http://machinadynamica.com/machina44.htm
― J0hn D., Sunday, 18 November 2007 01:05 (5 years ago) Permalink
lololololol
― J0hn D., Sunday, 18 November 2007 01:06 (5 years ago) Permalink
"The very best sound was obtained when I slightly loosened the screws on the Duplex Covers. And they sound great!!.
8]
― morris pavilion, Sunday, 18 November 2007 01:12 (5 years ago) Permalink
lolololol
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 18 November 2007 01:15 (5 years ago) Permalink
every product on the site is like New Hope for the Ape-Eared
― J0hn D., Sunday, 18 November 2007 01:20 (5 years ago) Permalink
i love that website! check out this fancy table: http://machinadynamica.com/machina25.htm
it's supposed to isolate your amplifier from vibrations, "especially the 0 -10 Hz variety produced by Earth's crust movement, traffic, subways, tides, etc. "
how a spring could cancel out waves slower than 1 Hz?
― elan, Sunday, 18 November 2007 01:38 (5 years ago) Permalink
but the best is this "teleportation tweak" http://machinadynamica.com/machina60.htm
― elan, Sunday, 18 November 2007 01:44 (5 years ago) Permalink
everything on there is great but I'm still standing by the Tru-Tone Duplex cover as the most balls-out
― J0hn D., Sunday, 18 November 2007 01:50 (5 years ago) Permalink
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_12_3/marigo-labs-signature-3d-mat-7-2005.html
― ciderpress, Sunday, 18 November 2007 01:59 (5 years ago) Permalink
oh wait though codename turquoise is pretty fucking rad
― J0hn D., Sunday, 18 November 2007 02:00 (5 years ago) Permalink
Brilliant Pebbles is my favorite one on that site i think
― ciderpress, Sunday, 18 November 2007 02:13 (5 years ago) Permalink
From cidepress' link, this was amusing:
"Where most audiophiles would agree, however, is that tweaks are a minor aspect of system building. Defined by the dictionary in Microsoft Word® as "a slight adjustment or change in..."
italics mine.
― Clay, Sunday, 18 November 2007 02:20 (5 years ago) Permalink
for brains
― scott seward, Sunday, 18 November 2007 02:38 (5 years ago) Permalink
Somewhere, audiophile dude pushes the leather sofa away from the wall, sees four-socket outlet, shrieks.
― bendy, Sunday, 18 November 2007 02:44 (5 years ago) Permalink
Well, these are great, but you don't have to spend a lot of money to improve sound:
http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/Free_Techniques/Free_Techniques.html
― Mark Rich@rdson, Sunday, 18 November 2007 04:34 (5 years ago) Permalink
Holy shit the Teleportation Tweak! We are dealing with <i>balls</i> here, gentlemen. Big, round, shiny balls, of finest brass, lovingly hand-polished to a mirror shine by a taskforce of brilliant Sound Artisans. These balls can be yours for the astonishingly low price of $680 (Big Shiny Brass Balls are not subject to our 30-day money-back guarantee)
― Telephone thing, Sunday, 18 November 2007 10:23 (5 years ago) Permalink
it doesn't actually take any courage to be a con man, is the thing. you just have to really, really hate everybody.
― El Tomboto, Sunday, 18 November 2007 19:55 (5 years ago) Permalink
The interesting thing about these tweaks is that they abandon the pretense of scientific support. Whereas w/ feet for speaker stands in Stereophile or whatever they'll be some physicist explaining how the damping works, here's it's just like, Hey, put this magic clock in the room and it'll improve the sound. I love it.
― Mark Rich@rdson, Sunday, 18 November 2007 20:36 (5 years ago) Permalink
Sorry, maybe I'm Billy-doesn't-get-it, but is this site real or an elaborate spoof?
― Matt #2, Sunday, 18 November 2007 20:40 (5 years ago) Permalink
I had initially assumed spoof, but I followed some links and poked around and it appears to be real, or at least elaborate enough a spoof to include three or four different sites. Stereophile had an article on some of these tweaks a few years ago anyway:
http://www.stereophile.com/news/10415/
― Mark Rich@rdson, Sunday, 18 November 2007 20:49 (5 years ago) Permalink
even if it is a spoof there's certainly enough real snake-oil products with extremely similar purposes/explanations
here's a collection of some more: http://www.ilikejam.dsl.pipex.com/audiophile.htm
― ciderpress, Sunday, 18 November 2007 21:36 (5 years ago) Permalink
i know someone who swears by this .... http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=280182123367&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=018
― zappi, Thursday, 13 December 2007 15:59 (5 years ago) Permalink
"extremely flat"
― nabisco, Thursday, 13 December 2007 16:10 (5 years ago) Permalink
I don't even know what "a richer, fuller sound, with less emphasis of detail" means. it's supposed to be a good thing?
