What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?

[Fëanor]

There is not possibly anything I want to learn from the likes of you or others about HiRes equipment. Period. Create your own thread, and you will see I will not participate to nuke the pleasure of others.
This thread was not meant for the likes of you and others, it was meant for sharing a enthusiasm for audio gear, not for people that think that all this is snake oil. I will not comment further, all is said.

Harry, there is an audiophile site you might enjoy where intelligent & rational people discuss high-end equipment without too much noise from objectivists.

If you haven't discovered it already, that site is 'AudioShark'.  The name of the site might not be  engaging but the equipment discussions there might be very much to your taste.

[StudioGuy]

I've always had the advantage of very limited funds to indulge my audiophile interest. That is, I had to seek high VALUE in financial terms from the components I purchased.  Consequently, I believe, I was more open than many audiophiles to objective testing & measurement. Note that contemporary testing, e.g. at Audio Scient Review, is more comprehensive than was it back in the day of Julian Hirsch, (no disrespect to that gentleman).

Yes, the history of the audiophile world is an interesting object lesson in human/consumer psychology. Back in the 1960's and '70s the audiophile world was generally far more "scientific", actual audio and psychoacoustic scientists and engineers routinely interacted with the audiophile community. There was still quite an amount of snake oil by the mid '70s, particularly with amps, but the community generally valued objective measurements and the facts/science more than it does now. A big turning point was the Carver Challenge in the mid 1980's, which along with the increasing amount of measurements and blind tests indicating no audible difference (largely due to the far higher accuracy of digital audio), caused quite a stir in the audiophile community and resulted in many audiophiles realising just how much they were being scammed and losing trust in the publications reviewing audiophile equipment. This posed an existential threat to many audiophile manufacturers and audiophile publications and reviewers, many of whom then commenced a campaign of misinformation to falsely discredit measurements, blind testing and those who would refute that misinformation (scientists, engineers and educated audiophiles). Eventually leading to the false dichotomy of objectivist vs subjectivist and that exact same misinformation still being routinely regurgitated  more than 35 years after it was published (and debunked).

With regards to the testing. Back in Hirsch's day, it was far more difficult to run a battery of tests and far more difficult to do so with precision. Everything was manual and analogue, each test required a carefully manually calibrated test signal and it's own test equipment, and when you did get a precise measurement it was difficult or impossible to output it in a publishable form, you literally needed a lab full of test equipment and a great deal of expertise to get precise measurements from it. Fast forward a few decades and you can get yourself an AP555 plug in say a DAC, select a battery of tests from the software interface, select start and the AP unit chugs through them all automatically and outputs a folder full of perfectly formatted, incredibly precise charts/graphs ready for publication. This is a bit of an oversimplification, you still need to know what you're doing to select the correct settings and need a bit of extra gear but not the lab full of gear and level of expertise required previously.

In the recent 15 years or so I discovered that well-measuring but relatively cheap components often sound better than very expensive equipment. That is, especially when it comes to detail, transparency, crisp dynamics, and articulate bass.

That's been the case for half a century. The first edition of the Audio Critic (1977) states "Price is no longer a meaningful indication of quality; it has become a marketing gimmick".

The Lexicon BD-30 placed the Oppo BDP-83 electronics in a fancy case and cost seven times as much.

That's also an old trick. Back in the early/mid 1990's it became impossible to tell the different DAC chips apart in blind tests, so basically the audiophile industry just used the same components as everyone else and put them in expensively milled cases. That only worked for so long though, come the mass internet age and eventually YouTube, it became too easy to open up the case, see effectively the same components and disseminate that information.

So a new marketing trick had to be devised; stick in a silly looking transformer/power supply and revert to a less accurate, more expensive, superseded technology (R2R and NOS designs) but market it as "better", "more musical", "more refined", "more analog" and a host of other nonsense claims. They did look different though, if you open the case, they look more like the DAC sections of CD players back in the early days of digital audio that no one uses anymore. A bit like opening a car bonnet and seeing a bunch of gold plated Weber downdraft carburettors and thinking it looks different, more expensive and performs better than modern fuel injected turbo engines.

[Harry]

Harry, there is an audiophile site you might enjoy where intelligent & rational people discuss high-end equipment without too much noise from objectivists.

If you haven't discovered it already, that site is 'AudioShark'.  The name of the site might not be  engaging but the equipment discussions there might be very much to your taste.

Thank you, I will go there and forget about this thread altogether, where no one is waiting for what I have in my listening room and beyond.

[71 dB]

Thank you, I will go there and forget about this thread altogether, where no one is waiting for what I have in my listening room and beyond.

Why suffer here, if you can feel more at home elsewhere?

[Kalevala]

Thank you, I will go there and forget about this thread altogether, where no one is waiting for what I have in my listening room and beyond.

Hi Harry,

Just enjoy what you have (and/or upgrades).  In the end, it's all about the music and what makes you happy.

K

[Harry]

Why suffer here, if you can feel more at home elsewhere?

And for the Record my friend my Net streamer is cheaper as your system!

