Which type DAC chip is best?
robert casey
converter chip itself, not the box it resides in)
is best? R2R ladder? Or single bit DACs?
OP-amps in the audio path are said to cause
problems (mostly crossover distortion the
large amounts of NFB don't quite remove), so
I'd want DAC chips without op amps.
Phil Allison
"robert casey"
> Which type of DAC chip (the digital to analog
> converter chip itself, not the box it resides in)
> is best? R2R ladder? Or single bit DACs?
** 1 bit or "bitstream" converters are slightly inferior - as a
species.
> OP-amps in the audio path are said to cause
> problems (mostly crossover distortion the
> large amounts of NFB don't quite remove),
** Audio op-amps operate in class A - so there is no x-over problem.
> so I'd want DAC chips without op amps.
** All DACs need all have op-amp integrators and /or buffers.
What fly blown, putrid audiophool garbage dump have YOU been visiting ???
.............. Phil
Doug Flynn
DAC solely for conversion, then do the I/V conversion with transformers,
then amplify the signal using tubes and sometimes transformers. Yummy.
I recently took the balanced output from the DAC chip of my Marantz SA8260
(it uses the CS4397 DAC) and fed it through a transformer loaded
zero-feedback class A 6DJ8 and it crapped all over the stock player. Doing
this removed dozens of evil transistors and caps from the signal path.
However, the CS4397 has an internal op-amp which does the I/V conversion, so
I had to suffer that op-amp. I've been thinking along the same lines as you
(and Audio Note) - I just need to find the time.
IMHO op-amps (class A or otherwise) have no place whatsoever in audio.
Stepping into flame suit now......
Cheers. Doug
"robert casey" <wa2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:aiDHd.1041$cZ1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Trevor Wilson
"Doug Flynn" <doog...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:ZjJHd.125670$K7.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Hi, check out the range of Audio Note zero-oversampling DACs - they use
> the
> DAC solely for conversion, then do the I/V conversion with transformers,
> then amplify the signal using tubes and sometimes transformers. Yummy.
>
> I recently took the balanced output from the DAC chip of my Marantz SA8260
> (it uses the CS4397 DAC) and fed it through a transformer loaded
> zero-feedback class A 6DJ8 and it crapped all over the stock player.
> Doing
> this removed dozens of evil transistors and caps from the signal path.
> However, the CS4397 has an internal op-amp which does the I/V conversion,
> so
> I had to suffer that op-amp. I've been thinking along the same lines as
> you
> (and Audio Note) - I just need to find the time.
>
> IMHO op-amps (class A or otherwise) have no place whatsoever in audio.
> Stepping into flame suit now......
**Fair enough.
Oh, BTW, what do you listen to? Nothing recorded after 1975, I guess.
Certainly nothing which has ever been near a mixing console, or tape
recorder, anyway. Everything after that time, has passed through dozens of
OP amps, except a miniscule percentage of recordings.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Phil Allison
"Doug Flynn"
>
> IMHO op-amps (class A or otherwise) have no place whatsoever in audio.
> Stepping into flame suit now......
** How do you get yourself out of that straight jacket first ???
.............. Phil
Doug Flynn
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:35991cF...@individual.net...
Doug Flynn
I understand where you are coming from, but that doesn't make using solid
state in the playback chain right. I take a strict "Just Say NO" attitude
when it comes to solid state.
Cheers. Doug
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:359833F...@individual.net...
Phil Allison
"Doug Flynn" <
> Hi Trevor, more like nothing recorded after 1965 actually.
** Top posting imbecile.
.............. Phil
Phil Allison
"Doug Flynn" - doogster = dogshit
>
> Phil Allison
>>
>> >
>> > IMHO op-amps (class A or otherwise) have no place whatsoever in audio.
>> > Stepping into flame suit now......
>>
>>
>> ** How do you get yourself out of that straight jacket first ???
