artto

First, let me share my credentials with you. I’ve made many recordings over the past 30+ years of “acoustic” music (voice and instruments) for the Glen Ellyn – Wheaton Chorale. Initially, these recordings were made live-in-concert, which in itself presents many logistical problems for using ideal microphone type and placement. In later years I was able to record at rehearsal prior to concert, primarily so I could master and produce some quantity of CDs for sale at concerts. All of these recordings have taken place in various churches, but in recent years at College Church, Wheaton, Illinois, which is known for its fine acoustics for Chorale music. The Chorale was always accompanied by a grand piano (Steinway), and guest musicians/singers. This might be a children’s choir with hand bells, or a trio of harps, string quartet, chamber orchestra, jazz band, etc. Also a smaller ensemble group from the Chorale. The first thing I suggest you do is Google “recording a violin”, or “Why does my violin recording sound so bad”. You’ll find that virtually anyone who plays violin, and has tried to record themselves absolutely hates the way they sound. For me, getting that woody sound, the texture, timbre of a violin, without the edginess, is probably one of the most difficult sounds to record and get right. Unfortunately, for me, I didn’t have the liberty to experiment and listen to playback before making any commitment to “the sound”. It was basically hit and miss, learn a little bit each time, as you go. I’ve used many mic techniques, everything from simple two spaced mics, three main mics, mutli-mic/mutli-track, and combinations thereof. Now a little bit about commercial recordings from small and big labels. Obviously, they have much bigger budgets with better equipment and more time, and experience than I do. However, for the most part, many of these “professional” recordings have similar characteristics. For one, (and IMO this IS a BIG deal), the “perspective” they present is more often than not, that of the conductor. It’s more like what they hear than what we hear sitting in the audience. Consider a recording technique like the well-known “Decca tree”. It’s a simple three (sometimes more) mic pickup. But where are the mics located? In a triangle “tree” held above the orchestra or above the conductor’s podium. There’s a big difference in this “sound” compared to where we sit in the audience. Then there’s the problem with multi-mics. These might be fill-in mics, or an array of multiple mics placed much closer to the instruments. Why would one do this? Well, if it’s a “live” concert or an older concert hall built before we had all the noise pollution, the mics might need to be placed closer to the source to avoid picking up audience noise or traffic noise for instance. Great for signal to noise ratio, not so good for sound quality – at least as we audiophiles expect it. All of that being said, I must admit that personally, I pretty much hate the sound of violins. 🤢😀There are very few violinists that I can say I really admire and listen to. Itzhak Perlman, Issac Stern, Anne Sophie Mutter to a name a few. What I’m saying is that there’s also some musicianship involved here. The second chair violinists are probably not producing sound of the same caliber as that of the aforementioned violinists. Add to that the most commonly used mic techniques, and the closeness of the mics to the performers, it easily compounds the sound quality problem. For recordings I listen to, I prefer the older, simpler two or three spaced mic technique used in the early Mercury Living Presence or RCA Living Stereo. Telarc also adapted this in their early digital recordings. Prof. Keith O. Johnson of Reference Recordings has made wonderful recordings. Also take a look at the library from BIS/Sweden. I think it’s also important to seek out the best rooms where these kinds of music/instruments/vocals are recorded. For example. I’ve discovered that many of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra recordings I love best were made at Chicago Medinah Temple, not Orchestra Hall (as may sometimes be misquoted). As a side note, I should also mention that often recordings that I’ve made that sound good on my system, are not necessarily all that listenable in a car, for instance. If I did whatever I need to do to make them more appealing in a car or on the radio it would most certainly compromise the dynamic range and sound quality (as I, and probably you prefer it). If all else fails – use the tone control!!!!!! You, as the listener, have literally no control over what the recording engineer did, mixing and mastering engineer did, the musician’s abilities, or where/how the recording was made. There is no such thing as “purist” here. Don’t be afraid to use the treble control to dial it down a bit, or a lot. Even boosting bass can alleviate some of that violin edginess. https://gewchorale.org/ https://www.renkus-heinz.com/application/chicagos-college-church-offers-a-landmark-ic-squared-installation/ https://bis.se/contact https://referencerecordings.com/

I've tried playing some of my DSD/DSF files using the ROON player. I don't like what I'm hearing. And the "quality indicator" light is a small yellow dot. The Signal Path shows a lot of conversions, down-sampling and floating point conversion. My Endpoint is limited to 24/192. Is there any way to improve this? It seems like the lower quality signal path indicator and my ears agree. Is there any way for ROON to produce the highest quality at the Endpoint (amp/DAC) from a DSD file?

I'm sure some of you remember the iconic "Chicago" song Lake Shore Drive by Aliotta Haynes & Jerimiah. Ted Aliotta is a personal friend of mine. I've played many gigs and jam sessions with Ted. In perusing for some jams to go to I found out Ted has incurred some major medical issues, resulting in hospitalization. (stroke, bleeding ulcers, now 80% blind). If you care to help out with the expenses, his niece Maggie has setup a GoFundMe account. FWIW, I think today or tomorrow is his (74th?) birthday. https://www.gofundme.com/f/ameage-ted-aliotta-medical-fundraiser?utm_source=customer&utm_medium=copy_link_all&utm_campaign=m_pd+share-sheet

Not sure if we're allowed to do this. If not, Moderators, you know what to do. ☺️ If it gets removed, It's on YouTube. Just search the title.

