piano, some otehr
> instruments and mics. All these on wooden parquet floors! Could that
> have just been a rehearsal room? I thought a recording room would be an
> enclosed sound booth.
>
** Recordings are often made in live sounding rooms - using natural
ambience is better than adding it artificially later.
BTW There is more to pro audio than the recording business.
........... Phil
TT
:
: "TT" = malicious liar
:
Who? Me?................ Where? When? You have even
confirmed what I said about your illustrious Uni experience
as being true. Where have I lied?
: > In that context, yes you are correct. That is why I
tried
: > to expand on the definition with my post to explain the
: > context I viewed it in. It was still a waste of time
and
: > recourses for two years.
:
:
: ** The context TT views all thing in the the mindset of a
psychopath.
:
This from someone that takes "Mien Kampf" to bed with him?
:
: >
: > Besides I was just trying to give the new poster an
insight
: > into why PA abhors anyone's qualifications.
:
:
: ** TT has the usual fuckwits ideas about qualifications.
:
Your opinion and you get to keep it. I admire people that
have struggled to attain qualifications and thus better
themselves.
:
:
: ......... Phil
:
SS
Phil Allison
"TT"
> "Phil Allison"
> : "TT" = malicious liar
>
> Who? Me?................ Where? When?
** Every post - including this one.
> You have even
> confirmed what I said about your illustrious Uni experience
> as being true.
** I said the direct opposite.
You are still lying.
> Where have I lied?
** Everywhere.
> : > In that context, yes you are correct. That is why I
> tried > to expand on the definition with my post to explain the
> : > context I viewed it in. It was still a waste of time
> and > recourses for two years.
> :
> :
> : ** The context TT views all thing in the the mindset of a
> psychopath.
> :
> This from someone that takes "Mien Kampf" to bed with him?
** More lies - there is no end to them.
> : >
> : > Besides I was just trying to give the new poster an
> insight into why PA abhors anyone's qualifications.
> :
> :
> : ** TT has the usual fuckwits ideas about qualifications.
> :
>
> Your opinion and you get to keep it.
** The whole planet knows TT is a fuckwit.
> I admire people that have struggled to attain qualifications and thus
better
> themselves.
** But TT does not know what a the term "qualification" means.
Just like his missus who thinks "acoustic" is something you play pool
with.
............. Phil
Kai
settled on the VAF DC-7 Gen 4.
Now, the prices for the Gen 4 range isn't up on the VAF website yet,
and they are more expensive than the range that's there, but there are
some substantial improvements to the sound.
I was _very_ close to putting down my hard-earned money on the Mission
speakers, I really liked their sound, however with the m5 range, I
don't like the styling. In Black with the graphite fronts, they looked
OK, but the speakers in the shop had some scratches and scuff marks on
the front, and it looked crap. Also, the shiney plastic will probably
date pretty quickly. I was looking at the m53 - with two drivers,
rather than the m52, but the sound should be fairly similar in
character.
I was also considering the m3 range - they had a larger sound (the
m35) and the styling of them is a bit less extreme, but they weren't
that clear in the midrange.
I then had the opportunity to be in Adelaide, and couldn't resist
going over and checking out the VAF DC range. I was fortunate to be
served by Simon, the guy who actually designed the Gen 4 range, and
also a Pink Floyd fan. I put on my test CD, and you should have seen
his grin when Time from Dark Side of the Moon came on =)
Anyway, to cut a long story short, both the missions and the VAF have
great sound for the money, but what nailed it for me was the stereo
imaging of the VAFs - I quite literally had to walk up to the front of
the room a couple of times to make sure the centre speaker wasn't on,
it was that convincing.
As mentioned previously, both of these speakers (m5 and DC-7) are
quite revealing, but I believe it's better to start out with something
that's accurate, and then you can more easily tweak the sound to suit.
I'm going to connect the speakers to a Yamaha amp (I haven't heard
them through a Yammy yet, only Marantz) but I'm confident that I'm
going to be able to get them to sound good (to my ears, at least =)
Anyway, VAF do offer a complete money-back guarantee - although there
is the hassle of shipping (which isn't too expensive anyway) and it's
also good to support an Aussie company... One other thing that put me
off the Missions was that they were available in the UK, where they
can be had for half what they retail for over here (after factoring in
exchange rates etc)
paul packer
Perhaps you'd like to tell us what you have against hostels. Not that
I've ever lived in one, but you seem obsessed about the subject. Bad
memories perhaps?
paul packer
<phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>** As TT well knows, I was enrolled in the honours level Electrical
>Engineering course at the University of Sydney in 1971/72. All my exams
>were passed with either a credit or honours. By the end of the second year I
>was forced to discontinue for personal and financial reasons. Basically, I
>had to get a job to earn an income.
Was your personality as pleasant then as it is now? If so I have a
better idea as to why you may have had to leave.
Phil Allison
"paul packer"
> Was your personality as pleasant then as it is now?
