heisenberg wrote:
> I was very saddened when I discovered that I can't reliably tell whether
> the music playing is from a 320 kbps mp3 or from a lossless source.
> Hence, I'm not into chasing after 24/192 -- like you've said, a complete
> overkill.
Like Mnyb said, do not be saddened by this. I
Mnyb wrote:
> Thanks again for the measurement part .
>
> Hdmi has been accused of horrible " jitter " in it's implementation ?
> And there are probably some not so fantastic implementations out there
> especially older ht amps .
> Can you see any of that in this Onkyo amp ?
>
> What's the spec
ralphpnj wrote:
> Thank you so much for presenting a clear and very reasonable
> introduction and review to this wonderful new product. However I do have
> a few questions which I feel are very important.
>
> As you know the new audiophile standard for listening to computer based
> audio is the
Greetings.
True to his word, Keaton Goulden-Eyre has reviewed another set of cables
for me... Along with some HDMI cable measurements...
Enjoy :-)
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/11/guest-review-measurements-quantum-hdmi.html
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
ralphpnj wrote:
> The sad part is that what we all readily see as a complete farce is most
> likely not that far from reality.
>
> So in reality I'm right the cutting edge of high end audio marketing.
>
> Now all that is needed is a very serious review by of the audio clowns.
:rolleyes:
Altho
Nice one Ralph :-).
Taking the creative writing class again, eh?
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
Hey guys,
Been away for awhile on vacation and general summer merriment :cool:
Anyhow, life's busy but found some time to have a look/listen to the
realtime PCM-to-DSD conversion process found in JRiver MC19. As usual,
details on my blog...
'PCM-to-DSD Upsampling Effects (JRiver MC19 Beta)
'
(ht
Haven't been through the forums much... Lots to do over the summer to
worry about audio!
However, I managed to borrow one of these units from my brother-in-law
to check out. So... For those who may have wondered what a current "low
end" digital streamer measures like in terms of analogue out and
Hello guys... Been away for a little while. In any case, managed to put
something up from some measurements I did a few weeks back. Thought I'd
try out one of Stereophile's digital tests which they've been doing for
ages!
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/07/measurements-dac-waveform-peeping-903
soundcheck wrote:
> One more -- to think about -- or to ignore:
>
> Mr. Jeff Rowlands 2ct:
>
> 'Assessment of the Importance of Audio Measurements in High-End Design'
> (http://jeffrowlandgroup.com/kb/questions.php?questionid=445)
>
> The opening paragraph of that J. Rowland article says:
Why
soundcheck wrote:
> Yep. I know.
>
> That's why I brought up your "digital" measurement problem first.
> Something to digest. I hope that's enough as a first lesson. ;) By
> reading and digesting the Wolfson doc you'll very quickly gain some more
> background information.
>
> Enjoy.
Methinks
soundcheck wrote:
>
> I'm just saying that measurements and conclusions related to the
> digital domain of the OP are wrong and misleading. A different thing are
> his analog domain (DAC outputs) measurements. Perhaps not perfect, but
> usually good enough to be relevant. Though also with those
An example of what looks like upsampled SACDs out there. Unlike video
where you can see the difference between Blu-Rays and DVDs quite
obviously, you can't with audio. Many of the SACDs (and by extension
ripped DSD64 files from these sources) are upsampled...
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/07/
Leica wrote:
> The FLAC compression isn't working too well. My compressed bitrates are
> around 5500Mbps and this is with FLAC 1.21 set to level 8, the highest
> compression. The saving from ISO is negligible. Are SACD ISOs already
> compressed?
That's what I found as well. Only about 20-30% sav
SBGK wrote:
> based on your measurements, you seem happy for Mynb to draw the
> conclusion that
>
> "..and thats why I think the unmodded Touch is a sufficiently good
> transport for any and all systems and listeners , It's "limitation" to
> only 24/96 is of no particular concern either ."
>
>
soundcheck wrote:
> Comment:
>
> What you measure is your measurement DAC (e.g. WM8805 ) receivers
> capability to cope with the incoming signal.
>
> The better the audio DACs digital interface, with all its error
> corrections implemented, the better the source issues will be
> suppressed.
>
Another MUSINGS post...
