Right now, currently on the CA 840c, it is bolted through a hole on the chassis. I bought a longer 3 inch bolt to go through it and put cork on the underside and inside of the chassis, then put the transformer ontop of that, then through the transformer I put more cork to sandwich it down to the chassis. So it's completely floating. I then surrounded the transformer in mu metal and covered it across the top (basically creating a basket over it). In the NAD M51, I only had enough to create a wall around 3 sides of the transformer board, just enough height to cover everything on there (I think). I need more mu metal to finish covering everything. For the cork isolation, I'm not able to remove the posts as they are solid cast piece of the bottom of the chassis. So I'm going to sandwich the board between the cork and then screw down on top of the cork to allow the board to float on the cork. I just need to find screws that are longer than what they are so add for the added width of two layers of cork.

On the Amps, I'm going to do the same thing (basically), isolate the transformer totally with the cork, then 'wrap' with the mu metal (including the top) as all the caps sit over the top of the transformer in all the amps, but one.

The nice thing is I have a Rotel RB-1090, 1080, and 1095, they are all built very similar, so, for example, I'm going to modify the 1080 first, then place it where the 1090 sits. It's sound is identical to the 1090 right now except doesn't have the low end power. So I should be able to do some nice A/B testing on it to judge the difference between the two. If I hear no difference, then I'll just skip doing the others. If it's an improvement, then I can leave my 1080 in place for a few days while I do the 1090 (1090 has to be almost completely torn apart to get to the transformer... 1095 is even worse).

Either way I'm excited, just waiting a little bit here to order everything as it's going to be about $200 or so for everything. So I need to save a little bit. ;)

Dan,

Thanks for your time, efforts & thourough review.
That was a lot of work.

And many thanks to Geoff for making this little experiment possible.
Offering your disc to us was a gusty gesture.
One not taken lightly by either of us.

While neither of us were able to unearth any effects of the treatments in our own systems, this is still inconclusive evidence of their validity.

This was an unofficial trial on behalf of two grassroots 'philes with all the inherent & numerous variables such an evaluation will have.

Others performing the V same evaluations will likely have varying results.

That is just the nature of our hobby.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

First thanks guys for your reports.

I have a few questions, but, first after doing the mod work, how do you feel about mod vs stock?

What would be your opinion on your personal systems both past and present when it comes to listening to a stock plug & play system compared to the ones you have made fit your taste and environment?

What did the stock systems not give you that the mod systems do?

And how do your sytems sound different from each other? Meaning when you play the same piece of music what does Dan's sound like different from Bill's?

Latestly, do you guys feel like you need to treat CD's in order for them to give you more music?

Did you find the CD treatment to be more important or the moding of your systems?

And lastly, lastly LOL, How helpful is it for you guys to be able to reference particular music, and general sound together?

thanks

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Dan wrote,

"So from a digital technical point, the files coming off both discs are identical. I was hoping that something would show that one had a few bits different….but I was unable to find that.
My conclusion is basically this…
There’s no difference that I was able to discern from listening. This could be related to the music not being able to show the differences between the two… I would’ve picked a better piece of music, most likely (and not to taste) but most likely classical as that’s some of the hardest music to reproduce. The Dylan CD we got was very compressed… VERY compressed and that could be a negative against hearing differences. I’m also not a big Dylan fan…so you can call me biased, but it was also good as I didn’t know the songs and went pure for the “is there a difference I can hear” side, instead of being swept up in the music."

The whole point of the exercise was to pick a highly compressed CD for the test. Hel-loo! As it turns out this particular CD was discussed *at length* on this forum, especially by Michael and me as we both had very good results with tuning and tweaking, respectively.

Dan also wrote,

"The one thing I noticed is the modified disc did not make as much noise as the original disc during these parts, checked a couple times and the modified one was definitely quieter. During playback I could not hear either one with the music muted and listening for any sound of the discs....only note I can make here is that the “modified” disc, when read at high speeds, did not make as much noise as the regular disc. My thinking on this is the disk is much better balanced, making up for discrepancies within the manufacturing of the metal layer and composite layers or the modifications created a smoother (less turbulent) surface so the disk did not flutter as much. I wish I would’ve taken the top of the drive off to watch the discs spin, but I didn’t have the time to really get into that.