[DavidW]

My streamer quit today. No audio output anymore, even after rebooting it. It had a few other issues before then, warning me that its days were numbered. Since the software has gone dramatically downhill since I bought that Bluesound Node, I'm jumping to another brand AGAIN. I've ordered a WiiM Ultra. I just hope it has Spotify Connect, which has become essential for me.

[Harry]

My streamer quit today. No audio output anymore, even after rebooting it. It had a few other issues before then, warning me that its days were numbered. Since the software has gone dramatically downhill since I bought that Bluesound Node, I'm jumping to another brand AGAIN. I've ordered a WiiM Ultra. I just hope it has Spotify Connect, which has become essential for me.

IK always had good vibes with the Bluesound

[DavidW]

IK always had good vibes with the Bluesound

Yeah, it is probably just bad luck. If it happens with the WiiM Ultra, I'll swing the other way and spend serious money to get something that lasts. I think I can forget that it is a reason to buy expensive audio equipment. Just get something great and durable and never worry again.

[Todd]

Yeah, it is probably just bad luck. If it happens with the WiiM Ultra, I'll swing the other way and spend serious money to get something that lasts. I think I can forget that it is a reason to buy expensive audio equipment. Just get something great and durable and never worry again.

I currently use the WiiM Pro.  I believe it has Spotify, though I don't know if it, or any WiiM, supports Spotify Connect.  I don't use Spotify, so I have not investigated.

I take the opposite approach to you.  I view wireless streamers as throwaway consumer goods and buy cheaper ones expecting a short lifespan (2-4 years) and expect to buy new, cheap ones in the future with expanded feature sets.  If I can get a unit for $150 and it lasts for three years, that works out to about $0.14/day for streaming hardware.  A $500 unit would have to last a decade for the same daily cost, and high-end audiophile streamers, a joke product category if ever there were one, would have to last until sometime in the next century to pencil out.

[DavidW]

Oh woops not Spotify Correct... Qobuz Correct.

[Valentino]

It's got both. I use the Ultra like this:

Large picture
I also have an Amp Ultra in the TV setup with a couple of Dynaudio Emit M10 speakers. Subwoofer wanting.

[DavidUK]

Well, after completely remodeling my apartment, I bought a new audio system as well, AUDIOLAB 8300XP 140W, 8300CDQ CD Player, and KEF R7 speakers.

That should keep me happy for a while. 

I have recently purchased an Audiolab 8300 CD player. Which of the seven filters do you find is best for classical music? Many thanks

[springrite]

I have recently purchased an Audiolab 8300 CD player. Which of the seven filters do you find is best for classical music? Many thanks

I did not even bother to tinker with it!

[Harry]

I did not even bother to tinker with it!

Wise decision, those filters should be left alone, it confuses the ears.

[DavidW]

Oh woops not Spotify Correct... Qobuz Correct.

How tired was I? My correction itself was incorrect. Qobuz Connect. Not correct.

[Kalevala]

How tired was I? My correction itself was incorrect. Qobuz Connect. Not correct.

Heck, you've been busy and it was also Thanksgiving too. 

K

[StudioGuy]

I have recently purchased an Audiolab 8300 CD player. Which of the seven filters do you find is best for classical music? Many thanks

It's very annoying chip manufacturers started providing user selectable filters around a decade or so ago. Prior to that DAC chips just applied a single optimal filter, job done. Unfortunately, the audiophile industry started to apply their own (non-optimal) filters and the never ending cycle of providing upgraded features eventually resulted in the chip manufacturers adding various built-in filter options to cater to audiophile manufacturers. This is annoying because a DAC manufacturer can name the filters anything they want, don't have to explain exactly what they do and sometimes it can be difficult to identify which is the original/standard optimal filter.

On the fortunate side, the original/optimal filter type is typically the default filter and, the differences between many/most of the filter choices are inaudible anyway but sometimes they're not all inaudible and the optimal filter is not always the default.

The optimal type is a fast roll-off (starting around 20kHz), linear phase filter. 
The slow roll-off type will typically be inaudible but it depends of course where the roll-off starts. Often they start at 16kHz and will therefore be inaudible (to adults) but sometimes they start at 10kHz or even lower, which maybe audible.
Minimum phase is not ideal, you either have to have a slow roll-off or relatively large phase shifts, typically this is not audible but again depends on where the roll-off starts.
Apodising filters are typically the same as a minimum phase with a slightly lower than optimal roll-off and some phase shift. Almost never an audible difference with an apodising filter though.
NOS, "ideal transient" or some other name that indicates no filter ringing in response to a Dirac Pulse (which don't exist in music) are typically the worst filter type, little/no filtering above the Nyquist frequency (22.05kHz in the case of CD) and a roll-off starting at around 2kHz, which can/will be audible.

The Audiolab 8300 manual is not very clear and makes various incorrect assertions. The optimal (fast roll-off, linear phase) filter appears to be the one they call the "Optimal Spectrum" filter but it's not clear if that's the default option. If highest fidelity is what you consider "best" (as most would) then you should choose this filter option. However, if you prefer a little less high treble than your classical recordings actually contain, the slow roll-off option might be "best" for you (depending on your age/hearing and where the roll-off actually starts).