maxg

I think I would blame the layout of the Louvre for that rather than the artwork itself. This is the main problem with the larger galleries and museums - too much similar stuff in one place. Might have been nice if they distributed works a little better amongst many museums rather than concentrating so many works in so few locations. I remember struggling through the Louvre on more than one ocasion completely oblivious to yet another room of Dutch Interiors. Ain't the work that is at fault. Chucking stuff out that is mass produced rubbish - that is easy to replace is one thing. Chucking out unique items / works of art is quite another - however bored you are with them. Just pack em up and ship them off on a tour of China or something. Oh - and if you ever want to get truely bummed out over Gold just go to the Cairo museum. How many things can you make out of Gold for heaven's sakes? Got quite boring towards the end. Tut's mask was good though. Then there is the Natural History Museum in London and the Museum of Natural History in New York - way, way to big to ever get a handle on. Just brake up the collection and distribute it. Anyone studying the stuff will still be able to find what they want on line anyway.

My God Mark - that is a bit dramatic just to save some space. Chuck out Mozart symphonies that are not his best work? Kinda glad you are not in charge of the Library of Congress. NEWS FLASH: Under the stewardship of new Library of Congress Chief Librarian Mark Deneen the library has been relocated to a small cupboard under the stairs on the third floor of the Pentagon. "We didnt need all that crap littering up the place," said Mark, "and we put it into the Pentagon because no-one ever really visits the library anyway."

Oops - well spotted Mark - brain not in gear. Meant technology - I think.

Just as a matter of interest if the HK smokes the tubes why cant you part with the tubes? Are there some things the tubes do better?

Go with what sounds good to you and ignore everything else. I have a digital amp and a tube pre-amp - go figure. Been through SS and tube amps a plenty. All have their pluses and minuses but I am not at all sure that is to do with the topology. I have heard warm tube amps and cold ones, warm SS amps and cold ones high power tubes and low power, high power SS and low power. Too many options to call it by transistor Vs Tube.

Like others here I tend to keep lots of space empty cases that you can buy at most computer outlets. Talking of computers - however bad an audio CD is boxed computer CD's are far worse and totally non standard. I spend a ridiculous sum on a piece of software only to find the Cd's come in envelopes (paper or cardboard) which cant offer much protection to the disk. Not only that but it I do decide to decant the disk into a proper jeweled box the back of the envelope has some essential number that I then need to store elsewhere. You know the sort of thing PHJCB-34FGH-DVDFM-104RF-99GGH-34TFG etc. etc. Try writing that on the back of a jewelled case in Q-tip that you can read a year later. Then - when you have installed the damn software there is a message that a newer version is available and you download another 200 Mb of files to replace the thing you just installed (this rant will go on a while's - I will stop typing it now however.)

Dave, There really are 2 possibilities here arent there - accepting that we could agree when we heard them which was better: The quality of digital you have heard is vastly superior to anything I have come into contact with. The quality of analogue I have heard is vastly superior to anything you have come into contact with. (Possibly both of course) It gonna be REALLY hard to address that on a forum isnt it!!! The only reason that this experience has largely convinced me that vinyl rules is as follows: To date every system I have been to has been biased to a greater or lesser extent towards vinyl. This has been either a budgetary bias - my own system as an example or an implementation bias where equipment has been chosen to the benefit of the analogue and potentially to the detriment of the digital. In this case, however, everything in the chain from the CD transport to the amp is from a single manufacturer and not cheap stuff. According to those present Theta is a very well respected mark and regarded as one of the best implementations around. The vinyl sub-system is the one that obviously appears to be tacked on. The phono stage, table and arm and cartridge are of different makes and were presumably not designed with the pre-amp / amp backend in mind. Now it might be that the quality of CD's used was not good. I would be surprised by this as this was, afterall, an audiophile meeting and people generally tend to use their best recordings for the job. Further, we played a goodly number of CD's throughout the night - they can't all have been bad! On the flipside - we played a number of vinyl records - mainly from requests. The probability that these were uniformly good is no higher than the probability that the CD's were uniformly bad. We can assume that the host had no interest in promoting one over the other. Towards the end of the evening we broke up the listening session to discuss what we were hearing. I mentioned that when listening to the CD source the sweetspot was less than a meter wide. The host corrected this down to 20 cm (about 9 inches) [:^)] When we switched to the vinyl rig, however, the sweet spot opened up enormously. I would guess it encompassed 2 meters (6 foot plus). God only knows why, but it was a huge and immediately apparent difference - it meant I could stop fighting with Tony for pole position for a start!! This was just one difference noted - there were many. From bass reproduction to soundstage to depth to mids and highs the vinyl was clearly - and massively better. Clearly the match between Dynavector cartridge and the arm (a badged SME 5) and the match to the phono stage was supremely good - but this is the point isnt it. Ultimately I may still be wrong - but I really will take some serious convincing of the fact now. Having said all of that I am happy to accept that this is an almost entirely academic argument. Choice of medium is always going to be dictated largely by the availability of your chosen musical genre. Further, whilst digital may ulitmately be capable of matching or even surpassing vinyl it does seem to be a rarity. The majority of CD titles DO appear to be worse recordings than the equivalent vinyl issues. This could entirely be a function of the greater care taken in producing the recording for vinyl in the first place - but does that matter if the result is that the music from vinyl is better?