>>
>>
** The delusions usually abate if raving schizos like Doug take their meds.
Sometimes a frontal lobotomy is the only answer - though.
............. Phil
Doug Flynn
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:359bqdF...@individual.net...
Doug Flynn
We can't all be hip dudes who listen to such cutting edge modern artists as
Britney Spears and William Hung.....
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:359bfbF...@individual.net...
Steve Batt
lobotomy....
Steve
Arny Krueger
> Hi Trevor, more like nothing recorded after 1965 actually.
Serious iconoclast, I see,
> I understand where you are coming from, but that doesn't make using
> solid state in the playback chain right. I take a strict "Just Say
> NO" attitude when it comes to solid state.
No solid state? Then you don't have any DACs, and for you the question is
moot.
Arny Krueger
> "Doug Flynn"
>> IMHO op-amps (class A or otherwise) have no place whatsoever in
>> audio. Stepping into flame suit now......
> ** How do you get yourself out of that straight jacket first ???
Good question. The guy says he listens to nothing recorded after 1965 on
equipment that is 100% based on pre-1965 technology. But, he's got digital
and is worried about DACs. Just about doesn't compute.
I think he's trolling.
Phil Allison
"Doug Flynn" = top posting, fucking IDIOT !!!!!
>>
>>>TW
>>>Oh, BTW, what do you listen to? Nothing recorded after 1975, I guess.
>>>Certainly nothing which has ever been near a mixing console, or tape
>>>recorder, anyway. Everything after that time, has passed through dozens
>>>of
>> OP amps, except a miniscule percentage of recordings.
>>> Hi Trevor, more like nothing recorded after 1965 actually.
>> ** Top posting imbecile.
>I was just answering his question.
** WRONGLY you FUCKWIT !!!!
The first op-amps usable for audio were the Fairchild uA 741, uA 748 and
the Natsemi LM 301A. They were not released until 1968 or 1969 and did not
gain popular acceptance is audio mixing consoles until the early /mid 1970s.
............. Phil
Mr. T
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:lZmdnY7oXNV...@comcast.com...
No need for a DAC, he doesn't use digital. There wasn't much available in
1965 anyway!
I have no idea why the question in the first place though.
MrT.
Mr. T
> The first op-amps usable for audio were the Fairchild uA 741, uA 748 and
> the Natsemi LM 301A. They were not released until 1968 or 1969 and did not
> gain popular acceptance is audio mixing consoles until the early /mid
1970s.
Very early 70's. There were definitely IC consoles available in 1971,
possibly before.
You may argue who was using them I guess. Popular acceptance being vague
enough to suit any purpose :-)
MrT.
Arny Krueger
news:aiDHd.1041$cZ1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
> Which type of DAC chip (the digital to analog
> converter chip itself, not the box it resides in)
> is best? R2R ladder? Or single bit DACs?
For all practical purposes, the best audio DACs are Sigma/Delta, AKA single
bit. R2R ladders haven't been used for years because resistor matching can
only go so far. Sigma/Delta essentially trades timing accuracy for matched
resistors, and timing accuracy with fast silicon processing can be very good
and at a relatively low cost. The precision we get from $1 chips today used
cost fractions of a million dollars in pre-decades-of-inflation money.
> OP-amps in the audio path are said to cause
> problems (mostly crossover distortion the
> large amounts of NFB don't quite remove), so
> I'd want DAC chips without op amps.
You've been grotesquely misinformed by someone who is a bundle of
misapprehensions or has designs on your pocketbook.
Op amps can be fine. Really good ones can cost less than $0.50.
In the 21st century even modest converters and op amps can be good enough to
be sonically transparent over several generations of processing. Good
converters and op amps are transparent over a dozen generations of
conversions or more.
Phil Allison
"Mr. T"
"Phil Allison"
>>
>> The first op-amps usable for audio were the Fairchild uA 741, uA 748
>> and
>> the Natsemi LM 301A. They were not released until 1968 or 1969 and did
>> not
> 1970s.
