ralphpnj wrote:
> Nice, however the results are worthless because you failed to include
> the Audioquest - Diamond Optilink Cable ($489/0.75m
> http://www.musicdirect.com/p-58031-audioquest-diamond-optilink-cable.aspx)
> which we all know will easily outperform any el-cheapo cable based on
> all
Julf wrote:
> Sure - but first I would like to verify that one actually can tell the
> difference. No point looking for the cause of a problem if the problem
> doesn't exist.
True... Just pointing out the obvious conclusion of such claims as well
;-)
---
Julf wrote:
> So, switching back to FLAC, as the Coke analogy doesn't work... We
> aren't saying you can't. All we are saying is that it is rather unlikely
> that what you are hearing is a real difference, and it is much more
> likely that you are influenced by expectation bias or other perceptua
Just posted my measurements of TosLink digital cables on the blog...
No real surprises. Bits are bits!
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05/measurements-toslink-optical-audio.html
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimde
Quad wrote:
> I have a question for you guys: ralphpnj, Julf, Mnyb, Archimago, mlsstl
> (order is not important)
>
> Do you think you are able to discern Diet Coke and Coke?
>
> Almost everyone claims to be able to identify them but the majority
> can't. Many tests ha
netchord wrote:
> perhaps you'd have a point if the results were random, meaning i
> randomly preferred one format over the other. but that's not the case;
> I routinely prefer AIF over ALAC. there are times when the differences
> are small, if any, but where there's an audible difference, the
darrenyeats wrote:
> Archimago,
> Ok, I now understand your criticism of Rockwell's analysis. Good point
> well demonstrated. It explains the Sony.
>
> The Benchmark results with strong spurs across the whole spectra at
> -60db, are still distinctly worse than the di
Wombat wrote:
> The legendary pre-ringing is something that should be a non-issue with
> DACs that work correctly.
> Once there were some false implemented hardware that caused
> intermodulation of the pre-ringing into the audible band. This is no
> problem anymore.
> Unfortunately it is easy to
darrenyeats wrote:
> Archimago,
> Did both your examples use square waves with 0db peaks? The screenshot's
> a bit fuzzy.
>
> I thought the fact the DAC1 uses ASRC for jitter would mean integer
> multiples are irrelevant. Hmm.
>
> Thanks,
> Darren
>
> S
VirusKiller wrote:
> Just stumbled on this thread :)
>
> I'm currently using -a (allow aliasing), 85.0 to get the most shallow
> drop-off SoX will allow, and a gain of -2.75 to avoid clipping in most
> situations. The replaygain keyword isn't necessary.
>
> I have started writing my own up-samp
darrenyeats wrote:
> Archimago, you may want to look again at the PFM thread since there has
> been a bit of question-and-answer! Also screenshots.
> Darren
Thanks Darren.
I've tried some preliminary tests. I'm actually not sure what Rockwell
is getting at with the overs
Mnyb wrote:
>
> Did not archimago actually measured this ? WAV and FLAC actually
> produces exactly the same output.
>
A good example of this was in the TT3 mod measurements:
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/measurements-logitech-touch-tt3-mod.html
Stock Touch was with FLAC
This guy has posted some good articles on the CA site. Had to post a
thank you personally!
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/520-fun-digital-audio-%96-bit-perfect-audibility-testing/
For him, audibility threshold from 10-12 bits and 1 dB volume. Sounds
very reasonable, unlike apparently
netchord wrote:
> of course not- I'm only trying to underscore that *in a given system*
> differences in file type might be audible. the consensus from the rest
> of you seems to be that ALAC, AIFF, WAVE, FLAC will always sound the
> same, no matter the system.
>
> i don't believe the latter st
netchord wrote:
> no; that one system will sound different to two people.
True...
But that's such a broad generalization, doesn't this also mean that
there's no point doing any objective or subjective reviews at all if at
the end of the day, "good" sound is essentially idiosyncratic?
probedb wrote:
> One of the best replies:
>
> "If you don't hear USB cable differences your system is not up to task.
