chill wrote:
> Maybe Archimago is part of the conspiracy.
Yes. It's a money-saving conspiracy :D
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
Archimago's Profile: h
cliveb wrote:
> Had a read of them and no surprises - most people finding it difficult
> to tell any significant difference.
>
> What I found most interesting was the demographic split. The younger
> participants found the track with less dynamic range to be the most
> revealing, while the
wl1 wrote:
> I thought I took screen shots of my responses - but I cant find them.
> Doh. Do I assume there is no way to get you to resend my response now
> the device ps are known? Is this possibles? PM here?
Hi! Do you remember parts of what you entered like your equipment list?
PM me
Hey guys. Thanks for the participation!
Here are the devices "unblinded".
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2019/05/blind-test-results-part-1-do-digital.html
Will post discussions and analysis of the results in future blog
installments :).
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more
Greetings Squeezebox Audiophiles ;-). Apologies for not being around as
much these days...
Here's a question for the audiophiles... Do CD/digital players
converting 16/44.1 sound the same/different? The real question I suspect
may be "how different"!
When I came across a post on the 'Steve
Yup... Thanks Mnyb for the post.
Yeah, all these years the audiophile industry and press have been
suggesting that impulse responses are such a big deal yet we see all the
time new products that:
A. Have no filters - NOS
B. Have weak filters - MQA
C. Have very strong filters - Chord
And yet
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I had the odd ding-dong with arnyk, but learned a lot too.
>
> I am deeply saddened to hear of his passing, & trust that he will not
> give St Peter too hard a time before gaining his rightful access to a
> better place...
>
> Dave :(
Wow, sad to hear of
MQA:
A REVIEW OF CONTROVERSIES, CONCERNS, AND CAUTIONS
(\"HTTPS://WWW.COMPUTERAUDIOPHILE.COM/CA/REVIEWS/MQA-A-REVIEW-OF-CONTROVERSIES-CONCERNS-AND-CAUTIONS-R701/\")
Over time, as we know more about it, the more it is clear that it was
always to serve the interests of the Industry... As
arnyk wrote:
> Just a heads up.
>
> Posts related to
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/audiophilesonabudget/permalink/737114726478629/
> show that Archimago's Blog aritcle on estimating power amp sizing
> raised quite a bit of interest on Facebook.
>
> The Blog article is at
>
pablolie wrote:
> ...I had no idea that digital recording pollution had started as early!
>
> I present the following little experiment I have gone for over the years
> with one of my favorite recordings ever.
>
> 24411
>
> One version is a 320k CBR rip from the original CD, the second the
>
arnyk wrote:
> Listening tests of this device were among our early adventures with ABX:
>
>
>
> http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_digi.htm
>
> "The Ampex 16 Bit Digital Delay Line vs. wire comparison was made in a
> professional recording studio control room on time aligned UREI 813
> speakers
Interesting history there Arny... I assume the effect must have been
transparent.
Also I presume there's an AD/DA in the device. What kind of conversion
quality are we looking at with the ADD-1 back in the day for these
LP's!?
I'm sure Michael Fremer would have no trouble identifying these
Happy New Year everyone!
Yup. No surprise about the paicity of actual hi-res music. For years
HDtracks has been releasing upsampled music. And few of the recordings
of course achieve anything close to needing beyond 16-bits if even that.
Years ago, I wrote the article on "'Hi-Res Expectations'
foxesden wrote:
> Hi
>
> Just spent the day measuring my DAC as I thought it was losing bass.
>
> I was using rightmark, and only wanted to confirm whether the frequency
> drop I was hearing could be measured - it could. But, I was surprised at
> how bad the noise etc was. So I tried measuring
Mnyb wrote:
> Objektive characterisation of loudspeakers . Sean Olive of Harman
> International had an article about it years ago .
>
> They claim to have some sort of method involving many different
> measurments a staggering undertaking if i remember there where dossens
> of them .
>
> For
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Archimago!
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with the points that you make.
>
> It is certainly the case that loudspeakers are still (despite massive
> advances in materials available for driver construction since I first
> started my audio quest for
LOL... Don't think I *can* even convert to being a subjectivist if I
wanted to at this point :rolleyes:.
