Getting ready to pull the trigger on this purchase (after much, much exhaustive research) of a high quality class A integrated amp for two channel audio for the M80's.

The giant VU meters just makes it that much cooler. Serious 70's vibe and McIntosh quality for a fairly reasonable $4800.00 US.

http://www.onahighernote.com/luxman/?c=8&id=31

A good review of it: http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/luxman/luxman.html

That's gorgeous! I tend to take 6moons reviews with a grain of salt -- heck, I take most audio reviews with too many colorful adjectives with a grain of salt -- but on looks alone, that thing's a winner.

"fairly reasonable"...your pockets are bigger than mine.

Now I'm definitely going to road trip over so we can have that beer.

It is a beautiful piece indeed. What stands out on this amp that after all the research you picked this one. Just curious, with a $4800 budget there's a lot of amps that could be picked from.

One concern I would have with this amp is the low power at 20 watts.

If I was looking to spend that kind of cash on an amp I would go with an axiom 8 channel amp. (or 2 channel if purchase was not for surround sound). Also, I personally am not into the retro look... I like flash LED lights and such . I am sure that it sounds amazing though!

Although they can be a bit esoteric, 6moons really are about the love of audio. Yes, most of it is very high end and the reviews can be uh... colorfully subjective.

But, they gave a wonderful review of our beloved M80's, so they know quality when they hear it.

But I've always loved Luxman gear. So well built and always wonderful sounding. You can't stay in business for 80 years without doing something right.

What sealed the deal for me is the phono stage quality and the true class A design of the amp.

And of course those freaking awesome VU meters, lol. I really do miss those things. Digital led meters are the worst. In most critical pro audio scenarios, VU's just can't be bested by LED. Just not exact or sensitive enough to show what is really happening on input/output.

With you on that Rick, can't see dropping that much coin for 20watts per channel.

I'd be quite honest here. I would spend that $4800 on speakers and the $1300 on an amp. That's just me though.

Lol. But that's some serious 20watts hoss! And truly, it's much more powerful than a typical 20watt consumer amp.

It will be an heirloom at that price/quality my friend...

I know it's a bit indulgent, but I'm saving so much on the Axioms!!!

Now I feel decadent...

20 watts is 20 watts.

Funny you should say that. I was planning on getting the Gallo Ref 3's or the ZuDruids and then spend about $1500.00 on an amplifier before becoming an Axiomite.

But since getting my M22's, I am firmly in the Axiom camp right now. Super bang for buck.

And I want a real quality "purist" two channel set-up for the M80's. Music is that important to me and I have thousands of lp's and cd's to justify such an expenditure.

I would love to see what kind of speaker Axiom could offer for 5k, because I would probably buy it!

I can understand your enthusiasm believe me. I have a 2 channel set up, well it's actually 2.1, with an amp preamp set up.

If you have a chance before you buy this amp try and push the M80s with what you use for the M22s. You might just be surprised how damn good they sound with your receiver.

I power mine with a Rotel amp and also have a Luxman M117 hooked up to them. I use the Rotel for the lows and the Luxman for the highs.

To be honest if the Luxman wasn't a gift there is no way I could in good conscious recommend this set up for the simple fact I don't hear a huge difference.

I've tried both amps and honestly there's no difference in sound quality.

I'd hate to see you spend this kind of money and not see or hear a difference between that and an amp that could be had for a fraction of the price.

Yeah, Rick; a unit priced like that should be considered as audio jewelry and not as a serious cost-effective way of doing the job of amplification. Other units not using such an inefficient amplifier topology can provide equal or better real world audible performance for a tenth or less of that cost.

Uh... no, not really.

So many variables at play when it comes to the amplification of audio.

I see a lot of talk on this forum about amp quality being of little importance, and I have to (respectfully) call bull$hit on that.

I can easily hear the differences between tubes, transistors, digital amps (class D) etc. I can tell quality with my ears as well.

Most consumer stuff sounds like garbage to me, but yes, I am an audio snob.

There are some who think MP3's are an acceptable audio format, and I most definitely "think not".

YMMV, but I have heard serous high end amplification, and there is most definitely a difference in all areas of quality. From sound performance to build quality to long term reliability.

Of course, there are exceptions to this, "it takes money for quality" philosophy.

That's why I am here!

Gotta go pick up my girly unit from work, she didn't want to drive since we are expecting snow here in Atlanta (quit laughing you Canucks!).

Anyway, sirquack, peace and much respect, not trying to be combative here. I really do dig this cool forum and all the info I have gotten here.

And besides, $4800.00 US is chicken feed in audiophile circles!

You want 'high end"? Look at this: http://www.mbl-usa.com/Default.aspx

Even so, I'm betting you'd have your mind blown by participating in a double-blind listening session where you put this assertion to the test.

Well, we've been dancing around a good amp argument for a few months now. Let's GET IT OOOOOOWWWWWNNNNN!



or not.

I like how excited Ken gets.

You know, you might be right. Sometimes the mind can fool one into hearing things "differently" under certain "conditions" but...

I remember people saying that all cd players sounded the same. Just ones and zeros. It's perfect, it's digital! (lol) Back in the day, I had a budget of $300.00 dollars for a consumer player. I went through 6 in that price range before I found one that sounded "decent". All sounded different. The winner? Onkyo. They made exceptional cheap cd players and now excellent HT amps. As do Denon. And fairly cheaply at that.

Axioms make awesome speakers at a ridiculously low price. But you also have to take into account the millions of dollars that went into the initial research funded by your dope smoking, socialist/capitalist government. You lucky bastards! My country would rather spend billions of research money on important technical stuff, like killing large amounts of people effectively around the world. But as usual, I digress...

