h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Thanks for your work. Appreciated. As I have never got this far down the process before, I am not sure whather I can reach you this way, but I will try.

As the article has lain on my page, I have been fiddling and polishing, the last time just yesterday, and I am not sure you have used the very latest version. I also cannot see the threads that were attached and which prompted me to make some of the changes.

It is of no great importance. The article is fine except for the last paragraph of the 'Power Amplifier' section, which is factually incorrect. All inputs to the amp are analogue, not just the turntable. If it is not too late, please amend to something like:-

"Some amplifiers incorporate the 'old-fashioned' valves that pre-dated transistors. These are thought by some to produce a warmer tone. This was certainly true when CD Players were introduced, but the very detailed signal from the best CD's and CD Players has improved things immensely in recent years. Diehards and purists remain unconvinced, however."

Hey Pheroneous,


Thanks! Fruitbat was given the version of Hi-Fi that was
accepted in Peer Review as, once it has been accepted and it comes off the
What's Coming Up Page (http://www.h2g2.com/ComingUp), we assume that any
changes have already been made. It's much easier for us to keep track of that
way.

I've made the changes you've recommended above and the entry will appear in the Editied Guide shortly.

BTW - Great Entry.

Ashley

Thanks, Ashley. Appreciated.

Just to support any future aspirations to sub-editorship:

In the CD paragraph, you have plural players and singular workhorse, and in the pre-amp section you have lost a 'for' after knobs!

Sorry to see that you believe CDs have improved audio in general. I don't consider myself either a purist of a die-hard, simply a realist. If you were to take the time to make a direct comparison between the analog source and the CD you would not only understand the LOSSES incurred in the CD but you would likely HEAR the difference in SOUND (a somewhat important point). The convienience of the CD is however unparalleled and therefore it may be called "good". I use CDs a great deal but mostly because a CD player convieniently fits where I want it. I've only ever seen one turntable perminantly installed in an automobile for instance.

I am not sure I said that CD's have improved audio generally! Anyway the convenience factor cannot be ignored, and recent players seem to me considerably improved. I admit moving from the 'CD is rubbish' school through the 'I suppose they're OK' stage to the 'is the difference worth the bother?' school, and I think SACD will see off the remaining vinyl purists. Nevertheless I retain a core collection of irreplaceable vinyl, sadly, less and less played.

I seem to remember a version of the 'Dansette' being made for fitting in cars???

Thanks for your reply first of all. I take it from your general tone that I have not offended you greatly, Good. I'm glad to hear that you do have vinyl collection to refresh you when you are ready. In the earlyier days of CD I was greatly offended by the sound that I heard. Today I own and listen to at least five CD players, BUT as I type these words I am listening the to good old LP. Convienience aside, the manufacturers of CD are really to blame. It is they that insist on using a less than optimal bitrate in the recordings. So even with the loss of harmonics and electronic additions to the sound I wouldn't go back to tape as a automotive format if I could avoid it. As for the "DANSETTE", I haven't experience with it , but i'll look it up. Even so, I respect my collection too much to chance it. By the way, the player I saw was in a classic thunderbird that I knew as a child.
Thanks, Talk to you later.

Hey monk, not in the least offended. I have had the chance to listen to two or three SACD players over the last few months, and I have to say that you would (or I would anyway) be hard pushed to criticise the performance. If it catches on, then theres life left in the improved format. It always amazes me how good vinyl can be, enjoy it while you can.

Dansettes were made, I think by Decca, and I am sure I remember a car (Sunbeam Talbot Convertible??) that had one fitted in the glove box, and you just opened it out only, of course, when the car was stationary. I dont know if that was a one-off, or a generally available option. Maybe someone here will know.

A generally informative article, thank you for providing it, but I must say that your
understanding of digital audio, and particularly the function of a DAC seems somewhat
flawed.