>
> Very early 70's. There were definitely IC consoles available in 1971,
> possibly before.
** Early 70's means 71, 72, 73 .......
> You may argue who was using them I guess.
** I used LM301As in a 6ch, balanced input PA mixer of my design in late
1972 - all done with IC op-amps.
By mid 1973 the infamous ETI # 414, 8ch "Master Mixer" kit appeared full
of LM307s - I assembled a few of them back then for customers of Pre-Pak
Electronics.
.............. Phil
Trevor Wilson
> Hi Trevor, more like nothing recorded after 1965 actually.
**I disagree, but even allowing that I am correct, I take it you don't
listen to anything recorded after 1975.
>
> I understand where you are coming from, but that doesn't make using solid
> state in the playback chain right. I take a strict "Just Say NO" attitude
> when it comes to solid state.
**Like I said, you don't listen to anything recorded after 1975?
Do try to get out of the habit of top posting.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
robert casey
>
>>OP-amps in the audio path are said to cause
>>problems (mostly crossover distortion the
>>large amounts of NFB don't quite remove),
>
>
>
> ** Audio op-amps operate in class A - so there is no x-over problem.
>
>
> ** All DACs need all have op-amp integrators and /or buffers.
>
> What fly blown, putrid audiophool garbage dump have YOU been visiting ???
>
Don't op-amps use a totem pole like output circuit?
That the top transistor conducts for the positive
portion of the waveform and the other transistor the
negative portion? That one transistor sinks current,
the other sources current? And otherwise turn off.
That would be class B. Which should have the X over
problems. Now if some op-amps operate in class A or
AB, both transistors would conduct at the same time
and the X over wouldn't have switching transients.
Or there's the old trick of hanging a resistor from the op-amp
output to a positive or negative supply rail to force
one of the two transistors of the totem pole to always
be on and the other always off (single ended class A).
Then there is never any X over. Sure it would burn a bit
more power, but at signal levels that's not a concern
for powerline operated equipment.
Of course I may have mired myself in a fly blown, putrid
audiophool garbage dump....
Phil Allison
"robert casey"
Phil Allison
>>
>>>OP-amps in the audio path are said to cause
>>>problems (mostly crossover distortion the
>>>large amounts of NFB don't quite remove),
>>
>> ** Audio op-amps operate in class A - so there is no x-over problem.
>>
>>
>> ** All DACs need all have op-amp integrators and /or buffers.
>>
>> What fly blown, putrid audiophool garbage dump have YOU been visiting
>> ???
>>
>
>
> Don't op-amps use a totem pole like output circuit?
> That the top transistor conducts for the positive
> portion of the waveform and the other transistor the
> negative portion? That one transistor sinks current,
> the other sources current? And otherwise turn off.
> That would be class B.
** All ( excluding the original uA709 from 1965 ) audio grade op-amps have
significant class A bias. Under normal signal and load conditions they
operate in class A push pull.
> Or there's the old trick of hanging a resistor from the op-amp
> output to a positive or negative supply rail to force
> one of the two transistors of the totem pole to always
> be on and the other always off (single ended class A).
> Then there is never any X over. Sure it would burn a bit
> more power, but at signal levels that's not a concern
> for powerline operated equipment.
** Only makes the THD higher in all the cases I have seen.
Real audio designers ( not audiophool ones) know that and do not use
the idea.
> Of course I may have mired myself in a fly blown, putrid
> audiophool garbage dump....
** You have indeed - I can smell the stench from here.
............. Phil
Doug Flynn
I meant that I mainly listened to stuff recorded before 1965, not that 1965
was when op-amps first made an appearance. Sorry for any confusion.
Obviously I should have spelled it out better for the mentally retarded.
Cheers. Doug
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:359g2gF...@individual.net...
Doug Flynn
I love classic jazz and blues, and also "classic" classical.
Forgive my ignorance, but what is top posting?
