Jump to content

Sonic perfection?


jimjimbo

Recommended Posts

With a review like that I need a dozen!

Having been in the world of pro photography and audio both as a pro and amateur (the difference is simply whether one cashes a check or not practicing either), I have never encountered as much TOTAL BS as I have in the world of Audio for CRIMINALLY overpriced products. $15,000/pair copper wire anyone?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if anyone has actually read anything on Chord products but apparently they are very good (not another mystery box or anything).  Maybe not in my price range for a stand alone dac but....

 

Based on the Chord site the 2qute is based on the QuteEX.  They state:

 

" In keeping with the rest of Chord’s DAC range, the QuteEX doesn’t use an off-the-shelf DAC chip - instead, the clever guys at Chord use a bespoke, programmable circuit, which they customise to provide the best digital-to-analogue conversion possible.
Read more at http://www.whathifi.com/chord/qute-ex/review#dUq4IesKrcZ5zZQ7.99 "

 

I guess custom logic commands a price.  I'd like to hear one against the new PS Audio NuWave or NAD M51 for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lost a bit of respect for Guttenberg after reading this article...

 

http://www.cnet.com/news/for-the-serious-audiophile-the-chord-2qute-digital-converter/

 

Assuming that there is any interest in possibly understanding why anyone might say stuff like this -- and this also goes back to Bose and dipole radiating loudspeakers, as well as using amplifiers with too high output impedance, etc...

 

Many people listen to their loudspeakers in rooms that are a bit too small and using recordings that are actually pretty awful to listen to (but are perhaps regarded as "audiophile reference recordings", nevertheless...). Anything that increases the perceived size of the listening space is typically regarded as "better".

 

Words like "increased depth of soundstage", "better ambiance", etc. are used to describe these really artificial devices and "enhancements".  It then becomes necessary to defend these kind of devices by saying that accuracy of reproduction isn't the goal and doesn't matter.

 

PWK and others that have worked with him showed that you don't need those "enhancements" if you've got much better loudspeakers and better room acoustics than most everyone uses nowadays. 

 

This is what I think about when I read articles like the one that started this thread.  I don't lose respect, I just think about how distorted the idea of "hi-fi" has become when you step away from the "accurate" standard.   This is but one place that it leads you--and it gets very difficult to defend with a straight face--if you know better. 

 

Two quotes come to mind:

 

"The responsibility of tolerance lies with those who have the wider vision" (George Eliot)

 

and

 

"If you have knowledge, let others light their candles by it." (Margaret Fuller)

 

 

The last quote is appropriate when we encounter those instances were we see these types of, well...indiscretions, by people that should know better.

 

Chris

Edited by Chris A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OT alert:

 

 

 

"The responsibility of tolerance lies with those who have the wider vision" (George Eliot)

 

This reminds me of one I read many many many years ago.  To paraphrase it:

 

"The burden of patience is with he with the most wisdom"

 

Ok, back to the thread.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...