Archimago wrote:
> Yeah, that epic Meridian listening test that also either truncated or
> used rectangular dithering that they admitted were suboptimal.
Also significant was the fact that they used ultra-sharp, narrow
bandwidth filters that generated a lot more ringing than just about any
real
Archimago wrote:
> Yeah, that epic Meridian listening test that also either truncated or
> used rectangular dithering that they admitted were suboptimal.
Or simply the used beryllium metal tweeter distorts different with or
without HF content.
Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoust
Remember the "Ringing Less" filter you tested?
http://archimago.blogspot.de/2016/10/measurements-hifiberry-dac-pro-pcm5122.html
Alone the positive name of the filter had effect on the listener that
reported its 'better' sound it seems.
Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based
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 response or phase can
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 response or phase can be audible.
Only the leg
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
>