Cheers. Doug
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:35ag20F...@individual.net...
Doug Flynn
seriously. Chill out dude.......
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:k4Sdnb4QRLr...@comcast.com...
Phil Allison
"Doug Flynn"
>
> I meant that I mainly listened to stuff recorded before 1965, not that
> 1965
> was when op-amps first made an appearance. Sorry for any confusion.
> Obviously I should have spelled it out better for the mentally retarded.
** Errrr - so you listen mainly to 78 rpms, mono 45s, mono LPs and
re-issues of same ??????
Do you realise what the name of this NG is ?????
.............. Phil
Doug Flynn
exactly the dark ages. Look at all the classic stuff put out by Blue Note
and Verve in the 1950s (some of which is mono, but so what). I don't know
about you, but I like to listen to *music*, not equipment or hi-fi. The
equipment is just a means to an end......
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:35bqtoF...@individual.net...
Trevor Wilson
> Hi Trevor, yes, basically I listen to very little recorded after the
> 1960s.
> I love classic jazz and blues, and also "classic" classical.
**Then as long as you never use a CD player, I guess you are remainiung true
to form.
>
> Forgive my ignorance, but what is top posting?
**What you are doing now. See how you ask a question and I answer it below.
This is kinda how humans communicate. Top posting is where the answer is put
before the question.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Doug Flynn
>
> "Doug Flynn" <doog...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:FU0Id.126789$K7.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Hi Trevor, yes, basically I listen to very little recorded after the
> > 1960s.
> > I love classic jazz and blues, and also "classic" classical.
>
> **Then as long as you never use a CD player, I guess you are remainiung
true
> to form.
Well, I *try* to never use a CD player, but some of those classic recordings
are only available on CD (or SACD - oops, ducking for cover now).
> >
> > Forgive my ignorance, but what is top posting?
>
> **What you are doing now. See how you ask a question and I answer it
below.
> This is kinda how humans communicate. Top posting is where the answer is
put
> before the question.
Thanks, I'll change my ways. Sorry if I upset anyone, but we weirdo
analogue/tube guys do things topsy turvy you know......Cheers. Doug
paul packer
wrote:
>Phil, plenty of great *HI-FI* music was recorded pre-1965. 1965 is not
>exactly the dark ages. Look at all the classic stuff put out by Blue Note
>and Verve in the 1950s (some of which is mono, but so what). I don't know
>about you, but I like to listen to *music*, not equipment or hi-fi. The
>equipment is just a means to an end......
Agree to a large extent. As a lover of classic film music I've often
been amazed at the quality of sound available not just pre-65 but
pre-55. The soundtrack to Knights Of The Round Table ('52) is in very
listenable and sometimes even impressive stereo. Of course, the movies
were ahead of home entertainment back then.
Phil Allison
"Doug Flynn"
> "Phil Allison"
>> >
>> > I meant that I mainly listened to stuff recorded before 1965, not that
>> > 1965
>> > was when op-amps first made an appearance. Sorry for any confusion.
>> > Obviously I should have spelled it out better for the mentally
>> > retarded.
>>
>>
>> ** Errrr - so you listen mainly to 78 rpms, mono 45s, mono LPs and
>> re-issues of same ??????
>>
>> Do you realise what the name of this NG is ?????
>>
>>
> exactly the dark ages. Look at all the classic stuff put out by Blue Note
> and Verve in the 1950s (some of which is mono, but so what).
** I am not looking and neither are 99.8 % of others.
There is nothing "hi-fi " about vinyl recordings from the era you
mention.
> I don't know about you, but I like to listen to *music*, not equipment or
> hi-fi.
** Then you have no idea what it is all about.
.................. Phil
Heretic
>
>
>
>
> ** I am not looking
Then what do you do with those 20g binaries each week?
Doug Flynn
> > Phil, plenty of great *HI-FI* music was recorded pre-1965. 1965 is not
> > exactly the dark ages. Look at all the classic stuff put out by Blue
Note
> > and Verve in the 1950s (some of which is mono, but so what).