Pat, I never asked - probably is for some kind of surround sound - there was a centre channel there but I do not remember seeing rear speakers. Certainly he has a very big TV in the middle. Tony's rather long winded review of the system can be found at http://aca.gr/meet07-3.htm for anyone that is interested. Its a weird one!! Be warned.

Greg, Guilty, Mark, Good question. Towards the end of the evening at these meetings we turn the music off and discuss the system - music - room etc. Those of us that want to can express out opinions on what we heard and the owner can respond - or not. I pointed out the disparity in vinyl and CD playback quality - despite the investment and he just shrugged his shoulders and said; "what do you expect? - but you have to have both for the music." Certainly cant argue with that now can I - although it would apply less to me due to my musical preferences. It was an observation NO-ONE in the room disagreed with. I put great store by this revelation as I have, to date, always had to accept the possibility that somewhere out there is a digtial system that erally can hold its own with vinyl. This system has convinced me that, whilst it is still not impossible, the probability of such a thing existing has shrunk beyond measure. We are not only dealing with a high $ implementation of a very respected name in the marketplace (Theta) but in a single make solution. Transport / DAC / Pre-amp / Amp - all Theta. We can assume therefore that the component matching issue cannot readily be improved. If all the components are close to state of the art, if they all match and if they have been implemented with no expense spared (cables / stands etc.) and vinyl still whoops its ***......... I am going to take some convincing from now on there is a digital system out there that can really do it.

Yup - all crap system:

I had been hoping to post a few more pics but the system seems to be on a go slow and I gave up. This is a very interesting system in many ways - with a large amount of room treatments so address bass boom, midrange bloat etc. issues. Sonically it ranges from the best I have ever heard to actually not acceptable - if that makes any sense....well I think I can explain: These are large speakers. They are set well apart and the drivers are widely spaced vertically. This means that they hold their sonic space pretty much independently of the source. The soundstage does not adjust in size markedly between a full symphony orchestra and a trio. The net result of this is that the reproduction of Large Orchestral works and Opera is second to none in my opinion whilst smaller works appear bloated. Listening to a Jazz Quartet, for example, the double bass comes across too big - and many listening felt that it was boomy. Actually in my opinion that was not boom that one might associate with room issues but simply a function of the over-sizing of the image. Listening to Cavalleria Musticana,on the other hand, was simply magical - EVEN on CD!!!! A yes - CD - a word on this. This system has a Theta Carmen II transport with a Theta Generation VIII DAC and a Theta Generation VIII linestage. It is as good as any CD player I have heard (Should be - transport and DAC were around $25,000). We listened to CD for most of the early part of the evening and it was seriously good, UNTIL we switched to vinyl. This is the first time in a while I have been to a house where similar budgets have been spend on the digitial and analogue front ends. The vinyl absolutely KILLED the CD sonically. I could not believe the difference. If ever there was a perfect demonstation of the superiority of a vinyl rig for music playback this house is it. If this were my system I would sell the digital immediately and get more vinyl. And I dont even like Transrotor TT's!!!

