I was shocked and thrilled to see someone demoing music playback with a center speaker. Magnepan combined its motorized, on-wall MMC2 speakers with its CC5 center speaker and two of its DWM woofers. A Bryston surround processor did Dolby Pro Logic IIx processing, using just the front three speakers, the subwoofers, and no surround speakers. The result was super-spacious sound with an extremely stable, realistic center image.
D-I-G-T-A-L = A-R-T-I-F-C-I-A-L
Wouldn't it be interesting if zero's and one's could replace reality, we would live in a Tron world where everything would be as artificial as digital music sounds. Maybe in that digital world we would have digital ears and all us analog guys would be happy with digital music?
Until then I'll listen with my god given analog ears, I bet you would say that their design is flawed too.
I have news, people can hear the flaws in digital, our ears are better than you think.
Mr Aix is right; yes , there is a comfortable sound from analog tape, and good signal capacity if you use big tape running fast for just the two stereo tracks.But... The very best digital TODAY can virtually clone the master tape, whereas every analog generation will move further and further away. Comfortable slippers and orthopedically correct footware, that's the comparison as I see it, and i have quite a bit of recording experience with top-grade analog machines:Ampex ATR-100 , 1/2" tape,@ 30 ips. Too much religion and not enough audio fundamentals. Of course, if you like pitch variations and head bumps, no problem.
Perhaps a move back to 1/4" reel-to-reel and 16-bit/44.1-kilohertz digital is too timid. Microcassette and 8-bit/11-kilohertz digital would seem the most suitable course of action here.
Dr Aix shoule be Dr Wrong!
If this is your opinion of analog tape... you are doing it wrong.
I have had probably the best DVD Audio decks ever made (Enlightened Audio Designs) and also the complete DCS mega buck stack digital and I can tell the difference in about 10 seconds between tape and any digital, high res, DVD A, DSD, whatever . Even the latest and best of the best high resolution downloads on my Magico speakers is easily discernible from the Master Tape copies on open reel tape. Digital is pretty good and some argue is getting better, some say that high resolution just adds distortion points and is not as good as 16 bit 44 hrz. However any way you examine it digital is not the sound of reality, digital sound is determined by a computers interpretation of reality, always was, always will be.
I've spent enough on my audio system to buy a super fast Ferrari, but as a music lover I'll play tape when I want to get the big thrills of racing my system!
As the owner of a couple of analog tape machines (Nagra IVS and Ampex 440C with tricked electronics) and producer of HD-Audio releases on DVD-Audio and now Blu-ray, there's no contest between the sound quality of each. Analog tape had it's day, but the fidelity and capabilities of high end PCM digital are far superior to analog tape. It may be a sound that some will spend time and money to achieve, but it's not worth the expense and trouble.
D-I-G-T-A-L = A-R-T-I-F-C-I-A-L
Wouldn't it be interesting if zero's and one's could replace reality, we would live in a Tron world where everything would be as artificial as digital music sounds. Maybe in that digital world we would have digital ears and all us analog guys would be happy with digital music?
Until then I'll listen with my god given analog ears, I bet you would say that their design is flawed too.
I have news, people can hear the flaws in digital, our ears are better than you think.
Mr Aix is right; yes , there is a comfortable sound from analog tape, and good signal capacity if you use big tape running fast for just the two stereo tracks.But... The very best digital TODAY can virtually clone the master tape, whereas every analog generation will move further and further away. Comfortable slippers and orthopedically correct footware, that's the comparison as I see it, and i have quite a bit of recording experience with top-grade analog machines:Ampex ATR-100 , 1/2" tape,@ 30 ips. Too much religion and not enough audio fundamentals. Of course, if you like pitch variations and head bumps, no problem.
Perhaps a move back to 1/4" reel-to-reel and 16-bit/44.1-kilohertz digital is too timid. Microcassette and 8-bit/11-kilohertz digital would seem the most suitable course of action here.
Dr Aix shoule be Dr Wrong!
If this is your opinion of analog tape... you are doing it wrong.
I have had probably the best DVD Audio decks ever made (Enlightened Audio Designs) and also the complete DCS mega buck stack digital and I can tell the difference in about 10 seconds between tape and any digital, high res, DVD A, DSD, whatever . Even the latest and best of the best high resolution downloads on my Magico speakers is easily discernible from the Master Tape copies on open reel tape. Digital is pretty good and some argue is getting better, some say that high resolution just adds distortion points and is not as good as 16 bit 44 hrz. However any way you examine it digital is not the sound of reality, digital sound is determined by a computers interpretation of reality, always was, always will be.
I've spent enough on my audio system to buy a super fast Ferrari, but as a music lover I'll play tape when I want to get the big thrills of racing my system!
As the owner of a couple of analog tape machines (Nagra IVS and Ampex 440C with tricked electronics) and producer of HD-Audio releases on DVD-Audio and now Blu-ray, there's no contest between the sound quality of each. Analog tape had it's day, but the fidelity and capabilities of high end PCM digital are far superior to analog tape. It may be a sound that some will spend time and money to achieve, but it's not worth the expense and trouble.
Good eye. That is indeed a Sonos, and they were doing some demos with that, but the focus of the demo was Apple TV.
(referring to the Peachtree Audio photo...)
From the photo, the source looks like a Sonos Connect.