>
>
> ** I am not looking and neither are 99.8 % of others.
>
> There is nothing "hi-fi " about vinyl recordings from the era you
> mention.
Phil, you are utterly clueless. There are countless stunning hi-fi
recordings from that era. Classic performances captured on analogue with
minimally-miked tubed mics with no mixing or editing. Yeah, must sound like
crap.....
>
>
> > I don't know about you, but I like to listen to *music*, not equipment
or
> > hi-fi.
>
>
> ** Then you have no idea what it is all about.
Enlighten us Phil. What exactly is the point of farting around with hi-fi
equipment if it's not for the sole purpose of actually listening to music?
Maybe you have some sort of psycho-sexual fixation with audio equipment.
Perhaps it's a substitute for something lacking in your life? Please,
really, I want to know "what it is all about". Cheers. Doug
Phil Allison
"Doug Flynn"
> "Phil Allison"
>
>> > Phil, plenty of great *HI-FI* music was recorded pre-1965. 1965 is not
>> > exactly the dark ages. Look at all the classic stuff put out by Blue
> Note and Verve in the 1950s (some of which is mono, but so what).
>>
>>
>> ** I am not looking and neither are 99.8 % of others.
>>
>> There is nothing "hi-fi " about vinyl recordings from the era you
>> mention.
>
> Phil, you are utterly clueless.
** Says a rabid technophobe who says he cares not for hi-fi at all.
> There are countless stunning hi-fi recordings from that era.
> Classic performances captured on analogue with
> minimally-miked tubed mics with no mixing or editing.
** That is quite false.
Tape and disk cutting equipment from the 50s and early 60s was of poor
quality ( lots of audible noise and distortion from many sources ) compared
to later developments - not to mention the advent of stereo which
revolutionised home hi-fi and the development of digital recording in the
70s which finally eliminated all the serious audible defects inherent in
disk and tape.
>> > I don't know about you, but I like to listen to *music*, not equipment
> or hi-fi.
>>
>>
>> ** Then you have no idea what it is all about.
>
>
> Enlighten us Phil.
** Not possible with the terminally brain dead.
> What exactly is the point of farting around with hi-fi
> equipment if it's not for the sole purpose of actually listening to music?
** Nothing like your previous asinine statement.
If you want to listen to **music** you have only one option - attend a
LIVE performance. Otherwise, you are reduced to playing commercial
recordings at home with all the technical limitations and flaws of that
process.
> Maybe you have some sort of psycho-sexual fixation with audio equipment.
** Maybe you are a rude, stupid, demented and deaf old fart.
Vinyl bigots, like you Doug, are the lowest of all the audiophools - and
you take that one step further by excluding the era when vinyl LPs reached
their peak.
................ Phil
Doug Flynn
>
> > There are countless stunning hi-fi recordings from that era.
> > Classic performances captured on analogue with
> > minimally-miked tubed mics with no mixing or editing.
>
>
> ** That is quite false.
>
> Tape and disk cutting equipment from the 50s and early 60s was of poor
> quality ( lots of audible noise and distortion from many sources )
compared
> to later developments - not to mention the advent of stereo which
> revolutionised home hi-fi and the development of digital recording in the
> 70s which finally eliminated all the serious audible defects inherent in
> disk and tape.
Thanks for alerting me to that fact Phil. Rest assured, I will cull my
music collection and remove all the offending items. In to the garbage bin
goes all my Blue Notes, Django, Billie, Miles, 'Trane, Clifford Brown, Art
Farmer, Charlie Christian, Robert Johnson, etc, etc not to mention the
classical stuff. What a pity it's not valid because it wasn't recorded in
stereo. Funny that all the old stuff from the 1950s is still in demand
while the cheap op-amp garbage from the 1970s can't be given away.....
>
> > What exactly is the point of farting around with hi-fi
> > equipment if it's not for the sole purpose of actually listening to
music?
