Jim Lesurf wrote:

My feeling is that the differences between the Merdian DAC and the
Arcam player are slight, and that the difference between both of
them and the Schneider is pretty big.

This is in line with what I would have hoped.

Yep, I kinda reckoned it would be close to the Arcam (or an Arcam-class
sound). I always knew that the Schneider was a stop-gap (bought because my
previous dsposable 30quid CD player packed in).


My own view is that the
'better' the dac, the more closely it is recovering the waveforms
specified by the information on the CD/DVD. Thus 'better' dacs should
sound similar since they are all trying to reconstuct the same
pattern from a given CD/DVD.

A bit like amplifiers, I suppose.


Buy electrostatics. 8-]

Aren't they rather big?


My own view/experience is that loudspeakers and room acoustics are
where you can usually make the biggest improvements to the results
once you have a decent source/amp.

I would agree with that. The speakers and room define most of the basic
character of the sound.


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
Latest addition: Early Works gallery

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:18:14 -0000, "Wally"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

It's a feature that has pretty well fallen out of fashion these days.
It reverses the phase of the output, so that you can correct for
absolute phase, i.e. when the kick drum skin punches towards you, the
speaker cone does the same. There was a big fuss about this in the
early '90s, but it's now generally agreed that there's no audible
difference.

Ah, I see. How does one tell if one's absolute phase is correct?

Unless one has done one's own recording, one can't! To be fair, a very
few labels such as Pope Music do make the point that they use
'minimalist' recording techniques, and they do quote absolute phase on
their recordings. In general however, it seems to be one of those
audiophile fashion things like TIM, which has vanished into the mists
of history. Pretty obviously, it has no relevance to a multi-miked
recording.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:18:14 -0000, "Wally"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

It's a feature that has pretty well fallen out of fashion these days.
It reverses the phase of the output, so that you can correct for
absolute phase, i.e. when the kick drum skin punches towards you, the
speaker cone does the same. There was a big fuss about this in the
early '90s, but it's now generally agreed that there's no audible
difference.

Ah, I see. How does one tell if one's absolute phase is correct?

Unless one has done one's own recording, one can't! To be fair, a very
few labels such as Pope Music do make the point that they use
'minimalist' recording techniques, and they do quote absolute phase on
their recordings. In general however, it seems to be one of those
audiophile fashion things like TIM, which has vanished into the mists
of history. Pretty obviously, it has no relevance to a multi-miked
recording.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:18:14 -0000, "Wally"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

It's a feature that has pretty well fallen out of fashion these days.
It reverses the phase of the output, so that you can correct for
absolute phase, i.e. when the kick drum skin punches towards you, the
speaker cone does the same. There was a big fuss about this in the
early '90s, but it's now generally agreed that there's no audible
difference.

Ah, I see. How does one tell if one's absolute phase is correct?

Unless one has done one's own recording, one can't! To be fair, a very
few labels such as Pope Music do make the point that they use
'minimalist' recording techniques, and they do quote absolute phase on
their recordings. In general however, it seems to be one of those
audiophile fashion things like TIM, which has vanished into the mists
of history. Pretty obviously, it has no relevance to a multi-miked
recording.

Would it be reasonable to assume positive digital numbers correspond to
acoustic conpression and vice versa?

Ian

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:18:14 -0000, "Wally"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

It's a feature that has pretty well fallen out of fashion these days.
It reverses the phase of the output, so that you can correct for
absolute phase, i.e. when the kick drum skin punches towards you, the
speaker cone does the same. There was a big fuss about this in the
early '90s, but it's now generally agreed that there's no audible
difference.

Ah, I see. How does one tell if one's absolute phase is correct?

Unless one has done one's own recording, one can't! To be fair, a very
few labels such as Pope Music do make the point that they use
'minimalist' recording techniques, and they do quote absolute phase on
their recordings. In general however, it seems to be one of those
audiophile fashion things like TIM, which has vanished into the mists
of history. Pretty obviously, it has no relevance to a multi-miked
recording.

Would it be reasonable to assume positive digital numbers correspond to
acoustic conpression and vice versa?

Ian

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:38:55 +0000, Ian Bell
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:18:14 -0000, "Wally"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

It's a feature that has pretty well fallen out of fashion these days.
It reverses the phase of the output, so that you can correct for
absolute phase, i.e. when the kick drum skin punches towards you, the
speaker cone does the same. There was a big fuss about this in the
early '90s, but it's now generally agreed that there's no audible
difference.

Ah, I see. How does one tell if one's absolute phase is correct?