In the recording world, Mackie makes decent budget priced pre-amps. But despite having specs that are impressive, they cannot compete with API or Neve pre amps for high end sound.

Do they sound good enough? Of course! Many hit records were/are made using modest gear just like that. But make no mistake, there is better. And you can hear the difference.

But I do have pretty refined hearing. It's my job! Back in the booming 90's, when big budget major label projects were the norm (typically $50,000 to $250,000), I was making $150.00 to $300.00 an hour to produce audio recordings, and yes, I was being paid for skill/talent, but having good ears is sometimes even more important than technical skills. And being able to discern very subtle auditory nuances is both a curse and a blessing that I was born with.

I'm suprised JohnK didn't mention this article, Do all amplifiers sound the same, of course your brain might be different where a blind audiophile panel could not tell the difference between a cheap Pioneer AVR and fancy dancy amps costing thousands.

I tend into the fall further into the 'well designed digital amps played within their clear power limits sound the same' camp. This is based solely on a lot of written research I have done. The arguments for equality always seem to provide scientific notation and controlled test results while the arguments against always seem to be based on opinions made without a proper test environment. That being said, I'm always willing to keep a very hesitant but slightly open mind and I would love to participate in such a test.

However, I did want to mention that certainly I do believe you when you say you can hear differences between tube amps and digital amps. Obviously this is not an apples to oranges comparison. My newly learned knowledge and even newer experiences say that tubes, by nature, add a mild level of distortion that is often considered pleasurable to many ears.

Also, it is my understanding and my listening experience that swapping various types of tubes can produce slightly different effects on this distortion thus changing the sound or more descriptively, "the warmth" that tube owners have come to love over the years.

I think I've become a bit of a purist in that I want to believe that what I am hearing is absolutely as close to the original, real life sound. At least as much as is possible within my financial limits and the within limits of my sensibilities (law of diminishing returns.)
However,
after spending a fun evening with a gentleman with a gorgeous open tube amp setup where it was very easy to change tubes (and he had a lot), I have to say that someday when I have cash to spare, I'd like to invest in a nice tube amp for a change of pace now and then. Especially one with big, in your face, VU meters!!!

I remember reading a similar test, which was purposefully done sighted. There was a switch box, designed to have the most seamless, inaudible switching between two different components (don't recall if it was amps, pre-amps, transports, or what ever). There was some pieces of music playing continuously, and the testers could request the the switch be flipped at any time to change between pieces of gear.

After a few flips, the listeners began to agree that component B definitely was an improvement over A. All the usual adjectives were thrown out, sweeter, more spacious, increased depth, chocolaty, etc. So it was obvious that there was some difference between these two units.

Then the reveal was made. The reason the switch box could perform so inaudibly, is that the second component's wires didn't go anywhere, the switch was connected to nothing, and the first component's wires just looped back out of the box. So the differences they were hearing were completely in their mind.

That's the exact reason that I want M80's paired with a high quality amplifier (and possibly EP800 or other sub) for "pure" two channel playback of cd's/lp's and a separate, dedicated Axiom/Onkyo 5.1 set-up for movies, dvd audio etc., both systems being in my "living room".

As much as I love listening to cd's and records through ProLogicII on my Onkyo HT amp, it's an effect (albeit, a trippy and very cool one) that is sometimes a little gimmicky for stuff recorded in stereo. And it gives a fake sense of depth instead of the true stereo picture that was intended by artist/producer.

When I listen to music through the Onkyo in it's 2.1 stereo mode, it sounds pretty flat and cheap.

Hence the need/desire for a dedicated two channel "purist" amplifier for 2.0 or 2.1 playback.



Tube amps (and tube recording gear) rule! I'm assuming he had an amp that does auto biasing? Tube "rolling" is fun and revealing.



Amen!

Lmao! Yeah, I've done that with clients/artist that were getting in the way of mixing/tracking/mastering with requests that were not needed/wanted.

Client/artist: "Hey man, can you give a little bit more (insert whatever term) on that?"

Me reaching and turning knob on something that does absolutely nothing (engineers sometimes call this the "better button"): "How's that?"

Client: "That's it, right there!"

Done and done, now I can get back to work. But in their mind, I did "something" that "improved" what they are hearing.

So I am sure, so called "experts" can be fooled sometimes. That includes even me probably...

But still, good gear is better than not good gear. That does not mean, however, that it has to be expensive, just of good/great quality.

Like Axiom speakers!

I think it's going to be hard to hear exactly what was intended unless you're listening to the setup it was actually mixed on.

I think that was the point everyone was trying to get across with the $4800 amp you want to buy. Are you sure there isn't a cheaper option that sounds as good, like maybe Axiom's A1400-2, half the price

Although the VU meters and some of the other tweakable settings on the Luxman are unique and possibly worth the cost, at least to to some one like you that is in the biz

I have to give you the credit/blame wid. It was your post (I think) about getting the Luxman piece that made me re-investigate Luxman in the first place. So... Thanks!

I had my choices down to either a PrimaLuna tube integrated or a used, but refurbished McIntosh (something I've wanted since I was a punk kid) but reading about your gifted Luxman sent me in that direction. Even though $4800.00 is a bit pricey, the Luxman is well worth it. And probably the last stereo amplifier any reasonable person would ever need.

I'd think that a pair of M80s, with a A1400-2, plus a pre/pro with individual L/R sub outs, and a pair of EP800s, would be the way to go.

