or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › Audiophile CD Player? Which One?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audiophile CD Player? Which One? - Page 5

post #121 of 496
Quote:
So I guess this is not the same as "all players sound the same"?
I'll grant that you'll probably be able to find an exception if you search long enough. Assuming you know what your'e looking for.
post #122 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by esh516 View Post

Do you really seriously think all disc players sound the same?

No, they don't. It's just that the decent ones are most likely sonically transparent from one another.
post #123 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThumbtackJack View Post

No, they don't. It's just that the decent ones are most likely sonically transparent from one another.

What I rarely see are people who can't fathom the simple possibility (again, just possibility) that technology has moved along far enough and been refined enough (and shared enough) that many components used in an audio reproduction system are so advanced that they've moved beyond the human beings ear to be able to discern (from one similar device to another).
post #124 of 496
Actually that is true only if you listen to devices bought in mass-selling store chains. They all ended up being equally bad, using the same Delta-Sigma cheap DAC's (actually the newest bluray players don't even have analog outputs anymore). On paper they are all great. If you listen to steady-state sinus waves. If you listen to music thou, the brain can hear that something is wrong.
I did found a post that explains exactly what I try to say:

http://www.mother-of-tone.com/conversion.htm
post #125 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Actually that is true only if you listen to devices bought in mass-selling store chains. They all ended up being equally bad, using the same Delta-Sigma cheap DAC's (actually the newest bluray players don't even have analog outputs anymore). On paper they are all great. If you listen to steady-state sinus waves. If you listen to music thou, the brain can hear that something is wrong.
I did found a post that explains exactly what I try to say:

http://www.mother-of-tone.com/conversion.htm

back this up with valid scientific evidence or else it is just another meaningless subjective opinion for someone who does not understand modern electronics as they pertain to audio reproduction. back up your claims or stay blissful in la la land.

also regarding lack of analog outputs on blu-ray players, google "analog sunset" and you will discover why......hint it doesn't affect audio reproduction in any way.
post #126 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Actually that is true only if you listen to devices bought in mass-selling store chains.

Hmm, a new "Adiophile Truth". It's the distribution chain not the technology or engineering that sets the sound quality of audio gear.

This can't be true because there are a number of specialist brands that are the identical same equipment (internally) as mass-marketed brands. The only difference is branding and distribution. Onkyo and Integra immediately comes to mind but there are several other such pairings.
Quote:
They all ended up being equally bad,

Whis is impossible given that its all sonically transparent. How does one do a listening test where people perceive differences between pieces of gear that are all sonically transparent? Sighted evaluations!
Quote:
using the same Delta-Sigma cheap DAC's (actually the newest bluray players don't even have analog outputs anymore).

Which means that the DAC technology doesn't matter since it isn't in the signal chain. This begs the question why one would spend > $1,000 for a digital player (Oppo) when one can obtain a very nice digital player for about $100 (Panasonic, Pioneer).
Quote:
On paper they are all great.

In actual use they are all great, provided that you figure out how to take listener bias out of the evaluation. How does one do such a wonderful thing? Do ya think that maybe level-matched, time-synched, DBT technology would help?
Quote:
If you listen to steady-state sinus waves.

Looks like we have another live one here who doesn't get Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (March 1768 – 16 May 1830), who proved that any musical wave can be implemented as a collection of sine waves.
Quote:
If you listen to music thou, the brain can hear that something is wrong.

Begging the quesiton as to whether sighted evaluations are actually an example "listening to music". Seems to me that seeing is involved which falsifies this claim.
Quote:
I did found a post that explains exactly what I try to say:

http://www.mother-of-tone.com/conversion.htm

On that page we find the following false claim:

"In plain english: sigma-delta DACs are coarse noise-generators and when measured the way they should be measured they never make it to 16-bit resolution, don't even think about 24 bits."

This totally ignores the fact that sigma-delta DACs are always followed by reconstruction filters that for all practical purposes totally remove audible noise, and also reduce it to the point where 22 bit resolution is observed in commercial implementations by ESS and TI.