Saturday's ACA meeting: (If the pictures load)

You're missing out on some fantastic vinyl. The newer high quality pressings are great. Also, the latest reissues of older LPs from the likes of Classic Records, Analogue Productions and a few others are top notch. Some of the best I've heard. How are the high quality pressings bieng mixed??? As far as I know (which is not much imo) if the recording is digital all of the editing could be done before the LP is pressed, thus filtering out any "unwanted" background noise. Thus sounding like a cd on a very high quality systems like you guys have. Are LP's bieng produced differently now a days??? Would that be DDA then??? Randy There are a number of smaller audiophile labels that are actually now doing all analogue recording again. Tacet and Opus 3 spring to mind along with the Audio Analogue Association. These are generally staggeringly good productions - but I cannot say for a certainty that this is as a result of the analogue approach. I would guess they take extreme care in the mastering and all other aspects of the production.

If a graviton cant escape from a Black hole - but a black hole exerts huge gravitational attraction then maybe Gravitons might be attracted to mass - rather than emitted from it? Its kinda like the old Phlogisten theory of fire. Probably not - just a thought.

Oops - I just understood - how embarrassing. The actual physical model doesnt work in space. Gotcha. I am a blind Buck(No idea (eye-deer)). Or is that a motionless blind Buck (Still no idea).

Max, your are probably recalling the common graphic used to explain gravity by the use of a figure that represents space as a sheet that is deformed by mass. The curvature of the sheet makes it look like if you placed a marble on it, it would roll around the "gravity well" and show the appearent attractive aspect of the mass. I don't like this example because it assumes what it sets out to explain - the deformation of the sheet by the mass is caused by the mass pressing into the sheet - what makes it do that? What makes the marble move and roll, and change direction? While it is true that if you set up a sheet of material and put an object in the center to deform it (because Earth's gravity would pull it down), and then placed a marble on the sheet and watched it roll and move around and toward the object (because Earth's gravity pulls it down)... well you see, the model only works if you already assume that there is a gravitational force present acting from under the sheet. This is a false model, a false analogy. It works at the Earth's surface because of the Earth's gravity, but if you take this model into space it will not work. The marble will just stay where ever it is placed. To set up the model and see it work is nothing more than observing that the model at the Earth's surface behaves under the influence of Earth's gravity just as one would expect consistent with other gravitational observations. If you need the model to reside within a gravitational field in order to use it to explain gravity, it doesn't. It does not explain the source or nature of the gravity that is being assumed to have to be present in order for the model to work. If you start off without gravity, bending the sheet has no effect on the marble on the sheet unless you posit a separate gravitational force at right angles to the sheet external to the model. We know a lot about how things happen and how different things are related, but we know nothing about the things themselves or the nature of what makes the relationships. Paul, The real problem with this disucssion is that I don't even understand what the issue is. You did correctly identify the model I recalled but I cant understand where your issue is after that. This is the reason I am not an astro-physist. Basically all I got is that mass deforms space and things fall in. the effect is local - so at a certain distance you are outside of this induced curvature and so not affected. The bigger the object - the bigger the curve - so things fall in from further away. What is a graviton anyway? Isnt that a particle of gravity? Is it a ray of Gravity? Clueless. Talking of clueless - as I recall magnetism - although obvious only with metals, actually affects all substances just to a lesser degree. In other words magnets attract all items other than like poles. How do we know Gravity is not just magnetism from a large solid body? I never understood that one. Probably a child like question - sorry.

The problem with this installation is that he has covered the openings for the basshorn. The black material at the sides of your Khorn covers the opening to the horn. If you cover it with a thick wooden surround you seriously diminish its output.....