But 20 Watts? Watts are a measure of power, it takes power to move the speaker cone and compress air. There's no such thing as a "strong" 20 Watts. 20 is 20. Maybe I'm unreasonable, but if a speaker can handle 400 Watts, I want close to 400 Watts.

<<Inigo>>You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means <</Inigo>>:)

$4800

While I may not have the "exact" system a source was recorded on, I do have a recording studio with very high end monitors that are very accurate.

But that kind of listening is very different than listening for pleasure.

The first is "work" related. Listening to exact/flat/accurate playback on near fields/mid fields sometimes reveals more ugliness than beauty (the "truth") and is way different than just listening for fun.

The second is for pleasurable "audiophile" listening. Where euphonic (but neutral and accurate) listening is desired.

When I write my review of the M22's, I plan on discussing the differences between "professional" and "audiophile" speakers.

Because they are apples and oranges.

Man, those A1400-2's are bad boys for sure. But I would still need a pre-amp and phono stage.

I think the Luxman/M80 set-up for $6100.00 would easily rival systems in the 10k to 20k range.

Hey, don't go blaming me. Blame my dentist, he gave it to me

In the end it is your money and your system. I'm sure the Luxman is going to be a fine piece of gear.

Damn, my dentist just gives me dental work and (if I'm lucky) legal narcotics!

That Luxman is one nice looking integrated amp. Looking forward to your review on it as well as your take on the M80's when you get them.

There's something to be said for "pride of ownership". If you get a warm feeling every time you sit down with that luxman for the next 50 years, it was a bargain.
I'll point out, as long as we're spending your money, that 2 pairs of m-80's side by side would be really cool too.

as long as the Luxman doesn't go into protect mode, lol

Well your $1500.00(?) M80’s will certainly reproduce all the distortion your $4800.00 Luxman can produce. At 20 w/ch it’s a true audiophile amp, indeed.
What kind of headroom, if any, does this amp provide? As you’ll need it!

Well those 20W/ch are continuous and at extremely low THD so I would bet it is capable of much more instantaneously and in line with our ~100W avr's most use these days. I guess the question is how much does distortion go up during those peaks? I bet it is still below most of our avr specs.

That's one benefit of have an amp, or two

That would just be my luck! So I paid three months worth of house payments for this? Oy!

But, according to various reviews and info I have gleaned, it's 20 watts at 8ohms and 40 watts at 4ohms and...

From
Paul Seydor @ The Absolute Sound:



It's that damn pesky 4ohm load that makes finding a good power source for the M80's um... interesting.

But I think (barring finding some used higher end audiophile gear cheap) I have found three two channel integrated amplifiers (what, you think I don't really want separates consisting of an expensive pre amp and giant mono-blocks? ) that I think, could possibly be an excellent match for the M80's.

And at three price points!!!

Cheap option #1: At $369.00, Virtue Audio's Virtue One.2 (a little more $ for power supply upgrade), a class D amp that is getting raves reviews in audio circles. It has a sub out (yeah!), that's cool, but only one source in and no phono stage. But I am very curious about Class D amplifiers.

Linky: http://store.virtueaudio.com/product-p/vrtu-ia-vaone.2-pbf-1.htm

Mid priced option #2: At $1,672.00, the PrimaLuna ProLoue Two. This is the more "rational" higher end choice. Main selling point? Tubes baby! And it has 4 and 8 ohm speaker taps. A phono stage addition adds $199.00 to the price. Still, a modestly priced unit.

Linkyness: http://www.upscaleaudio.com/ProLogue-Two-Integrated-Amplifier_p_592.html

Higher priced option #3 (my budget ceiling basically) the aforementioned Luxman L‑550A II. What interests me about this unit is it's rock solid engineering/build, supposedly amazing phono stage (mm and mc) and balanced input option (would come in handy for my reel to reel and other "pro" level gear) and of course, it's retro 1970's "receiver" look. As I get older, I'm becoming a nostalgic bastard, and I really want a two channel set-up that is decidedly un-digital (except for cd/sacd) in it's presentation and appearance. Oh, and it looks like it is built to withstand a direct nuclear hit and would probably outlive it's owner...

The company has been making amazingly well designed and great sounding audio gear since 1925!

more link-a-liciousness: http://www.luxman.co.jp/global/index.html

Those are just a few of my options. I am also interested in vintage/used stuff as well. Will be on the look out for rich audiophiles unloading kit because they are "bored" or afflicted with "upgrade fever" or are no longer "rich"...

In fact, I may actually just prefer finding a 1970's era receiver that someone has stashed away in their closet and that has no idea that someone would want such a bulky, heavy, tube-y monster in this day and age of wonderful "digital progress". Now that would be sweet!

I remember a few years (possibly more) back seeing a late 60's/early 70's Marantz receiver (beautiful looking) in a pawn shop, that I wouldn't mind owning, but the price, as I remember, was almost twice what a new one would have cost at the time, so I sadly left without it.

I remember back several years ago selling my '70s vintage 120wpc Pioneer SX-1080 stereo receiver at a garage sale for about 20 or 30 bucks ... it had been in the attic for a long time and I didn't realize the value of cleaning and using it for myself.

I kick myself in the azz every time I think about that nowadays.

Doh.

Jeez, Rick, that story makes me want to have you bend over so I can kick you too!

That’s a nice looking amp. I love the retro look. However, I would not buy it considering the power output. If it was 100 watt, I’d go for it, maybe, but not 20 – no way. Not at that price.

You can pick up slightly used two channel Mac’s for 5K all day long. I just passed on one.

But if this floats your boat, that’s really all that matters. It’s your money. Happy sailing!

You too, I had the same exact one and sold it years ago.

