andy_c wrote:
> It's weird that Oppo decided to support DSD when they still don't do
> DLNA gapless. Seems like messed up priorities to me.
That's weird., any streamer is useless without it.
For them to add dsd is not to surprising they seem to make products that
are versatile and support as m
Box and power supply cost a lot , and components are small, and with
that margin it woul probably be possible to include the dad and have the
same price and be profitable ?
Otherwise NAD's newest dac seems popular and their top off the line
digital amp ,interesting stuff :)
thanks for the headsu
Mnyb wrote:
> Buts it's more expensive and comes in shiny aluminium so it must
> therefore be better !
>
> Crackpot review ,yes all the boxes ticked .
>
> Usually digital disc transports are not very "worth the money" sometimes
> it is usually the manufacturer taking their most expensive cd pla
It's weird that Oppo decided to support DSD when they still don't do
DLNA gapless. Seems like messed up priorities to me.
andy_c's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3128
View this thread: http://foru
jh901 wrote:
> You will have to provide some examples of recordings from the 50s-70s
> which you find "unclean" (poor). I wonder if you actually believe that
> you remember the quality of sound that you experienced 40 years ago?!
> LOL. Even if you could, which doesn't seem realistic, then you
darrenyeats wrote:
> This is where I channel jh901 ...
>
> (Good general point but ... ) we are on the audiophile forum!
> Darren
I don't mean to be starting trouble but why is a mono Beatles any more
or less valid than a mono, acoustic Louie Armstrong recording? By the
way I say "acoustic" bec
darrenyeats wrote:
> Yes, well maybe the re-master is, he-he!
And that would just be another brick in the wall.
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.sli
jh901 wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> Cylinder bass traps (or other passive room treatment), "rule of thirds"
> (or equivalent) speaker and listening position, no weak components in
> the gear chain and well mastered source = great experience
Good starting points but you forgot: NO AMERICAN IDOL WINNERS O
ralphpnj wrote:
> Remember that in the case of audio, "source" is almost the same as
> "music" (I say almost because there other types of audio besides music)
> and the best sounding source may or not be the best music, i.e. think of
> those horrible "Super Discs" lists published in The Absolute
ralphpnj wrote:
> So does that mean that Pink Floyd's "The Wall" is double brick walled?
Yes, well maybe the re-master is, he-he!
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thre
darrenyeats wrote:
> Well, I am all for finding better masters, whatever they are. Obviously
> not everyone always agrees what the best ones are, but it is a fruitful
> pursuit if you're after better SQ ... In fact, it probably doesn't make
> sense to buy expensive equipment without trying to fee
darrenyeats wrote:
> ... In fact, it probably doesn't make sense to buy expensive equipment
> without trying to feed it the best source.
> Darren
Agreed.
Cylinder bass traps (or other passive room treatment), "rule of thirds"
(or equivalent) speaker and listening position, no weak components i
Archimago wrote:
> Slightly off topic but since you brought up... What are your thoughts
> on Bowie's Ryko remasters from the early 1990's? I got a few of those
> but was never a big Bowie fan (got as gifts)...
I'm not aware of any Ryko remaster that has acceptable sound quality.
The original
darrenyeats wrote:
> I've seen brick-wall waveforms in 16/44 turn into slightly less bricky
> brick-wall waveforms when transcoded to MP3 ... I think it's an artifact
> of the MP3 conversion, I'm not sure it's a "good" artifact but I'm
> pretty sure it's not one a "bad" one!
> Darren
So does tha
ralphpnj wrote:
> and spending time and money hunting down a slightly improved versions of
> recordings I already own seems fairly pointless.
Hmm, I would say it's not pointless for recordings you listen to often.
The problem is identifying the best versions ... I am always worried
about shellin
Well, I am all for finding better masters, whatever they are. Obviously
not everyone always agrees what the best ones are, but it is a fruitful
pursuit if you're after better SQ ... In fact, it probably doesn't make
sense to buy expensive equipment without trying to feed it the best
source.
Darren
ralphpnj wrote:
> Wow it looks like the lossy version is slightly better :)
I've seen brick-wall waveforms in 16/44 turn into slightly less bricky
brick-wall waveforms when transcoded to MP3 ... I think it's an artifact
of the MP3 conversion, I'm not sure it's a "good" artifact but I'm
pretty su
Going back to the Oppo and DSD for a moment... It looks like I'm going
to have to head off to my friend's place and test out what the RightMark
24/192 test tone measures like out of DSD64 & DSD128!