― bernard snowy, Thursday, 13 December 2007 16:18 (5 years ago) Permalink
My latest tweak = this chair;
― Scik Mouthy, Thursday, 13 December 2007 16:21 (5 years ago) Permalink
i'm actually buying a glass platter for my turntable. i might even buy that mat for it. i'm a sucka 4 luv.
― M@tt He1ges0n, Thursday, 13 December 2007 23:24 (5 years ago) Permalink
actually the chair i'm assuming was a joke, but honestly i was suprised how much getting speaker stands and "correctly" positioning my chair i listen in and the speakers in the room made a HUGE difference in how good things sounded.
― M@tt He1ges0n, Thursday, 13 December 2007 23:39 (5 years ago) Permalink
The chair's totally not a joke; it's expensive and comfortable and easily moved but it's not likely to make me fall asleep in it (no headrest); if I'm comfortable and awake, I can concentrate on listening more. I bought it (almost) with the sole intention of it being a 'headphones' chair.
But yeah, basic physics says position your speakers correctly and sit in the right spot; you simply don't get stereo-imaging without it.
― Scik Mouthy, Friday, 14 December 2007 07:52 (5 years ago) Permalink
http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-between-monster-cable-and/
...a coat hanger.
― bendy, Tuesday, 4 March 2008 14:56 (5 years ago) Permalink
that's AMAZING. audiophiles are some weird people, man.
― ian, Tuesday, 4 March 2008 19:57 (5 years ago) Permalink
-- M@tt He1ges0n, Thursday, December 13, 2007 11:39 PM
totally true
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 4 March 2008 19:58 (5 years ago) Permalink
actually properly treating one's room acoustically would probably do a better job than moving your chair and speakers about
― electricsound, Tuesday, 4 March 2008 22:29 (5 years ago) Permalink
is there already a company selling audiophile interior house paint?
because if there is, I should start selling audiophile EXTERIOR house paint.
― El Tomboto, Tuesday, 4 March 2008 22:30 (5 years ago) Permalink
(xpost)
― snoball, Tuesday, 4 March 2008 23:36 (5 years ago) Permalink
I was much, much less impressed with this enormous fucking Naim set-up than I should have been given how much it ought to have cost. Sure it went LOUD, but sound-wise I wouldn't swap it for my own system, I don't think.
― Scik Mouthy, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 15:18 (5 years ago) Permalink
Is it just perspective on that first photo, or are your speakers nearly at shoulder height?
― Rob M v2, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 15:26 (5 years ago) Permalink
Oh, no - is that a Cyrus CD player? Or tuner? And why isn't everything on Mana shelves? That's why it doesn't sound that good. And has it been on continuously for five years? Another biggie with Naimists. (Seriously, that doesn't look like a great room for those huge - and amazingly ugly - speakers).
What's the turntable - Nottingham Spacedek or something? Oracle Delphi?
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 15:27 (5 years ago) Permalink
mp3s out a old marantz amp someone gave me and 15 y/o bottom of the line cambridge soundworks speakers all day babay
although i did love to read sudiophile magazines when i worked at a bookstore just for the lulz
― jhøshea, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 15:30 (5 years ago) Permalink
The speakers are nearly to chest height - I'm 5'8".
The Cyrus is just a DAC for his wireless streaming thing. Dunno what the turntable is. The room is big but odd; it's a loft that used to be three bedrooms. There's a (low) double bed behind the speakers, plus a desk, which is where I slept (not the desk) (although that picture was taken at 6am so sleeping wasn't exactly urgent and key that weekend).