> "
:-)
The best audiophile response as always... For digital cables, because
they really have nothing else to complain of it essentially comes down
to ONE thing:
"If you don't
darrenyeats wrote:
> See my post here.
>
> http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=137152
>
> Regards, Darren
>
> Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2
Thanks Darren. I like the comment about overshoot handling. Will need to
have a look at this when I do my measurement
ralphpnj wrote:
> They're not bullets they're "Enigma Tuning Circuits" which is just about
> the most honest name for any piece of audio voodoo I've ever seen.
>
Bah... You say "Tuning Circuit", I say "Bullet"... Either way, the
dreaded Dracula... err... Jitter is dead. ;-)
--
castalla wrote:
> At least, it doesn't have the disastrous consequences of the ADE
> detector gizmo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 !!!
Yeah... At least... Also thankfully it's at least not $60,000 either...
Archi
ralphpnj wrote:
> The wonderful world of high end audio just never ceases to amaze and
> amuse me.
>
> http://www.audiostream.com/content/usb-cable-shootout
>
> Enjoy!
:-)
Love those Synergistic tuning bullets!
A couple years back knew a guy with some Synergistic speaker cables who
thought t
EricBergan wrote:
>
> What I'm really seeing is that neither TAS nor Stereophile really have a
> truly digital-savvy editor, so no one challenges what the authors, or
> letter writers, submit. I mean, let's face it, publishing a letter that
> basically says that in a rigorous test, sonic charact
Oi.
Speaking of those TAS computer audio articles from early 2012, does
anyone subscribe and know if there were many nasty letters to the editor
on all that craziness (or would they not even print critical letters)?
Archim
ralphpnj wrote:
> Thank you Keaton for your kind words and the link to Sakura Systems. The
> money in my wallet needs to find a new home.
>
Of course.
Cheers,
Keaton I G-E III, Esq.
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.sl
Here are a couple more very recent examples:
http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/index.php?search_artist=p%21nk&search_album=the+truth+about+love
http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/index.php?search_artist=depeche+mode&search_album=delta+machine
Unless you bought the vinyl or ripped the LP, it's impossib
Mnyb wrote:
> Yes , but the die yards can just dimmis it by saying that a mess of low
> price cable is no better than one low price cable .
>
> Hence , me thinking it would be a gem to have something cherished and
> well praised in the so called " audio press" .
>
> In fact I would not be surpr
the simplicity of truth" I was
> visibly shaken, the words hit me so hard.
>
> What I can say is thank you and damn you Archimago - thank you for
> opening my eyes to the existence of this wonderful cable but on the
> other hand damn you for for now causing me to put all my other
Mnyb wrote:
> Please can some AA ( anynomous audiophiles ) member donate a silly
> expensive digital coax cable to Archimago :)
> Or an super expensive USB .
>
> When I was riddled by this disorder , I never really subscribed to super
> expensive digital cables , so the ones
Julf wrote:
> Very enjoyable. I just have to point out on error - there is no way
> anyone could get a laboratory space in Akihabara
> these days.
>
> Anyway, I warmly recommend a subscription of 'The Chap Magazine'
> (http://thechapmagazine.co.uk/).
I hear he inherited it :-)
Will ask Keaton
Hello dear audiophiles, my "friend" Keaton decreed that he contribute to
my blog with a recent coaxial SPDIF cable review.
As it is Friday afternoon, I wish every one a good (hopefully relaxing)
weekend!
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/04/guest-review-measurements-dr-franks.html
Enjoy :-)
mlsstl wrote:
> I'd disagree. The modern fad of having the peaks at 0 dB has nothing to
> do with maximizing dynamic range. It's simply to make the CD sound as
> loud as possible.
True. However I'm not referring to extreme compression and limiting...
