jh901 wrote: > Wouldn't you have to admit that you aren't qualified to discern these so > called quacks from the real deal? For example, the best digital front > end that you've spent considerable time with in your own system is a > stock Transporter. Though it is inconvenient to accept, you could do > better with any number of barely hi-end DACs on the market today. And > without question, your mind would be blown by how amazing actual hi-end > digital will sound. > > PS Audio's DirectStream is one of the hot FPGA DACs today. You can > write it off already though. Right? No need to borrow one for a few > weeks. Reviewers are misrepresenting it. Customers are subject to > being fooled by their own imaginations. So the end game here is that > ONLY the hardest core skeptics own the facts. > > Jeez, I sincerely don't get it. What is being won or otherwise proven > here? Is the Transporter the end of the line? No CD player or DAC > could ever be significantly better in all aspects of sound quality?
As long the high end audio press keeps on writing rave reviews based on subjective listening, often with no direct comparisons between different pieces of equipment, then there is absolutely no reason to take them seriously. Reviews where the reviewer compares the equipment being reviewed to some piece of equipment that was in their system months, if not years, ago are completely worthless. Reviews where the reviewer fails to display even the most basic knowledge of how digital audio works (which is just about all of the reviews and reviewers) are also worthless. I find it very funny that in the world of high end audio belief in science and scientific facts makes one a skeptic and a hard core one at that. Electricity and digital signals behave the same whether they are in a computer or a piece of high end audio equipment. Now how do you know whether or not I've listened to or owned other digital front ends in my system, and if so, whether or not my mind was blown? Simple answer, you don't. Going back to my original post - I was trying to make a point about the high end audio press being focused on the wrong things, such as the vastly over designed case of the AK240, which has absolutely nothing to do with how the unit sounds. I also pointed out Mr. Dudley's howlingly funny straw man argument against blind and double testing. Perhaps you should try reading it and then you try to explain to me how it makes any sense. As for the Transporter: it was a very well thought out design with an internal DAC that does its job with very little coloration, which is all that a good DAC should do. Many high end DACs add coloration to the sound, which is not a good thing. Should a DAC offer filter settings to compensate for early, poorly encoded digital audio? Perhaps but then we are entering into the realm of coloration and this is a whole different subject, as is the use of a DSP for room correction - another hotly debated topic in audio. I do want to thank you for your very thoughtful response and I do respect your views, even though they differ from mine. As long as you put your equipment to good use and enjoy the music then we will always be kindred souls in this sometimes crazy audio hobby. Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0 Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar Garage: SB3-JVC compact system Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso Server: SBS on dedicated windows 7 computer w/2 Drobos 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