** Have you been a raving psycho all your life ??
............ Phil
Phil Allison
"paul packer" <
"Phil Allison"
> >>
> >> Yes, unless you happen to want to plug in headphones.
> >
> >
> >
> >** No speakers allowed in that hostel you live in ???
>
> Perhaps you'd like to tell us what you have against hostels. Not that
> I've ever lived in one, but you seem obsessed about the subject.
** I mentioned the word "hostel" exactly once.
Packer is totally paranoid about being found out.
The truth about him must be soooooooo bad.
............. Phil
Richard Goldsmith
> served by Simon, the guy who actually designed the Gen 4 range
**Would that be the same "Simon" formerly of Duntech? If so, some of the
speakers he designed during their flagging days were very nice indeed.
Public Image Ltd
>
> What you have just posted " PIL " suggests you have not the slightest idea
> what good hi-fi sounds like or have never listened in a well damped room.
That's funny; I'm inclined to the opposite view. If someone thinks
that the room impacts EVERYTHING, then it seems to me they may lack
listening discrimination.
Phil Allison
"Public Image Ltd"
> "Phil Allison"
> >
> > What you have just posted " PIL " suggests you have not the slightest
idea
> > what good hi-fi sounds like or have never listened in a well damped
room.
>
> That's funny; I'm inclined to the opposite view. If someone thinks
> that the room impacts EVERYTHING, then it seems to me they may lack
> listening discrimination.
** What you have just posted " PIL " again suggests you have not the
slightest idea what good hi-fi sounds like or have never listened in a well
damped room.
Ears have only a very limited abilty to "tune out the room".
This become ***astonishingly*** apparent when a lively room is converted
to well damped.
............. Phil
Matthew Kirkcaldie
Tat Chan <le_kin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Having said that, I would like to participate in a blind, level matched,
> time synched comparison between CD players of different prices.
I A/B'ed a Rotel RCD971 against a Pioneer cheapie I bought for my dad.
Picked it every time. Surprised even myself.
MK.
Phil Allison
"Matthew Kirkcaldie"
> Tat Chan
> > Having said that, I would like to participate in a blind, level matched,
> > time synched comparison between CD players of different prices.
>
> I A/B'ed a Rotel RCD971 against a Pioneer cheapie I bought for my dad.
> Picked it every time. Surprised even myself.
>
>
** But it was not a " ...... blind, level matched, time synched
comparison ...."
BTW
A just detectable difference does prove one is better than the other.
No detectable difference proves just that.
.................... Phil
Oat
between different CDP? why would you want 2 cdp playing time-synched
for??
Phil Allison
"Oat"
** Donkeys eat oats too - don't they?
But they draw the line at top posting their droppings.
.......... Phil
paul packer
<phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> BTW
>
> A just detectable difference does prove one is better than the other.
>
> No detectable difference proves just that.
>
>
>
>
>.................... Phil
Is this a new way of using the English language, Phil?
Phil Allison
"Phil Allison"
Correction:
BTW
A just detectable difference does NOT prove one is better than the other.
paul packer
<phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
>"paul packer"
>
>> Was your personality as pleasant then as it is now?
>
>
>** Have you been a raving psycho all your life ??
You didn't answer the question, Phil. How did you get on with your
fellow students? Be honest now.
Phil Allison
"paul packer"
"Phil Allison"
> >
> >> Was your personality as pleasant then as it is now?
> >
> >
> >** Have you been a raving psycho all your life ??
>
>
> You didn't answer the question, Phil.
** I do not respond to fake "questions" from malicious, pig ignorant,
raving psychos.
............. Phil
TT
> Just like his missus who thinks "acoustic" is something you play pool
> with.
>
>
>
>
> ............. Phil
>
>
she completes her masters ;-)
TT
Tat Chan
> how can you make such a conclusive statement when you have not compare
> between different CDP? why would you want 2 cdp playing time-synched
> for??
>
>
If there are apparent differences between the 2 players, the differences will be
pronounced and detectable if the players are time synched.
Human audio memory is short, and significant time differences between the
comparisons will result in an inaccurate comparison.
Btw, my earlier statement was in no way conclusive. I said "I would like to"
and not "I have to".
Oh, and I have done comparisons between CD players before but not blind, level
matched and time synched.
paul packer
<phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Phil Allison"
>
>Correction:
>
> BTW
>
> A just detectable difference does NOT prove one is better than the other.
>
> No detectable difference proves just that.
What? That one is better than the other? Try again, Phil.
A just detectable difference proves only that one is detecting a
difference. It may be imaginary. Assuming it's not, whether that
difference is an improvement is entirely subjective unless the
difference can be quantified as an improvement by measurement, such as
a lower distortion figure etc. Or is that what you were trying to say?
paul packer
Perhaps not, but that's no reason not to answer my question.
Arny Krueger
news:415bfb39...@news.iprimus.com.au
> A just detectable difference proves only that one is detecting a
> difference.
I prefer substituting the word perceiving for detecting.
>It may be imaginary.