Most folks here will know about this already. Wanted to answer a
question asked by a reader and put an opinion out there...
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/07/musings-is-cd-sound-quality-1644-pcm.html
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
a
flimflam wrote:
> Hi Archimago
>
> I was asking what the levels of your test signals were, not whether they
> were different for different players.
>
> This was significant for the discussion, which was about Directsound.
Still unclear about the significance of the question.
darrenyeats wrote:
> Archimago,
> Erm ... if I understand your blog correctly this is quite a
> mind-expanding set of evidence! You measured digital transports
> exhibiting distinct frequency responses?! If this is true ... I think
> your explanation about clock -speed- (as o
flimflam wrote:
> These are not your test signals, these are settings and controls for
> your EUT and analyser. (Btw, let's call it 0dB gain rather than 0dB FS.
> the latter is incorrect and may cause misunderstanding - especially in
> this very discussion)
>
>
>
> Now, these are your test sig
flimflam wrote:
> I think ive done my bit already. the horse is at the well :-)
??? Now this is weird...
Remember. The hardware is calibrated at -0.5dBFS so there's no clipping
for the ADC with the gain controls. Software plays at 100% or 0dBFS for
bit-perfection. The rest is automated - there'
flimflam wrote:
> What level were your test signals?
?? Depends on which test you're referring to.
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slim
darrenyeats wrote:
> But I would have thought if there were any differences between players
> (not saying there are) then volume control would be a prime suspect ...
> Darren
>
> Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
Yeah. I was interested in exploring the allegations that bit-perfect
players
Thanks for sharing John! I look forward to hearing your thoughts on
this. You've certainly got a lot of experience in this area so I'll
certainly be giving the suggestions a try listening (as you noted, this
isn't about bit-perfection but rather subjective experience).
Also, thanks for donating y
I believe many folks feel the quality of the
> Windows Mixer has improved over the years.-
>
> Hi Archimago
>
> A lot of hard work and results on your blog, which I enjoyed reading.
>
> I would like to say that, for 'audiophile' use, the 'mixer' in Windows
Mnyb wrote:
> Good article :)
>
> ..and thats why I think the unmodded Touch is a sufficiently good
> transport for any and all systems and listeners , It's "limitation" to
> only 24/96 is of no particular concern either .
>
> If you have ultra expensive high-end the design may be a bit off , b
SBGK wrote:
> how do you calibrate your measurements ? I can quite clearly hear that
> different JPlay engines sound different, but your measurements can't
> differentiate between them. What differences can your measurements
> identify ?
>
> how about testing win 7 vs win 8, they sound different
The round up of Squeezeboxes used as SPDIF transports including the
Receiver, Touch, SB3, Transporter :-).
Some measurable characteristics of SPDIF - jitter, data rate/timing
differences between devices.
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/06/measurements-do-bit-perfect-digital.html
Thanks again
andy_c wrote:
> Archimago, this was a very well-written and well-reasoned article.
> Thanks for posting it.
>
> However, if one were to write a letter to the editor about it, the
> letter might be based on an assumption that the authors of the HFN & RR
> article are
ralphpnj wrote:
> Nicely done, as always! Thanks once again for your excellent and
> unbiased (as in no advertisers to keep happy) work.
Thanks Ralph.
Folks, I've been updating the data on some of the other models as part
of the upcoming look at different transport devices for comparison.
Chec
garym wrote:
> Do you personally prefer the slow roll off? Just curious.
>
> Thanks for the update.
Depends. In general 90%+ I will listen with the "sharp" setting even
with my relatively bright Paradigm Signature S8's.
However, on occasion I will switch over to the slow roll-off when
listeni
A big thank you to fordgtlover!
Here's the data on your Duet...
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/06/measurements-squeezebox-duet-receiver.html
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
---
Julf wrote:
> Great analysis of the problems with the article. You might want to send
> them a link to your blog - it's letters at hifinews.com, with "Sound
> Off" in the subject.
Thanks... I'll think about it :-)
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blo
TGIF!
Hope everyone had a good work week... A blog post on USB cables; that
Hi-Fi News article recently published and mentioned by Mushroom & Julf.
Obviously I cannot comment on every article I think is BS, but thought
I'd take a stab at the USB cable shootout as a contemporary topic so
that it
Julf wrote:
> Unfortunately the objective tests are eye diagrams, but the review isn't
> based on them. No information on the statistics, sample size or actual
> results of their "blind listening".