For one thing, I honestly find it remarkably -boring -writing about the
subjective experience of what one hears. The reason being that when
writing that stuff, one recognizes that the words
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Archimago!
>
> Mytek make a studio-orientated DAC called the Manhattan (now in version
> 2, so *-someone-* must be buying the things!) at a cool $6000.
>
> It has word clock in & out, so that you can buy several & sync them up
> f
ralphpnj wrote:
> ... On the other hand, a nice "loan" of a $10,000 MQA enabled DAC might
> go a long in helping one to forget that conclusion.
Love it man, send that $10K MQA DAC ASAP!
I want to run a few impulse responses thru and see if I can verify the
16 MQA filters across the price
ralphpnj wrote:
> Only problem is you will not be offered the loans to write objectively
> about the equipment but rather to write subjectively, as per the
> advertisers instructions.
Will see man. :-) After all these years of soft, touchy-feely subjective
audiophile writers, I suspect
ralphpnj wrote:
> Very nice "musings" post. Haven't read the comments yet but the article
> does a nice job of trying to separate science from opinion.
>
> One question that comes to mind: will your "musings" start to drift now
> that you have the audiophile press' attention and, as was the
Hey all,
Glad to be done the MQA Core vs. Hi-Res blind test series and basically
end off with a summary of sorts:
'Part I: Procedure'
(https://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-i.html)
'Part II: Core Results'
Hey guys,
Thanks for submissions...
'Procedure (Part I)'
(https://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-i.html)
'Results (Part II)
'
(https://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html)
It is what it is :-).
Archimago's Musings:
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Archimago!
>
> Thanks for the heads-up: I do my best to reduce the load on the world's
> landfill sites. ;)
>
> I have had a rather good week. Firstly I got an e-mail out of the blue
> from the solicitors who dealt with my late mother's estate,
For those running Linux, remember that BrutefirDRC works also... Not
much of a fancy UI compared to Inguz but has worked stably for me with
Acourate room filters in LMS.
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2016/03/howto-logitech-media-server-brutefirdrc.html
Archimago's Musings:
Eyerex wrote:
> Will have to take the test as i own a Meridian Explorer 2 only problem
> is i live in the world of budget HiFi so running on a PiCorePlayer with
> a Yamaha A-S500 and a set of JPW Sonatas but will give it a go
>
> PS i normally listen to electronic music but can appreciate
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Archimago!
>
> Firstly, apologies for "cherry-picking" your earlier comment in the
> quotation above: I'm just trying to focus on the bits of particular
> relevance to the ensuing comments - if you feel that I've removed the
>
drmatt wrote:
> What are the origins of 2L's mqa files? I remember looking at some of
> their sample material before. Not my type of music I have to say, hard
> for me to get into it..
>
>
> -Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk-
Hi Matt:
The original MQA files can be found here (along
Thanks for the comments GE...
Well, here in 2017, I still consider 24/96 "hi-res" of course. Last I
checked, my kids' ears apparently have not evolved enough to render
24/96 inadequate :-).
Yes, the digital interfaces AES/EBU, TosLink, coaxial can be used for
>24/96 but the Transporter does
Hey boys and girls...
Been meaning to do this for awhile but now that software decoding and we
know better about the digital filter, I think it's time to let the world
have a listen to what MQA Decoding sounds like compared to standard
24/88 or 24/96 resampling. If you're curious about MQA
Wombat wrote:
> I picked some info here and there but your summary is the most complete
> i did read. Well done!
> Funny is how the aliased HF crap from 'unfold' 2 by some is
> misinterpreted as original content because of BS using cloudy wordings.
And that's an important observation about MQA,
Here's a look at the MQA Rendering of the Dragonfly Black:
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/06/measurements-audioquest-dragonfly-black_24.html
I honestly don't see anything "good" here that argues for higher
fidelity... Also good for HIRESAUDIO for not selling this kind of
questionable
ralphpnj wrote:
> Okay so I'm late to the party. With spring now struggling to arrive here
> in the northeastern US I have been busy out riding my bicycles (I have
> several bicycles although I can only ride one at a time) rather than
> sitting at the computer reading on-line audio forums.