Well, that part is very interesting. Anyone else catch that? Could this part of the test be the smoking gun?

Dan also wrote,

"The last option (which biased as I am now, I think is correct) is that there really is not much difference to be made one a decent system that compensates for any issues/imperfections/what have you. I mean the correction algorithms are in there for a reason when the laser reads, right? So maybe this does mean something. Now having said that, I’m a fan of Japan’s Super High Metal (SHM) cds, everyone I’ve gotten has sounded better than the original and from what I’m able to tell… a few are from the exact same master. Now could it have been tampered with… of course, that is the first thing that goes through my mind….but for me any anyone I’ve demoed them… there’s a difference. So I’m for anything and trying anything that can and does make a difference, but for me… the modified CD was the same as the original.

In the case of the SHM disc could it be the clear layer is more transparent than for standard CDs? That would explain the sonic superiority, if it were. Just thought I'd point that out. Could it possibly be the error correction algorithms are not catching all errors, like the ones caused by polycarbonate's 92% transparency? The horror...

SHM apparently stands for Super High Material not Metal. What must have gotten lost in translation is the name should have been Super High Transparency Material. No? Here is the intro to a review of SHM-CDs in Positive Feedback Online. Note the use of the term "laser splatter" and compare to my term "background scattered laser light." Hel-loo!

"With all the work being done to upgrade CD materials these days, it’s no wonder Universal/JVC would actually discover a new material that really does something…a big something at that! SHM-CD, or Super High Material CD, is an improved version of the Compact Disc material that uses super quality, enhanced transparency polycarbonate material developed for use in LCD screens. They will play in any CD player. Universal Music Japan and JVC co-developed the SHM-CD. They report that the new material allows the pits to be formed more precisely plus eliminates laser splatter. The signal characteristics are improved as a result with overall lower distortion and better musicality. Universal Japan is reissuing a ton of albums in their catalog in all genres as SHM-CDs and this is the first report of their CDs to reach these shores!"

Onwards and Upwards,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

No text

Bill and my systems are VERY similar, even though we use different components... a lot is the same or close to it. Every aspect is very close. I would say my system is a little bit better in every aspect due to equipment and modifications and well speakers as well. I've spent a lot more than Bill has. lol. Which goes to show how impressive Bill's system is for it's cost.

Over the last 5 or 6 years Bill and I have been friends, our systems have become more towards a "single" system, just in two locations. Aspects of his system that I liked (musicality for example) has transitioned into changes in my system to give me that. Then things my system did well (imagining, focus, detail) has moved into his system to enhance his.

The biggest difference in our systems right now, I would say is two things, my NAD M51 is a better DAC than his Schiit Gungnir. Not night and day better, but better. Then the other thing is my B&W 802 Diamonds... the Diamond Tweeter just has a level of revealing detail than his custom built Natalie P's (Jon Marsh on HTGuide.com DIY section built) do not have. Course I could say that not many speakers other than Tidal have the level of detail in the high end (while not being harsh AT ALL). Anyone that says a Diamond Tweeter is harsh, didn't have the right power/components behind it. I can sit for 8 hours listening and never once have fatigue.

********* MODS ***************
Mod wise for me, the differences are as follows.
1) More clearer and distinct instruments, the level of detail is increased.
2) Soundstage in the recording (not the sound stage presented by the speakers) is MUCH more prevalent on live recordings/recordings that are just recorded well). You actually hear the hall/room/whatever. It's really sort of weird actually.... because you can close your eyes and feel like your room just grew, changed, and molded to where the performers were. It really gives goosebumps
3) Instruments are more realistic. I separate this from the 1st one because it's not a clarity thing... it's just a realism. I notice it on upright bass and trumpets the most. Growing up, my best friend was a trumpet player and I used to listen to him practice A LOT. So I've been ingrained with how one sounds. I'm getting a lot more of the, and I don't know how to describe it, but similarities is the best word I have right now in the notes than I was before. Maybe a correcting of detail that was in the recording, but never presented before.
4) It is one of those, lifting a veil off the speakers type moment.