It's even worse than that IMO!
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
ralphpnj wrote:
> What's to discuss. It's Hi-Fi News so I'm going to go way out on limb
> and predict that the tests finds that the most expensive USB cable from
> their biggest advertiser sounds the best. Wouldn't that be a surprise!!!
True... The twist here is that they claim to have done bli
Hi everyone, I want to thank fordgtlover for sending me the SB Duet
package for testing all the way from Australia! A true gent.
I'm putting together a post to discuss that Hi-Fi News USB Test article
which should be out by the weekend.
Afterwards, I'll put the Duet thru its paces and a round-up
Hey guys.
Interesting. I found out about these feelings between JPLAY and JRiver
on Friday perusing the AudioStream site.
Didn't know it got to the point that the word "hoax" was being tossed
around. No wonder I saw a big jump in the # of hits to the blog after
those JPLAY results were released.
adyc wrote:
> It works with Emmlabs DAC2x USB input.
Haven't tried this yet with my Touch --> TEAC UD-501.
Curious, what kind of % compression are you seeing with DSD data packed
with FLAC? With most DSD files, when I use DST, I'm getting about 50-60%
compression with most orchestral/classical
Something that looks really cool to try for those who have a DSD-capable
DAC with DoP. Too bad the Transporter can't do this or I would
definitely have a go at it in my main system :-)
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/playing-dsd-any-players-including-squeezebox-touch-16346/
garym wrote:
> More great work. Thanks. Are you planning on posting a link to your
> analysis over here:
>
> http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=92856&st=375
Hi garym,
I linked to that topic on HA in my post. I announced the series on
AudioAsylum, Computer Audiophile, and
Finally done - Part II. A detailed look at JPLAY with measurements...
Time to enjoy the warm weather :-)
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/06/measurements-part-ii-bit-perfect.html
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimde
Julf wrote:
> Thanks again - and again, the results are not entirely shocking (apart
> from the possible bug).
I think the most interesting part of this is wondering under what
conditions, something like JPLAY could make a difference...
Also, I find it interesting that people would put trust in
Like for the Mac, here are some measurements for Windows programs. I'm
looking forward to the JPLAY results in Part II probably next week some
times... Gotta lay the framework for more "standard" players first.
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/06/measurements-part-i-bit-perfect.html
--
Mnyb wrote:
> Excellent ! is not the emperors wardrobe quite empty soon :)
:-)
Once I finish the JPLAY test, the closet is looking pretty threadbare I
think... Just in time for summer with the kids and an overseas trip.
fordgtlover is sending me a Receiver to test so I likely will do a
refresh
I don't have a SB Receiver, hence the lack of measurements at this
point...
One thing I will say looking at the spec sheets, the BB PCM 1748 in the
SB3 *could* be better than the Receiver's Wolfson WM8501 assuming the
Wiki is correct. Of course, much of this depends on how the analogue
output is
fordgtlover wrote:
> I have a spare I'd happily ship over to you.
Hi fordgtlover - I'll PM you with info!
Guys, just finished a piece on digital filters - linear phase / minimal
phase / NOS, etc. with graphs and such using my TEAC DAC. Fun
intellectually to think about but I think like many her
fordgtlover wrote:
> I've just read through this entire thread and signed up to thank you for
> all your hard work.
A pleasure! Enjoy.
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this th
Mushroom_3 wrote:
> Archimago,
>
> The cheapest cable was QED Performance @ £18/m. The best "value for
> money" was Chord Silver Plus @ £55/m.
> The other prices were: £48; £139; £182; £60; £95; £70; £125
>
> From what was stated the slowest was 13.5. There wer
Mushroom_3 wrote:
> Maybe he writes for Hi-Fi News and Record Review (the self proclaimed
> oldest hi-fi magazine in the world).
>
> This month's issue has a group test of USB cables. Needless to say the
> most expensive cable, Crystal Absolute Dream (a snip at £6480/m) came
> out top.
>
> Some
Chunkywizard wrote:
> For Wandboard there is one hardware board everyone seems to be using
> (Wandboard dual $99 see Wandboard.org) and one software build
> (communitysqueeze.org). Your best bet would be to borrow one from
> someone close by, where are you based? Are the moment it's just digital
JG Naum wrote:
> Hello Archimago !