Not if you use reliable listening test techniques.
>Assuming it's not, whether that
> difference is an improvement is entirely subjective unless the
> difference can be quantified as an improvement by measurement, such as
> a lower distortion figure etc.
At a nontrivial level of analytical depth, this would of course be the case.
However, if all things are considered, a difference can only be tested to
see if it is an improvement, if there is some kind of relevant absolute
reference. Hence, my interest in straight-wire bypass testing. Practically
speaking, this ends up being pretty much what you said.
Arny Krueger
news:2s2c9gF...@uni-berlin.de
Along with a number of others, I've done blind, level matched and
time-synched listening tests of CD players and reliably heard differences.
The Stereo Review CD player test article of the late 80s was the public
account of these tests.
Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?",
Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
Phil Allison
"Arny Krueger" = Born Again gobbledegook merchant
> "paul packer" = headphone listening, tent living fuckwit
>
> > A just detectable difference proves only that one is detecting a
> > difference.
>
> I prefer substituting the word perceiving for detecting.
** Who the fuck cares what Arny prefers ??
Does he prefer Camels to Women ??
> >It may be imaginary.
>
> Not if you use reliable listening test techniques.
>
** Errrr - if it is "detectable " is is by inference not imagined.
> >Assuming it's not, whether that
> > difference is an improvement is entirely subjective unless the
> > difference can be quantified as an improvement by measurement, such as
> > a lower distortion figure etc.
>
> At a nontrivial level of analytical depth, this would of course be the
case.
>
** Purest Krueger gobbledegook.
> However, if all things are considered, a difference can only be tested to
> see if it is an improvement, if there is some kind of relevant absolute
> reference.
** Pseudo scientific, psycho religious, born again egomaniac bullshite !!
A valid test ( but not the only valid test) of an audible improvement is if
the overwhelming percentage of listeners have the same preference.
> Hence, my interest in straight-wire bypass testing.
** Another pseudo-scientific piece of Yankee Double speak that has no
meaning.
What if the wire is bent a bit ??
Are all bets off ??
> Practically speaking, this ends up being pretty much what you said.
>
** But since neither fuckwit has the slightest what the other is on about
this last classic Kreugerism disappears up its own arse in a flash.
Ssssssuuuuuucccccchhhhhhhhhpppp.
............ Phil
Francis Xavier Holden
wrote:
>
>Along with a number of others, I've done blind, level matched and
>time-synched listening tests of CD players and reliably heard differences.
>The Stereo Review CD player test article of the late 80s was the public
>account of these tests.
>
>Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?",
>Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
Arny - that was nearly 20 years ago. I reckon your standard consumer
cd/dvd player has improved. Can you direct me to anything in the last
few years that looks at comparing low price cd/dvd players with high
price cd players?
..
F X Holden
Tat Chan
I would be interested to see an article like that as well! Though it probably
won't be from one of the audio industry mags ...
TT
made?
1) Religious zealot
2) Bestiality
3) Anal Fetishes
4) Racism
5) Egotism
Just to name a few. Any Psych Grads here?
SS
Phil Allison
"Francis Xavier Holden"
>
> Arny - that was nearly 20 years ago. I reckon your standard consumer
> cd/dvd player has improved.
** Wishful thinking. Making them cheaper has been the only commercial
pressure at the " standard consumer " end of things. The Sony CDP101 (
released 1983) has test performance that is still second to none - see
Arny's site for confirmation.
> Can you direct me to anything in the last
> few years that looks at comparing low price cd/dvd players with high
> price cd players?
** If any significant, audible difference existed - their makers would be
crowing to the high heavens about it.
Notice something - they are all dead silent.
CD recordings, however, have still got about 50 years to go to catch up
with the format's capabilities.
........... Phil
Phil Allison
"Tat Chan"
>
> I would be interested to see an article like that as well! Though it
probably
> won't be from one of the audio industry mags ...
** The fury that would cause among advertisers is more that the miserable
rags are worth.
......... Phil
TT
There's always AudioEnz ;-) Sorry I misread - I thought you said reliably
reproduce sales brochures as conclusive tests.
Regards TT
Tat Chan
> "Tat Chan" <le_kin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2s2g7iF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
>>I would be interested to see an article like that as well! Though it
>>probably won't be from one of the audio industry mags ...
>
>
> There's always AudioEnz ;-) Sorry I misread - I thought you said reliably
> reproduce sales brochures as conclusive tests.
>
Have you seen the "DBT/ABX" forum section over there? Shows what they think of
bias controlled testing!
TT
>
> "Francis Xavier Holden"
> >
> > Arny - that was nearly 20 years ago. I reckon your standard consumer
> > cd/dvd player has improved.
>
>
> ** Wishful thinking. Making them cheaper has been the only commercial
> pressure at the " standard consumer " end of things. The Sony CDP101 (
> released 1983) has test performance that is still second to none - see
> Arny's site for confirmation.