Apparently the author of this white paper believes that "...measured the way they should be measured ..." involves probing internal points inside the chip that ordinarily never see the light of day.

Yet another obviously ridiculous audiophile myth that has apparently confused the author of the post I'm responding to.

BTW, *none* of the waves shown in this white paper are accurate indications of the output of a normal DAC chip. Myth stacked on top of myth!
Edited by arnyk - 8/24/13 at 5:29am
post #127 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Yeah, neither of those examples came close to proving his point.
Straw man, indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Audiophile mythology aside, there really is no such thing as an audiophile CD player anymore. Or rather, there really is no such thing as a non-audiophile CD player anymore. An $80 DVD player will sound as good as $10,000 Stereophile Class A doorstop
So I guess this is not the same as "all players sound the same"? Delusional anybody?

This is all posturing until someone actually does some reliable litening tests and obtains answers that we can all agree on.

So, when are the proponents of high priced music players going to do something comparable to what was done for this landmark article:

Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
post #128 of 496
Do you have a positive TEST that all those delta-sigma are 'transparent'? How did you test that? Did you use the regular 'average' statistics? In the comment about the marvelous filters I see that you rely on 'measurements' when those fit your mantra, but dismiss them them when they don't.

I did test R2R versus many DS, while I was trying to prove somebody that he was wrong when it was telling me that R2R sounds better. 'Seeing' was telling me a different story, but I believed my hearing, because I can do that - that invalidates your theory that somehow 'seeing the equipment cannot lead to valid results'.
The final result was that now I listen only to R2R DAC's.
Edited by SoNic67 - 8/24/13 at 5:25am
post #129 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Begging the quesiton as to whether sighted evaluations are actually an example "listening to music". Seems to me that seeing is involved which falsifies this claim.
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

 'Seeing' was telling me a different story, but I believed my hearing, because I can do that - that invalidates your theory that somehow 'seeing the equipment cannot lead to valid results'.
The final result was that now I listen only to R2R DAC's.
 

 

Here's an interesting piece of research recently conducted in the UK. 

 

The research, published in the PNAS journal, found that people shown silent videos of piano competitions could pick out the winners more often than those who could also hear the music.

 
More than 1,000 participants in the study were given samples of either audio, silent video or video with sound, and asked to rate the top three finalists from 10 international classical music competitions. The actual competition winners were only correctly identified by those who were randomly assigned the silent videos. When the volunteers viewed video with sound, the accuracy dropped back to chance levels that were found with sound alone.
 
Dr Tsay said the findings were quite surprising, especially because both trained musicians and those without training had stated that sound was most important for their evaluation.
 
"Regardless of levels of expertise, we still seem to be led primarily by visual information, even in this domain of music," she said.
 
"Interestingly, participants felt that sound would be the most influential factor in making decisions about performers, so this suggests that we use the dominant cue in making judgements even when it isn't very helpful."
 
(My bolding in all cases)
 
The full article is here:
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23717228

 

Given that this research is on LIVE music, all the objections of the flat-earthers wrt to this DAC or that DAC, this switch or that switch etc etc etc all go right out of the window. The conclusion of the research is still inescapable: sight has more influence than any other factor, even sound, when evaluating live musical performances. And even when the participants had already stated that the sound was the most important criterion for their evaluation!

 

EDIT: This is an abstract from the actual published research report:

 

"People consistently report that sound is the most important source of information in evaluating performance in music. However, the findings demonstrate that people actually depend primarily on visual information when making judgments about music performance. People reliably select the actual winners of live music competitions based on silent video recordings, but neither musical novices nor professional musicians were able to identify the winners based on sound recordings or recordings with both video and sound. The results highlight our natural, automatic, and nonconscious dependence on visual cues. The dominance of visual information emerges to the degree that it is overweighted relative to auditory information, even when sound is consciously valued as the core domain content."

 

Again, my bolding.


Edited by kbarnes701 - 8/24/13 at 5:51am
post #130 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Do you have a positive TEST that all those delta-sigma are 'transparent'?