>
>
drmatt wrote:
> It seems to me that MP3 can deliberately "clean up" a complex signal and
> make it sound more defined, just because it throws away some of the
> subtlety.
>
> But then, I am sitting in a pub..
>
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk
Yes, that was my suspicion as well.
Julf wrote:
> But then there is this: 'Why the Flat Earth Movement is the Best Symbol
> of the Increasingly Diminished Value of Truth and Intelligence'
>
darrenyeats wrote:
> 1. It was your MP3/FLAC test that convinced me I CAN distinguish MP3 and
> FLAC! It was the metal track - I couldn't establish a preference, but I
> could pick out A and B at will for that one track. Once, I randomised
> the playlist and tried it 10 times. I got 9 right.
Wombat wrote:
> The efforts you and others do is simply amazing! Thanks for that.
> It should be mentioned that people like Arnold K. spend much time in
> several forums and events to make people think about their own
> percetption.
> Over the last years i see several High-End peddlers are more
For those new to some of our discussions here over the years, here are a
few links over the years which I've tried to provide evidence for and
thoughts I wanted people to consider. I've tried to maintain a general
structure in mind of topics to address, many of which are
contemporaneous with
Archimago wrote:
> H. As others say, this is really not possible.
>
> I fear to ask just how noisy your DAC is! Over the years of
> measurements, I have never seen noise all that significant over a USB
> interface unless something went wrong like picking up ground loop hum
&
ho_kuku wrote:
> I did experienced the same thing - but with IFI Audio IUSB
> Volume became louder - at the same time improved separation. The noise
> floor also was greatly reduced.
> It just goes to show how "noisy" USB audio is - and those noise have a
> negative impact on sound.
> Clearing
cliveb wrote:
> Actually the Earth *does* have plenty of time to deal with it. It's the
> human race that doesn't.
>
> If we stuff up the global climate enough to wipe out mankind (and
> possibly take out some other innocent bystanding species with us), the
> Earth will shrug its shoulders and
drmatt wrote:
> Cor, using intellect without spite? Bring it on!
Absolutely! No need to have "a -desire -to hurt, annoy, or offend
someone".
Some people will be hurt or upset no matter what anyone says but there's
no -need -for arguments to go that direction. We don't need to hold a
position
ralphpnj wrote:
> Ranks right up there with some other oxymorons like "military
> intelligence" and "elevated subway"
Let's try to change that Ralph! Promote another "option", "path",
"school" to follow in the public Forums and Marketplaces...
Men (usually) of distinction willing to submit to
ftlight wrote:
> "Rational Audiophiles", perhaps?
Nice. I like that - the -rational audiophile-.
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
Archimago's Profile:
I'm actually not worried about the proliferation of expensive goods.
Financial disparity is getting worse in this world at least for now and
there will always be the very rich who will go for price-no-object goods
in that part of the market. Sure, many will purchase audio equipment as
beautiful
ralphpnj wrote:
> I think that your optimism about consumers being educated is just a
> little bit off after all Beats are still the number one selling
> headphones and by a very wide margin. I think that it's less about
> rejecting high resolution audio per se and more about just not needing a
Indeed Wombat, thanks for the links and the laughs... I still have my
black Pono sitting on my shelf for the memories.
I don't know if this is a victory whether Pono or Highresaudio not
selling MQA for objectivists per se. I hope it is a victory for
consumers being educated about bullshit and
You know guys & gals, it's one thing to get all tweaky and religious
about old turntables, idolize analogue, and worship at the temple of the
SET... But to bring all that nonsense to the computer audio world is
simply... sad...
Just had to say a thing or two about the YouTube video. :)
'
Wombat wrote:
> Writing about the sound of Hi$res on the net is not easy.
> At CA someone took your finding that you can't hear a difference between
> a 24/96 and MQA as proof how good MQA is and indeed higher resolution
> worth the effort :)
:D
Well, it's all a matter of perspective, right?
"Its as if those thousands of audio engineers at Sony and Phillips in
the late 70s and early 80s actually thought this through when they
invented the CD Digital Audio format."
Apparently the human ear/brain didn't evolve much over the last few
decades :rolleyes:.
Good job testing. I wish the
Indeed a fantastic price for the new device! :cool:
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this
Yup... Good points all.
