Then that unpleasantness disappears two or three versions later. In fact, at least to me, some versions of the different players are unlistenable because they do something to the music that is unpleasant. But yeah, a music player can do that - as the player is a source. So let's drop the "my dad's system is more resolving than you dad's" nonsense. Because that is ridiculous exaggeration.Īs is evidenced by the variety of very fine systems on this forum who's owners are happily using either, or both. But if you are seriously suggesting that one of these players is unlistenable or spoiling your enjoyment, I would have a closer look at how they are set up. I've no problem identifying the differences between players. With respect, you don't know my system and resolution is something it's not short of. So your "LOL" could indicate that your system is not able to show the difference between A+ and iTunes, but that does not mean that it does not exist and that it is not a huge. When you get to a certain level in Hi Fi then even small changes could enhance or spoil the quality of the system.I'm not talking about the amount of money that is spent, on the contrary, I know many friends who have spent huge sums of money to them and they system sounds like a mini stereo. is huge because I know what changes they bring to my system. I can easily tell the difference between A + 1.3.5. When you complete a system that is resolute enough to show even the slightest change, and when everything "clicks together" then you can identify any change ,of course you must be familiar with your system. A change of speaker or room can be huge, but digital sources and amplifiers would have to measure pretty differently to produce "huge" differences I would have thought. Significant, possibly in terms of improvements to thrill those like us, but huge, certainly not. Of course it can improve it if as Melvin suggests you turn it off.Īnyway, I don't hear huge differences in these music players just differences that I'm sure will lead folk to choose either, based on how they work in their environment. I've never heard a bad analogue source improved by better equipment further down the chain either, if anything it further exposes the shortcomings. I'm sorry, I don't buy the "huge" line, that's just hyperbole in this context. I tend to agree with you Paul, although I've heard good CDPs hooked up to crappy receivers and shutting them off was the only sane option.Īll good stuff, but you would presumably hope to be past the "bad" digital source before comparing music players on the same platform. In the analog world, a pretty so so analog source is only improved by better equipment down the line. In other words, a poor digital source has all it's flaws amplified by better equipment down the line. A good digital source fed through a so-so DAC and really good analog equipment is like amplified fingernails on a chalkboard.A poor digital source fed through even the best DAC and really good analog equipment sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard.Really good digital sources fed through good DACs into even pedestrian analog equipment can sound good.I think you still need reasonably good equipment at all points in the chain. In digital, you have to start at the top of the chain to get where you want to be, while in analog, it is pretty typical to start at the amp and work backwards. In fact, the DAC is more likely to do that than the preamp or amp. Even if they cost exactly the same in dollars. The difference in a $XXXX system that I can comfortably listen to for hours, or one that I want to shut off or at least turn down after 2 minutes, is a blinking *huge* difference.
0 kommentar(er)