― Scik Mouthy, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 15:31 (5 years ago) Permalink
Yeah, I really wish someone had just given me a peek into my co-habiting/flat in communal block/married-with-kids future when I was handing over the moolah for all my gear in 1996-97. I wish I'd just got something good/2nd-hand with a small footprint (Cyrus CD/integrated, ProAc speakers, something like that; maybe a Pro-Ject record deck, old Marantz cassette deck, NAD tuner, cables from Maplin) and STOPPED there. Think of all the photographic gear I could've bought with the money saved if I'd just contracted that particular hobbyist bug a decade earlier!
(Ah, DAC for wireless streaming; the Naim box-stacking is kinda insane - external power supplies for everything. Makes my Audiolab pre/mono arrangement look positively understated).
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 15:38 (5 years ago) Permalink
The speakers are Naim DBLs. They weigh about 15st each. Retail these days at £15k. When he got them, in 2000, they should have been £12k. He got them for £4k cos they were "shop-soiled" - the band he's in had an arrangement with Naim and they'd been using them as a playback set-up when they recorded an album in a country house, and the guitarist's dog had taken a bite out of the bottom corner of one, or something.
I'm kind of glad I've had a brush with stuff that's seriously high-end because it's warned me off a bit. Our flat's not that small, but it's a flat nonetheless, and, you know, I want stuff on the walls and holidays and a new camera and stuff maybe too.
― Scik Mouthy, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 15:42 (5 years ago) Permalink
I think my main response to audiophilia these days is that the best way to make your hi-fi sound great is to play better records on it.
― Scik Mouthy, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 15:48 (5 years ago) Permalink
How so?
― Scik Mouthy, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 15:50 (5 years ago) Permalink
the best way to make your hi-fi sound great is to play better records on it.
b i n g o
― Savannah Smiles, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 16:28 (5 years ago) Permalink
if anyone is looking for really great speakers that won't break your bank....i bought these about a year ago and couldn't be more pleased with them...they are really surprising given the price and size:
Epos ELS 3 mini monitors:
http://www.musicdirect.com/product/73457
i run them with a Cambridge Audio integrated amp w/Cambridge phono pre-amp.....
My turntable is a Rega P1 -- one thing on that i would recommend is buying a glass platter and also i replaced the original ortofon cartridge with a Denon DL 160 cartridge which is a fucking amazing cartridge for the price...
For CD player I run a really really old NAD one that I got off craigslist for $35...it works pretty well, has a hard time tracking CD-Rs but will play them after awhile (it's from 87 though so I guess there weren't even CD-Rs then)
― M@tt He1ges0n, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 16:38 (5 years ago) Permalink
Post more pics of slobs in garrets seasoned with with ridiculous sound systems and ugly furniture.
― Gorge, Wednesday, 7 May 2008 20:18 (5 years ago) Permalink
I really like the coffee table.
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 7 May 2008 20:38 (5 years ago) Permalink
I think my favourite way / place to listen to music these days, rather than the big sofa and NAD / Cambridge Audio / Tannoy / proper rack & stands set-up in the living room, with everything anchored in a nice triangle, blah blah, equidistant from rear walls, speakers toed in, is the hotch-potch system in the back room, with the knackered Marantz CD, 20-year-old Marantz amp, DAC, and diddy Q Acoustics speakers. Cos I have space, peace, my comfy chair, books, headphones, no TV or console to distract.
― Scik Mouthy, Thursday, 8 May 2008 17:24 (5 years ago) Permalink
Those are the kind of speakers you buy to justify having previously bought Monster Cable.
― kenan, Thursday, 8 May 2008 18:31 (5 years ago) Permalink
What's the sensitivity rating on those things? It might be all show, but they certainly look like they could bring on an involuntary bowel movement.
― kenan, Thursday, 8 May 2008 18:36 (5 years ago) Permalink
just listened to about 10 minutes of WOW. unimpressed.
try again in a cathedral and tell me you're not impressed
― andrew m., Friday, 28 December 2012 19:42 (4 months ago) Permalink
Use more than one system to play several records simultaneously and the air around you will start pulsating.
Even audiophiles don't have multiple systems in one room.