If they did that to the 2009 remasters, there
darrenyeats wrote:
> Let's say my standard assumption that this was a different master
> doesn't apply; then such a conversion would have been from 24 bit to 16
> bit, I think ... or, conspiracy theory!
> Darren
That's why my suspicion is that they *purposely* did a decrease in
volume from 24-bi
darrenyeats wrote:
> My working assumption is that different resolution releases are mastered
> (perhaps slightly) differently until I have concrete information.
> Darren
You could be right, Darren. Who knows other than the folks who worked
on this.
But one wonders though - why would they do t
heisenberg wrote:
> Little if any difference between the 16 and 24 bit releases? I disagree.
> Listen to "Words of Love" from "Beatles for Sale", for example. On the
> CD version (16 bit), the hand clapping sounds like two wooden blocks
> hitting each other. On the 24 bit version, the hand clappi
heisenberg wrote:
> Little if any difference between the 16 and 24 bit releases? I disagree.
> Listen to "Words of Love" from "Beatles for Sale", for example. On the
> CD version (16 bit), the hand clapping sounds like two wooden blocks
> hitting each other. On the 24 bit version, the hand clappi
Mnyb wrote:
> Oooh cant you borrow one of those 5000$ usb cables ;)
Maybe... I'll have to ask friends if they still have one for me to
borrow (of course they might not want to - they'd probably rather sell
it first than see the results on the Internet!). Dealerships have really
gone down around
A promo interview on these vinyl releases:
http://www.examiner.com/article/interview-beatles-mastering-engineer-says-vinyl-set-closer-to-original-sound
They were sourced from the 24-bit digital but says nothing about the
sample rate. Some speculate that they were 192kHz digital source.
In any e
A look at some USB cables. Might as well... :-)
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/04/measurements-usb-cables-for-dacs.html
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread: http://
Mnyb wrote:
> There are however excellent reasons to use lossles files anyway .
Yes. Completely agree.
Let me be clear. Although I do not believe there is significant
perceivable difference between good MP3 and lossless (for the majority
of listeners), I'm an advocate of archiving in FLAC and o
Lots of good discussion here already.
2009 Beatles USB "hi-res" 24/44 was ~0.35dB or so louder in many tracks
compared to the equivalent 16/44 CD release.
High quality MP3 sounds very close if not identical to lossless 16/44...
If you missed it, there was the blind MP3 vs. lossless test from
ear
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
> Sounds good, but all you guys have more pricey equipment than mine :-)
> Sometimes I feel, you, Mynb, ralph and others are colluding to make
> sure only you guys have good sounding equipment and others languish is
> low-price mid-fi hell :-)
I don't think that's necess
SBGK wrote:
> the problem is your measurements don't account for the empirical
> evidence of changes to sound caused by any number of factors.
> ...
Are you talking about uncontrolled listening for probably subtle
differences as "empirical evidence of changes"?
---
garym wrote:
> Agree. We are particularly falling behind in the sciences, with the
> possible exception of phd training.
I believe this is a reasonable assessment for Canada as well. (I have a
university appointment and teaching responsibilities there...)
--
Mnyb wrote:
> Not quite like that the DAC's may offcourse be different but anything
> goes as a transport to the DAC given its async USB2 ?
>
> I think that's the piont if don't misread this article, the DAC
> performed identically with all async USB sources . Another DAC may be
> slightly diffe
Mnyb wrote:
> Thankyou for the extended info , the only record I knew of that recorded
> with the 3M system was Ry Cooders "Jazz" .
> Was it not 14 bits ?
You might be right, I'll have to double check on this... Been awhile
since I read about it...
Hey guys,
Another blog post up for this week... Measured some of my laptops!
Native built-in DAC, adaptive USB1 DAC, asynchronous CM6631 USB-SPDIF.
Bottom line: No voodoo. Computer audio can be complicated but so long as
the software player & drivers are bit-perfect, and you don't have noise
pol
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
> :-) right. I should know .. I write streaming code . But is it possible
> for you to measure jitter when the wifi is < 40% ? it'd still play
> nicely but I want to see whether there is any change in the jitter spec.
