امروز بعد از مدتها یه سری به اینترنت زدم و مطالبی درباره dCS خوندم. البته هنوز وضعیت کارهام به حالت اول برنگشته و فکر میکنم تا دو هفته دیگه چیزی ننویسم.
از عالم های فای خبری ندارم فقط اینکه مجله صنعت صدا و تصویر اومده بیرون و مقاله منو در مورد Quad چاپ کرده. مقاله رو که خوندم خنده ام گرفت ، مقاله من خیلی دستکاری شده بود و به اصطلاح ویرایش شده بود. آقای ویرایشگر بجای Sharpness از عبارت تیزی استفاده کرده بود و نوشته بود Quad مثل B&W صدای تیزی داره و …
اینم از شانس ما ، رفتیم مقاله بدیم …
اگر یادتون باشه یک Review در مورد dCS Scarlatti نوشته بودم و در تحلیلم اشاره داشتم به اینکه این سورس دیجیتال سه تیکه صدایی فراتر از همه سورس هایی که شنیدم داره. دیروز لینک تحلیل آقای Jonathan Valin رو پیدا کردم اینجا رو ببینید. از جاناتان و تحلیل هاش خوشم میاد و نوشته اش در مورد dCS برام جالب بود. البته تا حدی نوشته ها هیجانی هست اما خود منم وقتی از صدایی لذت میبرم همینطور مینویسم. تحلیل رو حتما بخونید واقعا جالبه. متن زیر حرف جاناتان در forum سایت AVGuide هست:
Let me ask you something, Syd: What is the best speaker?What is the best amplifier? What is the best preamplifier, phonostage, turntable/tonearm/cartridge? I can tell you what I think I is best for me, given my taste in and experience with live music, my taste in and experience with canned music, my taste in and experience with hi-fi systems, my listenting room and ancillary equipment, etc. But that is only what I think under very specific conditions. For instance, the current generation of dCS players are “the best” I’ve heard. (Note: Neither of the current-generation dCS players, the dCS Puccini and the dCS Scalatti, were part of the blind-listening shoot-out that the chap on Audiogon conducted.) Does that make dCS indisputably “best?” Indisputably no. For one thing, I haven’t heard every contender for top honors in digital playback (and given the speed with which new products are introduced, how could I?); for another, I have a very specific bias when it comes to what I consider the lifelike presentation of any recorded media, what could be called (somewhat unfairly, since I consider it “realistic”) an analog bias. While I attempt to make allowances for those who don’t have these same biases in my review of the dCS gear, it is a fact that I prefer CD players that combine some of the salient qualities of LP playback with the salient qualities of digital playback. Now, if your taste and experience in music and gear run parallel to mine, and my track record of picking “worthwhile” products strikes you as reasonably good, then what I think may matter to this extent and this extent only: It gives you a reasonable direction to look in.
To put this flatly, I don’t want or trust ten or twelve strangers telling me what is “the best” audio gear for me on the basis of blind listening tests. I want to figure that one out for myself after very, very careful listening and cross-comparison (although, as noted, I wouldn’t turn down some expert direction-pointing along the way from listeners who like the music I like and hear equipment the way I hear it). Just as essentially, what is “best” for me almost always amounts to a group of products in which one or two or three stand out a bit more than the others at various price points and, often, at the same price points. On any given day, given a certain very high level of fidelity, I might reasonably prefer the set of virtues of “Best Product B” to the slightly (or wholly) different set of virtues of “Best Product A” or ‘Best Product C.” The point being that sonic virtues are sets of qualities, and which set I prefer depends to an extent on the kind of music I’m listening to, the other equipment I’m listening with, and, frankly, the state of mind I’m in. This isn’t willy-nilly, of course. If I couldn’t make a persuasive musical case for each of these products, I would be a very poor and capricious listener.
No shoot-out, blinded or sighted, is going to give you one indisputable winner that does everything you want a product of its kind to do and that fits your listening biases on every kind of music. I just don’t think that’s possible or even reasonable to expect. I do think that there are, on rare occasions, exceptional products that stand out from others of their type (in dynamic two-ways, the Magico Mini II, for instance). Does that make these stand-outs “the best of all?” Absolutely not. (Given the right amplification, preamplification, and front end), I would prefer the Magico Mini IIs on Joan Baez singing “Matty Groves” or Heifetz playing the Kreutzer Sonata ahead of just about everything else I’ve yet listened to (save, perhaps, for the huge and ultra-expensive and ultra-unobtainable Symposium Acoustics Panorams), but I wouldn’t prefer them to the MBL 101 Es on most rock ‘n’ roll and a fair amount of large-scale classical. Does that make the Magico Mini IIs less “best”?
The way this tiny section of the world works is pretty much the same way the entire world works: It gives you choices, often very good choices, but all of them somehow limited. What you want to do–and what you can do (at least for yourself and others like you)–is weed out the bad or less good ones. Then, always and forever and insolubly (blinded or sighted), you’re going to have to pick what makes best sense to you.
در ادامه رابرت هارلی گفته :
This thread brings up the larger question of the review�s responsibility to the reader and the reader�s responsibility to himself.
Reader like shootouts that name a clear winner; it makes life easier for them. But as Tom Martin and Jonathan Valin have pointed out, the product the reviewer liked the best and would choose for himself is not necessarily the product that will be best for all readers. The reviewer�s responsibility is to accurately describe the product�s sonic signature (every product has one) and assess the unit�s strengths and shortcomings. The review should expand the reader�s way of looking at the dilemma so that he can make the best choice.