― Tarfumes The Escape Goat, Friday, 28 December 2012 19:43 (4 months ago) Permalink
also, try looking at the record while listening for the full experience. it has these really cool looking GROOVES in it
― andrew m., Friday, 28 December 2012 19:43 (4 months ago) Permalink
JWOW
― ~farben~ (Jon Lewis), Friday, December 28, 2012 2:40 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
^^^^ winner
― i guess i'd just rather listen to canned heat? (ian), Friday, December 28, 2012 2:40 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
J-WIN
― ~farben~ (Jon Lewis), Friday, 28 December 2012 19:44 (4 months ago) Permalink
ladies man • 22 days agome and my girl fuck to this every night
― "reading specialist" (Z S), Friday, 28 December 2012 19:49 (4 months ago) Permalink
If someone plays WOW and Metal Machine Music at the same time, the universe ends.
― earth of (snoball), Friday, 28 December 2012 19:54 (4 months ago) Permalink
PULSING SHAMWOW
― Rocking Disco Santa (Dan Peterson), Friday, 28 December 2012 19:59 (4 months ago) Permalink
If you're a Linnie, even having a transistor radio in the same room as your system would be considered deleterious.
(I'd try and verify that piece of Linn folklore but it would mean searching audio forums and I've been clean for 10 years, man).
3. adjust the pan on each mono track however you see fit - one leaning toward the right, one to the left.4. combine the two tracks into a single stereo track (either by bouncing down or just saving the whole project as a wav or mp3)
Hmm, is this going to add any stereo width to the track? Or is it just going to offset a monoaural sound laterally (i.e. pan L-channel more than you pan the (identical) R-channel and the sound is over to the left). You need some delay or reverb or phase reversal to give the illusion of stereo, I think, not merely copying the monoaural track twice and panning.
― Michael Jones, Friday, 28 December 2012 20:27 (4 months ago) Permalink
That sounds right. Reverb with certain frequencies emphasized to left channel, and reverb with other frequencies emphasized to right channel? Something like that?
― ~farben~ (Jon Lewis), Friday, 28 December 2012 20:46 (4 months ago) Permalink
Never mind that record, just get one of these...http://www.buchla.com/series200e.html...and be sure it includes the Polyphonic (FM) Tunerhttp://www.buchla.com/model_272e.html
― earth of (snoball), Friday, 28 December 2012 20:47 (4 months ago) Permalink
the other side of the 12" that came with vinyl copies of Chapterhouse's "Whirlpool" ("Die Die Die") just had a single tone on it iirc. and there was that Spiritualized "Tones For DJs" that was similar, was meant to be played at both 33 and 45.
((kinda tempted to make a 1" version of Wow for lulu))
― koogs, Friday, 28 December 2012 20:48 (4 months ago) Permalink
hahahahhahaha
http://app.audiogon.com/listings/media-servers-core-audio-technology-kryptos-ultimate-media-server-a-cost-no-object-marvel-2012-12-10-computer-audio-91403
hahahahahhaahahahaha
― autistic boy is surprisingly good at basketball (silby), Tuesday, 1 January 2013 22:37 (4 months ago) Permalink
They have to be asking for at least 6x the cost of components for that box.
― autistic boy is surprisingly good at basketball (silby), Tuesday, 1 January 2013 22:39 (4 months ago) Permalink
I'm going to go back and read this whole thread soon because I love this bullshit.
― autistic boy is surprisingly good at basketball (silby), Tuesday, 1 January 2013 22:41 (4 months ago) Permalink
Hahaha, that's brilliant.
― Tarfumes The Escape Goat, Tuesday, 1 January 2013 23:13 (4 months ago) Permalink
4 TaraFlops
― earth of (snoball), Tuesday, 1 January 2013 23:25 (4 months ago) Permalink
There's basically so much bullshit on that page that I'd be quoting at least every other line.
― earth of (snoball), Tuesday, 1 January 2013 23:27 (4 months ago) Permalink
oh cool, I needed a new media server
― mh, Tuesday, 1 January 2013 23:37 (4 months ago) Permalink
I have spent all of a few minutes on Newegg picking out parts and I'm only up to $12,000. Including $4000 for the PCIe SSD and $3500 for the Nvidia Tesla. I think that they took the advertised clock speed of their processor and multiplied it by two because Intel doesn't make a 6 core Xeon clocked at 4.25GHz.
