Rivendell61

Dean, Don't have time to double check right now but FYI: I believe that uses the TA2024 which is the same chip as the original Sonic Impact--i.e., about 5-6 watts usable in the 'fairly clean' range. Mark

Tom, Thanks. If you ever stumble across it again I'd be interested. Ref. your second post: not quite sure your definition of formal but the Sony tests were ABX. Sources were various: sine, square, pink, and yes even music--depending on what was being diagnosed/investigated. Shawn, Well...I don't know the 'why' but I am sure you are on the right track. The Sony stuff I have seen does not really speculate on cause--except generally to state the obvious. The testing was mainly done (AFAIK) during converter testing/refining and also to investigate related things like ultrasonic audibility, etc. So the fact that the most sensitive method of testing also corresponded to the situation in which most people would be using the equipment is something of a plus. They got some very interesting results like.....diagnosing a 1/4 sample delay problem between channels (L/R). Which is darn tiny stuff (about 5 microseconds--I believe a tad below the normally accepted audible limit) --and even sub-1/4 sample results. Floyd Toole seems to have said much the same thing (re better listening test results in room) at his AES Master Class in acoustics but....apparently, while he had the data to support it he also had no explanation. Mark

Tom can you point me to that source? Testing by Sony found the opposite--detection of delay, phase, and modulation artefacts was better in a minimally treated, "moderately" reverberant room, than when using headphones or in anechoic conditions. Mark

Berk

Speakerfritz, You are correct that DACs have become much better--but not because of increased sampling rates. High sampling rates (up to c. 96kHz max) are useful to get by poor quality filters. The better the filter the lower the rate at which a DAC can operate in a transparent, or near transparent fashion. As noted above any converter being operated above 96kHz will be damaging the signal. So there is a trade off-- Look for better engineering not higher rates. The McIntosh is a case in point. Contrary to popular 'knowledge' designing a good converter is damned difficult. The difficult part is not buying a chip but designing a board and circuit that can extract the signal. One simple guide to a converter quality is look at the specs. How well did the engineer who designed it do? Most modern chips (Wolfson, AD, etc) have a SNR of c. 117dB+ (and similar dynamic range). So look at the converter specs. The McIntosh says 110+.... Not a good sign. Perhaps on a par with a box from Circuit City :-). And they make no mention of jitter rejection, etc.... Just a note from reading posts above: some are confusing sampling rate with internal operating rate. All (good) modern converters over-sample WAY up into the megahertz range and operate much like a DSD (SACD) converter at maybe 64xFs (often much higher). But that is independent of the sampling rate. ***--always best to keep a chain operating near the delivery rate -- if you have a good converter. Poor converters need higher rates--only your ears can decide. Higher bit depth is needed for some processing, etc but for a simple capture no. Mark

Lets hope not. Sounds like either a manufacturer who does not know what it is doing (not uncommon), or they are appealing to the wallets of consumers who have been misled. High sampling rates have no benefit for sound quality--nor do they improve timing, 'resolution', etc--quite the opposite. But it sells: consumer gear is loaded with 192kHz DACs, at which speed the signal quality has already degraded. Mark

I think he had/has a Sony DVP S9000ES. Last year Sony found a bunch of them in a Mexican warehouse (so the story goes) and Soundseller was selling them for about $500 with full Sony warrenty--may have been a link to that.... Mark

Not true. Perhaps the best, best known, and most widely used microphone for high quality studio recording is the Bruel & Kjaer 4006. I'm listening to one right now via a Channel Classics recording (Pieter Wispelwey/Dejan Lazic: Beethoven, Complete Sonatas and Variations for Piano and Cello). The TL (transformerless) version is flat (plus or minus 2 dB) from 15HZ-20kHz. Mark