I can do that whenever I want to, and have.

There is also this one:

Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback
Authors: Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
Affiliation: Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA
JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007

That's peer-reviewed.

And what peer-reviewed evidence do you have?
Quote:
How did you test that?

Compare the output of the CD player to the high rez digital audio file that was used to burn the CD.

That's a bit of work, so another approach that is easier and more portable:

Record the output of the CD player with a high quality ADC (Delta sigma, natch) and compare the recording of the output of the player to the original high rez audio file used to burn the CD.
Quote:
Did you use the regular 'average' statistics?

Doesn't matter - the results are so statistically clear that the fact that the listener was guessing is very obvious.
Quote:
In the comment about the marvelous filters I see that you rely on 'measurements' when those fit your mantra, but dismiss them them when they don't.

You are externalizing. You are the guy who posts dogma - namely the dogma that there is something sonically wrong with sigma-delta converters. There appear to be no reliable listening tests that support that contention, and there is no technical evidence, either. You don't seem to be able to provide any, just this baseless posturing that you keep posting links to and quotes from.
Quote:
I did test R2R versus many DS,

I see no evidence of a reliable test, just sighted evaluations.

If the audible problem is so obvious, it should be able to survive the rigors of a good level-matched, time-synched, DBT.

Why is it that all of the alleged evidence you provide whether objective or subjective so obviously flawed?
post #131 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Looks like we have another live one here who doesn't get Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (March 1768 – 16 May 1830), who proved that any musical wave can be implemented as a collection of sine waves.
Since you are so poorly informed, let me school you into Fourier series that you love to quote. I have a degree in EE, you don't, so I understand your confusion. The Fourier series held true as long as they are infinite. Let me know of a device that can do infinite number of taps and I'll agree with you.
Otherwise, they are just approximations, not real thing. Filters are just approximations too, since there is no 'infinite steep' filter.
That's why the delta-sigma are measured just for a single frequency, max two. Because those are not requiring infinite taps, they can be resolved acceptable.
Past that you have real music with inter-modulation, alias frequencies, ringing, jitter... all those are not found in those pristine series, but they are reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I see no evidence of a reliable test, just sighted evaluations.
If the audible problem is so obvious, it should be able to survive the rigors of a good level-matched, time-synched, DBT.
Why is it that all of the alleged evidence you provide whether objective or subjective so obviously flawed?
You didn't prove that sighted evaluations are bad, you just postulated that. And my observations are better that none, which you have to show for. The Boston club that you keep referring to is just a test that 44.1kHz is 'enough', not a test of DAC's. Well...
They used Pioneer DV-563A universal player, a Sony XA777ES SACD model, and a Yamaha DVD-S1500.... Guess what? All crappy players, delta-sigma. You still could use them with a pair of headphones.
But noo... speakers. Snell C5s. Guess what - you just bought into an audiophile myth. Next time try headphones, you might hear someting. At 19dB of ambiant, you needed 115dB pressure to max out the 16 bit. They/You used 85dB level. Minus 19dB ambient, remains 66dB. Awesome! 11 bit real resolution. Your level matching device? DB Systems with THD+N=0.01%. Great, you got -80dB resolution now. Some 13 bit of accuracy. Added to the previous restrain (11 bit) is just making things worse.
Music selection? Not so 'hot' in high frequency. Mostly vocals. Even TOSOTM (the best of the bunch) is bandwidth limited at some 18kHz!
Of course you couldn't tell the difference between 16 bit CD or SACD! Your whole chain was capable at best of some 10 bit resolution with max bandwidth stopping at some 18kHz.