>
>
> ** Nothing like your previous asinine statement.
>
> If you want to listen to **music** you have only one option - attend a
> LIVE performance. Otherwise, you are reduced to playing commercial
> recordings at home with all the technical limitations and flaws of that
> process.
Quitter. Want to create a live performance in your home? Then use horns,
and use the best possible amps and front-ends you can. It's attainable; you
just have to work at it.
>
> > Maybe you have some sort of psycho-sexual fixation with audio equipment.
>
>
> ** Maybe you are a rude, stupid, demented and deaf old fart.
Er, Phil, I'm 32 years old, and I wager my ears are in better condition than
yours. It's good to see you have such respect for the elderly.
>
> Vinyl bigots, like you Doug, are the lowest of all the audiophools - and
> you take that one step further by excluding the era when vinyl LPs reached
> their peak.
When did vinyl reach its peak? For my money it was the 1950s and 1960s. It
went downhill bigtime after the end of the 1960s. Doug
Phil Allison
"Phil Allison"
>>
>> > There are countless stunning hi-fi recordings from that era.
>> > Classic performances captured on analogue with
>> > minimally-miked tubed mics with no mixing or editing.
>>
>>
>> ** That is quite false.
>>
>> Tape and disk cutting equipment from the 50s and early 60s was of poor
>> quality ( lots of audible noise and distortion from many sources )
>> compared to later developments - not to mention the advent of stereo
>> which
>> revolutionised home hi-fi and the development of digital recording in the
>> 70s which finally eliminated all the serious audible defects inherent in
>> disk and tape.
>
>
> Thanks for alerting me to that fact Phil. Rest assured, I will cull my
> music collection and remove all the offending items. In to the garbage
> bin
> goes all my Blue Notes, Django, Billie, Miles, 'Trane, Clifford Brown, Art
> Farmer, Charlie Christian, Robert Johnson, etc, etc not to mention the
> classical stuff. What a pity it's not valid because it wasn't recorded in
> stereo. Funny that all the old stuff from the 1950s is still in demand
> while the cheap op-amp garbage from the 1970s can't be given away.....
>
** What an utter FUCKWIT - this cretin STILL cannot fathom out what
hi-fi is.
Hint - it has got nothing to do with performance artistry.
>> > What exactly is the point of farting around with hi-fi
>> > equipment if it's not for the sole purpose of actually listening to
> music?
>>
>>
>> ** Nothing like your previous asinine statement.
>>
>> If you want to listen to **music** you have only one option - attend a
>> LIVE performance. Otherwise, you are reduced to playing commercial
>> recordings at home with all the technical limitations and flaws of that
>> process.
>
>
> Quitter. Want to create a live performance in your home? Then use horns,
> and use the best possible amps and front-ends you can. It's attainable;
> you
> just have to work at it.
>
** What ridiculous BULLSHIT.
We have a vinyl bigot, a tube bigot and horn speaker bigot all rolled
up into one.
Maybe he drives a steam car and uses an ice box too.
>> > Maybe you have some sort of psycho-sexual fixation with audio
>> > equipment.
>>
>>
>> ** Maybe you are a rude, stupid, demented and deaf old fart.
>
> Er, Phil, I'm 32 years old,
** Then the rude, demented, and stupid epithets still apply.
>>
>> Vinyl bigots, like you Doug, are the lowest of all the audiophools -
>> and
>> you take that one step further by excluding the era when vinyl LPs
>> reached
>> their peak.
>
> When did vinyl reach its peak? For my money it was the 1950s and 1960s.
> It
> went downhill bigtime after the end of the 1960s.
** Then you are besotted with a neo-religious belief - and not
interested in reality.
................. Phil
paul packer
wrote:
>"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
>news:35c6seF...@individual.net...