Concomitantly, the reader�s responsibility is to come to grips with what tradeoffs he�s willing to make and which he isn�t. The reviewer can�t do that for the reader; the reviewer can only help him think about the problem. Readers think they want the reviewer to tell them what to buy, but in reality the reader grows by being forced to think about the problem for himself. It�s like the old adage �Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he can eat for a lifetime.�
I recently went through this experience myself as a consumer. I was in the market for a sports coupe between $35k-$50k to replace my Honda S2000. I narrowed the field to a BMW 335, the new BMW 135, and an Infiniti G37. When I saw that Winding Road was about to publish a head-to-head comparison of the 135 and the G37 (just as I was about to make a purchasing decision) I anticipated it eagerly. On first reading, I was disappointed by the comparison; it didn�t name a clear winner, concluding �Each car is well worth the asking price.� It seemed like a cop-out.
But subsequent readings revealed that the author did a masterful job of pointing out the virtues and limitations of each car. Paragraph after paragraph described in detail how these two ostensibly similar cars are actually aimed at different drivers with different value systems. The review forced me to confront my own value system and decide what I really wanted in a car. The review defined the question, and forced me to grow as a car enthusiast. Had the comparison chosen a clear winner, I might have missed an opportunity to gain this insight.
There�s a direct parallel with audio reviewing. How can the reviewer know if a particular reader values deeper bass extension and dynamics over a smoother and more open midrange? The reviewer should point out which product has the deeper bass extension and which has the better midrange, and encourage the think about the question within a larger context.
یک بار با یکی از دوستان صحبت میکردم ، میگفتم این دنیای های فای ته نداره و تفاوت صداها واقعا زیاده . مثلا سورس dCS Scarlatti تقریبا قیمتی ۵ برابر Krell EVO 505 داره اما صداهای این دو هم خیلی با هم تفاوت دارند. با اینکه ۵۰۵ در حالت CAST با کل مجموعه Krell صدای خیلی خوبی میداد اما dCS واقعا در یک کلاس دیگه صدا رو رندر میکرد.
یکی از تفاوت های بارز Scarlatti با مدل قبلی اش یعنی سری Elgar (فکر کنم اسم ترنسپورتش Verdi La Scala باشه) به Transport برمیگرده که در سری جدید dCS از Transport های Teac استفاده کرده. وقتی میشنوم Spectral از TEAC استفاده میکنه خیالم راحت میشه TEAC بهترین سازنده Transport هست. سری جدید Accuphase 800/801 و سری رفرنس جدید مارک لوینسون و Wadia هم از ترنسپورت TEAC VRDS استفاده میکنند.
قبلا خیلی از Audiophile ها اعتقادی به Transport خوب نداشتند و عبارت bits is bits در بین برخی Audiophile ها یک مساله پذیرفته شده بود. من فکر نمیکنم dCS از Elgar تا Scarlatti تغییر ساختار زیادی داشته و حدس میزنم بیشتر از تغییر الگوریتم های DSP استفاده از ترنسپورت VRDS باعث خلوص و راحتی صدای dCS شده. البته از این دور همینجوری نظر دادن منو یاد اظهار نظر برخی از … میندازه اما من میدونم نقش Transport خیلی خیلی مهم هست و حتی یادمه تو تحلیل Spectral آقای رابرت هارلی نوشته بود صدای Spectral SDR-2000 با اینکه بهتر از حتی مدل رفرنس Mark Levinson DAC 30.5 بود اما با اضافه شدن یک Transport خارجی بنام SDR-3000 صدا یک کلاس بالاتر ایستاد. راستی رابرت هارلی هم بالاخره بعد ده سال Spectral رو راضی کرد DAC رفرنس SDR-4000 رو تحلیل کنه اونم با ویلسون الگزاندریا X2 . متن زیر رو رابرت هارلی در forum سایت AVGuide نوشته.
I had the SDR-4000 Pro in a non-Spectral system for about six weeks. My system now is the SDR-4000 Pro, Spectral DMC-30SS preamp, and a pair of Spectral DMA-360 power amplifiers. Loudspeakers are Wilson Alexandria X-2 Series 2. The entire cabling is MIT Oracle MA (interconnects and speaker cable).
I’m reviewing the X-2 first, followed by a complete review of the Spectral electronics and MIT cables. The Spectral review will include an extensive interview with Spectral founder Richard Fryer and Keith Johnson.
Elliot is correct; Spectral is very discriminating in lending review equipment. The last offically sanctioned review in the US of Spectral equipment was my review of the SDR-2000/SDR-3000 about ten years ago.
Although the SDR-4000 Pro was extraordinary when used with other electronics, it took the DMC-30SS, DMA-360, and MIT Oracle MA to reveal its full potential.
Robert Harley
خوب این تحلیل گرها اونجا سیستم تحلیل میکنند ، واقعا کار لذت بخشی هست. در ایران امکانات کم هست اما اگر یه زمانی امکانش ایجاد بشه حتما یک Showroom حسابی درست میکنم و شروع میکنم به سیستم تحلیل کردن. این لینک هم جالبه http://forums.avguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=4269
خیلی پراکنده نوشتم ، تقصیر من نبود