That's why I asked about 'tools qualification'. It's science 101 - are your tools adequate for the task?
Edited by SoNic67 - 8/24/13 at 1:46pm
post #132 of 496
Quote:
The Fourier series held true as long as they are infinite. Let me know of a device that can do infinite number of taps and I'll agree with you.
Otherwise, they are just approximations, not real thing. Filters are just approximations too, since there is no 'infinite steep' filter.
Past that you have inter-modulation, alias frequencies, ringing, jitter... all those are not found in those pristine series, but they are reality.
Right but then we have measurements and listening tests to tell us how close to the ideal we get. And we have listening tests and measurements that tell us how close we need to get in order to achieve audible transparency. That's the part of the science you are in deep denial about.
post #133 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Looks like we have another live one here who doesn't get Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (March 1768 – 16 May 1830), who proved that any musical wave can be implemented as a collection of sine waves.
Since you are so poorly informed, let me school you into Fourier series that you love to quote. I have a degree in EE, you don't, so I understand your confusion. The Fourier series held true as long as they are infinite. Let me know of a device that can do infinite number of taps and I'll agree with you.
So, they never taught you about windowing, the means by which we can analyze finite length datasets?

So, they never taught you about the FFT,which speeds the numerical analytical process for finite length datasets?

I think you are funning us about that EE!
Quote:
Otherwise, they are just approximations, not real thing. Filters are just approximations too, since there is no 'infinite steep' filter

So what? Welcome to the real world.

.
Quote:
That's why the delta-sigma are measured just for a single frequency, max two. Because those are not requiring infinite taps, they can be resolved acceptable.

You think that delta sigma converters can only be measured at certain frequencies? I guess you skipped the lab courses for that myterious EE you claim you have.,
Quote:
Past that you have real music with inter-modulation, alias frequencies, ringing, jitter... all those are not found in those pristine series, but they are reality.

And they pose no problems for sigma delta converters, at least in the real world.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I see no evidence of a reliable test, just sighted evaluations.
If the audible problem is so obvious, it should be able to survive the rigors of a good level-matched, time-synched, DBT.
Why is it that all of the alleged evidence you provide whether objective or subjective so obviously flawed?
You didn't prove that sighted evaluations are bad, you just postulated that.

I postulated nothing. Others who are far better known and have far better credentials have gone before me. For example:

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

"The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests"

This is by Sean Olive, PhD

"While double-blind protocols are standard practice in all fields of science - including consumer testing of food and wine - the audio industry remains stuck in the dark ages in this regard. The vast majority of audio equipment manufacturers and reviewers continue to rely on sighted listening to make important decisions about the products’ sound quality."

"An important question is whether sighted audio product evaluations produce honest and reliable judgments of how the product truly sounds"

Yes, that is the question, and live so many before him
Quote:
And my observations are better that none, which you have to show for. The Boston club that you keep referring to is just a test that 44.1kHz is 'enough', not a test of DAC's. Well...
They used Pioneer DV-563A universal player, a Sony XA777ES SACD model, and a Yamaha DVD-S1500.... Guess what? All crappy players, delta-sigma. You still could use them with a pair of headphones.
But noo... speakers. Snell C5s. Guess what - you just bought into an audiophile myth. Next time try headphones, you might hear someting. At 19dB of ambiant, you needed 115dB pressure to max out the 16 bit. They/You used 85dB level. Minus 19dB ambient, remains 66dB. Awesome! 11 bit real resolution. Your level matching device? DB Systems with THD+N=0.01%. Great, you got -80dB resolution now. Some 13 bit of accuracy. Added to the previous restrain (11 bit) is just making things worse.
Music selection? Not so 'hot' in high frequency. Mostly vocals. Even TOSOTM (the best of the bunch) is bandwidth limited at some 18kHz!
Of course you couldn't tell the difference between 16 bit CD or SACD! Your whole chain was capable at best of some 10 bit resolution with max bandwidth stopping at some 18kHz.

The above is nothing but dogmatic posturing. You provide no reliable evidence, just name-calling and baseless accusations. You start out trying to prove that delta-signa DACs are flawed by presuming that delta sigma DACs are flawed. Obvious circular logic.
Quote:
That's why I asked about 'tools qualification'. It's science 101 - are your tools adequate for the task?

You cannot answer your own questions! Circular logic and denial is not proof of anything.

BTW how do I know that good delta sigma DACs are sonically transparent?