But then again we are talking about different technologies here too. Tubes vs. SS, Class A vs Class D.
At least there is a potential understanding why one might hear a difference between an apple and an orange falling in the forest with no one around.

Reel to reel and vinyl making a comeback?
I guess at some point human beings have to regress before we can progress again.

I won't go back and read this article again, but all of the blind test articles always seem to miss the point of distinction I notice - clarity, smoothness (fill in the blank) at the upper edge of the volume range. In other words, I don't notice that my amp is better. I notice that at 100db a certain passage lacks a shrill point on a particular word or musical segment that my AVR adds at that volume. If turned down to the safe zone of both amps, yes, no real difference.

But that does not mean there is no difference in my actual use - i.e., my chase for recreation of the live event, with all its peaks.

One more vote for the Pixie Dust.

Distortion at higher levels?

Most likely.

That's my assumption as well - headroom to stay away from the clipping.

Yes, I agree; you can't beat the 70's gear. I picked up this gem for $8,500 a few days ago. Real bargain, but sounds like the 70 - free and exploratory. Every now and then you even get the sounds of mutton-chops on the left channel.

Does it have real "stimulated" wood veneer, Charles?

It never went away bro! In fact, vinyl lp's are currently the only real growth area in the music business. A small market share obviously, but doing a healthy business nonetheless. Lot's of younger people are getting into turntables and vinyl culture.

Almost all new releases (of quality) are offered on vinyl now.

I'll take a 180 gram audiophile vinyl pressing over a 16 bit cd any day!

DVD audio is much better than cd's, but because of illegal downloads and the stupidity of the music industry, DVD audio is stagnant and not really fixing the "problem" of the decline of recorded music sales. I believe this will (hopefully) change.

In audio, digital is only good for one thing (and up until high resolution dvd/sacd, just barely that), for storing/editing/processing analog sound.

But there are new developments that give me hope about digital audio. DSD (direct stream digital). It is the future, and is almost as rich and audiophile as analog recording is. You heard it here first kids!

In the music industry, most big budget projects are typically recorded onto two inch analog tape and then transferred to digital audio workstations for editing/mixing/mastering. Why? Because digital is just not quite "there" yet.

I'm currently working on a medium budget project being tracked (recorded) onto two inch tape. The cost of the tape alone is enough to finance a decent home recording set-up! But, quality cost $$$, and there are a few of us around who still care about that sort of thing.

That's also why most big budget films are still shot on film, not digital (unless it's mostly CGI/animation) and then transferred to digital for editing, etc.

So reel to reels and vinyl have not been replaced by digital. And until digital get's "better", they won't be.

You mean my box of vinyl sitting in the basement might actually be worth something?

I am always a little surprised SACD and DVD-A never became more popular and pushed by the big companies. These digital formats are nearly hack proof, especially SACD, as very few people have the equipment at home to rip these formats.

DVD-Audio is dead. Hopefully it'll be replaced by BD Profile 3.0

Once you store analog sound in a digital format for editing and processing, it is no longer analog.

I heard of DSD and SACDs in 1999 as they were being introduced. I've also not heard of any popular music being released on them since about 2006. DSD is a horrible format, all the limitations of analog, a limited slew rate, and the inability to manipulate it mathematically, so it doesn't get much benefit of being "digital". Sony had the opportunity to have it included as an optional audio format for BD, and passed. If Sony doesn't have faith in their own format, it might as well be dead.

How does recording to analog tape, and then passing that playback through an ADC differ from capturing the live performance straight into an ADC? Oh, the analog tape rolls off the highs, and adds hiss. Definitely don't want to lose out on that "analog sound".

The biggest budget film so far, Avatar, was shot digitally. So were: Alice in Wonderland, Apocalypto, The Cell, Coraline, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Gamer, Jumper, Knowing, Public Enemies, Sin City, Slumdog Millionaire, Zodiac, and so many others including, of course, the new Star Wars trilogy.

I think the ripping software never became popular because the formats themselves were not popular. Granted, it would take a custom firmware for a DVD drive to be able to read SACD, I'm sure one would be hacked up, if the discs were popular enough.

I was thinking that as I wrote it. But it would cut down on how many people would be willing to rip as it would require a fair bit of tech savvy vs almost none right now. Kind of like all the people trying so hard to stay one step ahead or equal to Nintendo so they can run homebrew and copy discs etc.

I am a fan of some vintage gear. For instance, this combination of a Kenwood KA9100 flagship integrated amp, Kenwood KT8005 tuner and Ah!Njoe Tjoeb CDP with Upscale Audio upgrades is a wonderful compliment to these little M22s and a Vance Dickason Titanic subwoofer for car wash music.

However, although the Pioneer 1080 is better looking (much) it is not nearly as sweet sounding. I have mine packed in one of my closets.

Awesome looking stuff 2x6, I remember those days...:)

Those M22s look pretty cool in white, too.

Sorry if I was unclear. I meant high resolution audio delivered on a dvd disc (Blu-Ray, DTS HD, etc.).

DVD-Audio has now become a generic term in professional circles. DVD-A, the actual format you mention, has been dead for a while. Like Betamax vs. VHS, SACD was the only "music only" format left standing (and just barely) between those formats. All other high resolution/multi-channel music is delivered, for now, on what you humans call "DVD"



Correct, but that sound started life as an analog waveform. And was captured and pre-amplified in the analog domain then converted via (hopefully) high quality DACs before becoming digital.

And that's what makes the most difference in digital recording, the quality of the conversion that turns those wonderful little continuous analog waveforms into chopped up evil little ones and zeros.