I think the best consideration and testament to how much of a difference it is, is I just dropped another $250 on the Mu Metal and Cork yesterday to finish the rest of the components in my system (as well as hopefully have enough to do Bill's amplifier). I think that says enough in and of itself.

Anyone that wants an (honestly) cheap way to really enhance their equipment and aren't affraid to open up their equipment, I would recommend. Of course, things under warranty one should think twice (ie which is why I didn't do anything to the NAD M51 that I can't undo and make sure it doesn't look modded... just incase. ;)

******** Original system *************
Everything was there before the mods took place. It just wasn't heard. My system was not representing the detail differences and (obviously) had interference from the transformer itself than effected the other components in a negative way. There was not any sense of dissatisfaction in the original system... but I think it goes to show how revealing my system is that slight changes (and yes even cables, even USB cables) I can get differences to show on my system. I think we both have gotten pretty revealing systems that are very neutral (to the limitations of our components) so when changes are made, we can really detect good vs. bad. Which may or may not equate the same into someone else's system.

*************** CD Treatments ******************
For me, and I'll speak for Bill, but I'm guessing he's thinking the same. For us, not worth the time/effort/cost. We both didn't think there was any differences between the two. Now to Geoff's credit, he gave the CDs to another person and they noticed differences. So who's to say. The one thing that I'm thinking, and purely guessing here, but he said that the other system CD player was a less expensive model. I'm wondering if the CDp that I used has better transport (better error correction, better laser and optics) that makes up for things that the other guy's transport cannot? Just a thought that makes sense to the logical side of my brain and could explain things a little further.

Overall, it was fun playing with the two discs and really I wanted to hear a difference... I truly did just to say, yes, one can modify things for the better.

For me I'm glad that the discs weren't something I knew... because I might have been biased and though my own copy sounded better from listening to it so much. With not having music that I could "get into" I think it allowed me to be more objective than subjective. At the same time, I was not able to get into the music and enjoy it...sort of a forest through the tree thing. I was looking so closely at each little thing that I did miss the differences. That is possible.

******************* Lastly *********************
Our one friend who is not on here, constantly comes up with the issue of, "why wouldn't the manufacturer do something, IF it makes things better." For that, I have no answer. Most of the mods I've done to my equipment has been little things, nothing major... and I don't think any of it would be considered "non serviceable" so I'm not exactly sure.

Dan wrote,

"*************** CD Treatments ******************
For me, and I'll speak for Bill, but I'm guessing he's thinking the same. For us, not worth the time/effort/cost. We both didn't think there was any differences between the two. Now to Geoff's credit, he gave the CDs to another person and they noticed differences. So who's to say. The one thing that I'm thinking, and purely guessing here, but he said that the other system CD player was a less expensive model. I'm wondering if the CDp that I used has better transport (better error correction, better laser and optics) that makes up for things that the other guy's transport cannot? Just a thought that makes sense to the logical side of my brain and could explain things a little further."

Dan, no, it's actually not correct that the treated CDs only work on cheap equipment. It is the inherent problems that I've been talking about the past four months that are the issue, even for *very expensive* players. Geez, Louise, do you also think the cork and mu metal is for cheap players, too? The manufacturers are way way behind the power curve. Actually, to be truthful, many of the products I've developed were developed on a Half Million Dollar System. There must be another reason why you had trouble hearings the differences between the CDs. But I don't know what that reason is. I do not guess unless it's absolutely necessary. Lol. I am the número uno seller on Audiogon, have been for many years. I kinda doubt all of those customers have cheap gear, if you see what I mean.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

I mean, using on it all the enhancements you put on the "test CD" that Bill and Dan used for comparisons?

iosiP wrote:

I mean, using on it all the enhancements you put on the "test CD" that Bill and Dan used for comparisons?

Costin, off the top of my head the total cost of treating the Bob Dylan CD Modern Times was about $1.50. Hope that is helpful.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
We're only in it for the money

So let me see:
1. Bill and Dan heard no differences on a decent CD player.
2. Someone did hear differences on a cheaper CD player.
3. The cost of treating one CD is $1.50.
4. The cost of treating my 2,000+ CD collection would be ~$3,000 (plus time and work).

