Levinson 40 vs Krell 707 - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 81 Old 12-11-2010, 12:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mmiles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,958
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Pardon my ignorance but what is DSoTm?

Mike Miles

ICR [ Sales Consulting and Small Part-Time AV shop, very small...  ]

Process Integration, Inc. [ contract sales consultant ]

Eastern Shore of Maryland

mmiles is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 81 Old 12-11-2010, 03:50 AM
Advanced Member
 
Chris_Stephens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Phoenix Az
Posts: 548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon
Chris_Stephens is offline  
post #63 of 81 Old 12-11-2010, 06:52 AM
LJG
AVS Special Member
 
LJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Brookville, NY
Posts: 3,980
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Chris:

Glad to have you back
LJG is offline  
post #64 of 81 Old 12-11-2010, 07:12 AM
Member
 
matjet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_Stephens View Post

Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon

So, what is the best digital format recording of Dark Side of The Moon available today? I think the SACD version is terrific.
matjet is offline  
post #65 of 81 Old 12-11-2010, 08:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
Chris_Stephens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Phoenix Az
Posts: 548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
If you look back on the thread that has been the debate...

I feel very strongly that the quad Alan Parsons mix is the only way it should be heard. There appear to be more then one way to experence this. I have a unusall version in DTS quad and I guess there is a MLP Quad as well. So the debate is between these 2. I think it gets down to the mastering process and the Analog to digital conversions and all its electronics between the tape and the A/D

On a separate note..

The quad versions require a system with good imaging to create a nice center image up front otherwise the vocals and stuff dont work out well. This was the major deciding factor for a 5.1 mix. Center channel and vocals..
Chris_Stephens is offline  
post #66 of 81 Old 12-11-2010, 08:22 AM
Advanced Member
 
Chris_Stephens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Phoenix Az
Posts: 548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Wait a minute.....

This MLP version is just a torrent ??? This was never a official thing ? So we have no idea who did it or where it came from ?????
Chris_Stephens is offline  
post #67 of 81 Old 12-11-2010, 10:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Raul GS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,190
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_Stephens View Post

This MLP version is just a torrent ??? This was never a official thing ? So we have no idea who did it or where it came from ?????

If true, if your concern is a copyright one, then it is valid. However, if your concern is a SQ one, should the proof be in the pudding regardless of where or from whom it came from?

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. Charles Darwin
Raul GS is offline  
post #68 of 81 Old 12-11-2010, 11:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mmiles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,958
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Are you guys high when you are listening?



I listended to a lot of Floyd when I have my dedicated room [Martin Logan Summits, Cary Audio CD player and amp] and it was amazing in two channel. People would listen and swear there was more that two speakers in the room!

Could not imagine the sound of properly mixed multi channel version...

Mike Miles

ICR [ Sales Consulting and Small Part-Time AV shop, very small...  ]

Process Integration, Inc. [ contract sales consultant ]

Eastern Shore of Maryland

mmiles is offline  
post #69 of 81 Old 12-11-2010, 12:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
Chris_Stephens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Phoenix Az
Posts: 548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I admit to having partaken in some smoking materials the first time I listened to this DTS Quad version in 1998... But that was long ago...

So just for reference..

My Check Disc of this was made on 2/28/98 by Digisonics.. So yea it was a early DTS DVD-A...
Chris_Stephens is offline  
post #70 of 81 Old 12-11-2010, 12:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
edorr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 24
I just compared Dark Side of the Moon SACD 5.1 and DTS Quadro. I played the 2 channel version over my perfectwave dac from the harddrive, and swtiched between 2 channel and DTS first, and then between 2 channel and SACD. This allowed me to compare the difference against a common baseline.