Bit depth and sample rate frequency then come into play. And dither. And jitter. And stable clocking and... a myriad of other factors that combine to "recreate" analog sound events.

Only high quality converters can even get close to capturing and storing analog properly. This is the "crux of the biscuit" in modern recording today.

Almost all quality digital processing are emulations of analog gear. And mostly vintage gear at that. Plug-ins that recreate analog and the inherent anomalies/distortions/saturations etc. are what's happening in recording currently.

Why is that if digital is perfect? Because analog is what the human ear wants to ear. Not just a higher/lower frequency range without tape hiss and no playback degredation. Resolution is all. Digital is getting better with high resolution audio, but remember, analog is infinite resolution. Digital still has to catch up to the primitive "quality" of 1960's recording techniques done on two channel tape by Rudy Van Gelder using just two microphones and a tape deck!

I love digital technology, but it is still trying to emulate/recreate analog. And one day, perhaps, it will do it "right".



You are talking about the consumer end, I'm talking DSD professional two channel (thus far, multichannel DSD is very expensive and not really available) at 64 fs or 2.8 MHz (same as SACD), and 128 fs or 5.6 MHz (professional archiving). DSD can be printed and saved as DSDIFF, DSF or WSD files. PCM audio is 44.1 or 48 kHz at 16/24-bit; also 88.2, 96, 176.4 and 192 kHz at 24-bit. While my daw does 32 bit (and now) 64 bit, it still has to be delivered to the consumer somehow. And yes Blu-Ray is what I'm placing my hopes and fears on as a consumer playback format. And when it comes down between DTS encoding or Dolby encoding, I pick DTS. But YMMV. DSD is being used (experimented with?) right now as a future proof archiving format.

And SACD is not dead, it just smells funny! Unfortunately consumers want ease of use/portabilty with iPod's and free stuff with illegal downloads/mp3's/bit-torrents etc. instead of paying for quality. The recording industry brought it on itself though. But there are still SACD releases. As well as dual disc (cd/dvd) releases that are high resolution/multi-channel. Is anyone buying them? Don't really know. I am. Just bought Steve Wilson's (Porcupine Tree) solo release and it is amazing. These formats are the best I've heard in digital thus far, and the only thing that has "bested" the vinyl lp/reel to reel (consumer division) as far as playback.



Lol, you are kinda right there. Tape saturation and other analog anomalies are exactly what people have grown to love from pop/rock music. The right kinds of harmonic distortions and natural compressions that hitting tape with sound produces. That's why almost all digital processing used in recording today is trying to emulate analog gear from the 60's and 70's. The ear likes that sound. Pure digital is technically perfect, but cold and sterile and flat otherwise. Of course if you think current CGI technology and Autotune robotics are "awesome", then you might dig that pristine digital flavor. Most serious music lovers do not.



Whew! I dig your style man, you do have a vast knowledge that I have come to respect on this format, but you have just made my point (that most big budget films, unless CGI/animation, are shot on film) for me.

Let's break this down, shall we?

1. Avatar. Yes, as it stands today (2010c.e.), Avatar is the biggest budget movie ever made. But I would argue that it is an effects driven, CGI movie. And with 3d technology, closer to an amusement ride than a film. Art vs. entertainment imho. I would love to see it in IMAX 3d (and will), but it is closer to CGI/video games than actual film. James Cameron should be commended for pushing the state of the art, but he is not a Kubrick or a Fellini or a PT Anderson or a Lynch or a Hitchcock. He makes disposable entertainment, not art. But that is a subjective observation I realize. James Cameron is like the Micheal Bay for smart people.

2. Alice In Wonderland. I'm assuming you are talking about Tim Burton? He is a genius and a true artist. But again, this movie is going to be CGI intensive, so...

BTW, let me state that I do not hate CGI! Just most of it. When it is used well, it is wonderful. The best use of CGI (other than animation only movies) is the LOTR trilogy. That is stunning. But most CGI all looks the same. Fake-y and computer game-y and becomes dated (unlike mechanical effects) almost as fast as computer processing evolves. I thought the Matrix was pretty awesome (effects wise) when it came out. Today it looks cheesy and very dated, unlike say John Carpenter's remake of The Thing (1982) which looks amazing and is mostly latex/robotics.

3.Apocolypto? Didn't see it. But since Mel Gibson was involved, it probably sucks.

4.The Cell. Seriously? That looked as bad as a made for tv movie! The best effect in that was Jennifer Lopez's ass.

5. Coraline. That is animation! And old school stop motion at that! I will say though, that movie is a little masterpiece (in 3d and 2d) and I'm amazed that it is not Italian made, it's that good...

6.The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Again, an effects driven film. And a bad one at that.

7.Gamer. Didn't see it, but if it's about "gaming", then I don't want to.

8.Jumper? I had the misfortune of seeing that one. I had a friend who did sound design on that movie. What a piece of (soon to be very dated CGI) garbage. Popular culture is declining as I type this. I can't even take that one serious. Not art and definitely (imho) not entertaining.

9.Knowing. Don't "know" that one. I will check it out.

10.Public Enemies. Despite Michael Mann's directorial efforts and the talented Johnny Depp, that movie looked terrible. Digital for sure. Hard to watch because of the editing and hand held digital camera "artifacts". Yuck. (and I really wanted to love that one)

11.Slumdog Millionaire. Yes, a popular movie. But looks very digital. Like a music video or American Idol. No thanks.

12. Zodiac. Pretty good movie. Liked the 70's recreation. But it had the same HD quality striving to achieve film-like quality. Almost, but no cigar... yet.