I compared them to a piece of wire. I can hear your objection now: "But it was crappy wire". Sheesh!
Edited by arnyk - 8/25/13 at 4:44am
post #134 of 496
Ooh c"Mon man..can't we just listen and enjoy our music?... Gosh DAC it!
post #135 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by esh516 View Post

Ooh c"Mon man..can't we just listen and enjoy our music?... Gosh DAC it!

My position exactly. It's just these guys who keep telling me that my AVR has to sound like crap because of its sigma-delta DACs.
post #136 of 496
Well if it sounds good to you...who cares what others think about your dac..or avr.
you have alot of knowledge about A/V..im sure you would know crap if you heard it!
post #137 of 496
No, he tries to convince me that because he doesn't hear a difference, I cannot be possible hear one.
post #138 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post


The above is nothing but dogmatic posturing. You provide no reliable evidence, just name-calling and baseless accusations.
I provided NUMBERS as evidence. You are providing dogma, words... because I don't see any numbers out of your little games that you call 'science'. I am still waiting to see your 'reference' chain measurements that show more that 10 bit of accuracy.

As for Fourier, you are clueless. I said that REAL music is not equal with a sinusoidal wave, and I provided arguments. You said a bunch of stuff and ended up with 'welcome to real world' like you are right and I am wrong - you realize that is just EXACTLY my position? That sinus measurements don't apply 100% to real world signals?
post #139 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

No, he tries to convince me that because he doesn't hear a difference, I cannot be possible hear one.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you would never subject yourself to an ABX DBT of any kind, and even if you did, you'd whine about the results or test being "flawed" if it didn't back up your own beliefs.

You can't separate the idea that difference in numbers in audio does not necessarily equate to an audible difference. And you also balk at the one real reliable way to remove bias in a listening test.
Edited by bo130 - 8/25/13 at 12:25pm
post #140 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by bo130 View Post

I have a sneaking suspicion that you would never subject yourself to an ABX DBT of any kind, and even if you did, you'd whine about the results being "flawed".

You can't separate the idea that difference in numbers in audio don't necessarily equate to an audible difference. And you also balk at the one real reliable way to remove bias in a listening test.

No question about that. He's afraid of what he would learn.
post #141 of 496
Ooooh, NUMBERS.
post #142 of 496
Sorry everyone..for what i believe in, but i only believe my ears and my mind...not that i do agree with
post #143 of 496
Gotta go!... will get back with that thought later ...
post #144 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post


The above is nothing but dogmatic posturing. You provide no reliable evidence, just name-calling and baseless accusations.
I provided NUMBERS as evidence. You are providing dogma, words... because I don't see any numbers out of your little games that you call 'science'. I am still waiting to see your 'reference' chain measurements that show more that 10 bit of accuracy.

As for Fourier, you are clueless. I said that REAL music is not equal with a sinusoidal wave, and I provided arguments. You said a bunch of stuff and ended up with 'welcome to real world' like you are right and I am wrong - you realize that is just EXACTLY my position? That sinus measurements don't apply 100% to real world signals?

do your numbers equate to an audible difference? If the difference can be easily heard with a high rate of success in a dbt then you might be on to something. if not then they are just numbers outside the range of human hearing and have no bearing on sound quality.

so when do you want to partake in a dbt to finally resolve this for you? step up to the plate, lets lay this to rest once and for all. its okay to be scared and not want to, but that will also show that you really don't care about learning what can and cannot cause an audible difference within the ranges of human hearing.

it amazes me how people make claims and then refuse to prove them.
post #145 of 496
Quote:
do your numbers equate to an audible difference?
Oh, he didn't mean those numbers.
post #146 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by bo130 View Post

You can't separate the idea that difference in numbers in audio does not necessarily equate to an audible difference. And you also balk at the one real reliable way to remove bias in a listening test.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Ooooh, NUMBERS.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post


No question about that. He's afraid of what he would learn.