The SACD 5.1 sounds like ..... well, a surround sound higher resolution version of the original 2 channel version - a lot better, but keeping the same musical signature and balance. The quad version has a different sonic character alltogether. I believer Alan Parson got a bit carried away with the possibilities of the technology (either that or he was on magic mushrooms) and created something that sound artificially spacious. For example the saxophone in us and them and the female vocals in the great gig in the sky appear to be floating in the room, but they lack focus, sound "thinner" than the 2 channel and SACD and certainly less like what I envisage the original instruments/voice to sound like. In summary, I prefer the SACD.
edorr is offline  
post #71 of 81 Old 12-11-2010, 05:02 PM
Advanced Member
 
Chris_Stephens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Phoenix Az
Posts: 548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Thats a nice description. The SACD sounds like the 2 channel version. I like that. So true...

The DTS QUAD is the exact same mix as the open reel quad released at the time.. If you watch "The Making Of Dark Side Of The Moon" you will see track layout sheets used by Parsons at the time it was recorded that shows what i am saying... Its was *recorded* in quad. That was the entire intent. The 2 channel was a mix down from the quad... The quad on the DTS Quad is the original way it was recorded and the way the band signed off on it at the time and THE WAY IT WAS DONE IN LIVE PERFORMANCE..

For me, since I own and used the original quad back in the day, only the original quad is the right way it will ever sound to me.

I will hold 100% firm that I will always prefer the original quad mix. And done with DTS is awesome..

For me the 5.1 mix sux... Always will... But thats my personal preference..
Chris_Stephens is offline  
post #72 of 81 Old 12-11-2010, 05:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Steve Bruzonsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Gilbert, Arizona
Posts: 17,608
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_Stephens View Post

Thats a nice description. The SACD sounds like the 2 channel version. I like that. So true...

The DTS QUAD is the exact same mix as the open reel quad released at the time.. If you watch "The Making Of Dark Side Of The Moon" you will see track layout sheets used by Parsons at the time it was recorded that shows what i am saying... Its was *recorded* in quad. That was the entire intent. The 2 channel was a mix down from the quad... The quad on the DTS Quad is the original way it was recorded and the way the band signed off on it at the time and THE WAY IT WAS DONE IN LIVE PERFORMANCE..

For me, since I own and used the original quad back in the day, only the original quad is the right way it will ever sound to me.

I will hold 100% firm that I will always prefer the original quad mix. And done with DTS is awesome..

For me the 5.1 mix sux... Always will... But thats my personal preference..

I completely agree with you, Chris.

The multi-channel SACD does sound better in the sense that it is higher resolution.

But the DTS mix, even though technically lower quality, just sounds so much better, which I presume is due to an incredibly original four channel mix that simply has not been nearly replicated with the multi-channel SACD version. Its a shame! One would think that an SACD four channel mix of the original four channels would be simply incredible if done "right"!

"Doug Winsor" used to troll at some AV Forums as "Steve Bruzonsky"! My home theater at:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1158431
Steve Bruzonsky is offline  
post #73 of 81 Old 12-11-2010, 08:56 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 18,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by edorr View Post
The SACD 5.1 sounds like ..... well, a surround sound higher resolution version of the original 2 channel version - a lot better, but keeping the same musical signature and balance. The quad version has a different sonic character alltogether. I believer Alan Parson got a bit carried away with the possibilities of the technology (either that or he was on magic mushrooms) and created something that sound artificially spacious.
Though generally disappointed with the Guthrie SACD, Parsons did have a few complementary things to say about a couple of the songs:

The Great Gig in the Sky: "I tip my hat to James for sorting out the correct bits of Clare's vocals. And he has improved on the stereo mix, which is a bit wishy-washy. The stereo is heavy on the Hammond organ, and Clare's a little too far down. In my quad mix, the Hammond is barely there, which shows you I really wasn't being faithful to the stereo mix. The quad sounds pretty good, but James still has the edge. His mix is definitely cleaner, and he's brought Clare out a bit more."

