Awesome Audiophile Snake Oil

(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

Aw.

on the other hand, this is awesomely ridiculous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-wiring

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].

feel like this belongs here

http://www.knobfeel.co.uk/

great url

This is the best thing ever. I watched every video

Although it has a plastic feel, the lights and change of tone in the material between face and flange is a plus!

replicantpleasuremodelreviews.com

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!

That is brilliant.

http://i.imgur.com/1t3BLa0.png

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?

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.

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?

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).

tuomas the best thing to do is to listen to both configurations and decide which you like better

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 do you listen to music or do you listen to numbers?

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?

yes

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2013/10/this-hypnotic-turntables-glowing-platter-floats-on-magnets/

i'm surprised it took them this long (or have there been other maglev turntables?)

Aren't magnets a really bad idea near cartridges? I guess that's been the barrier to other maglev designs.

Quite a few vacuum-based turntables over the years, like this one - but, come to think of it, that's just for fixing the record to the platter rather than suspension of the platter:
http://www.sotaturntables.com/newtables/millennia.htm

A turntable of that quality would be using a moving coil cartridge (which with some exceptions are what most high quality carts are) not moving magnet (which are generally what lower quality carts are (with some exceptions like my ortofon 2m blue)

An MC cart still has a magnet in it.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/audiophiles-luring-youngsters-into-boring-conversations-2013110180809

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/2013-tas-editors-choice-awards-digital-interconnects/

Wireworld Silver Starlight
$275/1m
wireworldcable.com
David Salz’s thoroughly researched assault on USB’s sonic handicaps delivers a relaxed, well-defined, dynamically evocative, and rhythmically taut performance. The Silver Starlight projects strings without screechiness, which cannot be said of most USB cables. For those seeking a mid-priced USB cable with obviously high build-quality and performance, the Silver Starlight is a solid choice.

Mid-priced! Watching the audiophiles get into computer audio stuff has been hilarious.

Even when used to carry nothing but the clock signal in the dCS Vivaldi, it improves image focus, increases coherence, and produces a smoother and more organic presentation.

capable of resolving the finest detail

Maybe if We record some hard truths about audio cables at sear sound and press to 180g vinyl...

The announcement of Pono (launching via Kickstarter!) definitely belongs in this thread. A 128GB device that will hold 1000/2000 albums? That's 64MB per album, which is roughly equivalent to 128kbps AAC files if we assume an album = an hour of music. Doesn't seem particular "high-resolution" to me...but maybe the "PonoMusic recommended earbud and headphone products" make all the difference.

Yeah I've never been able to make sense of what Neil is doing... just in general...but also w Pono...I mean hi-rez digital files (24/192) are pretty common now & there are already options for iPod type devices made by audiophile companies, so I've never understood Pono...unless he's claiming they've invented some new codec that can make hi-rez quality in a much smaller data footprint??

it's probably some terrible filters

I like all the "Unknown artist"s on the screen. They couldn't be bothered to tag the files properly for the photo!

Neil Young has been saying that PONO will be 24 bit 192kHz PCM. If that is the case a 30 minute 24/192 FLAC music album is over 1 GB, a 1 hour 24/192 FLAC music album is over 2 GB. So that would be 60 to 120 albums depending on length.

I'm guessing the target audience here - gadget-freak, divorced or empty-nest dads - probably will not really need more than 60 to 120 albums worth of space anyway.

Also, the shape of this thing. It looks designed to be as uncomfortable as possible in a pocket.

that is now saying

"PRESS RELEASE UPDATED AT 2:57AM Monday March 10th 2014."

and

"The PonoPlayer has 128GB of memory and can store from about 100 to 500 high-resolution digital-music albums..."

which is more like it.

I mean hi-rez digital files (24/192) are pretty common now & there are already options for iPod type devices made by audiophile companies, so I've never understood Pono...

I have a regular 50 Euro Sansa MP3 player that can also play FLACs, and with a 20 Euro added memory card it has the total space of 40GB, which is more than I'll ever need. So yeah, paying over 300 dollars more for the extra memory seems pretty stupid.

I'm sure this has audiophile grade DAC and headphone stage though... file format and nitrate isn't the whole story

http://cached.imagescaler.hbpl.co.uk/resize/scaleWidth/620/?sUrl=http://offlinehbpl.hbpl.co.uk/news/OKM/94FA9503-D259-4ED9-9EFB84892E4A2FC1.jpg

ok .. placing this here as opposed to the pono thread.

i have encoded most of my archive into digital form (256 mp3).
i run music from my laptop headphone output socket into my amp aux input.
up until tonight the vaio has been set to a 'clearaudio for music' setting that seemed to boost bottom and top.
question : would a dragonfly dac make that much of a difference ?
tonight i have switched the clearaudio setting off, and now have a 'clean' set up.
or, would the dragonfly dac do little to improve over the 'clearaudio for music' preset as that seems to add a lot of colour to the groove.

[ note : i am not a high end audiophile. i have a basic all in one mid level teac amp/cd system, with entry level cambridge audio floorstanders. ]

i'm pretty skeptical of those kind of preset things....it would definitely change things because the dragonfly would be decoding the digital, not your PC

yeah ..thats what i thought, but the clearaudio setting sounds rather bloody good ..

the question is : flat output + dragonfly vs clearaudio music setting

if a dragonfly was £50 i would run the risk, but £120+ i want to figure out my options.

Can you get hold of the dragonfly from a supplier that does a no quibble refund/returns policy? It's going to be a significantly better than the DAC built into your laptop, which are notoriously cheap and at the mercy of interference from the rest of the computer. But you won't know if you prefer the sound of it until you try. I do know that my little headphone amp/dac which I use to run my Alessandro MS1s sounds heaps better than just plugging them into the laptop.

mark e - i mean it's kinda hard to answer this stuff not being able to hear what you're hearing...

when i ask questions like this it usually means i want to buy something and feel kinda like i shouldn't spend the cash so i want someone else to tell me to buy it, so i'm gonna do it: buy the dragonfly, it will sound way better than this clearaudio setting stuff i've never heard :)