13. Star Wars Trilogy? You mean a newer one? I love George Lucas' commitment to cutting edge technology, but truthfully, he has not made a decent film since THX-1138.

While Star Wars is definitely entertaining, it marked the beginning of the end of big budget adult science fiction imo. 2001: A Space Odyssey has not really been bested for being an accurate depiction of space travel. Space is a vacuum, so how come in Star Wars (and countless other movies) do I hear sound?

And didn't Lucas get a lot of flack for "fixing" some of the older Star Wars films with digital effects?

Anyway, I don't hate digital technology in films at all, when used tastefully and seamlessly it is fantastic, but as far as picture quality (same as audio quality), you cannot photograph anything more stunning than Mario Bava or Fellini or Kubrick or Orson Welles, etc., did way back before computers became the norm.

Do I want to go back to editing actual film physically or splicing analog tape? Hell no! But I know that digital is not "better" that analog. It's just a tool to manipulate analog and digital sounds/sights.

Damn it, I wish those pics weren't so big. I hate scrolling.

I think I like that one more than any of the other movies mentioned.

I have to disagree and say that the best use of CGI is in Shaolin Soccer. Yes, it looks cheesy and stupid, but the story definitely used it to its advantage. Because Lord of the Rings looked good most of the time, the bad CGI in them looks all the worse.

wid, sorry, I still don't know how to size pictures - these are from photobucket.

When uploading to photobucket you have the option to let them resize them to medium(I think, 800x600).

That's ok 2x6, I just copy and pasted it and read it through Microsoft word.

Just a semantic thing, but the disc format was actually called DVD-Audio, most people shorten it to DVD-A. If you're talking sound recorded on a DVD, they you should say DVD audio, no hyphen, no capital A.

So why put it on tape, with its inherent weaknesses before handing it to the ADC (Analog to Digital Converter)? (DACs go the other way.)

We're in agreement, it does take a high bit-depth and sampling rate in order to accurately represent the original air pressure levels. But I believe that 96 kHz, and definitely 192 kHz with 24-bits for playback is enough. That's playback, the recording side needs a little more, as I'll describe.

Tape doesn't have infinite resolution, not in the least. A 16-bit sample basically means the original voltage level at that slice of time can be assigned to one of 65536 different levels, from silence to really freaking loud. I don't think a magnetic tape even has that level of precision, or if it does, it doesn't have the accuracy to always store volume level X to magnetic impulse Y. Maybe tape can pull of a SNR of 96 dB. But 24-bit get you 16,777,216 different sample levels, and 146 dB signal-to-noise ratio. There's no way to do that in the analog domain. I don't even think the best ADCs (some of which are now 32-bit: 4-billion levels, 206 dB) can accurately quantify that many levels, thermal variance alone will contribute more noise than that. Oh, dither is only applied when changing bit-rate, it's not part of a normal capture/mix process, unless you're using tools which can handle the bit-rate of capture (then you need to upgrade). Dither should be applied when converting your final mix from 24 to 16 bit.

As for sampling rate one needs to capture, and work at a rate twice that of the target mix. For CD/DVD (44.1 and 48 kHz) that would be 96 kHz, for Blu-ray which is still mostly 48 kHz, but can go as high as 192, that may mean up to 384 kHz. All very doable in a studio. Most people will talk about frequency response, and the Nyquist theorem when dealing with sampling rate. Stating that 48 kHz is enough to be able to reproduce up to 24 kHz, which is above the human hearing threshold. But more samples per second does go hand in hand with another feature, how much detail is preserved in the sample alignment. If recording at 96 kHz, and mixing down to 48, where do half of the samples go? They're averaged into their neighbors. Now imagine a 20 kHz sine wave. Nyquist says this should be able to be reproduced at a sampling rate of 40 kHz. But in fact it can only be stored as a triangle wave, and then also only when aligned exactly with the samples. 90 degrees out of phase, and the up, down, up, down samples of the sine's peaks and troughs become an mid-level DC signal. A low-pass filter should be applied before the antialiasing, of the down-sampling to a lower rate, to remove the high frequency content which will only be encoded as noise anyway. But a 192 kHz final mix, run through a low-pass filter of 24 dB/octave tuned to 24 kHz, and then down-sampled to 96 kHz will have excellent alignment of samples, and audible detail all the way out to 30 kHz.

I got a little off track there, but my point is frequency response can be directly correlated to a media's ability to track any waveform accurately. Since 16-track, 2" tape running at 30 IPS, rolls off at 10 kHz at about 12 dB/octave that can be taken to mean it's magnetic field flux can change at a rate of about 40 kHz. The designers who worked on the CD technology were no dummies (the engineers who only use the top two bits, by mixing for loudness are). CDs do have a resolution of master tape, but need to be mastered at twice that rate when working digitally.

Oh, in case you were wondering. I was a double major in Mathematics, and Computer Science. I've studied recording engineering, one of my friends owns a small recording studio. I've written digital signal processing routines to handle both 2D and 3D data sets (think audio and pictures).

But high quality converters can be had for $3k for 16 channels of 24-bit/192 kHz ADC/DACs. Add to that good master clock for $1500. That's not out of the reach of anyone making money doing this stuff.

This is where we disagree. Maybe you're so used to hearing distortion, harmonics, and hiss that you think it's pleasing. But when I listen to anything live, it's not there. Why should it be in the recording of live instruments? I want my recordings to be as pristine as possible. That's what sounds natural to me.