Unless one has done one's own recording, one can't! To be fair, a very
few labels such as Pope Music do make the point that they use
'minimalist' recording techniques, and they do quote absolute phase on
their recordings. In general however, it seems to be one of those
audiophile fashion things like TIM, which has vanished into the mists
of history. Pretty obviously, it has no relevance to a multi-miked
recording.

Would it be reasonable to assume positive digital numbers correspond to
acoustic conpression and vice versa?

In a system with correct absolute phase all the way through - yes.
Assuming you mean compression/rarefaction, and not clipping! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:38:55 +0000, Ian Bell
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:18:14 -0000, "Wally"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

It's a feature that has pretty well fallen out of fashion these days.
It reverses the phase of the output, so that you can correct for
absolute phase, i.e. when the kick drum skin punches towards you, the
speaker cone does the same. There was a big fuss about this in the
early '90s, but it's now generally agreed that there's no audible
difference.

Ah, I see. How does one tell if one's absolute phase is correct?

Unless one has done one's own recording, one can't! To be fair, a very
few labels such as Pope Music do make the point that they use
'minimalist' recording techniques, and they do quote absolute phase on
their recordings. In general however, it seems to be one of those
audiophile fashion things like TIM, which has vanished into the mists
of history. Pretty obviously, it has no relevance to a multi-miked
recording.

Would it be reasonable to assume positive digital numbers correspond to
acoustic conpression and vice versa?

In a system with correct absolute phase all the way through - yes.
Assuming you mean compression/rarefaction, and not clipping! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article , Wally
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

My own view is that the 'better' the dac, the more closely it is
recovering the waveforms specified by the information on the CD/DVD.
Thus 'better' dacs should sound similar since they are all trying to
reconstuct the same pattern from a given CD/DVD.

A bit like amplifiers, I suppose.

In my view, yes. However in both cases the user might *want* the player or
amp to alter the sound in a specific way as they may prefer the sound that
results. In this case 'better' may mean something that does not approach
the same common ground. Matter of personal choice and circumstances.


Buy electrostatics. 8-]

Aren't they rather big?

No, no. Your room is too small. :-)

Having said that, yesterday I moved a pair of ESL63's into our living room
to try out with out TV/DVD system. This room is quite small, so the
speakers dominate the room. Placed either side of the TV, they span about
90 percent of the width of the room, and the room is wider than it is long.

Despite that, SWMBO likes the appearance[1], and we both found the sound on
last night's broadcasts (BBC4) of Chopin and (BBC) Nutcracker! to be
superb. At last, pianos that sound like pianos when we watch TV/DVD!!

[1] This is a turn-around. She resisted having large speakers in the living
room for some time. Then a week or so ago she suddenly suggested we give it
a try. I think she has over time become accustomed to good sound, and hence
fallen victim - like myself - to the idea that the sound matters more than
the clutter. :-) The down-side is that I'll now have to buy another pair
of ESLs for the main hifi in the other room.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article , Wally
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

My own view is that the 'better' the dac, the more closely it is
recovering the waveforms specified by the information on the CD/DVD.
Thus 'better' dacs should sound similar since they are all trying to
reconstuct the same pattern from a given CD/DVD.

A bit like amplifiers, I suppose.

In my view, yes. However in both cases the user might *want* the player or
amp to alter the sound in a specific way as they may prefer the sound that
results. In this case 'better' may mean something that does not approach
the same common ground. Matter of personal choice and circumstances.


Buy electrostatics. 8-]

Aren't they rather big?

No, no. Your room is too small. :-)

Having said that, yesterday I moved a pair of ESL63's into our living room
to try out with out TV/DVD system. This room is quite small, so the
speakers dominate the room. Placed either side of the TV, they span about
90 percent of the width of the room, and the room is wider than it is long.

Despite that, SWMBO likes the appearance[1], and we both found the sound on
last night's broadcasts (BBC4) of Chopin and (BBC) Nutcracker! to be
superb. At last, pianos that sound like pianos when we watch TV/DVD!!

[1] This is a turn-around. She resisted having large speakers in the living
room for some time. Then a week or so ago she suddenly suggested we give it
a try. I think she has over time become accustomed to good sound, and hence
fallen victim - like myself - to the idea that the sound matters more than
the clutter. :-) The down-side is that I'll now have to buy another pair
of ESLs for the main hifi in the other room.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:59:05 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

[1] This is a turn-around. She resisted having large speakers in the living
room for some time. Then a week or so ago she suddenly suggested we give it
a try. I think she has over time become accustomed to good sound, and hence
fallen victim - like myself - to the idea that the sound matters more than
the clutter. :-) The down-side is that I'll now have to buy another pair
of ESLs for the main hifi in the other room.

And two more surround, eventually. ;-)

Kal