Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: MOTM

[[time for a CAD break: finishing up the design of the MIDI-CV converter, harassing Mouser]]

Rambling thoughts:

a) As (hopefully) I've shown with MOTM, you can increase the sound quality of audio gear. But,
it's fairly easy to go from bland/blah to "pretty damn good". What's a challenge is from "pretty
good" to "mind-blowing".

b) I've always found it ironic as a Stereophile reader that AFAIK, there has been little
discussion of the audio SOURCE MATERIAL electronics. I mean, if you have a $40,000 system, does
it make Miles Davis in 1958 sound that much better? All we hear about is 1/2 of the equation:
playback. The fact that it was recorded on a total piece of junk is glossed over.

On the other hand, Al diMeola's last CD (it's in the car) is still the best overall sounding
recording I have ever heard. Music ain't shabby, either.

c) I am always amused to see a "24-bit/96Khz" audio system that uses 4558 op amps in the output.
Or worse, the horrid little LM833 National part that has like 4% THD at 4500Hz (when I first
plotted one, I thought the AP was broken).

d) There is a definite audio difference in what I call "Best Buy-fi" and the lower end of hi-fi
(NAD, Adcom, etc). There is a definite difference between mid-fi and hi-end (Krell, Levinson,
etc). When you start splitting up the high end into finer layers, you are nuts.

e) Obligatory Tandy story: I was part of the original MPC spec (ducking). I set up a demo of the
different sample rates/word lengths (22Khz at 8 and 16, 11Khz at 8 and 16, etc). The VP of Engr.
wanted to "hear the difference". I dragged in my NAD amp and decent speakers. The original source
was a 8 second Pat Methney snippet (off of 'American Garage'). After I played all of them, he sat
there and said "Hell, I can't hear much difference!". I then plugged in a sine test oscillator,
and said "turn this frequency knob until you think the sound level drops about 1/2". He did, and
I showed him that his hearing rolled off at about 5Khz (he was about 50yrs old). All he did was s
nort and leave.

f) I see many emails (from non-customers) that MOTM is "digital-sounding". I take that as a
∗complement∗. MOTM is fresh-squeezed, all others are Tang. It's sounds "digital" because of the
larger dynamic range and lower noise floor. This associated with "digital". But then again, if
your 'reputation' is based on 30 year old electronics that SOUND 30 years old, are you fairly
judging? Or, is it just a matter of preference/being familiar with the "sound"?

Paul S.