Cloudy - wow - not seen that. Mine just stop working. If I am lucky some of the tracks play still but others just sort of hang. I wonder if my CD drive in my computer affects them. Too hot perhaps? The funny thing is that some that look like they shouldnt play - when my daughter gets hold of them usually - dont seem to have a problem. I have a few that are seriously scratched up on the non-labelled side but play anyway. Others look fine but the CD player wont even recognise them as CD's. My marrantz says helpfully "No disk in the drive" - when there is one. Great! My TT never does that.

Am I the only person on this forum that has a stack of unplayable CD's? Vinyl may deteriorate - but CD's simply seem to stop working. I have the same problem with DVD's now. Am I doing something very wrong with these things?

OK - I might be missing something here - of couse I am - but I thought gravity was a curvature of space time in the presence of either mass or energy in large amounts. Space/time bends and things fall in - no? Isnt that what Einstein said? Wasnt this the reason light is affected by gravity without having demonstrable mass? Of course I am about 70 years out of date on this.

I wonder if you have a power issue over there. Tubes should not need changing / biasing etc. quite as often as you seem to be experiencing. Having said that - I have moved away from tubes to SS and then to digital for my amp (although the pre is still tubed) but for other reasons. Life is definitely a bit easier now - and less worrisome - but that really wasnt the issue that drove me.

Travis, Interesting thread. Might I suggest that before you take the plunge you test out a Denon 103. Judging by your comments on the 501 Vs the 901 you might even prefer the 103 over the 501. Obviously - whilst I know you are not looking at prices - the 103 has definite appeal over the other options in this area. I made this same suggestion to someone else on this forum - Josh I think, and from memory he actually prefered the 103 over the 901 which he had broken and was planning to send off to be fixed - for more money that the 103 cost. As I repeat as nauseam on this forum it is not the cartridge itself that is so important - it is how well it matches with the arm on the table of choice. Sadly I have never played with a Vector arm so I cannot advise in this case - will be very interested to hear your feedback if you do test it. Just a thought.

That would depend on who was wearing it. I think I need to lie down now.

Mas, I dont mind being incorporated into convenient groupings if you need to. In the meantime I have the feeling that what we are looking at here is a theorectical proposition - that may well be 100% correct for all I know but is going to be rather limited in its practical value for someone like me. Yes - I am looking for answers in an easily digested form - sorry about that. My primary interest is in building the best sound system I can - the science stuff is very much of secondary importance to me if gaining the knowledge required for a practical benefit is a daunting as it appears now. I am not saying that I might not buy the books you have recommended but I have the feeling it is an entirely academic exercise in terms of my main quest. Correct?

OK - seriously disappointed here that this thread has descended into a brawl - and no - I dont want to get into a "He started it" debate. There is, imho, some really good stuff in here amidst the jibes, and I am seriously interested in any systematic appraoch to audio that might at least supplement, if not actually replace, listening as the sole arbiter of what does and does not work. Speaking entirely for myself I have absolutely no objection to a scientific approach to anything - including audio. I do not particularly use one myself, not out of a luddite mentality, but merely because I have neither the knowledge nor the tools to do so. Mas has referred to a variety of "new" scientific approaches to the study of audio. I would like to know in simple terms how these can be applied to the selection of components to build a system that plays music in a given room. I would like to know what the variables are, how they are ascertained and then how they are manipulated to gain an answer. Such an answer would be in the form - component A is a better match to the rest of the system than component B for XYZ reasons. Or: In the current system the best ROI would be obtained by the following upgrades/changes. Or: Given the paramters of the listening room (actually what are the important paramters here?) the best system for music playback would be based upon..... In other words - all the basic questions someone who is assembling a playback system might want to ask. To date, in order to answer these questions I have HAD to rely on my experience, listening sessions and large doses of input from others with greater or varying experience. This is very much a hit and miss / trial and error approach. It has not been an inexpensive route to follow. The value of equipment that has been discarded on my trek through the audio jungle is greater than the value of the equipment currently installed. In my limited understanding of what MAS (and possible Tom) is talking about there might just be an alternative approach that would nail down many, if not most of the variables from the outset allowing me greater confidence in my purchasing. Why would I be against that? Why would anyone?