ROFLMFAO. You just can't admit it, can you. Let's go through this again. Class D amp = no "added input modulation chip" Class D amp = no "feedback chip" Class Z amp = "different method of controlling the switching modulation of the output devices" Class Z amp = "added input modulation chip" Class Z amp = DIGITAL "feedback chip" (yes, I'm correcting you) But to you they are the same thing and both Class D. If that's the case, we should just throw out all amplifier Classifications all together.

Which is precisely why it is Class Z, as the the original inventors designated it.

NO. You are the one who needs to open yourself to other possibilities. You *might* learn something instead of being so presumptuous yourself.

Seriously guys, I've been on this Forum for 18 years and still have 900 points to go before my Forum Rank gets upgraded to the next level. I'm just tying to make as many posts as possible. (joke)

What I said was virtually all Class D amps are not DIGITAL at all. The M32 is as close to true DIGITAL as it gets at the moment, other than requiring some kind of "analog" output to drive ANALOG speakes. Class D amps are NOT Direct Digital or Digital Feedback or Direct Digital Feedback amplifiers. However, the NAD/Zetex developed amplifiers are. Hence, the original, and I agree with it, designation Class Z

Oh, excuse me? I most certainly will. Until you figure out (accept) that they are directly and completely interrelated you'll never even begin to understand, or comprehend, or experience what's possible. I sincerely mean that. And it's to your great advantage to pursue that if you really want to experience reproduced music at its best. Seriously.

Afraid to fall into the trap, eh? (really, I know you don't understand what I'm getting at yet) Bottom line is this is all just semantics. No need to argue. In the end, it's all about implementation anyway, right? Just because an amplifier is analog, or digital, Class A or Class AB, SET or quasi-complimentary doesn't make it better than one of the others. So I'll break the news to you. Bruno Putzy authored that paper in 2006 well before DDFA was a commercially available product. And as far as "analog" goes, There really isn't such as thing. Electrons don't "flow" like water, through or along the skin of wires. The whole world is digital. Even time itself comes in "bits".

Well, if you think so................ There really are no digital amplifiers https://www.hypex.nl/img/upload/doc/an_wp/WP_All_amps_are_analogue.pdf And after you're done reading that I have something else for you to look at.

And like I said, you've never been in a recording studio, and I suspect , like almost all audiophiles, have little to no recording experience.

And they (Class D linear amplifiers) are nothing close to a Direct Digital Feedback Amplifier either. You do realize that, don't you?

If you think what I said is irrelevant......................(fill in the blanks) I agree with you that some people will pay for things that look nice. But most of the junk being sold to audiophiles as well as their "practices" have nothing to with audio quality. Hell, a stiff drink or some funny stuff can do a better job at that. (and cost less)

There are actually "two" components (ideas) in that DDFA terminology which apparently get overlooked or misunderstood. "Direct Digital" and "Digital Feedback". Neither of which are employed in virtually any other "Class D" amplifier, which are all essentially just conventional linear amplifiers with switching power supplies. Nothing digital about them at all. Now that we've derailed the original post........................... Luxman (now) makes great equipment (again). What difference does it make if it's an old design? At $3300 for a 10 watt valve amp it's about the build quality, quality control, warranty, service, and aesthetics.

And it's clear you have never been in a recording studio.

I bookmarked that document years ago. If you've read it, and understand it, Class Z is not quite the same as Class D. Similar to Class AB not being quite the same as Class B or Class AB+B, etc.

Class D amps are not true digital amplifiers. DDFA is.

Then conduct the same test yourself. And please invite all of us for the demo - you get to test it blind so the rest of us can have a good laugh. Just sayin'. I'm sure you know what I mean. There are much more important things that affect the sound we hear. Like the recording and the room.

What does the "left" have to do with climate change? Climate change is not a political subject just because the right says so. As a matter of fact, the planet has been warming up for at least the past few 100,000 years - all without our help. And please don't chime in about how fast it recently has warmed. That's just the good ol' bell curve. It shows up in virtually everything. We're just getting near the top of it (the steep part). BTW, the leftists spell it "Harvard"

Actually, it's quite common for investors (or traders, or speculators) to take profits around the beginning of the New Year. They don't have to pay taxes on it until April 15, the following year. Plus, investors will sell for any number of reasons. What one wants to watch for is when they are buying. There's only one reason to buy 🤑

Not to change the subject, but currently my favorite amp is NAD M32, a “Direct Digital Feedback Amplifier” (DDFA, technically a Class Z amp, not Class D as is often quoted). Google “Direct Digital Feedback Amplifier” and see what comes up first. Qualcomm. NAD & Cambridge Silicon Radio (CSR) co-developed DDFA starting nearly 15 years ago. Reading Qualcomm’s website you would think this is a Qualcomm invention when in fact hey had nothing to do with it. They simply bought – 15 years after the fact.

If I remember correctly, Forum member Mark Deneen (former Paragon owner) conducted an experiment to expose what you described C.Beef. The same system components were used for two “identical” systems. One was all messy, cables and wires all over the place, amp components in cheap DIY chassis, and the other all nice and neat, expensive looking. Everyone would choose the clean and expensive system as sounding better – even though all the components were exactly the same.