You need to highlight the text, click the hyperlink icon and then enter the URL that you want the text to link to. This makes it so you can change the text to say something like "Click Here" and bring you to any webpage. It's a nice feature for when the URL is uber-long. Thanks. I thought I used to be able to just cut and paste a URL on Klipsch and it would be clickable--but those above were not. Might be a browser thing....I usually use IE here but was on FF earlier. Comparing now, on FF I don't seem to get all the icon options in the reply box that I can see with IE (like link icons are greyed out). Mark

......why are my links above not active? Mark

Not sure how to do it via WMP but here is an excellent, free, file converter (dBpoweramp): http://www.dbpoweramp.com/dmc.htm You just need to download the codecs you want from here: http://www.dbpoweramp.com/codec-central.htm Mark

The HP8750 is quite good. Nine ink (3 carts), around $500. Image longevity looks to be excellent. Here are links to Wilhelm Imaging accelerated fading reports on the HP8750 and the Epson 3800: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/8750.html http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/3800.html Some photo printers are not very happy when not used constantly (ink carts drying, etc). Might check over on the photo.net forums for info. Mark

Get 'em while you can: http://biz.yahoo.com/e/070214/trphe.ob8-k.html Mark

Hey Mike, Have you considered becoming a mastering engineer? Vlado Meller who is known for mastering those (clipped and compressed to heck) recordings with 1 or 2 dB range currently charges $495 per hour. And the bands are practically lined up at his door willing to pay because they all want that 'smashed' sound. (Lucky for me--I don't listen to modern pop music.....) Mark

Speakerfritz, You have described the Wolfson DAC you have as 'NOS'--and you have expressed an interest in other NOS DACs (ala Monica). Just to be clear--the Wolfson is not NOS, it is an oversampling DAC. That is why the WM8740 chip is good! (as long as it is not run at 192kHz....). So don't make the mistake of looking at NOS DACs thinking they are kin to the Wolfson. Filterless NOS DACs like the Monica are putting out a quite 'damaged' signal (and may, of course, be liked subjectively)--unlike the oversampling chips. One more note.....focus on 'chips' and 'chip sets' is a mistake. There is very little correlation between chip quality and converter quality. Look at the converter as a whole not the chip. Very few (if any) HT products or DIY DACs will perform well regardless of the chip(s) used. Mark

Toslink will add jitter (which does not neccessarily mean it is, in all situations, inferior to coax). A baseline jitter estimate for a straight Toslink cable (it increases if the cable is bent) would be adding perhaps a few ns (nanoseconds) of jitter. This is well into the region of potential audibility. 1) Will you hear it? Maybe.... Depends on several things. It certainly will be lowering signal transparency. 2) Is it bad? Yes and maybe.... That amount of jitter would certainly be avoided in any 'serious' application i.e., recording. Jitter damages the signal, reduces the s/n performance, etc. Subjectively who knows? Audiophiles like to say they hate the sound of jitter yet they generally seem to like any gear with added signal damage :-) In fact, there is some evidence that the added jitter from using an external clock on a DAC is preferred by some.... But certainly most would choose the less jitter/better signal transparency path. The easiest way to do that is with a good DAC which is jitter immune--there are a handful on the market. Mark

Re cassette s/n here is a reference point for you: "High quality cassette players typically deliver 50 dB of signal-to-noise at around 600 Hz." Mark

I'd second Allan's suggestion of the Armstrong JSP set. I'd also say that for the pre-tape (thank you Bing) era jazz recordings, even diehard vinylphiles might look to recent CD releases. When transfers to LP were being done 20+ years ago it was not an 'audiophile' undertaking. Now we have companies like Mosaic, Origin, Timeless, etc. They will seek out best copies from around the world and use transfer experts like Doug Pomeroy, Davies, Marsden, who will do pitch correction, have many 78 stylus profiles to select from, etc., and produce really much improved sonics from most of the LP era efforts. One more note: The JSP Armstrong set is excellent and transfered for them. But....recently JSP (and other labels like Proper) have been simply stealing the re-mastering/transfer work of places like Mosaic. So if that bothers you please check if other prospective JSP purchases say on the front 'remastered by John R. T. Davies' (or similar)--if nothing is said it is likely a stolen transfer.... Mark PS--watch that Burns Jazz thing with caution....didn't I see Stanley Crouch in there somewhere.....?