*Bottom line: *The Industry -needs -us to believe the filters are a "big
deal". After all, how else to differentiate digital audio of which
essentially any decent DAC over the last 20 years has sounded very good
already!? Maintaining this sense of wonder and belief in
Wombat wrote:
> When people know what filter they play they will tell you all kind of
> stories.
> When people don't know what filter they play they dig in the dark.
> Like Archimago pointed out there can be filters that change parameters
> very much so things like frequency re
ralphpnj wrote:
> i just finished reading a really poorly written review of Auralic's
> Altair streaming DAC and in the review extensive coverage is given over
> to the various filters in the unit.
>
> So my question is:
>
> How are these "filters" different from a simple graphic equalizer or
pablolie wrote:
> ... Let me also state, I would so hope that, over the next years,
> someone picks up a next gen SB development... In my dreams, I envision
> an SB OLED Touch v2 that offers...
>
> - HDMI output to send liner notes to TV
> - Dual Digital and optical outputs with configurable
jfo wrote:
> It seems that the industry still hasn't come with a meaningful standard
> definition of Hi Res, so we will continue to see marketing hype for so
> called Hi Res material. Dr Mark Waldrep sums up the industry approach
> nicely in an excerpt from his post CES blog
>
> "There
Mnyb wrote:
> Welll the Q is bit more complex , if you intend to do some post
> processing of the recordings it's good to have them as 24 bits when
> that's done you can convert to 16/48 and be done as it is as you say
> more than enough fidelity to store the vinyl recording.
>
> And you can be
Raspberry Pi 3 works great thru USB as a Squeezebox replacement with
piCorePlayer of course...
Some objective stuff...
Some suggested underclocking config to "sound better" :-). Maybe some
daring audiophile might want to do a blind test between my CRAAP config
compare to... Oh... The
Squeezemenicely wrote:
> Anyone have this yet? Does it really make a difference having the
> seperate oscillators?
> I have the standard version and am wondering if I should upgrade.
>
> But have absolutely no idea, what the exact difference soundwise this
> would/could make.
>
>
>
>
>
Oh my. Wireworld Cat8 ethernet cables for sound quality now!?
http://www.audiostream.com/content/wireworld-starlight-cat8-ethernet-cable
Interesting comment/question by "Solarophile" about TCP error
correction. He should have a look at this:
Wombat wrote:
> There is a follow up:
> http://archimago.blogspot.de/2016/10/measurements-hifiberry-dac-pro-pcm5122.html
> Nice that you extended the test and have some words about how alone
> "less ringing" in the name of the filter may trigger the audiophile
> brain most certainly more as any
arnyk wrote:
> Interesting data point. As the report mentions, one possible area of
> concern is the device's approximate -80 dB suppression of spurious
> responses and noise. This is about 16 dB poorer than CD quality (-96
> dB) but about 20 dB better than a typical real world threshold of
>
sckramer wrote:
> The D+PRO is not my daily driver, and I'm more interested in the digi+,
> digi+pro, and i2s-- where I find bypassing power is a fundamental
> improvement. So really can't say if stock USB power vs. 5V/3.3V LPS
> improves on the D+PRO...Buuut I've set this up just in the last
MadScientist wrote:
> Well, for those who wish to try it, there should be available material
> shortly.I remain open minded about the format but if it encourges
> better audio mastering practices that has to be a bonus.
>
>
>
Hey guys. Just posted some measurements on the Pi3 + HiFiBerry DAC
combo. I suspect many of us here are already doing this kind of thing
with Pi computers and various other SBC's. Certainly makes an
inexpensive system for a Squeezebox replacement with piCorePlayer
installed...
Hey Ralph,
Finding Kool-Aid again is very much like an ex-cult/religion member
finding "the way" again...
---
Oh ye of little faith. Cast aside thy apostate ways and come rejoin the
fold!
For penance since you have upset the Almighty Stereophile, go buy a
minimum $1000 power cable and say
Wombat wrote:
> For MQA we read many sceptic comments but some claim to hear advantages
> in detail and lower distortion be it the secret sauce or just because it
> is a newer remaster does not matter.