>
site as proof of what you say? You are truly a real piece of work. If only
Freud had lived long enough to see you at you full potential he would have
had 10 lifetimes of material!
> CD recordings, however, have still got about 50 years to go to catch up
> with the format's capabilities.
>
What a load of frogshit!!!! They have been at their potential for a while.
Do a search on JVCs XRCD or HDCD. They can't cram any more bitdepth on the
things!
>
>
> ........... Phil
>
Still haven't thrown that antique CD player out yet? What was the story
again it has only 1 DAC that is shared equally between the two channels and
thus degrades the sound or something like that from memory.
SS
Phil Allison
"TT"
"Phil Allison"
"Francis Xavier Holden"
> > >
> > > Arny - that was nearly 20 years ago. I reckon your standard consumer
> > > cd/dvd player has improved.
> >
> >
> > ** Wishful thinking. Making them cheaper has been the only commercial
> > pressure at the " standard consumer " end of things. The Sony CDP101 (
> > released 1983) has test performance that is still second to none - see
> > Arny's site for confirmation.
> >
> Eh? You malign and ridicule Arny in most posts and now you refer to his
> site as proof of what you say?
** His PC based test set up works OK.
Shame that he now imagines he has other expertise.
> > CD recordings, however, have still got about 50 years to go to catch
up
> > with the format's capabilities.
> >
> What a load of frogshit!!!! They have been at their potential for a
while.
** What a load of brainless Grease Monkey shit.
Not one commercial, music CD in a 1000 pushes the format anywhere near its
limit.
> >
> Still haven't thrown that antique CD player out yet? What was the story
> again it has only 1 DAC that is shared equally between the two channels
and
> thus degrades the sound or something like that from memory.
** TT really does live in a zoo and sleep on a pile of turds with an ugly
female monkey.
............ Phil
Oat
> ** Donkeys eat oats too - don't they?
>
> But they draw the line at top posting their droppings.
>
you are so unoriginal, boring, and hated you should think about a
career in politics. Go back to your cell and listen to those test
tones Phil.
paul packer
<phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Arny Krueger" = Born Again gobbledegook merchant
>> "paul packer" = headphone listening, tent living fuckwit
>>
>> > A just detectable difference proves only that one is detecting a
>> > difference.
>>
>> I prefer substituting the word perceiving for detecting.
>
>
>** Who the fuck cares what Arny prefers ??
>
> Does he prefer Camels to Women ??
Is that question relevant to the detection of audio differences, Phil?
Can't stay on the subject, can we?
>> >It may be imaginary.
>>
>> Not if you use reliable listening test techniques.
> ** Errrr - if it is "detectable " is is by inference not imagined.
Wrong again, Phil. A drunk may detect cockroaches coming out of the
wall, but that doesn't mean they exist. Just because the senses
apprehend, or seem to apprehend, the presence of something doesn't
mean that something exists.
>
>> >Assuming it's not, whether that
>> > difference is an improvement is entirely subjective unless the
>> > difference can be quantified as an improvement by measurement, such as
>> > a lower distortion figure etc.
>>
>> At a nontrivial level of analytical depth, this would of course be the
>case.
>
>** Purest Krueger gobbledegook.
Er, there's just a possibility you could be right there, Phil. For the
first time, mind.
>
>> However, if all things are considered, a difference can only be tested to
>> see if it is an improvement, if there is some kind of relevant absolute
>> reference.
>** Pseudo scientific, psycho religious, born again egomaniac bullshite !!
Not really, but I think the absolute reference is a given if the aim
is "straight wire with gain". The reference is of course low
distortion.
>A valid test ( but not the only valid test) of an audible improvement is if
>the overwhelming percentage of listeners have the same preference.
>
>
>> Hence, my interest in straight-wire bypass testing.
This is a dicey one. Let's go back to the fifties. Everyone had a
"radiogram" and everyone liked the warm, mellow "radiogram" sound. It
wasn't realistic but it was pleasing. If you'd added a tweeter to all
those 12" "full range" units, probably fewer people would have liked
the sound even though it was more realistic. So the preference of an
overwhelming percentage is not after all a good guide.
>** Another pseudo-scientific piece of Yankee Double speak that has no
>meaning.
>
> What if the wire is bent a bit ??
>
> Are all bets off ??
>
>
>> Practically speaking, this ends up being pretty much what you said.
>>
>
>
>** But since neither fuckwit has the slightest what the other is on about
>this last classic Kreugerism disappears up its own arse in a flash.
The slightest what, Phil? Again, you must watch your English.
Arny Krueger
news:952ol0dnop71luovs...@4ax.com
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:08:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Along with a number of others, I've done blind, level matched and
>> time-synched listening tests of CD players and reliably heard
>> differences. The Stereo Review CD player test article of the late
>> 80s was the public account of these tests.
>>
>> Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the
>> Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
> Arny - that was nearly 20 years ago. I reckon your standard consumer
> cd/dvd player has improved.
Yes, even $39 DVD players have sonically transparent audio sections.