― autistic boy is surprisingly good at basketball (silby), Wednesday, 2 January 2013 01:56 (4 months ago) Permalink
96Gb of memory essential for decoding flac
― mh, Wednesday, 2 January 2013 02:22 (4 months ago) Permalink
90 gb for running iTunes iirc
― toy_sleigher (Sufjan Grafton), Wednesday, 2 January 2013 03:29 (4 months ago) Permalink
http://catacombosoundsystem.com/
― les yper-fem (get bent), Wednesday, 16 January 2013 07:49 (4 months ago) Permalink
To those of you know about these things: does bi-amping actually make the sound better in some significant way, or is it just a case of audiophile snake oil? I just bought a new pair of speakers that supports bi-amping, and I think my amp has that function too, but is worth it to buy the extra cables and set this up? The speaker manual claims bi-amping should make a clear difference in sound, but an article quoted on Wikipedia says the difference is subtle, if at all noticeable.
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 16 January 2013 15:12 (4 months ago) Permalink
I think it probably depends on the speakers and how much separation your receiver does. When I got a new receiver capable of doing so I went ahead and bi-amped my speakers, but I am not sure how much of the change in sound is attributable to the receiver versus the bi-amping.
― mh, Wednesday, 16 January 2013 15:21 (4 months ago) Permalink
It's been a few years since I researched it so I can't give a lot of specifics, but yeah, snake-oil. It's a nice way for companies to allow for audiophiles to indulge in their crazy and buy extra amps. As long as you are providing enough power to the speakers, I've seen no scientific evidence that bi-amping makes any difference.
― Fastnbulbous, Wednesday, 16 January 2013 15:23 (4 months ago) Permalink
(I'd try and verify that piece of Linn folklore but it would mean searching audio forums and I've been clean for 10 years, man)
this gave me such a smile this morning
― too many encores (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 16 January 2013 15:27 (4 months ago) Permalink
Aw.
― Michael Jones, Wednesday, 16 January 2013 15:29 (4 months ago) Permalink
on the other hand, this is awesomely ridiculous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-wiring
― mh, Wednesday, 16 January 2013 15:30 (4 months ago) Permalink
However, there are many people in the hi-fi community[who?] who fully accept that bi-wiring brings an audible improvement over standard single cabling[citation needed].
― (panda) (gun) (wrapped gift) (silby), Thursday, 17 January 2013 01:56 (4 months ago) Permalink
feel like this belongs here
http://www.knobfeel.co.uk/
― congratulations (n/a), Friday, 22 February 2013 21:02 (3 months ago) Permalink
great url
― in a chef-driven ambulance (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 22 February 2013 21:04 (3 months ago) Permalink
This is the best thing ever. I watched every video
― Harlem vs Alabama (Spottie_Ottie_Dope), Friday, 22 February 2013 21:09 (3 months ago) Permalink
Although it has a plastic feel, the lights and change of tone in the material between face and flange is a plus!
replicantpleasuremodelreviews.com
― ☠ ☃ ☠ (mh), Friday, 22 February 2013 21:40 (3 months ago) Permalink
Great weight (not too heavy, not too light), and lovely stiffness.
I have a feeling they've spent a lot of time feeling their knobs. Seriously though, I kind of do like the knob on my Marantz pre-pro, though I usually just use the remote!
― Fastnbulbous, Friday, 22 February 2013 22:18 (3 months ago) Permalink
That is brilliant.
― city worker, Friday, 22 February 2013 22:26 (3 months ago) Permalink
― 乒乓, Tuesday, 26 February 2013 15:26 (2 months ago) Permalink
I have another audiophile question: I bought a new Bluray player that I'm also gonna use as a CD player. The player and my amp support both HDMI and regular analog RCA cables. Now, obviously it'd be easier to use just the HDMI, as I need to plug it in for movies anyway. But when I'm playing music, is there any real difference between HDMI and analog?
― Tuomas, Tuesday, 5 March 2013 12:12 (2 months ago) Permalink
If there is any audible difference, it will rest on the relative quality of the digital-to-analog converters (DAC) in your blu-ray player and amp. If you connect the player to the amp via RCA, the player's internal DAC will do the work, if you connect over HDMI then you can choose to let the amp's DAC do this instead (there will be an option on the player's settings to output a bitstream or similar which should enable this). Best thing is probably to try it each way and see which your ears prefer.
― that mustardless plate (Bill A), Tuesday, 5 March 2013 12:32 (2 months ago) Permalink
Thanks for the info! Now, if I understood correctly, analog cables would be better only if the player's DAC quality is higher than the amp's?
