[quote] But there is no HDMI D/A converter on the planet that sounds even half as good as the analog outputs of the DX-5.
So if the customer only wants it for movies, that is a great plan. For years we have all been listening to 5.1 channels of low-bit-rate MP3, and it has been just fine. The visuals make the sound quality less important for watching movies.
Until someone makes an SSP with Audio Rate Control, discrete analog circuitry, and volume controls at least as good as our $3500 preamp (FET switches and metal film resistors), then anybody who listens to music even once in a while shouldn't mind spending a couple of thousand dollars extra for great music playback.
And they will be still be saving money. To make an SSP with the features noted above would probably cost $25,000 or more. Why spend that much money to get eight channels of incredible sound when eight channels of pretty good sound is all you need for movies? Then you can save your money for where it counts -- those two channels of music playback.[/quote]
[quote]Yes, but where does the blame lay? I say with the SSP's that butcher the incoming analog signal in countless ways.
And how good will the HDMI connection actually sound? HDMI has far worse jitter than S/PDIF. We have never made a DAC with S/PDIF because it is a flawed format that inevitably degrades the sound quality of the signal. You can read more about this topic in this white paper:
Until such an SSP exists, the only way to get truly high performance music reproduction is to use the analog outputs of the DX-5 (or other single-box player) into a stereo preamp that has a processor passthrough mode. This will serve 99.99% of all music available today.[/quote]
Of course he does not explain why, since he has not even measured the jitter in the DX-5 he is just blowing hot air.
[quote]c) Nearly all existing SSP's are "flawed" because due to cost and space constraints, they use high-feeback op-amps in the audio signal path and single-chip op-amp-based IC volume controls. There are a few exceptions. The Theta Casablanca uses a system of FET switches and metal film resistors for its volume control. I believe (but am not sure) that the audio signal path is fully discrete, although it also uses feedback. The Levinson No.40 has a different kind of volume control. I believe (but am not sure) that it is the MDAC style of volume control that they used to use in their No.38 preamp. I am unsure of the other details of the No.40's design. The original version was released shortly before the company imploded. I have heard snippets that the version put back into production a couple of years later had some changes.
b) One can take a jittery signal, such as HDMI or S/PDIF, and by throwing money at it, reduce the level of jitter. The more money you throw at it, the lower you can get the jitter. Theta has been building digital products for over 20 years and has some of the best jitter-reduction circuitry around.
But, as I said before, that is just a guess.[/quote]
Sorry charles but it looks like everything you have said is a guess.
[quote]The final thing to consider is that (to the best of my knowledge) Ayre is still the only company that provides total isolation between the video and audio systems. That is one feature that is very unlikely to ever become common, and yet it remains one of the most important determinants of system performance (both audio and video).[/quote]
To his knowledge, looks like to me charles needs to do some more reading.
[quote]Maybe we will build a "transport" version someday. But only when someone (I guess it will be up to us, as nobody else seems to be willing...) offers a video switcher/scaler that offers galvanically isolated audio outputs and an SSP with the above features. Otherwise, what would be the point?[/quote]
[quote]In addition, the picture quality of the Ayre should be distinctly better than other players. This is due to both the use of ultra-low noise pure linear power supplies throughout, plus the galvanic isolation between the audio and video sections of the unit.[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_isolation
[quote]Galvanic isolation is used in situations where two or more electric circuits must communicate, but their grounds may be at different potentials. It is an effective method of breaking ground loops by preventing unwanted current from travelling between two units sharing a ground conductor. Galvanic isolation is also used for safety considerations, preventing accidental current from reaching the ground (the building floor) through a person's body.[/quote]
I doubt charles knows what galvanic isolation is and used the term just to sound intelligent.
Plastic receiver and a shitbox preamp of noisy switches. Is that why you post in receivers, Steve? A little gear envy going on?
Wait a sec, let me burn a roach...
OK, Stevie, here I go.
You are a reproachable slimeball troll.
You enjoy nothing more than stirring a pot, any that you may find, and looking for the excitement that you may receive. Fair 'nuff.
However, if you look deeper into the situation, Steve, you are really looking fo the xcitement that you lack in real life.
Your career is a bore, chasing ambulance chasers and defending DUI's, you really wanted more...since the day that you checked into South Louisana college of law and agiculture.