>Can you direct me to anything in the last
> few years that looks at comparing low price cd/dvd players with high
> price cd players?
Actually the 18-year-old piece did that, and for then-modern players, it
found no significant audible differences. The players that sounded different
in 1986 were the first two players ever widely sold to consumers - the Sony
CDP 101 and the competitive Phillips.
Arny Krueger
>>
>> Arny - that was nearly 20 years ago. I reckon your standard consumer
>> cd/dvd player has improved.
>
>
> ** Wishful thinking. Making them cheaper has been the only
> commercial pressure at the " standard consumer " end of things. The
> Sony CDP101 ( released 1983) has test performance that is still
> second to none - see Arny's site for confirmation.
I think you'll find clear contradiction of that claim at my site.
http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/Sony_CDP-101/
>For example, look at the CDP 101s frequency response above 15 KHz. That
>modern $39 (APEX 1200) DVD player I mentioned in other posts is within a
>couple of tenths of a dB to 20 KHz. The 101 is a *whopping* 0.6 dB down,
>nearly 3 times more rolled-off, FWIW.
Also note the following comment:
"Sony's CDP-101 player also has a one-half sample (ca. 11 microsecond) time
delay between its outputs because 1 DAC is time-shared between 2 channels.
The 11 microsecond inter-channel delay has its greatest audible significance
in those applications where a summed center channel (e.g., Dolby Pro Logic)
is used."
Francis Xavier Holden
wrote:
>"Francis Xavier Holden" <fxho...@softhome.net> wrote in message
>news:952ol0dnop71luovs...@4ax.com
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:08:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Along with a number of others, I've done blind, level matched and
>>> time-synched listening tests of CD players and reliably heard
>>> differences. The Stereo Review CD player test article of the late
>>> 80s was the public account of these tests.
>>>
>>> Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the
>>> Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
>
>> Arny - that was nearly 20 years ago. I reckon your standard consumer
>> cd/dvd player has improved.
>
>Yes, even $39 DVD players have sonically transparent audio sections.
>
>
>>Can you direct me to anything in the last
>> few years that looks at comparing low price cd/dvd players with high
>> price cd players?
>
>Actually the 18-year-old piece did that, and for then-modern players, it
>found no significant audible differences. The players that sounded different
>in 1986 were the first two players ever widely sold to consumers - the Sony
>CDP 101 and the competitive Phillips.
>
Thanks Arny
So my advice to beginners is buy a <$100 cd/dvd player
..
F X Holden
TT
> > > CD recordings, however, have still got about 50 years to go to
catch
> up
> > > with the format's capabilities.
> > >
> > What a load of frogshit!!!! They have been at their potential for a
> while.
>
>
> ** What a load of brainless Grease Monkey shit.
>
> Not one commercial, music CD in a 1000 pushes the format anywhere near
its
> limit.
>
So now ***PROVE*** XRCDs or HDCDs are not at their limit!
first see
http://www.hdcd.com/about/index.html
http://www.xrcd.net/Shopping/process.asp
BTW ***DO NOT*** say these things are not CDs and try and weasel your way
out of it!
> > >
> > Still haven't thrown that antique CD player out yet? What was the story
> > again it has only 1 DAC that is shared equally between the two channels
> and
> > thus degrades the sound or something like that from memory.
>
>
>
> ** TT really does live in a zoo and sleep on a pile of turds with an
ugly
> female monkey.
>
Are you upset that she has a BSc and you don't? BTW she is also a ECU
lecturer which is also something *you* can't be.
>
>
>
> ............ Phil
>
SS
Arny Krueger
Unless you need something more sophisticated in the video section of said
player...
Andrew Reilly
> "Sony's CDP-101 player also has a one-half sample (ca. 11 microsecond) time
> delay between its outputs because 1 DAC is time-shared between 2 channels.
11 microseconds is a little more than 3mm through the air, at sea
level. Do you position your head in the sweet spot with such
accuracy? Do you do that by measuring the spot, or by listening
for the phase synchronisation that occurs in the spot. Why would
the end result be any different at all, with the CDP-101?
> The 11 microsecond inter-channel delay has its greatest audible significance
> in those applications where a summed center channel (e.g., Dolby Pro Logic)
> is used."
This is, of course, only relevant if you try to do a Dolby PL (or
similar) decode, and even then only at the extreme high frequency
end of the spectrum. Since DPL limits the frequency range of the
surround channel, and the center is a simple sum, I doubt that the
difference would be easily detectable.
I also doubt that it is of any concern of Phil's. He doesn't do
multi-channel.
--
Andrew
Phil Allison
"Arny Krueger"
> "Phil Allison"
> >
> >
> > ** Wishful thinking. Making them cheaper has been the only
> > commercial pressure at the " standard consumer " end of things. The
> > Sony CDP101 ( released 1983) has test performance that is still
> > second to none - see Arny's site for confirmation.
>
> I think you'll find clear contradiction of that claim at my site.