Money: "Listen closely when the loop re-enters later in the song. In both the stereo mix and the quad, the timing wasn't exactly in sync with the music. James has corrected that for his mix. It was something I was dying to do for 30 years. I went crazy with the third guitar solo in my quad mix. Thirty years later, I wish I hadn't. It's going all around the room. Very 1970s-just like the early days of stereo."

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #74 of 81 Old 12-11-2010, 10:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 18,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_Stephens View Post
The 2 channel was a mix down from the quad...
I don't see how that could be possible. At the press release for the album, the stereo mix was played because the quad mix hadn't been finished yet. Parsons mixed 'Atom Heart Mother' and 'Dark Side of the Moon', and then mixed quad versions of both albums. You can't have a 2-channel downmix of a quad version that didn't even exist at the time.
Quote:
The quad on the DTS Quad is the original way it was recorded and the way the band signed off on it at the time
EMI commissioned the quad mixes for 'Atom Heart Mother' and 'Dark Side of the Moon', but the band never signed off on those mixes.

From Parsons' own words: "I'm not surprised that Pink Floyd rejected my quad mix of Dark Side for the SACD. I did the mix very quickly. If I'd known that the record would sell in its millions, then I would've insisted on having more time. There's stuff missing from the quad mix.* I just didn't have enough tape machines in the studio to get it all in. The quad was a compromise; I have no problem admitting that fact. I did it single-handedly without automation. But the feel of that mix is pretty exciting. Conceptually, it wasn't so wrong that I shouldn't have had a crack at the [5.1] surround mix."

* If the 2-channel was downmixed from the quad, how could the 2-channel contain stuff that's missing from the quad version?

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #75 of 81 Old 12-12-2010, 11:20 AM
Advanced Member
 
Chris_Stephens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Phoenix Az
Posts: 548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
OMG....

SO MANY INTERNET EXPERTS ! I just love those... People who quote wiki and press reports as "facts"... While generally wikis are correct not always.. And press reports reflect the public side of things rather then the down and dirty truth..

Its amazing to me. If I said the sky was blue, there would be several people who would explain I was completely wrong..

Ive had people explain to me on this forum about various aspects of science of imaging devices. That I was completly wrong. hehehehe.,...

Let me address your quoting the internet stuff on Parson vs that other guy.. A gnashing of technical/artistic opinions by the 2 over specifics of the DTS remastering. Ultimately this was sorted out by a decision *of the band* which favored that other guy over parsons. Which of course isn't mentioned in your histories because the whole unsavory events that occurred in 1998 was intentionally suppressed. This was a heated argument. "WE NEED A CENTER CHANNEL". Parson's felt strongly that overall his mix was what he wanted at the time and had *strong* unpleasant words about the 5.1 remix when it was done much later.. These words were not the kind you would want public.

MUCH later,, A interview occurred where parsons said sorta good things about the other guys remix. IF YOU READ THE ENTIRE story rather then pick it into quotes you will see, even tho he is trying to be nice, was not overly happy about it..

The quote you cite is interesting because the vocals on the DTS version of

As far as what the process was back during the initial approval of the quad mix, I would suggest watching "The Making of The Dark Side Of The Moon". Dont watch little youtube chunkc of it, watch the whole thing. https://encrypted.google.com/search?...AAAKoEBU_QYlt5

Speaking of this....

Quote:


* If the 2-channel was downmixed from the quad, how could the 2-channel contain stuff that's missing from the quad version? "

PLAINLY OBVIOUS from shots of the recording session recorded at the time are cue sheets showing QUAD DURING RECORDING...

You seem to have missed a important fact... IT WAS RECORDED IN QUAD.. The Piano in "The Great Gig In The Sky" is RECORDED IN NATURAL QUAD with 4 mics around the piano... It was mixed into quad as its orginal version. This is why the piano floats in the center of the room in the DTS version. Thats were it was recorded.. DSoTM was recorded IN QUAD with the artistic INTENT in QUAD.

WATCH THE SHOW...

But of course, you will tell me the sky is red.

