New Audio Research LS26 Pre-amplifier

ARC seems to be suggesting the gain stage is a critical improvement:

Thanks Steve, it sounds good here in my basement. High current and Maggies seem to be a good match. I really like the transparent, open feeling. Seems that my new vinyl source is even better on many pressings than my SCD-777ES as well.

 

No, say it ain't so.

 

I tell you no lies.

 

Like somebody said on a glossy mag, IIRC: "vinyl has infinite resolution"

 

No, it doesn't! Why do people think this?

 

That's why I quoted...

Seriously though, the most respected folks in the industry believe the LP is still the highest resolution source available.

Audio Research's own William Z. Johnson thinks this way, along with Richard Vandersteen...

 

I think Bob Ludwig is right that analog is very much a hirez signal equivalent to a 100khz sampling rate. It clearly sounds better than even good redbook on most systems I have heard (good table vs. good CD player).

 

The Squeezebox (and external DAC) is the first digital source I've heard that can seriously compete with analog. Needledrops on this thing sound very convincing.

The absence of traditional transport related jitter and the lack of data interpolation is probably responsible for this. In essence, 44.1 kHz is not bad at all. Implementation is usually the culprit for bad sound, IME.

 

In my experience, you need to reach a sampling rate of at least 88.2khz to capture an event properly. If you record a live event at 44.1 and 88.2 and play both back in real time you will hear more clarity and naturalness.

 

That seems reasonable. Haven't experienced that comparison myself.

I did listen to some of Peter McGrath's live hi-rez tapes (Wilson Audio) which were fantastic; and at CES, Andrew Jones (TAD) had some hi-rez tapes from Prof. Johnson (RR) that I heard - and they were just great.

 

Let me know if you ever get to Atlanta. I can play back some hirez classical for you at both 88.2 and 44.1 (live to 2 track of course) of local ensembles and choirs where the only change is the sampling rate. We can also grab a pint and talk audio...

I've heard McGrath's tapes, they are amazing. I may even have a slight preference for them versus Ray Kimber's breathtaking DSD tapes. Both are sublime.

 

The Squeezebox is a very sweet little box, but not even close to the best analog has to offer. You are just replacing transport jitter with hard drive jitter.

Regardless, it does offer fantastic playback (and incredible convenience) for the money. The external DAC and a better power supply really does take it to another level of playback.

I would compare it very favorably to players I have heard in the 2-3000 range
(with the right DAC).

But I won't be getting rid of my turntables anytime in the near future...

A lot of it depends on what you listen to as well....

I've heard most of what the best of digital has to offer and it's still not as natural as analog. I wish it was, but....

 

With a few exceptions I would agree.

 

Thanks for the invite.

 

There's no such thing as hard drive jitter. The clock is not recovered from hard drive data. Technically it's just a computer file that's being read and then streamed to the Squeezebox. In the computer world either you have the file intact or it's corrupted. Therefore no data interpolation or "guessing" is involved.

The CD format was designed nearly 30 years ago when high density RAM chips were not available. A lot of compromises were made in the transport end of things. EFM modulation to record the digital data for instance. This made data interpolation a necessity to prevent drop outs. 44.1 kHz PCM itself was not bad.

For all these reasons, plus sheer convenience, the Squeezebox, Transporter and related devices are truly the wave of the future. Revolutionary!

 

That's correct. Unfortunately, the vast majority of digital recordings are 44.1 kHz. So we need to extract the most information out of them. In this regard, recent devices have made great strides in reaching this goal.

I am not saying that 44.1 kHz needledrops sound the same as the source, but with today's better digital equipment it comes pretty damn close!

 

New ADCs and DACs are sounding very good for far less $ however I do believe that the 44.1 redbook standard is inherently flawed from not having a high enough sample rate. We may have an honest disagreement on how close it is. I would say 88.2 and 176 are somewhat close but there seems to me to be vast improvements from 44.1 to 88.2. It may all be an academic argument sadly as we seem to be getting a lot of music below 44.1 these days anyhow.

 

With today's high resolution studio equipment the difference between 44.1 kHz and, say, 88.2 kHz is going to be plainly evident. No doubt about that.

In case of old 1950's and 60's LPs, the resolution of the original recording equipment plus cutter, while excellent, can succesfully be captured by 44.1 kHz PCM in my experience.

For this application, I believe it does the job for me. If I were to record a live orchestra or try to transfer a modern analog tape to digital, 44.1 kHz just wouldn't do. Totally in agreement here.