>
> http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/Sony_CDP-101/
>
> >For example, look at the CDP 101s frequency response above 15 KHz. That
> >modern $39 (APEX 1200) DVD player I mentioned in other posts is within a
> >couple of tenths of a dB to 20 KHz. The 101 is a *whopping* 0.6 dB down,
> >nearly 3 times more rolled-off, FWIW.
** So the Sony CDP 101 is "flat as a tack " to 15 kHz, then falls by only
0.6 dB at 20 kHz.
In terms of what is audible on music or other programme - that is still
second to none.
>
> Also note the following comment:
>
> "Sony's CDP-101 player also has a one-half sample (ca. 11 microsecond)
time
> delay between its outputs because 1 DAC is time-shared between 2
channels.
** What a massive red-herring - 11uS = a 3.6 mm path difference in
air.
> The 11 microsecond inter-channel delay has its greatest audible
significance
> in those applications where a summed center channel (e.g., Dolby Pro
Logic)
> is used."
** More Krueger gobbledegook.
............ Phil
Phil Allison
"Andrew Reilly"
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Sony's CDP-101 player also has a one-half sample (ca. 11 microsecond)
time
> > delay between its outputs because 1 DAC is time-shared between 2
channels.
>
> 11 microseconds is a little more than 3mm through the air, at sea
> level. Do you position your head in the sweet spot with such
> accuracy? Do you do that by measuring the spot, or by listening
> for the phase synchronisation that occurs in the spot. Why would
> the end result be any different at all, with the CDP-101?
>
** Correct - it isn't.
> > The 11 microsecond inter-channel delay has its greatest audible
significance
> > in those applications where a summed center channel (e.g., Dolby Pro
Logic)
> > is used."
>
> This is, of course, only relevant if you try to do a Dolby PL (or
> similar) decode, and even then only at the extreme high frequency
> end of the spectrum.
** There will be a phase cancellation null in the ** summed mono ** output
at 45kHz !!!!!!
There can be up to 2 dB attenuation at or near 20 kHz but IF and only
IF the following conditions are met:
1. The level of the 20 kHz signals are exactly the same in both channels.
2. The phase of the 20 kHz signals are exactly the same in both channels.
Wanna take a bet on your chances of finding a commercial music CD that
meets both 1 and 2 ?
............ Phil
Phil Allison
"Tat Chan"
>
> The CDP-101 had 1 DAC shared between 2 channels (and it was a 14-bit
> DAC???),
** The CX20017 DAC *was* 16 bit - a special design by Sony.
There were NEVER any 14 bit CD players.
> that resulted in a 11ms delay between the 2 channels.
** You are only overstating the time delay by 1000 times.
............ Phil
Tat Chan
> "Tat Chan"
>
>
>>The CDP-101 had 1 DAC shared between 2 channels (and it was a 14-bit
>>DAC???),
>
>
>
> ** The CX20017 DAC *was* 16 bit - a special design by Sony.
>
> There were NEVER any 14 bit CD players.
>
>
Whoops, my mistake. I believe Philips and not Sony were the ones who
used 14-bit DACs in their early CD players.
>> that resulted in a 11ms delay between the 2 channels.
>
> ** You are only overstating the time delay by 1000 times.
>
I couldn't find the "mu" key on my keyboard ...
;)
Phil Allison
"Tat Chan"
> Phil Allison wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The CDP-101 had 1 DAC shared between 2 channels (and it was a 14-bit
> >>DAC???),
> >
> >
> > ** The CX20017 DAC *was* 16 bit - a special design by Sony.
> >
> > There were NEVER any 14 bit CD players.
> >
>
> Whoops, my mistake. I believe Philips and not Sony were the ones who
> used 14-bit DACs in their early CD players.
** By use of "oversampling" Philips made their 14 bit DAC do the job of a
16 bit one.
The trick was to make the 14 bit DACs ( two in each machine) carry out 4
conversions for every data sample on the CD channel - these conversions
would all be done very close to the same, 14 bit precision, data value.
The *average* analogue voltage level created by of those four conversions
was, in effect, the same as that given by a single a 16 bit conversion
happening four times less often.
............ Phil
TT
: TT wrote:
:
: > "Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
: > news:2s2gumF...@uni-berlin.de...
: >
:
: >> CD recordings, however, have still got about 50 years
to go to catch up
: >>with the format's capabilities.
: >>
: >
: > What a load of frogshit!!!! They have been at their
potential for a while.
: > Do a search on JVCs XRCD or HDCD. They can't cram any
more bitdepth on the
: > things!
:
: I think the focus was on the "recording" itself, and not
the care taken
: in mastering (XRCD) or the extra headroom available in
HDCD (20-bit)
:
: >>
: >>........... Phil
: >>
: >
: > Still haven't thrown that antique CD player out yet?
What was the story
: > again it has only 1 DAC that is shared equally between
the two channels and
: > thus degrades the sound or something like that from
memory.
