Thread: CDs, MP3s, Radio, LPs, Tape Cassettes, or 78s . . . How do you listen to Classical?

Fair enough. I am hearing some good things about Polk Monitor Speakers. I just don't have the time and interest to go to a lot of hi fi stores. I usually can save 40 percent by ordering online.

It was a while ago, but when I was checking out speakers, I liked the Polk bookshelves, but not their full sized speakers. As I remember, they were a little thick sounding and lacking in the mids. They weren't awful though. Just not as good as some of the others. They might work well in a room with a hard slab floor.

Many stereo stores will match internet prices.

I saw these Klipsch Mirage Omnisat OS3-FS Speakers on sale for $199 a copy. They look sort of bad ass. I am not one to go to a store to listen to them, I would just read the reviews (which are good). I generally have good luck with that, but I am not as particular as most people would be.

61G6PHAzZ-L._AA300_.jpg

I use Klipsch bookshelf speakers for my rear channel. I paid $150 a side for them if I remember correctly. They were the best sounding small speakers in the store. Do you have a subwoofer?

These look cool http://www.amazon.com/Waterfall-Audi...pd_sim_sbs_e_3

41ygO7+UjnL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Yours for under $54,000

Ugh! I love reviews like this one...

I am an investment banker who has been very lucky with investments and also an audiophile, so I wanted to buy something special just to say that I could actually afford something so outrageously expensive.

This one is more like it...

Got a couple of these in my kid's room. They love listening to Raffi and Disney songs on these before bed some nights. When they turn ten I'll probably upgrade, but for now these are an excellent compromise. The crystal glass is beautiful and allows you to paint or crayon on them while keeping the acoustics pristine and the resonance in caliber. Wouldn't recommend them too close to the pool, as some boisterous party goers knocked them in and they sink like the heavenly stones that they are, chipping my personalized golden tile inlay. Sent it back to amazon, with a case of Don, and got a couple refurbished back in a week. Bravo Amazon! Also, they make for excellent studio speakers when playing back sounds of your bowels. I recorded myself on the throne multiple times and these get it "right". Crystal clear highs and lows allow me to relive each movement with unparallelled memory. Toying with the notion of grabbing a few dozen pair and creating a sound heaven wall that would make Odysseus' sirens blue with envy. Perfect wedding gift, and makes an excellent house warming gesture. Grab them while the price is low.

Always read the Amazon reviews before buying!

http://www.amazon.com/AudioQuest-NRG...DateDescending

I spoke to a guy who used to work at Quad. About CD error correction - as I understand from him - the errors are in the manufacturing process and error correction is there to, predominantly correct those errors - and can do so with pinpoint accuracy - whether you play from a CD player or from a CD ripped to hard drive - there should be no difference at all on that account. Errors do not occur from the reading process. This is just going back to a dozen or so posts earlier as I recall someone saying ripping to HD is better because it results in a more accurate reading.

Originally Posted by stomanek

I spoke to a guy who used to work at Quad. About CD error correction - as I understand from him - the errors are in the manufacturing process and error correction is there to, predominantly correct those errors - and can do so with pinpoint accuracy - whether you play from a CD player or from a CD ripped to hard drive - there should be no difference at all on that account. Errors do not occur from the reading process. This is just going back to a dozen or so posts earlier as I recall someone saying ripping to HD is better because it results in a more accurate reading.

No offense, but you have to understand that an engineer perhaps won't feel like explaining to the average guy the exact design details and algorithms. What he told you is not incorrect. CDs are manufactured to a standard that states that no uncorrectable errors (CU) are allowed. Errors codes are written on the disk because errors are inevitable, but redundancy makes them correctable. There is a standard for how many C1 and C2 errors are allowed on average, i don't remember these numbers.

A CD player will correct these errors on the fly, but can only interpolate or mute the unrecoverable samples. A CD drive will attempt to reread. New disks will play/read without any difference in both a drive or player, a damaged disk may or may not; this is why a player can only do as good as a drive, given that it has C2 correction capability.

The more expensive CD players have disk stabilization apparatus, multiple lasers, and probably other intricate mechanisms that work to reduce read errors, thus error correction, or interpolation in case of uncorrectable errors. These mechanisms are simply not needed in a CD drive.

He seemed to be saying that the cd players don't have to re-read as they pick it all up as it is on the disc first time. He explained about interpolation and muting which he said is necessary when they CD is scratched/damaged and the data is not correctable. Anyway in his opinion - and he worked in R and D at quad for 25 years - right up to the mid 90s - there should be no difference in playback whether from a ripped disc - or player playing in real time.

Just to add - a CD with 60 minutes playing time is read in 60 miutes by a player - yet ripped in 5 minutes by a drive. It does not take 1 second of the CD player's time to read the bits - probably just a fraction of a second - thus there is bags of time to get an accurate reading. Re-reading is more likely to be necessary in a pc based cd drive where you have a fan and other bits causing unstability.
It's all academic anyway as on a blind test I doubt if anybody could tell the difference.
I once downloaded a highly compressed beethoven vc and could not tell it had been compressed - it seem high enough quality to me.

Originally Posted by stomanek

He seemed to be saying that the cd players don't have to re-read as they pick it all up as it is on the disc first time. He explained about interpolation and muting which he said is necessary when they CD is scratched/damaged and the data is not correctable.

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what i said in my previous post.

Originally Posted by stomanek

He seemed to be saying that the cd players don't have to re-read as they pick it all up as it is on the disc first time. He explained about interpolation and muting which he said is necessary when they CD is scratched/damaged and the data is not correctable. Anyway in his opinion - and he worked in R and D at quad for 25 years - right up to the mid 90s - there should be no difference in playback whether from a ripped disc - or player playing in real time.

Why do i get the feeling we're going in circles? What your friend told you is correct, however you don't seem to have grasped any of these concepts. Your argument about ripping time is completely ignorant.

May i also point out that you were the one trying to tell us that "hi-fi" sources like CD players were better than a PC... and now you're talking as if you're trying to convince us that they sound the same... we know!

Next time, ask your engineer friend before having to backtrack.

All CD players, whether standalone or PC based, sound exactly the same. Even the cheapest WalMart special can play a CD perfectly.

Shall we discuss how all solid state amps sound the same now?

I'm glad then that all music sounds different.

Music is what matters.

Originally Posted by Philip

May i also point out that you were the one trying to tell us that "hi-fi" sources like CD players were better than a PC... and now you're talking as if you're trying to convince us that they sound the same... we know!

Yes true but I changed my mind after reading your posts and doing some research. I'm not obstinate! Just interested.