>
> Very nice job ! Thanks a lot ! Don't you thing it would be interesting
> to measure also the new SB gear (Wandbord & Rasberry Pi) to see how
> they perform with respect to the official Sbs ?
Sounds like a neat idea. Not su
Curious...
Has anyone tried any measurements on gear with ModWright's tube analogue
output stage? Would love to see what happened to the noise level and
frequency response...
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.
jfo wrote:
> Is your partner allowing you to take your equipment along so you can do
> some more measurements? ;)
Testing I find is a nice distraction in the Man Cave after work and the
kids are down every few days. Definitely not for holiday time :-) .
Actually, I think I'm pretty close to sat
garym wrote:
> And yes, jplay is strange. Most likely audiophile smoke and mirrors.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the belief that low buffer size in
JPLAY somehow makes a difference... I can see how latencies can be
important when mixing or studio work - but with straight playback, why
woul
garym wrote:
> foobar2000 doesn't claim to be audiophile from a sound quality point if
> view. In fact it's FAQ points out that its sound quality should be the
> same as any (non broken) player.
:-)
That's why it's what I use on the PC...
--
Happy Memorial Day long weekend to the American friends!
Gonna go on vacation with the family to San Diego next week so hoping
for some nice sun, heat, good food, etc... compared to Vancouver (not
bad, just not hot enough for me this time of year!).
Anyhow, another blog dropping before I head of
Mnyb wrote:
> ... And your "diff" is very likely limitation in the test method and
> some random noise.
>
> You forgot to mention one cause of confusion in the blog , replay gain
> tags ! WAV does not have but other formats can have it .
Yes. There will always be a bit of noise measuring the an
Julf wrote:
> I am relieved to see that Claude Shannon (and pretty much every
> information scientist after him) was right after all. News at 11... :)
Claude Elwood Shannon (April 30, 1916 February 24, 2001), RIP.
Hey, it's 2013 we need to be reminded of first principles once awhile.
:-)
--
A straight forward DiffMaker test... I think the conclusions are quite
clear!
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05/measurements-do-lossless-compressed.html
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?user
Figured it was time to look into the DiffMaker software. With a bit of
trial and error, got this working quite well with my gear with good
reliability.
Will allow me to measure with standard musical content and monitor how
close hardware/software changes the analogue output... I can see some
meas
Mnyb wrote:
> The uatenuated grunge >fs may aliase or fold down to the audiable range
> ?
> Affect downstream equipment ?
>
> Maybe the old multibit converters usually used in NOS design has some
> properties that the TEAC can't emulate in its faux " NOS mode"
Who knows... Certainly the measur
Mnyb wrote:
> Hmm :)
>
> The filter is a part of the reconstruction of the signal ? if that works
> all is well acording the sample theorem .
>
> So audiophiles with NOS dacs want a technologie that breaks the sample
> theorem ? and fullfils the myth that higher sample rates are needed ?
> :con
Julf wrote:
> Excellent! Thanks!
>
> One small wish - I would love to be able to subscribe to your blog
> updates. Any chance of 'enabling RSS on your blog pages'
> (http://support.google.com/blogger/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=41450&topic=12455&ctx=topic)?
The RSS widget should be visible now..
DSD Tests out... Enjoy :-)
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05/measurements-teac-ud-501-dsd-performance.html
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread: http://forums.slimde
ralphpnj wrote:
> Great work, as always. In there any chance that Keaton I. Goulden-Eyre
> III, Esq. might weigh in with some insightful words on the Teac,
> particularly the three filter settings?
Keaton was over last night listening to the TEAC. Sadly he knew of my
PCM measurement results alre
Wombat wrote:
> I am no expert but the filters should be pretty similar for up and
> downsampling. The tradeoffs are pretty similar also. I don't know a
> recording with high samplerate to test with that has similar bad dr
> numbers as the ones Archimago used for upsample tes
Hey boys, just put up the PCM measurements. Some pleasantly surprising
results for "stair-stepped PCM" lovers :-)
Initial impressions & subjective:
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05/initial-impressions-teac-ud-501-usb-dac.html
PCM measurements:
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05/measurement
Wombat wrote:
> To bad now several people that claimed the DAC1 sounds sterile and
> lacking of good sound just link to such results showing clipping.