Any system to play back sound from CD's (and for that matter any digital audio) requires a
DAC. All CD players have a DAC built in to them, the entire digital to analog conversion
process is usually handled by a single electronic chip within the machine. However not all
DAC chips are born equal, some perform better than others and this is something that
accounts for some of the differences between cheap and expensive CD players.
There are several advantages to having a digital output on a CD player, firstly it allows the use
of a stand-alone DAC. This might be bought as an up grade to an older CD player. Any
improvement of the sound could come from a better DAC chip but is more likely to come
from improved analog electronics on the output stage, and also from the advantage of using a
power supply separated from the rest of the CD player (a very clean power source is
recommended for perfect operation of a high quality DAC). Another use for the digital output
on a CD player is to connect directly to a digital recording source DAT, Mini Disc etc,
avoiding loss in the recording quality caused by converting to analog and back again. A third
and less common use for the digital output is to connect straight to the digital input of a
suitable amplifier. Most modern AV amplifiers have DAC's built in and offer inputs for this
purpose. The often unseen benefit in this is that it removes the need for expensive analog
interconnect cables. It can be shown that even moderately priced interconnects for digital
sources function essentially perfectly. This is something worth considering when putting
together Hifi on a budget.

Another point I would like to make is that your dismissal of compressed digital audio (MPEG
etc.) seem slightly unfair. Most of these formats (there are now a great many) allow the
storage of audio over a range of different bitrates, offering different levels of quality in return
for inversely proportional differences in file size. At higher bitrates formats such as MP3
perform very well, far outclassing the compression systems used in MiniDisc and many digital
broadcast systems, they can also be significantly better than the audio quality provided by
DVD video.

I think in general the bad reputation of MP3 for quality comes from the fact that most people
hear them through tiny multimedia speakers, and even when connected to a good hifi the
majority of soundcards available for PC's do not offer a good quality of output from any
source due to very cheap electronics used in the analog stages.

A generally informative article, thank you for providing it, but I must say that your
understanding of digital audio, and particularly the function of a DAC seems somewhat
flawed.

Any system to play back sound from CD's (and for that matter any digital audio) requires a
DAC. All CD players have a DAC built in to them, the entire digital to analog conversion
process is usually handled by a single electronic chip within the machine. However not all
DAC chips are born equal, some perform better than others and this is something that
accounts for some of the differences between cheap and expensive CD players.
There are several advantages to having a digital output on a CD player, firstly it allows the use
of a stand-alone DAC. This might be bought as an up grade to an older CD player. Any
improvement of the sound could come from a better DAC chip but is more likely to come
from improved analog electronics on the output stage, and also from the advantage of using a
power supply separated from the rest of the CD player (a very clean power source is
recommended for perfect operation of a high quality DAC). Another use for the digital output
on a CD player is to connect directly to a digital recording source DAT, Mini Disc etc,
avoiding loss in the recording quality caused by converting to analog and back again. A third
and less common use for the digital output is to connect straight to the digital input of a
suitable amplifier. Most modern AV amplifiers have DAC's built in and offer inputs for this
purpose. The often unseen benefit in this is that it removes the need for expensive analog
interconnect cables. It can be shown that even moderately priced interconnects for digital
sources function essentially perfectly. This is something worth considering when putting
together Hifi on a budget.

Another point I would like to make is that your dismissal of compressed digital audio (MPEG
etc.) seem slightly unfair. Most of these formats (there are now a great many) allow the
storage of audio over a range of different bitrates, offering different levels of quality in return
for inversely proportional differences in file size. At higher bitrates formats such as MP3
perform very well, far outclassing the compression systems used in MiniDisc and many digital
broadcast systems, they can also be significantly better than the audio quality provided by
DVD video.

I think in general the bad reputation of MP3 for quality comes from the fact that most people
hear them through tiny multimedia speakers, and even when connected to a good hifi the
majority of soundcards available for PC's do not offer a good quality of output from any
source due to very cheap electronics used in the analog stages.

Thanks for listening,

Luke