>
>> > Phil, plenty of great *HI-FI* music was recorded pre-1965. 1965 is not
>> > exactly the dark ages. Look at all the classic stuff put out by Blue
>Note
>> > and Verve in the 1950s (some of which is mono, but so what).
Take the Mercury Living Presence series. Some of the best recordings
of all time.
Doug Flynn
> > Quitter. Want to create a live performance in your home? Then use
horns,
> > and use the best possible amps and front-ends you can. It's attainable;
> > you
> > just have to work at it.
> >
>
> ** What ridiculous BULLSHIT.
>
> We have a vinyl bigot, a tube bigot and horn speaker bigot all rolled
> up into one.
>
> Maybe he drives a steam car and uses an ice box too.
Phil, once again I am awaiting enlightenment from you, oh annointed one.
You don't like vinyl, tubes or horns. You probably haven't even heard them,
but hey, why bother when the textbooks say they must suck.
> > When did vinyl reach its peak? For my money it was the 1950s and 1960s.
> > It
> > went downhill bigtime after the end of the 1960s.
>
>
>
> ** Then you are besotted with a neo-religious belief - and not
> interested in reality.
I stand corrected. Vinyl peaked in the late 1970s and early 80s when LP
production plants resorted to recycling vinyl. That ultra-thin
cost-accountant vinyl of the same era sounds awesome. Hmmm......
Phil Allison
"paul packer"
>
>>"Phil Allison"
>>
>>> > Phil, plenty of great *HI-FI* music was recorded pre-1965. 1965 is
>>> > not
>>> > exactly the dark ages. Look at all the classic stuff put out by Blue
>>Note
>>> > and Verve in the 1950s (some of which is mono, but so what).
>
> Take the Mercury Living Presence series. Some of the best recordings
> of all time.
** Hisssss, sizzle, snap, crackle, pop , hissss, sizzle, rumble,
rumble, rumble, hiss , crackle pop .....
Get real you pathetic bloody wanker !!
................ Phil
Phil Allison
"Doug Flynn" = lying , criminal nut case
>
> "Phil Allison"
>>
>>
>> ** We have a vinyl bigot, a tube bigot and horn speaker bigot all
>> up into one.
>>
>> Maybe he drives a steam car and uses an ice box too.
>
>
> Phil, once again I am awaiting enlightenment from you, oh annointed one.
> You don't like vinyl, tubes or horns. You probably haven't even heard
> them,
> but hey, why bother when the textbooks say they must suck.
** The texbooks on demented cranks like you say they all suck.
>> > When did vinyl reach its peak? For my money it was the 1950s and
>> > 1960s.
>> > It went downhill bigtime after the end of the 1960s.
>>
>>
>> ** Then you are besotted with a neo-religious belief - and not
>> interested in reality.
>
>
> I stand corrected.
** Only if someone shoved flag pole right up you first.
Bugger off you utterly stupid asshole.
............... Phil
Ayn Marx
Phil Allison wrote:
> ** Hisssss, sizzle, snap, crackle, pop , hissss, sizzle,
rumble,
> rumble, rumble, hiss , crackle pop .....
>
Phil Allison
"Ayn Marx" <
>
> Phil Allison wrote:
>>
>> ** Hisssss, sizzle, snap, crackle, pop , hissss, sizzle,
> rumble, rumble, rumble, hiss , crackle pop .....
>>
>
> What's that Phil dearest?
** Nope - it you you going under a steam roller.
............... Phil
Doug Flynn
>
> "Doug Flynn" = lying , criminal nut case
> >
> > You don't like vinyl, tubes or horns. You probably haven't even heard
> > them,
> > but hey, why bother when the textbooks say they must suck.
>
>
> ** The texbooks on demented cranks like you say they all suck.
>
>
>
Phil, you seem to be getting hot under the collar. All you can offer to
this debate is childish name-calling. Please offer something constructive.
What exactly did I say to upset you, petal? Diddums. Boo-hoo. Temper
tantrum......