So why not buy a ~3,500 CD player and just sit and enjoy my music?

Hi Bill & Dan

This is so much better than the talk!! Let me again express how great it feels to read results of people actually doing. Anyone who reads this that is a serious listener can see what is going on with your systems and in some ways it's almost like being there, or at least getting closer.

Refering to my thread Build vs Sound, what you guys are showing is what we have experienced from people all over the world, at almost battle cry loudness. There are thousands of guys dropping or have dropped out of the high end part of this hobby because the designers are not delivering. By reading your comments so far this is another case where the product was brought in and needed to be changed before a high end worthy level of performance was able to be reached. I hope that the industry starts taking a look into this more and doing some redesign. That's what we have done and have been shocked by what we have discovered. This was a long time ago of course and the re-build of high end for us has been an interesting one to say the least. Moving away from high end parts was probably the most difficult to get the brain around but ultimately in doing so the field of learning opened way up. This part of what we were doing even in our own camp, was split between my workers. The workers at RoomTune who were audiophiles kept working on high end gear while we were working on any gear (all gear working on a level playing field). The high enders would make a product, bring it into the listening room, get blown away by the simple ones, turn back around and start again. As far as I know (don't keep track) they are still trying to acheive through the use of taking stock high end and moding it, instead of starting from the ground up. Really hard to get that right/left thing figured out for a lot of folks.

My hope is that enough people explore and report, instead of explore and get out of the hobby. I've seen thousands who have done what you two are doing now and at a certain level say bye bye to the high end part of the hobby. I don't blame them cause the listening hobby is way better than the debate one, but I think that it makes it hard for people who are then on their path and starting to discover that stock high end is not exactly what they are being told it is.

As for myself it's a steady process in moving closer to the re-build.

thank you again your posts are gold

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

iosiP wrote:

So let me see:
1. Bill and Dan heard no differences on a decent CD player.
2. Someone did hear differences on a cheaper CD player.
3. The cost of treating one CD is $1.50.
4. The cost of treating my 2,000+ CD collection would be ~$3,000 (plus time and work).

So why not buy a ~3,500 CD player and just sit and enjoy my music?

First, Bill didn't do the listening test, only Dan. Second, you haven't been paying attention. You cannot buy a player that doesn't have all the problems I've been talking about for the past four months. Just ask Bill and Dan about mu metal and cork. Now you can go back to sleep.

The odds of your playing all of your 2,000 CDs is zero to none.

Still no electron microscope photographs of micro fissures to prove me wrong? I'm shocked! Lol

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

"You cannot buy a player that doesn't have all the problems I've been talking about for the past four months."

Actually you can, I'm listening to one right now.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

iosiP wrote:

So let me see:
1. Bill and Dan heard no differences on a decent CD player.

To clarify, I listened to the FLAC ripped files of both CD's on my NAS PC music server through my Schiit Gungnir DAC only.
I no longer own a CD player.

Dan listened to both with his Cambridge Audio 870 CDp & his computer-based system.

Neither of us were able to detect any differences.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

michael green wrote:

Geoff,

"You cannot buy a player that doesn't have all the problems I've been talking about for the past four months."

Actually you can, I'm listening to one right now.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

That's what they all say. Put on your listening ears. God gave you one mouth and two ears for a reason. - borrowed from Judge Judy.

Nice try. You can't cheat an honest man. - Geoff Kait

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Definition of insanity: repeating the same thing over and over again; but expecting different results.

My solution to this now ludicrously long debate: go vinyl.
Good Grief.

My $.02 and IMHO.

rrstesiak wrote:

Definition of insanity: repeating the same thing over and over again; but expecting different results.

My solution to this now ludicrously long debate: go vinyl.
Good Grief.

My $.02 and IMHO.