As this thread is way off topic.. Can we split the topic starting with my review of the DTS Dark Side ?

Steve, Higher resolution does not imply better imaging, tonality, air... Also im not sure I even agree about the resolution. The format might technically a high resolution format, but if the end result from tape to your player was higher "resolution" is a different thing.

Im going to revisit this SACD vs DTS Quad in later january and do my own direct A/B in a real system. I think the higher resolution a system is the better you are able to hear differences in the recording.. Things that were not apparent on lower resolution systems can become very obvious in higher resolution ones.

Trying to evaulate this recording in a movie surround system is of course technically wrong. You need a multi channel speaker layout, NOT surrounds. Every channel needs to match. For quad you gotta arrange the speakers at 90 degree offsets. Dont post your evaluation of multichannel music unless you at least have a multichannel speaker layout - NOT SURROUNDS -- as these are the wrong way to reproduce multichannel audio. Period.

I must go catch a plane... I will be happy to gnash this subject further, even tho I don't think we are going anywhere..

I will always prefer the ORGINAL quad mix simply because its the original. Just because its technically possible to remake a film and re edit it in different ways - should you do it ?. Lucas did on THX1138 and IMHO it destroyed the film.

I think DSoTM is correct in its original QUAD mix. I feel it was a travesty to remix such a classic and have it remixed by someone other then the original person.

so there.... hehehehehe....

Lets split off this topic with the title of "Dark Side of The Moon" if possible please.
Chris_Stephens is offline  
post #76 of 81 Old 12-12-2010, 03:18 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,385
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_Stephens View Post
OMG......................................................... ............................................
so there.... hehehehehe....

Lets split off this topic with the title of "Dark Side of The Moon" if possible please.
Yes, please, let's do that.

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile
http://www.stereophile.com/category/music-round

Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #77 of 81 Old 12-12-2010, 06:22 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 18,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_Stephens View Post

People who quote wiki and press reports as "facts"...

I quoted Parsons, who contradicts what you posted.
Quote:


This was a heated argument. "WE NEED A CENTER CHANNEL".

Parsons actually agreed with Guthrie's sparing use of the center channel: "He's right with me on that. If it was a perfect world, I'd be fine with the center channel. But since the center can be set up in someone's home at anything but the exact correct level, I'm not really interested in it."
Quote:


But of course, you will tell me the sky is red.

I will simply quote the parties involved, like Alan Parsons. You ask that your version of the events be accepted on faith: "I know what really happened during this process."
Quote:


Can we split the topic starting with my review of the DTS Dark Side ?

Concur.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #78 of 81 Old 12-18-2010, 12:12 AM
Senior Member
 
twothbeave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: oakland,ca,usa
Posts: 222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Chris I loved every bit of this thread. So good to hear your sentiments on this amazing piece, especially coming from an authority such as yourself. I have followed your recommendations for years, so this is very affirming. I've been through nearly everyone of the processors mentioned here before and after the 40. I have purchased most of my audio equipment used, but that was one I actually paid almost full retail price new. I have enjoyed every minute with it, although it has been somewhat of a reliability problem. I had the Casa, still have the 861 and Halcro and use them in other rooms. Have listened to the Classe, but none come close to the 40. I don't care what the rest of you think, but the thing does sound so good that I haven't felt the need for room correction. Helps to have a pair of Wilsons X2s up front though. I keep looking for another SSP that will make me trade it out, as the video solution is archaic and sucks, but really not necessary as I use a Crytalio that handles the switching great and has 2 HDMI outputs so I can run one to the ML for audio. It's just dreamy. To me every other SSP is just that, they sound processed. No matter what I put through the 40 it sounds natural. So even though it's now a classic and by technological chronologic terms I have yet to have felt the need or desire to replace it. It simply rocks. Would love to hear what it sounds like with the 610s! So how do you compare the 53s to the super tubes? I have looked at these and thought they just might have the sonics and balls I to replace my Krell FPB750Mcxs or the VTL750s I use for 2 Channel. Love the Lamm sound, but just don't have enough juice for HT use. Are these the true amps that will make us forget the 33s?