> Really, appreciate that and thanks so much .
So lets
bakker_be wrote:
> a side by side comparison of redbook & DSD, with some quite valid
> obsrvations IMO, especially the conclusion :)
> http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2013/04/auralic-vega-dsd-review/
Yeah, I think the review is generally "fair". The DAC also looks very
nice!
However, I would
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
> @Archimago - when you did the jitter test for wired/wireless, do you
> remember or have noted the signal strength. Looks like anything less
> than 50% seems not good for jitter. I think I can even hear it, but not
> so sure. I just added a repeater and c
darrenyeats wrote:
> I was criticised on this very forum for writing about differences I
> heard in power supplies for my SB3. It's actually quite frustrating when
> people give technical arguments for why your own experience is "wrong"
> (when actually no experience is wrong--see next post) so I
cliveb wrote:
> This is getting out of hand. Let me try and draw an analogy.
>
> The way that different people subjectively react to sound
> characteristics is like the way that men react to women. In an objective
> sense there is little to choose between, say, Scarlett Johansson and
> Natalie P
jh901 wrote:
> Well, your view is based on no experience, but rather a bizarre "wish",
> whereas mine is grounded in both personal observation AND views of
> professionals AND views of informed consumers. I don't know why you
> cannot grasp the fact that both the power supply and the analog outp
Archimago wrote:
> True, impossible to overcome limitations on the original recording.
>
> Also, I have come across a Hoffman remaster that was strangely
> overcompressed - can't remember which is it now, but I remember being a
> bit surprised about it since it was atypic
Wombat wrote:
> Thanks ralphpnj, you pretty much summed it up.
> Just try one of his latest things like "Yes, Close To The Edge" .I
> really don´t know what is high resolution or great sounding with it. You
> can only get with some fiddling a version that sounds ok and natural but
> never you wil
Quad wrote:
> I would love doing this! I invite you all to come over to my place for
> an afternoon blind testing session. I'm serious, this could be fun.
> (Although, an afternoon just listening to music with my current system
> might be even more fun.)
>
> ;-)
Sounds good... Will have to par
Mnyb wrote:
> Are there any good review of the Hegel with a complete set of
> measurements ?
>
> I find thier data a bit strange and atypical ?
>
> Noise floor: Typically -145 dB
> Distortion: Typical 0,0006%
>
> ...
Wow. Even Chord dares only advertise 140dB dynamic range [see the
Stereophil
ralphpnj wrote:
> "Other than as a feature to hype up the new DAC's" - that says it all.
>
> The best thing about the current DSD craze is just how clearly it
> exposed the link between the high end audio press and their puppet
> masters, i.e. their advertisers and the manufacturers. So while I
Quad wrote:
> I hate doing this. I'm afraid of the reactions. Be nice to me ;-)
> ...
>
No worries man. Your comments on the importance of testing for yourself
is important and key.
We all have different systems and the variables involved in the final
output can lead to unpredictable results.
Mnyb wrote:
> +1 nice blog well thought out , it does not really add anything we dont
> already have , good morning btw (07:20 here) time for - some music in
> whatever format- to the coffee :)
Happy Sunday, sir. It's still 22:30 Saturday night in this part of the
world... Just right for dim l
Well, after measuring the Oppo in DSD mode and doing the writeup, I
couldn't help but put together a few thoughts about DSD in general...
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/04/musings-on-sacd-dsd-audio.html
Enjoy the rest of your weekend everyone :-)
Mnyb wrote:
> Cool , when I replace my blue ray player I know where to look the oppo
> people seems to actually know a thing or two about how to do this .
> Impressive how they actually made this a mass-market product :) oppo
> sells a lot of players over the net , you never see them in stores wh
Julf wrote:
> Related to this?