Archimago's Profile: http
jh901 wrote:
> Have any examples in mind?
>
> If you are sticking to 60s-mid 80s pop/rock, then, while there may not
> be a worthy remaster, there is likely an original that has been
> forgotten about. We already discussed Bowie, which was a situation
> where the original West German (for Europ
Archimago wrote:
> I added the DR info... Looks like the same mastering so unlikely to
> even see an improvement there!
>
> http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/index.php?search_artist=&search_album=old+sock
Wow it looks like the lossy version is slightly better :)
---
ralphpnj wrote:
> Absolutely correct. But then the whole high resolution game may be a rip
> off. In fact for many of the high resolution titles that I own which I
> feel have excellent sound, the improved sound may be the result of a
> better master and not the result of the higher resolution. F
Archimago wrote:
> It does matter in one significant way (Eric Clapton - "Old Sock"):
> HDTracks 24/96 - $17.98
> Amazon.com CD - $9.99 + free shipping if you get a couple other CD's
> (total >$25)
>
> If the 24/96 isn't native hi-res, and you get no material copy to
> archive/resell, then it's
ralphpnj wrote:
> I think means for you to get all anal and check the frequency response
> curves, spectrum analysis, dynamic range, etc. As far as I'm concerned,
> if you say it sounds good then it sounds good. Plus remember that it is
> not DSD so it's not worthwhile to start with :)
It does m
Mnyb: Absolutely, if NAD had included a good DAC in there, it certainly
would not seem so unreasonable... And my criticism of the review would
not be as harsh because the writer would not be using that Esoteric DAC
to make these strange assertions about sound quality.
Darren: Yup. Totally agree.
ralphpnj wrote:
> All too often the major labels only make available the second and third
> tier recordings of many artists and save top tier recordings for
> themselves. So we end up with a great remastering and reissue of a not
> so great recording and a terrible sounding reissue of a great re
jh901 wrote:
> I would argue the opposite. I associate "remaster" with a product of
> the loudness era. The initial mastering effort of the 80s produced some
> outstanding results. The problem is that there was more than one CD
> master created in the various markets drawn from various sources
ralphpnj wrote:
>
> However the word "remaster" is not nor has it ever been a guarantee of
> improved sound.
I would argue the opposite. I associate "remaster" with a product of
the loudness era. The initial mastering effort of the 80s produced some
outstanding results. The problem is that t
jh901 wrote:
> The constant drip, drip of cynicism in this forum isn't going to help
> anyone. I honestly don't get it.
I'm not cynical I'm just not willing to be treated as simply an open
wallet by some audio manufacturers and their helpers, the audiophile
press. Being an audiophile, or better
mlsstl wrote:
> That sentence alone marks a big difference between us.
>
> Yes, I prefer clean recordings more than poor ones. While I have been
> irritated at finding I've purchased a CD suffering too much from the
> "loudness wars" syndrome, that was pretty much the same reaction I had
> 40 y
darrenyeats wrote:
> I rejected the stereo remasters because my ears and DR Database showed
> them to be (somewhat) dynamically compressed compared to the 87 EMIs and
> original LPs. But I understand the latest monos lack that added
> compression ... are they really a big advance over 87 EMI?
Ru
darrenyeats wrote:
> Why would hi-rez have better bass response?
Because hi-res is Better? :)
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthrea
darrenyeats wrote:
> Why would hi-rez have better bass response? Surely this is a mastering
> thing?
> Darren
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevic
Julf wrote:
> Well, yes, the Tact would indicate that, but it only looks at the file
> format, not the actual sound contents of the file. The reason to believe
> it is not is that there have been so many examples of
> "standard-resolution" material upsampled (and zero-padded from 16 bits
> to 24
I've had some pretty eye-opening (humbling) experiences with
back-to-back sighted versus blind listening for digital sources. I'm now
convinced the differences are so subtle, it is better to rely on
measurements than sighted listening as a guide to line level equipment.
Also feature set is a key f
callesoroe wrote:
> Sounds great. I have no reason to believe it is not. The bas response is
> a lot better on my 24/96 files. This one too. And my Tact indicates it
> is 24/96.
Well, yes, the Tact would indicate that, but it only looks at the file
format, not the actual sound contents of the fi
35 matches
Mail list logo