: >
: > SS
:
: The CDP-101 had 1 DAC shared between 2 channels (and it
was a 14-bit
: DAC???), that resulted in a 11ms delay between the 2
channels.
I said "Still haven't thrown that antique CD player out yet?
What was the story
again it has only 1 DAC that is shared equally between the
two channels and
thus degrades the sound or something like that from memory"
So my memory isn't totally flawed then?
Regards TT
Phil Allison
"TT" <sw...@swat.com.au>
>
> So my memory isn't totally flawed then?
** Completely fucked is more like it - same as the rest of your
diseased brain.
........... Phil
Matthew Kirkcaldie
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> ** But it was not a " ...... blind, level matched, time synched
> comparison ...."
They were time synched, using two burns each of two discs. But I had no
verification that the level was precisely matched. It wasn't noticeably
different, but I don't pretend that it couldn't have been a factor.
MK.
Matthew Kirkcaldie
Tat Chan <le_kin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Btw, since you are in the pro audio biz, here's a question:
> There was a recording studio in Annandale that used to be a factory (I
> think Midnight Oil could have recorded there). A picture of the studio
> was shown in last week's AFR. In the picture was a piano, some otehr
> instruments and mics. All these on wooden parquet floors! Could that
> have just been a rehearsal room? I thought a recording room would be an
> enclosed sound booth.
I would reckon that five minutes of thinking about it would tell you the
flaw in that argument. A studio is not a LISTENING environment, it's an
environment for RECORDING sound, i.e. capturing a pleasing sound that
can be put onto tape/disc. "Room feel" and reverb are used on pretty
much every pop/rock recording ever made, because the performance sounds
dead and flat otherwise, and the music would normally be heard in an
environment with reflective surfaces. Most of the mics would be placed
close to the instruments or amps, in order to capture their direct sound
cleanly, but other "room" mics can be placed at a distance to provide a
controllable amount of surface reflection to give ambience and "room
feel" to the recording. When you reproduce it at home, you don't want
the reflection qualities of YOUR room superimposed on the acoustic
quality of the recording ... if you want accurate reproduction, of
course.
MK.
Phil Allison
"TT"
Phil Allison
" CD recordings, however, have still got about 50 years to go to
catch up with the format's capabilities. "
" Not one commercial, music CD in a 1000 pushes the format anywhere near
its limit."
> So now ***PROVE*** XRCDs or HDCDs are not at their limit!
** Who makes recordings - TT ???
> > ** TT really does live in a zoo and sleep on a pile of turds with an
> ugly female monkey.
> >
>
> Are you upset that she has a BSc and you don't?
** I sympathise that she lives with a raving psychopath.
Does she have a BSc in zoology or abnormal psychology ???
> BTW she is also a ECU lecturer ...
** Edith Cowan University - based in Perth with a South West campus in
Bunbury.
Suzanne Tencer, Practucum Cordinator for a Nursing course.
http://southwest.ecu.edu.au/campus/
> which is also something *you* can't be.
** So * fucking * what ??
............... Phil
Phil Allison
"Matthew Kirkcaldie"
> "Phil Allison"
> >
> > ** But it was not a " ...... blind, level matched, time synched
> > comparison ...."
>
> They were time synched, using two burns each of two discs.
** What is your idea of "time synched" ??
Within a few seconds ?? Within a second ?
My idea of synched is within 1 mS.
Who did the switching ?? You ? Another ?
When ? At your whim ? The other's ??
My point is there are lot of details to get right.
........... Phil
TT
:
: "TT" <sw...@swat.com.au>
Your intellect is only exceeded by your charm!
All this and the Moon is waning as well. Mmmmmm...........
your neighbours will be in for a rough time this month.
SS
Matthew Kirkcaldie
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> ** What is your idea of "time synched" ??
>
> Within a few seconds ?? Within a second ?
Well under a second - I cued a track on pause on each player, then
pressed the pause buttons on the remotes with two fingers of the same
hand, then flicked back and forth without discernible shifts in the
music, then left the room, my wife picked one player, I came back and
then she switched back and forth between them and asked me which I
liked. Many, many flaws in the method, but it satisfied my idle
curiosity. It was possible to hear the switching though, so I guess I
made my choice with the first switch. It sounded different, but that
could be psychological since I knew there had been a switch. She made
the same choice I did, and she's not interested in hi-fi equipment so
there wasn't the same motivation!
But yes, science it wasn't.
MK.
Phil Allison
"Matthew Kirkcaldie"
> "Phil Allison"
>
>
> > ** What is your idea of "time synched" ??
> >
> > Within a few seconds ?? Within a second ?
>
** So when changing from A to B the music jumped forward in time and when
it is from B to A it jumped back in time.
No way * Hose * - is that a satisfactory method.
> - I cued a track on pause on each player, then
> pressed the pause buttons on the remotes with two fingers of the same
> hand, then flicked back and forth without discernible shifts in the
> music, then left the room, my wife picked one player, I came back and
> then she switched back and forth between them and asked me which I
> liked.