 

Yes - it's really odd isn't it?  You’d think people would be glad to further their knowledge - especially when such knowledge can save them a fortune which they could then spend to really improve their system. The concept of "I refuse to learn this because it will benefit me" is just weird.
post #147 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by esh516 View Post

Sorry everyone..for what i believe in, but i only believe my ears and my mind...not that i do agree with

 

I am staggered that despite all you must have read in these threads which proves absolutely the fallacy of that position, that you still cling to it with such stubborn determination, despite the fact that this erroneous belief is certainly taking you down a road where your sound quality is compromised due to your misplaced expenditure on items that make no sonic difference whatsoever while you ignore those areas where a genuine difference is readily achieved.

post #148 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post

 
it amazes me how people make claims and then refuse to prove them.

 

True. But it also tells you a heck of a lot about the seriousness of those claims. The reality is, I suspect, that the people you describe know very well what the outcome of the DBT would be and they just cannot handle that discovery, for whatever reason. It's a similar thing, I guess, to the way the Church couldn't handle the reality of the findings of Copernicus and Galileo hundreds of years ago. Eventually, they understood that science does not necessarily invalidate their beliefs. Maybe we'll see the same thing happen here one day :)

post #149 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

I provided NUMBERS as evidence.

I see nothing relevant. Just because its a number doesn't mean that it means anything.
Quote:
You are providing dogma,

Characterizing belief in the prejudicial effects of sighted bias as dogma pretty well proves your unreasonable bias against generally-accepted science.. Of course given your poorly-formed attacks on modern science itself, I can see how you many have convinced yourself that what you post here actually reflects reality.
Quote:
words... because I don't see any numbers out of your little games that you call 'science'.

Sue me for trying to stay relevant.

Your continued attacks on the sonics of sigma-delta converters beg the question of how you find any recordings to listen to? You are aware of the fact that but all but a tiny minority of professional recording and production equipment is based on sigma-delta converters, no?
Quote:
I am still waiting to see your 'reference' chain measurements that show more that 10 bit of accuracy.

Apparently your allleged EE studies overlooked the writings of Shannon. Shannon's theory equates 10 bits with dynamic range of about 60 dB. That's easy enough to exceed with modern electronics, so I don't know why you are stumbling at this point. However, making real world recordings with more than 72 dB dynamic range (12 bits) is pretty rare. The acoustical domain is the problem. What's your point?

Quote:
As for Fourier, you are clueless. I said that REAL music is not equal with a sinusoidal wave, and I provided arguments. You said a bunch of stuff and ended up with 'welcome to real world' like you are right and I am wrong - you realize that is just EXACTLY my position? That sinus measurements don't apply 100% to real world signals?

Just insults and posturing. No numbers, no reliable references, no actual content.

You can't tell me that Fourier is wrong or incapable of characterizing music when I frequently use software that works by taking real world music, using Fourier's principles to reduce it to a collection of coefficients, modifying those coefficients or not, and then reconstructing the music from those coefficients and sine and cosine waves. The best evidence of the reliability of a theory is using it to construct a world of useful tools, which has happened these days. As you rail against Fourier, you destroy your own credibility just like you already have with your denials of sighted bias.

Let's get back to your core belief that modern sigma-delta DACs are fatally flawed and have some irreducible and severe adverse effects on music. I've shown to myself and others that back-to-back sigma-delta converters can be compared to a stright wire using live musical sources that have never been subject to another other conversions using time-synched, lievel-matched, bias-controlled listening tests with many different well-qualified listeners. Where is your counter evidence?

How can you stand to listen to your stereo or anybody else's given that virtually all consumer equipment, professional equipment, commerical and private recordings have been converted at one time or the other by sigma-delta converters?

Why is every AVS member with ears not running screaming from their listening rooms with bleeding ears because of the pervasive nature of sigma-delta converters and musical program material that was produced with them?
Edited by arnyk - 8/26/13 at 5:23am
post #150 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

The reality is, I suspect, that the people you describe know very well what the outcome of the DBT would be and they just cannot handle that discovery, for whatever reason.
Shill for retailer?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › Audiophile CD Player? Which One?