Thanks for the golden ear affirmation
twothbeave is offline  
post #79 of 81 Old 12-23-2010, 01:19 AM
Advanced Member
 
Chris_Stephens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Phoenix Az
Posts: 548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
twothbeave:

Well thank you. Glad my ramblings here over the years have helped

I don't have golden ears im afraid. I dont think anyone does. I do try however to listen to stuff objectively and I really put effort into direct A/B.

Well again the 40, IMHO, is just impossible to beat so far. Eventually I will get around to opening one up and taking some pics and I will discuss why I think it sounds so good from a engineering point of view.

Yes indeed the 40 is glitchy. Some of them more then others too for some reason. But pretty much all the super high end processors I have played with are. Some so glitchy they are unusable - not mentioning names..

Hmmm.......

The 53. I do not have enough experience with them to say how they rate with other products. I have no direct A/B experience with any other amp and the 53's. Ive only heard them in one system so far and I have not been back yet to hear them after burn in.

They are clearly a very good transistor based amp however.

I think someone more versed in 2 channel reviewing would give them a much better going over then I could.

What struck me right away is that they have departed from what I thought of as the Levinson amp sound. Actually they seemed to do it better and differently at the same time. The grip they seem to have on the speaker seemed remarkable. This is usually caused by a very high dampening factor across a wide frequency range. The amp has a very tight hold of the speaker. I think this results in a number of sonic improvements like detail, imaging, quickness, low volume level detail... These things all apply to high frequencies if the dampening extends into the highs... A amp being able to grip the speaker well is important IMHO.

Of course dampening factor is rarely printed in specs but I am fairly sure its very high on this amp and also very frequency independent.

One note of caution on the 53. IT GETS HOT.. Like TUBE AMP HOT. That was surprising actually. Almost like it was Class A biased or something. The 33 and 33H's were just warm to the touch. The 53 is "Owww !!! ##*&% HOT".

Another note is that it plugs into networking. Yes this amp has a IP address. Not really useful, but best to hook it up anyway as later it will make firmware updates easier... Why a amp would need firmware updates I cant imagine.

The 53 is a nice sounding amp for sure. It is however a transistor amp. Tube amps are different. Transistor vs tube in home theater amps is a really difficult call for me. They both have attributes I like and they both have things I dont like. I think tube vs transistor ends up being a personal decision for each person. I think it is good tho to listen to both to decide. I think a tube preamp however is the way to go. 40 surround decoder and a tube pre.

Im on xmas vacation so my responses might be a bit delayed..
Chris_Stephens is offline  
post #80 of 81 Old 12-29-2010, 01:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by xymox View Post

You can see from a photo on thier site that it seems to use a switching power supply and has no high end caps on the audio boards.

Which of those is the audio board?

Quote:


You can also see they use stock surround decoder chips. Meridian and the Levinson run their own surround decoder software in powerful DSP chips.

Does lossless decoding sound different depending on the DSP?

Roger Dressler is offline  
post #81 of 81 Old 12-30-2010, 06:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joelc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Which of those is the audio board?

Does lossless decoding sound different depending on the DSP?

Roger:

I would like to hope that his answer is "no" because to the extent that his answer is "yes" he will be backing himself into a tough corner given that Meridian has elected to have the source to the actual DD-HD dts-MAHD decoding...that is, and to be clear, the HD621, which is the only way to get a DD-HD or dts-MAHD signal into a Meridian processor [i.e. G68, 861] is to have the Blu-Ray player decode the audio and send it to the HD621 as LPCM...

That said, he could/may argue that there are differences in the surround processing [i.e. PLIIx, etc.]...

Joel
Some people choose to have a pool, I choose to have a home theater!
Joelc is offline  
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off