Ahh.. Interesting Tom. Well, tragic really. I've not read beyond the potted tourist type histories of the events--and those a long time back. Both the WWI German fleet was scuttled (self-inflicted) there, and the WWII (Oct. 1939...v early) horror of the loss of 833 sailors on HMS Royal Oak. When I was staying in the Orkneys (30+ years ago) I was told that the U-Boat captain had recced the inter-island tide depths and obstacle placements as a pre-war tourist. Not sure if that is true however. mas, I believe the UK nuclear sub fleet is based at Faslane on Gare Loch (HMNB Clyde)--S.West Coast of Scotland . Mark

HMS Royal Oak? Used to drive the Churchill Barriers down to St Margarets Hope. Mark

Hey......I am in complete agreement with mas here! I only would note that when the term 'adaptor' is used it be understood that the cable wired as above and called an 'adaptor' is fine but the actual plug adapters should not be used. Mark

Answered above...... DrWho, It has been said several times that there will be some circumstances where equipment or situation demand another solution. I know nothing of receiver/subwoofer issues--that may be one of those situations. No one has said it will always be best. There are no doubt many situations where power needs overwhelm quality concerns. Whitlock is writing from an assumption that most are trying to maximize signal quality first--and only compromise on that when there is no other option. That cable is used everywhere as first choice but only seems to have a hard time with one individual... :-) You might read Whitlock's objections to the 1:4 boxes. You can also just look at the specs of the box mas suggested to see reason to avoid it. Re the QSC PLX amp Bob Lee (QSC engineer) has stated that the consumer step up should be no problem in most cases--turn up the gain if needed (he also suggests everyone read Whitlock.....). Again.....the cable solution is preferred by Whitlock, and others, not because it is cheap--but because it works best in the sense of best signal quality. It is SOP in most 'critical' unbal => bal situations. Here is an example from the manual for a DSD/SACD analog to digital converter (perhaps the best ADC extant) where absolute signal quality is obviously paramount. No transformers in sight! And do you recognize that cable?

Hmmm.... Somehow I don't think you are trying very hard here...... :-) All the clues are in my post (and there is really little mystery) i.e., read Whitlock's more recent papers on the subject (heck, I've even linked those to you before). It's a bit late but I will try.... Essentially in the paper mas cited Whitlock is simply listing connections in the order of ascending noise rejection ability. In later papers he answers the more specific question of what is the 'correct' (his term) way to connect unbalanced to balanced--which is not the same thing. He answers: via the described interconnect (see my quote from him in the post above). In other words, since most homes/studios do not have huge 'noise' problems and can manage to derive full signal integrity even with unbalanced connections (on occasion...). The 'correct' interconnect he describes adds c. 30dB of additional rejection above that. So there is rarely going to be a reason to resort to a transformer--and best signal quality will be preserved by using the simple cable option sans transformer (remember he sells transformers so he is being a good guy here). Going balanced to unbalanced is another matter..... Mark

Bill Whitlock is the man re interconnect/grounding issues! If you are familiar with his writing (ideally more recent than the one you linked) you will no doubt recognize that my post above to DrWho was essentially a paraphrase of Whitlock's positions. He strongly advises against use of step-up transformers when going -10 to +4. And he advocates the interconnect I described as normative saying: "For all intents and purposes, using [that interconnect] is the correct way to connect an unbalanced component to a balanced one". Whitlock is particularly handy because he carries some authority, for several reasons, not least of which is that he participates on the AES task group on interconnection standards. Mark

Ahh...I went back to the original post and saw that triode mention..... Interestingly (or not) some of the Class D amps which tend to be most popular with audiophiles are the least transparent ala Tripath. They do some mildly funky stuff to the signal which is (psychoacoustically speaking) appealing: adding dBs in the 'air' range, a bit of extra distortion, etc. Mark