Doug Flynn
"Ayn Marx" <mdh...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:1106373094.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
No, it's the sound of the synapses in his brain trying to connect to each
other and articulate a cogent reply to the posts on this NG. ......
Phil Allison
"Doug Flynn" = lying , criminal nut case
>
>
> Phil, you seem to be getting hot under the collar. All you can offer to
> this debate is childish name-calling. Please offer something
> constructive.
> What exactly did I say to upset you, petal? Diddums. Boo-hoo. Temper
> tantrum......
** The texbooks on demented cranks like you say they all suck.
Bugger off you utterly stupid asshole.
........... Phil
Phil Allison
"Doug Flynn"
>
> No, it's the sound of the synapses in his brain trying to connect to each
> other and articulate a cogent reply to the posts on this NG.
** Why do schizoid psychos like the " Demented Doug " DEMAND people
must post "cogent" replies to their verbal excreta ?????
It is to prove to themselves they are not actually insane.
Must be very wearying for Doug spending all day, every day, trying to
prove he is not crazy.
............... Phil
Doug Flynn
PHIL, YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED ANY OF MY QUESTIONS. You are obviously out
of your intellectual league. Just keep posting insults - that will make you
look real smart.....
S Roby
>
>> OP-amps in the audio path are said to cause
>> problems (mostly crossover distortion the
>> large amounts of NFB don't quite remove),
How may opamps did the music go through during the recording process??
Heretic
>
>
>
>
>
> ** The texbooks on demented cranks
That idea of self-improvement is quite good, but is that a good start?
Phil Allison
"Doug Flynn"
>
> "Phil Allison"
>>
>>
>> "Doug Flynn" = lying , criminal nut case
>> >
>> >
>> > Phil, you seem to be getting hot under the collar. All you can offer
>> > to
>> > this debate is childish name-calling. Please offer something
>> > constructive.
>> > What exactly did I say to upset you, petal? Diddums. Boo-hoo. Temper
>> > tantrum......
>>
>>
>>
>> ** The texbooks on demented cranks like you say they all suck.
>>
>> Bugger off you utterly stupid asshole.
>
>
>
> PHIL, YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED ANY OF MY QUESTIONS.
** Errr - you do not ask any sane ones.
Bugger off schizo.
................. Phil
Arny Krueger
news:UpnId.10398$mo2.7...@news.xtra.co.nz
Dozens and dozens. There's probably a studio someplace where there are no
opamps in the signal path, but its probably all tubes.
Doug Flynn
"S Roby" <em...@gooble.gooble> wrote in message
None if it's a good recording.
Phil Allison
"Doug Flynn"
>>
>> How may opamps did the music go through during the recording process??
>
> None if it's a good recording.
>
** Bugger off schizo moron .
................. Phil
TT
results really ;-) You would be better off trying to have a discussion with
house brick as PA.
Regards TT
TT
"Ayn Marx" <mdh...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:1106373094.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
Silly. Silly Ayn. That is the sound of a Quad ESL arcing out trying to
reproduce bass ;-)
TT :-))
Arny Krueger
> "Doug Flynn"
>
>>>
>>> How may opamps did the music go through during the recording
>>> process??
>>
>> None if it's a good recording.
>>
>
>
>
> ** Bugger off schizo moron .
Nahh, he's just trolling. Don't let this guy distract you from your true
mission in life, Phil.
Phil Allison
"Arny Krueger"
> "Phil Allison"
>> "Doug Flynn"
>>
>>>>
>>>> How may opamps did the music go through during the recording
>>>> process??
>>>
>>> None if it's a good recording.
>>>
>>
>> ** Bugger off schizo moron .
>
>
> Nahh, he's just trolling.
** Demented Doug is the real McCoy.
> Don't let this guy distract you from your true mission in life, Phil.
** A multi bigoted, audiophool necromancer is one for the forensic
psychologists.
.............. Phil
paul packer
wrote:
You mean to bugger up this NG? No, he'll never do that.