>
> 'Musical Provenance: Tracking the Tracks, by Mark Waldrep'
> (http://www.audiostream.com/content/musical-provenance-tracking-tracks-mark-waldrep)?
Nice. Seems like a good "no nonsense" guy.
Went back to my friend's place to check out Oppo's beta DSD firmware:
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/04/measurements-oppo-bdp-105-does-dsd.html
Good to finally get some measurements from a "pure" DSD playback
system...
Hey guys, was stroll the magazine racks this evening and looked at the
most recent (I think) The Absolute Sound. Essentially the last page
where Neil Gader interviews Mark Waldrep of AIX Records.
Waldrep clearly talks about vinyl as "standard definition" and mentions
the technical limitations as
darrenyeats wrote:
> Good point ... any examples?
> Darren
In terms of examples where the vinyl mastering clearly sounds better,
many of the recent pop / rock albums present reasonable examples:
fun. - Some Nights (CD DR6, vinyl DR10)
P!nk - The Truth About Love (CD DR6, vinyl DR10)
Depeche Mode
Did it work? How does it sound???
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98410
___
Julf wrote:
> Unfortunately they seem to be subscriber-only. But the results seem to
> be typical. Here are some other ones:
>
> 'hi-fi world: cartridge tests'
> (http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/vinyl-lp/70-tests/103-cartridge-tests.html?showall=1).
Thanks! Nice summary article. Since I was never
darrenyeats wrote:
> I don't follow this conversation. The pre-ringing in modern DACs is
> really really tiny. You're saying you can hear this?
> Darren
>
> Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2
No, I don't think he's claiming this... It was just a hypothesis and one
which I agree i
Julf wrote:
> Agree. I was just reading the review of a pretty high-end pick-up
> cartridge that the reviewer really praised - but the review actually
> included measurements as well. Almost brickwall-like drop at 20 kHz, up
> to 3% harmonic distortion...
Ouch!
Are those measurements on line? W
Interesting commentary of the whole vinyl phenomenon from someone with
some background from the looks of it:
http://www.avclub.com/articles/has-the-vinyl-revival-gone-too-far,93610/
Interesting comment about sound quality:
"Owning a decent turntable does not turn your ears into trembling
flowers,
mlsstl wrote:
> I'd forgotten that I'd recommended that CD previously. I've got a lot of
> music that I think is well-recorded, but every now and then one just
> jumps out at me. This is one of those.
Actually I think you just recommended it once before on here (not "a
number of times" as I had
Wombat wrote:
> No, pre-ringing for sure doesn´t delay any sounds in the clearly audible
> range with a normal acting linear filter. If anything smears or alters
> that behaviour it must be some non-linear nonsense that alters lower
> frequencies.
Good point...
Quad wrote:
> Or explained as a consequence.
>
> On the Touch I have to listen with higher volumes in order to achieve a
> nice sound stage, because it is somehow overshadowed by upper-mids and
> treble. With louder passages, this can lead to a slightly screaming
> impression.
>
> While on the
mlsstl wrote:
>
> On a closing note, I'll just throw out a nomination for one of the most
> natural and excellent recordings I think I've heard. That's the Great
> American Main Street Band's "Silks & Rags" (Angel CD, 1991). It's the
> music of Scott Joplin and other American composers of the er
Quad wrote:
> I still don't have an optical cable. But I A-B-testet:
>
> - Touch -> coax -> M51
> - foobar -> HDMI -> M51
>
> The M51 has one volume control for all inputs and I couldn't measure the
> db-level due to the lack of a pressure meter.
>
> While these are not optimal double blind co
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
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
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.
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
> Note, the comparison with Touch -
> http://www.the-ear.net/review-hardware/nad-m50-m52-streamer-server
Thanks for the link... A few choice quotes:
"You could either work with a Logitech Squeezebox or you had to look for
high end solutions like dedicated music servers w
Quad wrote:
> I have posted 4 ABX logs so far. No. 1 and 4 are done with Roll, Roll,
> Roll. But no. 2 is a track from a Händel Organ Concerto and no.3 is a
> guitar tune by Fernando Sor.