Seems to me they both have the same DAC. The specs page for the player, Philips BDP7700, says this:
D/A converter: 24 bit, 192 KHz
And the specs page for the amp, Yamaha RX-V673, says this:
Burr-Brown 192 kHz/24-bit DACs for all channels
So, since the player's DAC can't convert the digital signal any better than the amp's DAC, using analog cables between the player and amp would make no difference? Or did I misunderstand your post?
― Tuomas, Tuesday, 5 March 2013 13:16 (2 months ago) Permalink
No, that's all technically correct, but, although the numerical stats might be the same, one might still sound different to the other - it's like comparing cars purely by engine size; other factors play a part. The Blue-Ray player might have a DAC made by an inferior company, for instance (although I doubt it).
― they all are afflicted with a sickness of existence (Scik Mouthy), Tuesday, 5 March 2013 13:27 (2 months ago) Permalink
tuomas the best thing to do is to listen to both configurations and decide which you like better
― 乒乓, Tuesday, 5 March 2013 13:30 (2 months ago) Permalink
The Blue-Ray player might have a DAC made by an inferior company, for instance (although I doubt it).
I don't quite get this part: if the DAC processes digital data and has the exact the same numerical rates, how can one be better than the other? Sound-wise, that is.
― Tuomas, Tuesday, 5 March 2013 13:34 (2 months ago) Permalink
tuomas do you listen to music or do you listen to numbers?
― 乒乓, Tuesday, 5 March 2013 13:36 (2 months ago) Permalink
Well yeah, but if the point of the DACs is simply to convert the numbers to an analog signal, and they have the same stats, where does the difference between them lie? The numbers remain the same, so the difference must be in the output... Do different DACs somehow produce qualitatively different signals?
― Tuomas, Tuesday, 5 March 2013 13:40 (2 months ago) Permalink
yes
― 乒乓, Tuesday, 5 March 2013 13:41 (2 months ago) Permalink
Construction might be inferior; components might be inferior; there might be interference; one might overheat more than another and impair (or improve!) performance; any number of factors other than numbers derived from pre-assembly testing or whatever can be at play.
― they all are afflicted with a sickness of existence (Scik Mouthy), Tuesday, 5 March 2013 13:42 (2 months ago) Permalink
I mean, I'm totally not an expert on this at a technical level, AT ALL, and I know nothing about how electronics work, but I know I've looked at a Panasonic TV and a Samsung TV or whatever with the same 'stats' and preferred the picture on one of them.
― they all are afflicted with a sickness of existence (Scik Mouthy), Tuesday, 5 March 2013 13:44 (2 months ago) Permalink
That's a fair analogy, and it really does come down to whichever you prefer = best.
On a purely practical note, having a single HDMI cable from the player to the amp and letting the amp do all the work to decode and output HD and CD audio is a much tidier option than having 5 chunky RCA cables between the two, so I'd really only go for that if there's a noticeable improvement via RCA as opposed to HDMI.
― that mustardless plate (Bill A), Tuesday, 5 March 2013 13:51 (2 months ago) Permalink
regardless of what the numbers mean, it really depends on your ears - some people have 'golden ears' and can hear minute differences between equipment even when double blind tested, others have tin ears. I have shitty ears because I stood next to too many speaker stacks at punk shows growing up, but...
and as for what those numbers mean, they just refer to what level of digital signal they'll accept - to take sick mouthy's car analogy, it's like saying these two cars both are able to take 93 octane gas. what the cars do with the gas is another story.
― 乒乓, Tuesday, 5 March 2013 13:54 (2 months ago) Permalink
The fact that both DACs are 24/192k devices doesn't say anything about their analog-side performance. However, I notice that Philips advertise their 9000-series BD players as having "Burr-Brown DACs", which suggests the 7000-series have something (considered) inferior. "Burr-Brown" used to be a name to drop in audio circles (my old Copland CD player had Burr-Brown HDCD devices, I think), though they're owned by Texas Instruments now and I have no idea whether they're considered class leaders or whatever.
http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm1791a.pdf if you want to get geeky.
HDMI does seem like the easier option but it should be pretty easy to do an A/B comparison, switching between HDMI input and a stereo analog input, playing back the same CD. Of course, the levels may differ.
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 5 March 2013 16:33 (2 months ago) Permalink