Your lunatic obsession of scattering and copying views and opinion among various forums, in search of some comunication is troublig to me.
I suggest that you talk to your partner as soon as possible, or find one soon. This is experience speaking. Get a date.
"Charles Hansen of ayre thinks ALL processors and receivers are subpar."
Aw, fer cryin' out loud! Suck it up, ya frickin' baby. We're supposed to be outraged that Hansen thinks his products (and others shunning op-amps) are better than SSPs and receivers? Okaaaayyyyyy.
Maybe you ought to spend time *listening* to different products rather than trolling your distortions and outright lies across all corners of the internet (excepting of course, for the sites from which you are banned).
Meanwhile, I'm about five posts slow in taking the real Steve Bruzonsky's advice which is to ignore your idiocy. Later, baby.
"Ed Maybe you ought to spend time *listening* to different products rather than trolling your distortions and outright lies across all corners of the internet (excepting of course, for the sites from which you are banned)."
The only one's who are trolling and lying are high end audio companies and other mod companies, oh but I forgot that you people do not believe in measurements or proper technical discussions/designes.
[quote]It's fun for the marketing types to make up silly techno-speak. After all, that's all that SACD ever was -- "Direct Stream Digital" or "DSD" is NOT an engineering term, it's a marketing term. It doesn't mean anything in particular except whatever the marketing department feels like on any given day.[/quote]
Funny, since charles is famous for making up "silly techno-speak".
[quote]Yes, of course. It just adds to the cost and complexity of the system.
With S/PDIF and HDMI audio, jitter is built into the transmission link. One can never completely eliminate jitter once it's there, but rather filter it out through various techniques. Basically, the more money you throw at it, the better the performance can get.
A big problem is that some of the best techniques introduce a lot of latency, which is unacceptable for A/V applications. That is why many companies were thrilled when Asynchronous Sample Rate Conversion was developed. Data processing power has become so cheap that a chip can throw out all of the original data and calculate new data for what it thinks it would have been if there were no jitter in the incoming signal.
The algorithms work well enough to fool the measuring instruments, but the audible results are not so clear-cut. But since it measures well and is cheap, its use is becoming very widespread.[/quote]
Is this guy serious? Jitter is built in? The guy is worried about increased latency yet any basic source/processor/receiver will have latency adjustments, when was the last time charles used a hometheater product? I saved the best part for last, "The algorithms work well enough to fool the measuring instruments, but the audible results are not so clear-cut. But since it measures well and is cheap, its use is becoming very widespread." fooling the measuring instruments, well folks that one takes the cake.
[quote]You still may want to get the Oppo SE. Has anyone done a comparison of that with the Marantz? Even if the Marantz is better, is it enough better to justify the price difference?[/quote]
[quote]The other USB connector on the rear is to connect the DX-5 to a PC. By using your favorite music player software (eg, iTunes, J.River, Foobar, et cetera), you can turn the DX-5 into a state-of-the-art music server. You can store your music on your computer with all the convenience of playback through playlists, random play, selection of multiple tracks from multiple discs -- the possibilities are endless.[/quote]
Odd thing to say after he just finished bashing every computer PC or MAC that is out there. Oh but of course his product is so good that the computer will be turned into a audiophile piece.
[quote]That is "Digital Audio Output" on and off. It turns on and off the AES/EBU connector. If you don't need to use it, the analog audio will sound slightly better if you turn that off. It's kind of like turning the display off, or using the "Pure Audio" mode that turns off both the display and the video circuitry. The less RF noise inside the box, the better the analog will sound.
These are small differences, not huge ones. For example, we also have a "Display Off" function on the C-5xeMP. But I never use it as it just doesn't seem worth the bother to me. But if you are going for the absolute best two-channel analog sound, all the controls are there.[/quote]
And I am sure he has measurements to back these claims up. Hahaha.
Every time this dude posts here, which is in frantic spits and spurts, I consider it the "Bruz cruise".
I might suggest that I return to my previous method of completely ignoring him, as most everyone else has...my bad.
But the guy is just so much fun to make fun of, cause he keeps coming back for more!!
At this point, I do not care if he owns the original Magna Carta, it is too funny to be believed that a shyster lawyer is trolling so hard for a lawsuit (while listening to his Sony receiver), that he infects every forum that he can find.