Having been a vinyl fanatic in a past life my two cents on the subject is that while vinyl has it's merits no doubt, digital ultimately provides much more information and dynamic range. The reason I use the word ultimately is because digital requires just as much user interaction as vinyl, if not more, in order to achieve optimum results. It's this user interaction, what he should do to try to get to audio nirvana, or whether he should do nothing at all, that makes these threads so long and contentious. You're not used to audio forums I'm beginning to take it. Lol. Even uber analog guy Michael Fremer of this very magazine opined that most of the best sounding systems at CES High End Audio were actually digital systems.. That was 14 years ago.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

All:

I am indeed new to these threads; but not new to music and science; where often here the two meet. There are literally dozens of articles and videos I was very easily able to find within a minute of searching that show through sensitive measuring devices from a scientific, factual viewpoint that when discussing redbook CD, vinyl usually wins. (Master recodings of course playing a large part in this). Either way, vinyl often in fact is empirically "better" than CD. Here is just one of many for the skeptics:

http://youtu.be/4eC6L3_k_48

Now if one was to bring up 192/24 or even 96/24, my arguments may be overruled. But with Redbook, I stand firm in my opinion as well as scientific conviction.

Respectfully,

Ron

Let's look at this scientifically for a moment, since you bring up science. Digital audio can (not always but potentially) provide a dynamic range on the order of 90 dB perhaps more. On the other hand, analog as in a good solid turntable can provide (not always but potentially) a dynamic range of what 65 dB or 70 dB. That means, assuming you accept my numbers for the purpose of this discussion, digital outperforms analog for the parameter dynamic range by at least 20 dB. I suspect if you do the math you'll find the same situation for Signal to Noise Ratio. I.e., a 20 dB higher SNR for digital. Now, how significant is that? Well, 20 dB is in fact, 100 times better! Having said that, there are many reasons why a particular digital system might not sound like it's 100 times better than a given analog system, including the obvious dynamic range compression that has been going on in the CD industry for what about twenty years. Many of the other reasons why one might not be getting the uh full Monty out of his CDs form the basis of many threads I get involved with right here on Stereophile.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
We Do Artificial Atoms Right

geoff:

I do agree with the stated decibel levels that CD's are in fact "louder" than records. Such is the horrible beast of the "loudness wars" that plagues media including this forum.

The video I reference in my first statement on this topic actually visually SHOWS with a frequency analyzer that a CD is literally CUT OFF at 44.1 Hz; as that is the RedBook spec limitation and arguably the limitation supposedly of human hearing by a panel of scientists many decades ago...(to be brutally precise the RedBook frequency is halved to about 20KHz in practical listening; that argued upper limit of human hearing).... But everyone knows about the additional scientific and not-so-scientific debates now going on with Hi-Rez digital music such as 192/24 and 96/24 KHz; as well as dxd and a revival of sorts of SACD.

My point being, if you continue to watch the video, the gent plays two different LPs, showing wildly oscillating and abundant DATA after the 44.1 CD RedBook range... and I propose that these sonics ARE in fact part of what separates records as "better" than CD's. This is adhering to strictly science. I will also just touch upon the fact the music chain is shorter with an analog source; fewer conversions of signals and equipment and audio gymnastics all potentially degrading, coloring, and messing up the original artist's intent. With Vinyl, it can stay all analog..from input to output. Scientific Reason #2.

Though if you note, I nullified my claim for digital audio above RedBook.

:)

As a non-scientific; however based on this scientist's personal observation, the Bass in LP's is just deeper seemingly than most CD's and even digital files I've personally heard. My tried and true example I compare a 44.1KHz file to an LP of Mike + The Mechanics "Par Avion". If anyone hasn't heard it, it is an excellent '80's ballad set to very deep bass...wonderful... and constantly wows my friends I have over for "analog vs digital" debates.

The really funny part: I believe digital is the future; especially with the newer Hi-Rez recordings and superior mastering technology trickling down into these Hi-Rez files.... but the OP topic is again RedBook CD...so I still stand firm in my convictions; both scientific and personal, that Records are just "better" than CD's.

Let the intellectual debates continue!

Listen On!

Ron

Ron wrote,

"Louder is not better...

I do agree with the stated decibel levels that CD's are in fact "louder" than records. Such is the horrible beast of the "loudness wars" that plagues media including this forum."