I'm talking about DSD in general. It's single bit indicating whether the analog wave form is headed up, or down makes working with it impossible. Sony not wanting to lose face found one place it works well. You said it, DSD is a great archival format of analog tapes. It's limitation of a slew rate (it can't go from 0 to max in one sample, neither can anything analog), and that it can't be processed (no EQing, no filtering, no nothing, but time alignment between channels) is perfect for taking something which is in the analog domain, and isn't going to be changing anymore.


[films snipped]
Well, you stuck me there. All big budget films have CG effects, that's where the budget goes. But there's plenty of smaller indie films being shot on digital too.

How about this, Peter Jackson shot Lord of the Rings on film, and in the process of adding the CG and effects built the second-largest effects house in the world (Weta, just behind ILM). So one might assume he likes the look of film, he used film again when shooting King Kong. But upon seeing the output of a prototype of the new camera maker, Red, he took two of them, prototypes which only had Rec/Stop functions, to shoot a 15 minute short film called Crossing the Line with Neill Blomkamp. That's why District 9 then used the production version of the same camera.

Go watch Che, maybe that'll be more in line with what you were wanting to see. It was shot with the same cameras as District 9.

Oh, I agree Public Enemies looked awful. It's not a good example of a digitally shot film, but it was the director's intent. He could have used the Viper camera which Fincher used on Zodiac, but went with some Sony junk with an 8mm photo-sensor, because he liked the massive depth of field. I actually didn't even watch the whole picture, because it was such an eye sore.

Again, while their films were beautifully shot, that doesn't have anything to do with their image quality. Do you think that Kubrick or Welles didn't use the sharpest, most advanced technology available when shooting 2001, or War of the Worlds and Citizen Cane?

Again, my eyes don't have a grain sheen on them, detail is not lost in shadows, bright lights don't bloom. Film has a look, but it isn't natural. Digital gets closer to how things really appear, and that's what I like...and I guess you don't.

Even if I don't fully understand most of it, this conversation is pretty interesting.

Lol, yeah.

It's starting to get good now.

ClubNeon knows his stuff. I'd really like to hire him as my assistant engineer.

I'm impressed that he knows about the Red camera systems. I've been wanting one (I'm a budding filmmaker too) since following the development of it for the past few years. It is truly an amazing camera and film is way to expensive for the indie filmmaker!

I will respond to his posts soon. ClubNeon makes a persuasive case, and I think we are in agreement on most aspects of this conversation/thread.

Girlfriend and I just got in from the cold after going downtown and getting tickets for the Zappa Plays Zappa show Monday night. Found out The Residents and McCoy Tyner will be playing here in February... woo-hoo!

Went to one of the finest record stores in the US, Criminal Records. They have a booming business despite the downturn in the industry. Lot's of new and used vinyl, cd's comics, games etc.. I can't remember the last time I bought music from a brick and mortar store. Usually Amazon and other online outlets.

In case anyone is interested, I bought these three cd's...

ELP 'Tarkus'
Steely Dan 'Katy Lied'
Can 'Soon Over Babaluma'

I'm applauding this "civilized difference of opinion" from my couch. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Yes, this has been a very enlightening thread.

I'm enjoying it, too! Thanks, guys.

I'm going to need to try what Rick did, this scrolling to read is a royal pain in the ass.

Really enjoying learning from you guys. Thank you very much.

Well, we're actually talking about sound data stored and distributed for playback on dvd, because, unless someone comes up with a proprietary device to store and deliver the data that is un-hack-able, we are heading for data distribution directly via download/streaming onto media servers and media playback devices.

But once again ClubNeon, you are correct.



I use tape mainly to track drums (natural transient squash), or to do just basic tracking with (and that's when the budget allows) before conversion, mainly for the sound tape imparts. A kind of euphonic glue that sounds pleasing and "analog". Tape has become more of an effect (and most young rock bands like that sound better than straight digital, as digital can sounds too sterile and flat sometimes) than as an actual straight recording medium.

It's sorta how microphone bleed use to be the bane of recording engineers in the late 70's. Isolation was all the rage. Now we find out, that for rock, jazz and sometimes pop, a bit of bleed can be a good thing. Gives a better overall picture of the sound of actual musicians playing together in a "space" and has more of a "vibe" that you can sometimes lose when you build tracks clinically, via overdubbing a track at a time. But of course, this is an aesthetic choice.



Yes, 24/96 is easier to live with for us analog guys. I can live with that kind of digital playback. It's a bit harder to discern 24/192 as being that much better, though it sure eats up drive space a bit faster! I see 24/192 mainly being used for classical and jazz audiophile two channel location recording.



Lmao! Preach on brother. That statement should be on a t-shirt. The lack of headroom and squashed dynamics of modern recording (the loudness wars) are a terrible trend that I hope ends soon.

Do you know of the newest debate about mixing ITB (in the box) vs. OTB (out the box)? I bet you have an interesting take on that current trend. So funny to see studios that got rid of their analog mixing consoles to go with a HUI and a full blown ProTools HD system only to now, once again, start using an analog mix (summing) bus (mainly for stem mixing at mixdown) before digitizing the sound once again.

I have a confession to make. I use a Dangerous Music summing bus myself for two channel mix down and monitoring. It sounds better to my ears too. But I do all surround mixing ITB.

Despite my love of vinyl, my favorite music format now is high definition multichannel digital audio. So I'm not that anachronistic



(Slurring drunkenly) "Oh, we got us a college boy here with all his fancy book learnin's! What, you think you're better than me?" (stumbles and falls into a pool of his own hubris)



Well, some would argue that you can barely get two channels of high quality conversion for that much $. And while my converters are higher end (Apogee/Prism) than most home studio set-ups, I'm in agreement with you on that one. It's unbelievable how much bang for the buck can be had nowadays.