> Every attempt like bit-freezing may solve a bandwith issue but won't be
> taken serious.
andy_c wrote:
> I browse Audio Asylum from time to time, and I saw this one on a forum
> called "Isolation Ward" ("Iso"). :)
>
> Once in a blue moon I get some good information from AA. I found out
> about the 1jazz.ru group of Russian jazz stations from there and have
> been listening to the
Interesting but not surprising.
Yeah, truncate down to 17-bits... Maybe do a little dithering in that
last LSB. Keep the samplerate at 96kHz. Then implement a gentle filter
above 25kHz or so... Voila, higher than CD dynamic range. Good
compression ratio. Probably as good as MQA.
No surprise of
Mnyb wrote:
> I remember this crap from way back ? Still around ?
>
> Even the cable believing tube audiophiles laughed ? But really today ,
> it thought he be surpassed by people with better and slicker marketing
> that makes things sound semi plausible ?
>
> And for the loony fringe of the
Lucmichaud wrote:
> Forget the tech talk. Just go and listen to them.
>
> They may not be the absolute best speakers, but nothing under 10,000 $
> comes close.
>
> I heard them in Paris at their office with 24 bit files . I was
> impressed.
>
> I have Wilson Sacha 3 speakers. I would not
d6jg wrote:
> I have quite a large vinyl collection and occasionally I still buy some
> second hand albums but only when whatever it is isn't available in
> decent form on CD. I don't buy new vinyl as its too expensive as stated
> earlier.
>
> I don't like buying downloads - I still prefer CDs
Mnyb wrote:
> Yeah I suppose so , but even if they are biased by their belief that
> even better accuracy is needed ( which I don't believe ) they could
> easily do it in a non proprietary way within already existing formats,
> but then there is nothing to sell :)
Yup. It indeed is about the
The funny thing Mnyb is that they know 16-bits 44kHz will give us time
domain accuracy in the picosecond range. They seem to be basing all this
on impulse response plots...
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
drmatt wrote:
> Yes I realised I made a typo. You win the prize for pointing it out! ;)
>
> I do think it's a smart approach to a problem that most people don't
> care about. Trouble for MQA is that if you think you need more details
> than 16/44 then 99% will simply put up with 24/192 file
ralphpnj wrote:
> Finally we agree!
Hang on boys. Don't be quick to agree :-)
It may be "smart" in a cunningly foxy kind of way...
But it's the size of poorly losslessly compressible 24/44. Not 16/44.
There's at least a 50% difference. Among other contentious issues...
Archimago's
RonM wrote:
> As noted, I bought two and paid for both the product and the shipping.
> Shipping to Canada was actually as much as the product. Then I got a
> notification from DHL that I needed to pay tax and customs processing on
> top, that is an extra $20. Since tax is only 13% of the
That's cool Julf. I don't care about the accolades of course.
At least they bother to try some kind of A/B testing and willing to
publish a comment different from the "obviously better" dogma of the
evangelical testimonials.
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
Yes. Lots of text :-).
Let's just lay it on the table and get it done with. The use of the
impulse response to justify FUD is one of the greatest 'controversies'
out there.
As if we can actually hear the ringing for one.
As if going through a sharp filter would actually excite tons of
Ooo... I thought Neil Young proved this conclusively with musicians
(obviously they have fantastic awesome hearing!) riding shotgun in his
souped up Cadillac years ago!?
Written like a typical academic meta-analysis of course. Like Arny said,
52.3% with 17 studies (excluding Meyer & Moran),
As the other said, no issues.
Never had a problem with FLAC -8. And these days run it with digital
room correction off a basic AMD A10 APU server through BruteFIR DRC off
a Linux virtual machine in Windows Server 2012.
Measurements also look good with no evidence of excess noise at the
higher
jfo wrote:
> ha haa reminder of days long ago! And then we have...
>
> The smell of the rain-washed florin!
> The lure of the lira!
> The glitter and the glory of the guinea!
> The romance of the ruble!
> The feel of the franc!
> The heel of the deutschmark!
> The cold antiseptic sting
Yup. Those Cardas jumpers look pretty.
But any short length of speaker cable will do... Maybe just some 12G
wire.