But the loudness war involves compressing the dynamic range and boosting the loudness level to try to make up for it. In other words CDs are not inherently louder than records - only if the CDs have been dynamically compressed. The uproar is over the fact that the music has been smothered, emasculated as it were by heavy handed compression. The dynamic range of course is the ratio of the loudness levels of the loudest and the softest passages on the recording. 3 dB represents doubling of the dynamic range. That's why I stated earlier that 20 dB difference represents a multiple of 100. This dynamic range is what gives music it's power and gusto, it's pop and drama, so when I say the dynamic range of CDs is higher than records, I'm not referring to loudness levels per se. Once the dynamic range has been compressed it cannot be restored by turning up the volume. Can I refer you to the Official Dynamic Range Data Base for detailed dynamic range data for everything from Pink Floyd to Bob Dylan? So, a preference for a record - at least in terms of dynamic range - might be easy to understand if the comparison was to a CD that had been heavily dynamically compressed. Otherwise, the CD should win handily, even with moderate compression. It's easier to compare CDs that have been compressed with CDs that haven't been compressed IMHO.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff:

I completely agree with your latest reply.

To re-frame it in "my" context and conclude this topic for me, I will state that a digital recording that has been mastered properly and without the over-compensated loudness will in fact in theory sound better and have deeper bass extension than vinyl.

That reason is where we agree and why I left out digital files greater than 44.1 in my statements.

The only area we disagree; and I will concede to agree to disagree, is the claim that a redbook cd recording is inherently better than its vinyl counterpart. Due to all of that sonic data above 44.1KHz as shown in the YouTube Video as well as my own experience and the fact of over-compression, I still think vinyl edges out redbook. I will conclude that soon digital may overtake vinyl at these higher recording and production rates.

It was a very good discussion and I enjoyed it. And we largely ended up coming together in viewpoints.

Respectfully,

Ron

Ooops

For what's it's worth I'm a big fan of both vinyl and tape, cassette tape. I listen exclusively these days to portable CD player, portable cassette player and portable Walkman AM/FM radio. I think that both vinyl and cassette are inherently musical media, sweet and warm, whereas digital - generally speaking, particularly out of the box - suffers a weird unnatural treble and frequently lacks sweetness and warmth. Very few things soothe the savage breast like Heifetz on cassette or vinyl. My vinyl rig included Quad 57s, modified tube electronics including regulated power supplies that came from US Navy, Special Edition Maplenoll TT with 50 lb platter and a modified Nimbus sub Hertz isolation platform with Firestone air spring filled to 80 psi under the Maplenoll with 200 lb of ballast below decks. The Maplenoll is air bearing everything, including air supply with 500 feet of air tubing and two air buffers for smoothing air flow. The Quads did NOT have their metal grills or Mylar dust covers in place.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Breaking Noose! This just in. Apologies in advance for cross forum pollination but this post just vidied over at AA. The person who posted this comment was responding to a comment I made regarding advantages of portable CD players.

"Indeed.
I have 4 cheap chinese portables (Xiron, Marquant) No antiskipping, no opamp for output amplifying obviously, output is 0.7 Volt, more than enough. The sound is very reminiscent of analogue. It wins from my high end players that I seldom use anymore. I think that the DAC with voltage output and no opamp to ampify further is the secret. Digital sucks, CD's always have that non musical synthetic sound, all piano's sound like digital piano's, no soul in it. These portables make it all palatable and my conclusion is that expensive CD players, including SACD is a big swindle, the biggest con in recorded music history. Convenient for in the car, obviosly CD's are made for that, alway's compression, before 1995 or so CD's were reasonable."

My current portable CD player:

Geoff Kait
Machina Dogmatica

michael green wrote:

Hi Bill & Dan

This is so much better than the talk!! Let me again express how great it feels to read results of people actually doing. Anyone who reads this that is a serious listener can see what is going on with your systems and in some ways it's almost like being there, or at least getting closer.

Refering to my thread Build vs Sound, what you guys are showing is what we have experienced from people all over the world, at almost battle cry loudness. There are thousands of guys dropping or have dropped out of the high end part of this hobby because the designers are not delivering. By reading your comments so far this is another case where the product was brought in and needed to be changed before a high end worthy level of performance was able to be reached. I hope that the industry starts taking a look into this more and doing some redesign. That's what we have done and have been shocked by what we have discovered. This was a long time ago of course and the re-build of high end for us has been an interesting one to say the least. Moving away from high end parts was probably the most difficult to get the brain around but ultimately in doing so the field of learning opened way up. This part of what we were doing even in our own camp, was split between my workers. The workers at RoomTune who were audiophiles kept working on high end gear while we were working on any gear (all gear working on a level playing field). The high enders would make a product, bring it into the listening room, get blown away by the simple ones, turn back around and start again. As far as I know (don't keep track) they are still trying to acheive through the use of taking stock high end and moding it, instead of starting from the ground up. Really hard to get that right/left thing figured out for a lot of folks.