> On the other hand Benchmark marketing deserves a compliment on this
> improvement for the DAC2 and giving reason for an upgrade.
Planned obsole
Julf wrote:
> 'Wine tasting is bullshit'
> (http://io9.com/wine-tasting-is-bullshit-heres-why-496098276)
Wow.
OMG, pate vs. dog food? Now these are *serious* blind testers!
http://www.wine-economics.org/workingpapers/AAWE_WP36.pdf
--
Wombat wrote:
> Thank you! Would be interesting why SoX does so bad because it is
> perfect at downsampling. I also wonder how many devices offered in the
> past did really bad upsampling while called high-end audiophile. On the
> other side squarewaves are not exactly music so this all is very
>
darrenyeats wrote:
> Well ferreted Archimago. Am I right to conclude the volume reduction
> lets the ASRC/upsampling work with minimal impact, then?
> Darren
Yes Darren,
That's what I'm able to demonstrate with the Teac's 24/192 upsampling. A
-3dB attenuation will allo
Julf wrote:
> Not true! There are all those sharp square bit-shaped steps in the
> signal. And anyway, you can't get the timing more precise than a sample
> interval!
>
> (yes, purely joking - aren't those the top 2 misconceptions about
> digital?)
At the risk of going off topic... Evidently st
Wombat wrote:
> I don't know how you create these pics. If you do it with DAC output you
> should make sure no further resampling is done and for comparison it
> should be nice to see both results with SoX, one with dither and one
> without. Maybe this hints to something. Sorry if that makes you
Wombat wrote:
> And again i wonder if this is also because of insufficient dither. Can
> you resample that square wave with SoX and force to disable dither to
> see what happens?
The square wave was generated in native 16/44 with Audacity or Audition
(don't remember which one now).
So, basical
cliveb wrote:
> Isn't that Steve Nugent, of Empirical Audio? I've had a run-in with him
> in the past. His main claim to fame seems to be that he was part of the
> team that designed the Intel Pentium CPU.
>
> It seems that he has concluded that his knowledge of how ultra-high
> speed signals wo
Here's we go... Non-integer upsampling of that square wave:
No upsampling - 1.00227kHz square at 0dBFS:
14793
Asynchronous upsampling to 192kHz of same square wave:
14794
Looks kinda like the DAC1, bunch of extra harmonics courtesy of the ASRC
algorithm, not due to volume overload...
Measurem
netchord wrote:
> this is precisely my point. i do want good sound, and could give a fig
> whether it's "accurate" in the engineering sense or not. I've spent
> over 10 years performing real live classical music in major concert
> halls in the UK, France, Italy, Germany, and the US. i know wha
netchord wrote:
> 1. you're sure of this, that no tests exist? i know some very talented
> audio engineers, not wild-eyed audiophiles, who come from decidedly
> different disciplines, working with simple tube circuits, or exotic
> highpowered DSP based systems, who would not agree with you.
>
>
Chrobrego wrote:
> I don't buy the bit-perfect statement as a scientific fact. What about
> the timing in this reasoning? Should we also state that a cd should
> always sound the same in whatever hardware it is read only because it
> contains the same bits in both situations?
>
> The reality is
darrell wrote:
> Oh dear! Amongst the crude insults, there is this gem:
>
> -"Ideal cable geometry for audio use differs from driving monitors.
> Expand your horizons."-
>
> Remember, this is referring to a mains power cable! Somehow, I don't
> think it is worth asking for this statement to be
garym wrote:
> I'm hope you're wearing your flame-proof clothing. They'll attack you
> like you're a crazy person at Audio Asylum. I like the Hoffman forum
> *only* for reading about different albums being released, etc. (but not
> for their knowledge--or lack thereof--regarding digital music.
Julf wrote:
> Too bad we mostly hang out in the "audiophile" section of a forum for a
> discontinued music playing system :)
LOL - good one man :-)
Boys, I'm going try doing my part going more "mainstream"; a couple
posts in the last 24-hours:
Steve Hoffman hardware forum:
http://forums.steveh
ralphpnj wrote:
> Perhaps it's time to change the name of this thread: Real World Audio
> Testing for the Real People Living in the Real World
;-)
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
A few measurements over the weekend with various power cords.