** Totally unscientific method - she knew which was which ( so could
supply inadvertent cues to you ) and made the switching time choices.
BTW How do you even know the two inputs on the amp performed the same ??
> Many, many flaws in the method, but it satisfied my idle
> curiosity.
** How easily duped you are.
> It was possible to hear the switching though, so I guess I
> made my choice with the first switch. It sounded different, but that
> could be psychological since I knew there had been a switch.
** Once the switching over process is made undetectable the **WHOLE** game
changes. What was once believed to be quite noticeable just VANISHES as if
it was never there. Because it wasn't.
Mind you, if you allow or create even a +/-1 dB difference in level,
channel balance or HF response, it is *immediately* picked up when
switching over.
BTW:
How about you try a reference or blank changeover test - ie all the
trappings of an AB test but playing the same thing.
Use a Y lead to connect a CD player to both amp inputs and do as before.
When I tried this on friends ( A, a pause then repeated by B style) they
reported hearing EXACTLY the same sort of differences as with actual gear
change overs .
........... Phil
Matthew Kirkcaldie
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> ** How easily duped you are.
"Duped" implies a duper, but as I readily admitted, I realise it wasn't
a solid comparison.
> ** Once the switching over process is made undetectable the **WHOLE** game
> changes. What was once believed to be quite noticeable just VANISHES as if
> it was never there. Because it wasn't.
That's quite a blanket statement - there must be SOME differences
between SOME pieces of audio equipment. But a seamless changeover would
certainly be impervious to the dreaded psychological factors.
> How about you try a reference or blank changeover test - ie all the
> trappings of an AB test but playing the same thing.
>
> Use a Y lead to connect a CD player to both amp inputs and do as before.
>
> When I tried this on friends ( A, a pause then repeated by B style) they
> reported hearing EXACTLY the same sort of differences as with actual gear
> change overs .
That's an interesting challenge - not sure how I could go about doing
that myself, since I know the trick involved now!
MK.
Oat
> pronounced and detectable if the players are time synched.
>
> Human audio memory is short, and significant time differences between the
> comparisons will result in an inaccurate comparison.
I still don't understand the purpose of time-synch. You can only
listen to one setup at any one time, what use is time-synch if it's
not beening listened to?
In my experience fast switching between setups is useless, your ears
are unable to account for the subtle changes.
Tat Chan
uhm, yeah, major brain explosion on my part there. And I keep harping on
about "musical production" versus "musical reproduction" as well.
Tat Chan
sorry, that one went completely over my head. What are you trying to say?
Btw, my previous post was wrong. The Sony CDP-101 used a 16-bit DAC and
the time delay was not 11ms but 11 micro seconds, as PA pointed out.
Tat Chan
>>If there are apparent differences between the 2 players, the differences will be
>>pronounced and detectable if the players are time synched.
>>
>>Human audio memory is short, and significant time differences between the
>>comparisons will result in an inaccurate comparison.
>
>
> I still don't understand the purpose of time-synch. You can only
> listen to one setup at any one time, what use is time-synch if it's
> not beening listened to?
>
I'm sure the more knowledgable members of this group will be able to
explain this better.
Anyway, here's my take on it:
if there are detectable differences between the players, than you would
be able to detect them when they are switched, right?
When the CD players are time synched, both players will be playing the
same passage of music at any point in time during the duration of a
music track. Now, switching between time synched players will allow
"night and day" differences to be immediately obvious if there were any
to begin with. If there are no differences, you would be able to listen
to a piece of music as though there is no switching between the players
(even though switching occurs in the background). Now, if you can't
detect the differences that occur when switching happens, that would
mean the CD players sound the same.
> In my experience fast switching between setups is useless, your ears
> are unable to account for the subtle changes.
if they are subtle, how would you know they are there to begin with?
Do you believe in blind testing?
Public Image Ltd
> >
> > That's funny; I'm inclined to the opposite view. If someone thinks
> > that the room impacts EVERYTHING, then it seems to me they may lack
> > listening discrimination.
>
>
> ** What you have just posted " PIL " again suggests you have not the
> slightest idea what good hi-fi sounds like or have never listened in a well
> damped room.
Nope, I've performed all those sorts of comparisons. I maintain that
claiming the room impacts EVERYTHING is too non-specific to be
informative, and it is that sort of audioPhil hoopla which confuses
newbies. For instance, our OP seems worried about buying a set of
speakers which will provide too much bass in a small room. Meanwhile,
the rest of the hi-fi world is chasing bass, as this is generally a
difficult thing to achieve. Yes, a small room may result in bass boom,
but this is not the same thing as "too much bass", and is an
over-rated problem anyway IMO. Smearing of imaging, on the other hand,
is a more substantial issue.
So I actually agree with the "fix the room" ethos, but it helps to
know _why_ you want to fix the room :-)
mm...@mmmmm.com
>Please Phil, try to resist the temptation of displaying your erotic fantasies here.
Hey I've got a fantasy too.
Madame Does Head Jobs With Horses.