My hope is that enough people explore and report, instead of explore and get out of the hobby. I've seen thousands who have done what you two are doing now and at a certain level say bye bye to the high end part of the hobby. I don't blame them cause the listening hobby is way better than the debate one, but I think that it makes it hard for people who are then on their path and starting to discover that stock high end is not exactly what they are being told it is.

As for myself it's a steady process in moving closer to the re-build.

thank you again your posts are gold

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Micheal, your stories are some of the most amazing and imaginative things I have ever read.

Have you actually, visually, seen these "thousands" who have abandoned high-end gear and adopted your superior approach. Did you see them all at once, or one after another?

Hi David

Why don't you come join us on Ron's thread while we reference Miles? When people listen together they get a far better feel for who they are talking to.

Hope to see you there, and looking forward to your views.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

rrstesiak wrote:

Geoff:

I completely agree with your latest reply.

To re-frame it in "my" context and conclude this topic for me, I will state that a digital recording that has been mastered properly and without the over-compensated loudness will in fact in theory sound better and have deeper bass extension than vinyl.

That reason is where we agree and why I left out digital files greater than 44.1 in my statements.

The only area we disagree; and I will concede to agree to disagree, is the claim that a redbook cd recording is inherently better than its vinyl counterpart. Due to all of that sonic data above 44.1KHz as shown in the YouTube Video as well as my own experience and the fact of over-compression, I still think vinyl edges out redbook. I will conclude that soon digital may overtake vinyl at these higher recording and production rates.

It was a very good discussion and I enjoyed it. And we largely ended up coming together in viewpoints.

Respectfully,

Ron

Having had a big vinyl rig (tube electronics and modded Quad 57s and highly specialized air bearing everything Maplenoll turntable, I can certainly agree with the general statement that vinyl is a great medium. I have no qualms about that. But things are not necessarily so black and white when it comes to comparing all these various media and their inevitable variations. For example when I listen to cassettes that have been digitally remastered, of which I now have at least a few, including Kind of Blue as fate would have it, as I've been hoarding cassettes lo these past six months or so once I had my cassette epiphany lol, I find the sound of the digitally remastered cassette is very ANALOG sounding, not like its CD sibling. Not like you would expect. And more to the point these cassettes, including the digitally remastered ones, sound MORE DYNAMIC THAN CD. And MORE DYNAMIC THAN VINYL, TOO! And the bass performance even on these almost silly little cassette players I'm using are superior to CD GENERALLY SPEAKING IN TERMS OF DETAIL, IMPACT, COHERENCE AND MUSICALITY. Cassettes are more like the original analog master tape than any other media IMHO.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

100% agree, it has nothing to do with the end equipment, it is the source material forever altered, no amount of processing will restore what has been lost, sure better gear always sounds great, but crap in is crap out. To many recording engineers playing with sliders and buttons doing more harm than good

PredatorZ wrote:

100% agree, it has nothing to do with the end equipment, it is the source material forever altered, no amount of processing will restore what has been lost, sure better gear always sounds great, but crap in is crap out. To many recording engineers playing with sliders and buttons doing more harm than good

I trust you're not agreeing with me since I wish to make it perfectly clear I do not think that the problem, at least the primary problem, lies in the original recording but rather in how the playback system works. Evidence of this is that we can make CDs more and more ANALOG sounding by addressing faults or problems in the home playback system such as scattered background laser light, susceptibility of the player to vibration, physical characteristics of the CD like being out of round and the clear layer not being completely transparent and even the interference and distortion caused by Information Fields. This is not to say that analog systems cannot be improved by attention to details. It's just that the problems are more severe not to mention hidden with digital systems.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica