Alex,

I detect a sense of frustration in your posts and I sense total frustration in your search for the "perfect sound"

If you want "perfect sound" you will have to go to live, acoustic, concerts. This could cover classical music, opera, ballet, musicals (Gilbert and Sullivan) folk, country, jazz, brass bands, military bands etc etc. It will include the usual ambionics of the venue and the sound of audience participation (coughs, sneezes, crisp packets and sweet wrappers)

Regrettably it won't cover much Rock, because that depends too much on electronic/electrical amplified bass and amplified guitars plus output speakers etc etc. I don't believe there is such a thing as "absolutely perfect" rock.

However, I believe that all real music (including amplified rock) starts life in an highly dynamic, analogue form and surprisingly, I believe it also ends its journey at your earhole in a highly dynamic analogue form.

Now, tell me where the logic comes from, that says it’s a GOOD IDEA to chop this beautiful, smooth, analogue sound, into millions of little bits, then try to stitch it all back together and smooth it out again. People have been trying to do this for over 20 years and they can't. How do I know? By listening. Not imagination, LISTENING

You seem to be completely hung up on theories and specifications. Why? Its driving you insane.

The best hifi R&D departments in the world don't know how to replicate the "prefect sound". Their products all have strengths and weaknesses. All their products are a compromise. They don't yet know what it is that recreates the "perfect sound", so they can't specify it. (and neither can you)

They CAN specify certain features in their products. And some of these features DO affect the sound. [ eg Frequency reponse, slew rates, dynamic range, bandwidth and eveness........it goes on....] The PR departments tend to use these (often irrelevant) specifications to promote their products. And mugs like you are their justified prey.

Alex, You won't find perfect sound, (or pictures). You certainly can't specify what's needed to deliver perfect sound (or pictures). Life would be a lot easier if we COULD specify what's needed and we were able to be honest about it. But life isn't easy. Also remember, if the physics don't describe a certain phenomenon, its the PHYSICS thats wrong, not the phenomenon.

Stop driving yourself insane. Start LISTENING to music and WATCHING pictures and base your decisions on your eyes and ears.

Cheers

Don

Alex

One day you will learn that listening to music or watching movies isn't about reading off the specification sheet and comparing formats. I seriously doubt that you've had much practical experience to substantiate any of the arguments you've put forward.

Will someone in Germany please, please, invite this boy round for a listening session!!!

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think you'll find the folks here a lot more tolerant if you swallowed your pride and actually listened to someone sometimes.

Jay

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex B.:

A DVD-A can even handle 140dB(!!!) and 0-96kHz and supports lossless compression!

.... Unfortunatly everything above the 20KHz is not audible, ....

As Nyquist has proven, any signal can be perfectly reproduced if your frequency is twice the maximum frequency of your source. f(A)>= 2*f(max) .

---

So Alex, why would you need DVD-A with a 96 KHz sampling frequency, able to perfectely reproduce signals up to 48Khz, if you can't hear frequencies upper to 20 KHz (or even 15 or 16 KHz for middle-aged listers) ?????

Specifications are one thing, music is an other

JM

quote:

---

We all know sound is defined by it's frequencies and dynamics. Right. Or at least that's the main part. (timing etc. are another, but no one here will honestly argue a turntabel has better timing!).

---

You've got to be kidding. A quality turntable has at least as good if not better "timing" than CD. Incidentally there is an obbssesive issue of timing which pervades all discussion of CD replay which is the dreaded "jitter". That goes way beyond any issues of timing w.r.t. LP replay.

quote:

---

So, the frequencies you can put onto a CD go from 20 to 20kHz and have a dynamic range of 96dB. DVD-Videos have same frequency range but dynamic range of 120dB. A DVD-A can even handle 140dB(!!!) and 0-96kHz and supports lossless compression!

Dynamics of a LP are about 40dB and an absolute max. of 60dB!!! That's half of the dynamics available froma DVD-Video Disc!!! You cannot argue that the dynamic capabilities of any media are essential especially to jazz and classic! Vital!

---

You are not making this point correctly either Alex

Let me illustrate

1) An interesting comment on the topic of Dynamic Range and how it is abused in CD and DAT format recording compared to Analog. This comes form an expert recording engineer.

"A word about comparing DATs and CDs to a record; digital levels do not bear any relationship to analog levels. We’re talking apples and oranges here. The analog output level of a CD player or DAT recording can be anything the manufacturer wants it to be, but it is generally higher than a phono preamp output. There are two reasons for this.
- First the digital equipment manufacturers want CDs and DATs to sound better (translate Louder) than records. On the rare occasions when a DAT or CD is truly of a wide dynamic range, a record can be as loud.
- HOWEVER, there has been a trend in the last few years to compress digital audio almost to the point of the level display not moving from the beginning to the end of the song .This is true of almost all new commercial pop releases. The result is that what used to be the peak level is now the average level and we’re talking 6 to 8 dB louder than is physically possible to put on a phonograph record (or analog tape). Remember that the groove can only move so far before the playback stylus mistracks or skips, and magnetic tape can only be driven so hard before it saturates.
At any level, a digital recorder is only printing ones and zeroes. There is no digital counterpart. The bottom line is that a really compressed CD or DA recording is going to be 6 to 8 dB louder than your record. This is a FACT OF LIFE. In reality this digital compression is a defect and a scourge to anyone who appreciates dynamic range."

AND

2) Another quote from a study of the real musical signal captured from various formats of a recording which explains quite well that Dynamic Range by itself is meaningless.

"Comparsion of the DVD-Video side of the Classic HDAD release Genesis Ch.1.V.32 from I Robot (The Alan Parsons Project), compared with the LP

Linear PCM 2.0 96/24 version on the DVD-Video side of the disc
MLP 2.0 192/24 version on the DVD-Audio side of the disc
LP
Maximum - Average RMS Power (dB):
LPCM Rip 9.78
DVD-V (96/24) 9.29
DVD-A (192/24 9.78
LP-4.61 10.35

Note that LP has a higher Maximum - Average RMS Power . Also this is confimred when listening. The LP sound is more dynamic than either the Linear PCM or MLP versions on the DVD-Audio disc.
Maximum - Average RMS Power is a far more interesting statistic to look at than Dynamic Range is. As is mentioned in other articles, Maximum - Average RMS Power is a better indication of "relative dynamics."
Relative dynamics is a different concept from dynamic range. Relative dynamics is the difference in dB between any two points in a waveform. Dynamic range is the difference between the loudest signal and the noise floor.
LP actually is better than even DVD-A 192/24. LP's difference between maximum to average is around 10.35dB, compared against the DVD-A recording at 9.78dB. In other words, LP "real world" relative dynamics is better than DVD-A performance."

OK Alex!

BUT after all that Don has the most telling point. Alex, get off the theory and the constant revolving arguments with bad reasoning and just ENJOY THE MUSIC like the rest of us do.

Geoff

The boring old fart

[This message was edited by Geoff P on Sat 18 September 2004 at 16:05.]

Alex,

why does an acoustic guitar sound more like an acoutic guitar on my TT than on my CDP, or why do I perceive it to be that way ? Perhaps my cartidge adds its own bit of analog magic that was lost in the translation from the studio. My TT doesn't read-ahead, it doesn't have an algorithm to correct a duff signal, it doesn't sound two dimensional, it has better separation of instruments and it never hurts my ears. It also expressses the emotion and the warmth of a voice that my cdp doesn't. I think I'd have to invest 3x more in a cdp to approach the sound I get from my TT. TT's are still in production for a reason.

Forget about the technical data, this means little, it's what our ears hear that counts. CDP's are being designed to sound like vinyl, why? In blind listening tests between vinyl and cd, vinyl is generally favoured.

Your statements are just technical data which, again, leads me to believe you don't really have anything to base them on, it's just something you've read. Have you listened to a high-end TT ?

I was lucky to get a demo of one of the dvd5 prototypes. We tried movie- and concertdvd´s. The picture is very good but what beated me up was the sound. So there were details in music(the body of a guitar or the air around the lightsaber) and soundtrack that the rotel we tested against didn´t show. And the rotel is very good. We tried both dvdp´s with naimgear.
So - even when sound from a dvd is only 0 and 1, there is a difference what naim is doing with these little bits.
I want to buy it when I have the money...
Cheers h.

DVDs about to be replaced?! I'm still wondering why we all ditched LPs for CDs.
I tend to agree that Naim spending money to make a DVD player seems like a bit of a waste. Simon

quote:

---

Originally posted by hannilein:
So - even when sound from a dvd is only 0 and 1, there is a difference what naim is doing with these little bits.

---

Hannilein,

Honestly, that's the best comment on Naim's approach to digital reproduction I have ever seen!

Regards,

JonR

@Don: Listening and watching is the crucial thing. True. But whatever you do you cannot deny the laws of physics.

Perfect sound, well, actually in theory you can specify it as it would be the complete analog reproduction of the original. This is not possible as no two sounds are perfectly equal and no two rooms are and you can never 100% recreate an atmosphere. BUT what you can do is get the best of what's possible by the media supplied or available. Meaning, if the maximum you can reproduce is 20kHz, then try and do it and if the max. dynamic range is 96dB, use it. If you can get more, use more, if something does less, then it's inferior. Simple. Of course you must be aware (and I am) that manufacturers praise their products with data only achievable on paper and most producers and studios simply do not use the discs to their full capability. But that does not mean the media itself is not superior.
With pictures this is slightly different. Same principle, but here we know more or less precisly how sharp or how detailed the human eye is able to see both knowing and subconcious. So at a certain resolution (always linked to screen size of course as sharpness is measured by angles and hence pixels per mm,inch or whatever) the eye is not capable of telling a difference...nor the brain. That resolution can already be reached with e.g. the IMAX 70mm film, which is capable of 30million pixels (Master, not the following copies).
So here the colours and the "depth" of the picture play a role too.

All in all, there is no perfect, neither analog nor digital as soon as humans enter the stage. The final product is always looked at subjectivly but objectivly you can define certain values which can help increase the quality.

Now what I am saying, is as soon as all the analog parts are gone, there simply is no difference anymore. Every system would sound the same if it were possible to stay digital all the way. But unfortunatly that's not the case and as speakers will always remain analog sound producers, will never change. But what you can do, is record the artists with the best possible microphones and then stream it onto a digital media. You can also put it onto a LP instead of a CD, but no matter what you do, the CD will have the better dynamics. It's all about the quality of the recording and authoring process. If that's done right, the digital CD will beat the analog LP.

The maximum will always be analog, but the best home product will always be digital. It's cheaper and the quality is already better. You can say what you want about my cheap CDP, I truly believe, if we were to use the same amp (with an approriate DAC!) and the same source material (same recording, same auhoring and then "lossless" copy to the LP and CD) my cheap CDP would sound better, simply due to the capabilities of the CD. The sounding work is then only done within the amp and speakers, the source only reads and forwards without any loss or alteration if done correctyl.

@Geoff: You have kind of confirmed my theories. Your quotes all clearly state that the problem simply is not the media or the format but the recording or rather conversion. As you can see, if a recording were done right and not messed with, the new media types would be clearly superior. Sadly it is true and most new stuff is simply pumped up and unnatural (just look at Madonnas - American Life or Music, the bass is so pumped up!). And most rock bands sound like sh*te because they are mastered so poorly.

And yes, I admitt all of this is true, but as I like to understand the technical side, I must say, I still want to push high quality media. I can accept and I know that some, that sadly, sometimes even poor formats sound better than the superior ones. Digital radio sounds crap compared to analog. Because it's not done right. Same with any media out there. It's done cheaply and mass market compatible.
It's true and I admitt to that. But if someone were to do it right, I would be right and LPs would not be able to compete.

But I also think that some when comparing TTs none technically, do trick themselves to believe it sounds better, simply because it is less revealing of the flaws of the recording. A TT sounds a bit warmer and less harsh, even if the original master recording would be harsh. I believe the CD to be more revealing of flaws, which makes them sound worse sometimes, but then I am into electronics and speakers to get the best and most accurate reproduction and not the nicest to listen to.

@Hannilein: Did you use the two DVDPs with exactly the same system? Switching around and comparing a/b. Or were you using analog outputs or different speakers or amps or cables or something?

---------------------------------------------------

It's up and running now!!! www.ForumPictures.de.vu All new and beautiful!

I miss John Toon

I'm reminded of this post from some time back

quote:

---

Then PR turned up and my wife went back to work. PR brought with him a cd of the newly remastered Dire Straits "Love over Gold" which he put into the Naim CDS3. I matched the track on the P9 with my 180g vinyl copy and set them going at the same time so we could switch between the two. After a minute I rushed off to get the manger Simon. "Oh my God" I think sums up our collective thoughts. The volumes matched as did the sound. The P9 had the edge with a slightly fuller sound whereas the CDS3 sounded slightly boxed in and pinched in comparison but the difference was marginal. Two more people came in and I happily switched between the CD & the TT until none us could tell which was which.

---

So one less than optimised Turntable (£2500)versus a CDS3(£7500). Same track on both.

Having bought the P9 & put a decent cartridge on it I have to say that it stomps all over my CDS2. Wishful thinking? Get a life.

Tom
Actively enjoying it all

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex B.:
(timing etc. are another, but no one here will honestly argue a turntabel has better timing!).

---

Alex,

congratulations, you have located the mistake in your argument.

Every one of the people here who is espousing vinyl (me too) is saying exactly that.

quote:

---

Now what I am saying, is as soon as all the analog parts are gone, there simply is no difference anymore. Every system would sound the same if it were possible to stay digital all the way

---

You can buy relatively cheap & very expensive CD players using the same DACS. By your argument they should sound the same.

The fact that they don't just goes to prove that the performance which is implied by the specifications cannot necessarily be perfectly encoded by the conversion from analogue into digital, nor perfectly converted back into the analgue signal. Do you think that a CD player from 1984 sounds as good as a modern one? If not, then again you have to accept that another 20 years of development might be able to extract another huge set of improvements, which would again prove that we are not currently achieving all the the specifications seem to be promising.

Now you only have to accept that those losses may be larger (different in type, but still more important) than the losses incurred in transferring to vinyl and back, and you will understand why we all think you are wrong.

cheers, Martin

E-mail:- MartinPayne (at) Dial.Pipex.com. Put "Naim" in the title.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex B.:
I am into electronics and speakers to get the best and most accurate reproduction and not the nicest to listen to.

---

Am I reading that correctly? Someone? Anyone?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ludwig:

Am I reading that correctly? Someone? Anyone?

---

What he wants is a pair of ATCs sitting on 11 stages of Mana

Alex,

whatever you do you cannot deny the laws of physics

.....we don't know the laws of physics wrt music playback and picture playback....

Some people THINK they know the laws of physics....

SOME of the laws, as we know them, are probably good enough to use with care.


If Product A consistently SOUNDS better than Product B, it IS better.

If the laws of physics say Product B will sound better, then those particular laws are either wrong or irrelevant.

Cheers

Don

What an interesting thread - that seems to have been sidetracked. Without wishing to encourage tangents there was an interesting couple of articles about digital mastering in Hi-Fi News, in them it was suggested that the reason that frequencies above 20KHz make a difference is because of their influence on lower frequencies that we can hear.

I still have my record collection, which is expanding and giving me great pleasure - as well as giving a daily demo of better sound quality than digital.

I have to disagree with an earlier comment that DVD sound is crap; some is, but I get a great deal of enjoyment from concert DVDs such as Queen, Paul McCartney, and various operas.

Back to Alex's original contention: Naim is entering the market late, and will find it hard to make money.

I bought the AV2 for two reasons:

1. Having listened to many processors, and owned ones by Yamaha, Lexicon and another hi-end US make that has just gone screaming out of my mind, the NAIM was just better - within the context of my system with all naim amps; and

2. I TRUST NAIM to maintain and support their hardware - my power-amps are all over twenty years old. They've just bought out a free firmware upgrade for the AV2 for instance.


So, what of the DVD5?

Currently I own a CD Player, an ARCAM DV88 with the silicon digital component upgrade and a 757A.

I bought the 757A second-hand to listen to the new 'High Res' formats. I had hoped that this machine, which is a couple of generations newer, would equal the Arcam for picture and DVD sound - it doesn't.

I bought the Arcam in the hope that they would allow me to keep it up to current spec, WRONG.

For me the question is will Naim have a modular build that allows me to keep upgrading it at a reasonable cost, AND give me great DVD sound and vision, AND have the usual long term NAIM support.

What is a 'reasonable cost'? Good question. But if they can deliver these key ingredients I'll be having a look and listen.

Having listened to DVD-A and SACD I am not convinced that either format has legs, but NAIM are going to have to do something on this front - look to give a digital output for a link into the AV3? Or even better, and upgraded AV2.

HD TV is an issue. As I don't watch TV it is one I won't worry about for a few years, as my plasma is giving me a great picture.



Martin

Ok, to get back on topic, here's my take.

Naim have produced a great processor & (when it is finally launced) a great DVD player. Unfortunately they are entering a quickly changing market with a product that lacks many of the multitude of features the competition is offering at the same or cheaper prices very late. Whether the superior quality of the picture and sound is sufficient enough to tempt those outside the Naim fold will have to be seen but the competition is very stiff and at this level quite small as well.

My guess is they will have to work extremely hard to catch up. If they don't will they survive? Maybe they have learnt lessons of tardiness already and have plans to jump when the next generation of hardware hits the market. I hope so.

Tom
Actively enjoying it all

In no particular order, I have been called...Insane, stupid, an idiot etc and having no knowledge or having done no research whatsoever into what I do.

Personally, if he wants to say that, fine, I do not take it too personally.

As for most of this absolutely specious nosense he is spouting...... I completely give up.

I have had naim equipment some 20 years, and I still love listening to it now...

ITS MY CHOICE.

I have a space waiting for a dvd5 in the rack.

I MADE THAT CHOICE.

But there again it could have been my alter ego, my shadow, my other self from the 5th dimension....

Anyone up for buying a bit of useless old kit shortly?

PS,, Alex.... just how many shares do you have in Technics, Pioneer et al?

[This message was edited by Steve2701 on Sat 18 September 2004 at 23:13.]

I think the thing that bugs me is that Naim's entry level AV kit costs more than it will will to resurface my drive and I can't afford both. (Actually I can't afford either, ho hum)

The problem in buying High-end AV is the technology marches at a faster nick than a PC depreciates. When will 8,1, 9,1 and eventually 10.1 be the standard? Upon dismantling my 5.1, I ran a two-channel Naim system with a LFE out of the DVD player feeding a high-powered sub. Astonishing results I do not miss the AV at all.