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05/measurements-power-cables-for-low-power.html
Have a good week everyone...
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.c
Wombat wrote:
> Somehow i can´t believe that just comes froms integer/non- integer.
> Isn´t it that you get such spikes as the DAC1 shows when you ignore
> dither?
>
> edit: For example the dithered/non-dithered pics of this SRC
> http://shibatch.sourceforge.net/ssrc/
Maybe... I'll have a loo
Had a look at the effect on the ASUS Essence One which has a "symettric
upsampling" feature. So 44.1kHz material is upsampled 8x to 352.8kHz.
No upsampling - square wave, 0dBFS, 1.00227 kHz:
14787
With 8x upsampling - square wave, 0dBFS, 1.00227 kHz:
14788
Nice :-)
Harmonics remain clean and I
Julf wrote:
> And even if you hit that very special +11 dB beast, all that happens is
> that you clip one sample period. How much clipping was there in that
> Iggy recording again? :)
Yup. And since we're upsampling, the duration of that sample period is
even briefer.
-
darrenyeats wrote:
> Archimago,
> As mentioned on PFM, try the track I Can Talk by Two Door Cinema Club
> from the album Tourist History. DR4 with one inter-sample peak of +1.4b
> and a very large number of peaks at about plus half a decibel.
> Darren
>
> Sent from my Nexus
Gandhi wrote:
> Regarding cable directionality, my analog electronics teacher a loong
> time ago taught me the following. In a shielded signal cable, the shield
> is only connected in one end to avoid a ground loop, which otherwise
> might result in hum. The best noise suppression is achieved whe
Hi guys, I wanted to quickly see how much headroom is needed for
probably the loudest clipped/compressed/limited track I have in my
collection to examine the effect in real "music". From the Iggy & The
Stooges album "Raw Power".
darrell wrote:
> Hmmm... I think I understand that on the surface of it, the left-right
> issue might be caused by the lack of an electrical connection between
> the two components, but on the other hand, wouldn't special audiophile
> quantum tunnelling effects ensure that the music still got thr
netchord wrote:
> well, SC is converting ALAC to FLAC using faad/sox, so i guess the
> difference I'm hearing is actually between FLAC and AIFF, both of which
> are converted natively by the TP.
>
> and would it surprise you to learn i hear a difference between wired and
> wireless to the TP, an
darrell wrote:
> Good piece!
>
> Your experiment in using one half of an analogue interconnect as a
> coaxial digital cable is particularly interesting to me, as I use one
> half of a 3 or 4 metre analogue interconnect to connect my Touch to my
> DAC, because it's the only cable I own which is l
My opinion piece on digital cables (but much applies to analogue as
well). This one could make some folks unhappy!
TGIF!
Enjoy the weekend, everyone!
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05/musings-audiophile-digital-cables.html
---
darrenyeats wrote:
> Chaps,
> Think about it, even the DAC2 does not accommodate -arbitrarily large-
> peaks. The HA thread indicates some are up to 11db and a BM guy pops up
> saying you can get more than 3.5db headroom by not maxing the volume.
>
> That right there tells us not to assume anyth
Julf wrote:
> Yes, but any DSP operation can result in overflow, and that has to be
> accounted for. I would call performing DSP operations without checking
> for overflow a design error. Sounds a bit funny to promote lack of that
> particular design error as a special feature.
That's what I was
OK. Let's finish off the cable measurement series. Analogue
interconnects on offer today to demonstrate the difference compared to
digital cables.
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05/measurements-analogue-rca-interconnects.html
--
Jeff52 wrote:
> Where in the heck are your listening notes? A review without listening
> notes from your golden ears is not complete. Dammit Archimago, I was
> really looking forward to your comparison based upon selected recordings
> and how it relates to your reference system. :) B
cliveb wrote:
> Ouch - I suggest you re-read that sentence and consider how it could be
> interpreted in a manner I'm sure you didn't mean!
>
> And make sure your wife never sees the post - you know how women have a
> habit of reading the worst into what we men say.
Dang it... You quoted me so
601 - 700 of 1074 matches
Mail list logo