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
Archimago's Profile:
ralphpnj wrote:
> Simple answer: because the graphs can be produced. And by printing what
> appears to be serious measurements their purely subjective reviews are
> given that oh so important whiff of objectivity. Or to put it another
> way: smoke and mirrors.
:-)
I suspect there is a bit of
drmatt wrote:
> That guy likes to talk about himself.
>
> Seems somewhat disingenuous to attempt to ascribe the "distortion" of
> the whole A-D-A digital recording and playback chain of a signal at
> -90db to the digital system itself, rather than the whole chain. And I
> wonder how bad an LP
sckramer wrote:
> Hi Archimago,
>
> I ran across those strange TDA dacs, based on that old chip also --
> here's the one I saw:
>
> what do they sound like?
Hey Sckramer, cool man! A single chip version :-). I guess ya gotta save
on the power usage with batteries.
Well,
drmatt wrote:
> "Audiophiles" are people too... ;)
>
> I had a couple of old Philips players once, and subsequently an Arcam
> player with a 16 bit DAC. Enjoyed the Arcam but I wouldn't call it
> uniquely capable versus newer 24 bit systems. I would say it had a
> particular type of distortion
Yeah, the only 16-bit DACs you're likely going to find "new" these days
are based on old NOS DACs like the old Philips TDA154x designs.
Some audiophiles seem to like them... Certainly "different" rather than
"better"!
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile
Julf wrote:
> No idea.
>
>
>
> I agree. Would not be that hard to have a date on it...
This I'm sure was done on purpose. $7000 monoblocks are timeless :-).
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
Hey Tusken,
I concur with BadBoy, I'd get the second hand with the deep discount as
well - the deeper the better :-). Assuming it's in great shape and all
of course...
After years of owning a DAC capable of USB 32/384 and DSD128, I've never
found myself in need of these extreme sampling rates
Julf wrote:
> 'Nagra PSA (Pyramid Stereo Amplifier)'
> (http://www.tonepublications.com/review/nagra-psa-amplifier/)
Nice. :-).
Now here's a question. What year was that article? I hate it when a
website has no date on the article to orient oneself with...
Archimago's Musings:
Julf wrote:
> http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5680
>
> "I'm going to start a YouTube channel and podcast this summer and will
> be challenging some of the claims made by companies selling snake oil.
> Power cords are on my list. If anyone...and end user or dealer or
> manufacturer...can lend me
Well I just hope this doesn't stop the blogging activities and
no-nonsense discussions on his site.
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
Archimago's Profile:
sckramer wrote:
> The guys loaded, even got one in his hand.
:-) Yes, I'm sure he does well for himself!
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
Archimago's Profile:
Well boys. Looks like Nordost issued a "cease and desist" on the good
doctor.
Not surprising... Gotta be careful. This is why I make my own
measurements and ask that the "believers" and manufacturers show me
where I have gone wrong and publish their own results.
Looks like the lawyers made a
If I were in the business of high-fidelity, I'm sure I'd be wrestling
with the nasty line between -psychological perception- which sadly is
much of what high-end audio is these days - the promotion of said
perception in service of the need for revenue, sales, the bottom line
and what one must do
I know it's total click bait because the site really doesn't have
anything new to offer/say, but check out this post:
http://www.audiostream.com/content/just-2-comments
Gee... Anyone wonder that maybe there are no comments sometimes because
the people who might want to comment have been banned!?
arnyk wrote:
> ;-)
>
> Good point. The ultimate test of any audio file is whether or not it can
> be detected in comparison using a level-matched, time synched ABX test
> comparing it to a file of the same music with reliable provenance.
>
> Difference testing and other tests based on
That's just sad. As usual, without decent quality control the whole
hi-res thing is a fail especially when they let stuff like this happen
with watermarking... Upsampled audio, questionable provenance, dynamic
compressed mastering, now watermarking. All when it's questionable even
if well done
ralphpnj wrote:
> But MQA doesn't do DSD so which one is obsolete?
-Clearly DSD is obsolete.- Didn't you hear? MQA is *-*revolutionary*-*
baby!
In either case, neither Metronome or April Wine... er... April Music
handles the awesomeness! :mad:
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A
1 - 100 of 1055 matches
Mail list logo