True dat. Walter Sears uses a crystal clock in an oven kept at a constant temp to provide perfect clocking.

If you don't know about Walter Sears (Sears Studio), you really should check him out. He is a guru to a lot of us audio guys. He forgets more in a day than most of us learn in a lifetime.

http://www.searsound.com/index.html



Making money in music? (laughs so hard, pees on self a little bit), now I know you are full of it!!!



Well, I don't know about hiss, but yeah, I do like (some) harmonic distortion. Rock music is based on distortion!!!



Unless you listen to just classical and (clean) jazz, you hear all kinds of distortion, done on purpose.



Ok, now you sound like the purist! Are you just talking about live performances? And of what type?

You see, I think of audio recording as two, very distinct types of things (sometimes combined of course), one is the recording of live musical events with little or no overdubbing, editing, effects or compression and the other type being "produced" music (eg. Pet Sounds, Sgt. Peppers, NIN, Radiohead, etc.) where the studio is used as an instrument, with compression, effects, editing and various forms of audio manipulation using the wonderful tools that science has brought us. And yes, that includes distortion(s).



Yes, that was what I was talking about. Archiving older, analog recordings. But you said it more articulately and eloquently than I did. Damn you!



Well, not all big budget films. I have worked on a few and some would argue that a lot of the budgets are spent on stars salaries and craft services...



I know, and the holy grail of low budget HD indie productions has been to be able to emulate film quality (24 fps) with digital cameras. I am one of those who have been waiting for this very thing.



That camera is the $hit man!



Cool! I've been wanting to see that movie. Bumping it up to the top of my Netflix, yo!



I will. Have you seen Inland Empire by David Lynch? He shot it with an off the shelf consumer HD camera and it looks fantastic. Very inspiring to those of us who want to make "films". Although I didn't see it in the theater, blown up screen size.

I really loved 28 Days Later, which was shot on earlier digital technology. I did not see that in a theater either, but I heard some say it had a lot of digital artifacts blown up and projected. But on an HD display it looked pretty cool.

But, when it comes to the old school masters (Kubrick, Welles, Bava, Fellini etc.) you say:



Really? I think film stock/speed and lenses have everything to do with image quality.



Most certainly! They would be using only the best available, which some still feel is film. But digital is catching up and fast.



Orson Welles didn't direct the first War Of The Worlds, he did the radio play (that caused a panic!). I know that is nit-picking guys, but I gotta take any win I can get with ClubNeon, as he is a formidable opponent!!!



I think that this is our one major area of disagreement (misunderstanding?) in audio and visuals.

You say that HD video, in all of it's life-like glory, is the truth. But for what?

Straight 1080p HD looks good for sports, reality shows and nature documentaries. Movies (and produced music) is all about creating an illusion. Who wants exact reality unless that's what you are trying to achieve?

I have not seen any HD porn (eeks!), but is that much HD a good thing? Skanky augmented breasts and razor burns (I miss furry muffs and natural boobage!!!) captured in 1080p sounds a bit, uh, scary...

In movies, if you are using any kind of lighting or color correction or effects or any form of creative manipulation, you are basically "lying" to your eyes.

I for one, do like the illusions. I deal with reality every single day!

Well, I am ensconced in my own little hedonistic world, but I do come into contact with reality every once and a while.

This is an excellent discussion that pretty much lost me at the beginning , great debate. Now if I'm forced to choose sides here, how do each of you guys feel about reducing our taxes?

I have no problem with intentional falsification of the sound and picture. I think the point of digital is to make those effects happen at only one stage and not two. Once digital is advanced enough, it seems like you can apply software filters to make it resemble film as much as you want, but the source will be cleaner so you have more options.

As far as just audio, I do agree that a lot of CDs do sound too sterile, but I'm not sure it has to do with an all-digital process. There are enough DDD recordings out there that sound full and live. But even if it is an inadequacy of the CD format, wouldn't using tube amps and warmer speakers "fix" the sterile, cold sound? Having a pre-warmed source seems redundant?

I'm just finding it amusing that a Pioneer SX-1080 is now a sought-after piece of audio gear.

I grew up in the 80's. I vividly remember that my father had one of those. Googled the pix, and yep, that's exactly it. I also remember that the volume knob got 'scratchy' over time and it was eventually replaced with something else.

I liked the lights and toggle switches, and so I rescued it from the dust-bin and used it for a summer as the warp-drive controller or navigational system in my spaceship that I had in the basement of our house. That SX-1080 played an important role in many missions to other planets, as well as fending off countless evil aliens.

What, didn't every 8-year-old boy have a spaceship in their basement?

And now, 25 years later, I wonder if it's still in my parent's basement somewhere.... I'll have to go look. Funny if that thing still fires up, and to see if I can correct that scratchy volume with a bit of Radio-Shack cleaner....



Thanks for the memories!

So far I've been able to fix 100% of the scratchy sounding volume knobs I've encountered over the years by using one simple method. Keep turning it back and forth. This will clean it up and your as good as new. It only takes about a minute to do this.

HaHa! that made me laugh!

Then you really need to check out how people are using PS3 laser diodes to make their own toy phasers that show a true beam of light instead of just a dot on the wall.

DIY PS3 Phaser

I LOVE those monster amps of the late 70's! The watt race was on the some really cool equimpment was made. What's nice and makes them so attractive today (besides the power) is that they are rebuildable. They're are quite a few companies that will recondition them (clean contacts & switches, replace lights, even resolder broken/weak circuits). Analogue audio purists love them as well to listem to the good old records and reel to reel.

or perhaps it was just ahead of it's time knowing that 1080 would be an important number some day.