>
> Just the last one was hi-res. The others were all 16/44 for Flac and
> MP3.
That's really good!
You sh
garym wrote:
> seems clear that you can distinguish well with this track. But you
> yourself have noted why this might be the case for this particular
> track. There have always been problem tracks that people can tell
> differences in. And by "problem track" I just mean a track with
> something
Quad wrote:
> Even harder, but still discernible.
>
> The original here is 24/192 while the MP3 is 24/48, downsampled with the
> built-in foobar SRC. I might hear the donwsampling algorithm and not the
> codec.
Quad, why don't you try downsampling with the best downsampler you have
to 16/44 and
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
> I have some test tracks (Chesky, I think) which have recordings of
> instruments at different distances from the mic. It also has instruments
> at different height relative to the mic. I or in my system I dont think
> I can notice the height very well. But the distance i
Quad wrote:
> Here's a first log of this morning. Not quite as good as yesterday, but
> still obvious.
>
> I'm somehow flabbergasted.
That's pretty good Quad. Wondering what settings/program you used for
MP3 encoding?
I have that album so will have a good listen to the song myself...
---
Waldo Pepper wrote:
> Nah. Waste of time. I found it sounded even better by typing the hex
> straight into a hex editor and saving that as a kernal. The sound was
> much more warmer with added colour in the bass.
That's pure BS Waldo and you know it! Hex coding sounded prickly as
hell with all
ralphpnj wrote:
> Wow! You posted something that I almost completely agree with. As I
> wrote several posts ago (and was promptly ignored) if pro-audio is so
> great why do most modern recordings sound so bad?
>
I'll take option 3:
It sounds bad by design - nothing to do with pro-gear, audiophi
garym wrote:
> Strangely enough, every decade of my life I've enjoyed more than the
> last. I'm in my late 50s now and having a better time than ever. Can't
> do some of the things I did in my 20s, but I'm doing things now that I
> could never AFFORD to do in my 20s and 30s. Each age has its pro
garym wrote:
> just in case I experience greater differences between lossless and mp3
> when I'm older, it's a good thing I rip everything to FLAC. Ooops,
> wait a minuteI'm already pretty damn old...I was buying Beatles
> songs on 45 records *when originally released!* ;-)
Hey, I'm envio
Julf wrote:
> Interestingly, it seems that older people with damaged hearing are more
> likely to hear differences between mp3 and lossless, as the masking
> works less well as the hearing range of the ear gets narrower and more
> selective.
Quite possible Julf although I haven't seen experiment
garym wrote:
> No, I'm talking about tests with people that have good systems and do
> care. Obviously there are probably millions of people who are perfectly
> happy with 128kbps lossy files. That's not the target group I'm
> referring to. And please don't play "well I guess if you can't hear t
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
> Ok, this is a better way of saying than jumping the gun and deciding I
> need a transport with less jitter (mea culpa :-) ) . Inspired by
> Archimago, I threw away the TT tweak on my Touch, but later I went back
> to it, because I felt I was missing the reso
callesoroe wrote:
> What I meant was that you need to have good source material to reveal
> the differences. A bad recording compressed and mastered to death in the
> studio, then I agree it is difficult to hear the difference(if any). But
> when the source material is great, the you will certanl
callesoroe wrote:
> My only evidence is that the data of the original music file has been
> dramatic reduced, and that is very audible in my setup. And I am NOT a
> cable freak og
> anything like that. The differences is just so big, that I can not
> understand if anyone should have problems tel
Quad wrote:
> I've always tried to be an enlightened audiophile. I won't do double
> blind tests myself because I'm too lazy, but I usually trust those tests
> and I think they are a good way to find out if something is audible or
> not.
>
> I'm 36 years old and here is what I claim to be able t
SBGK wrote:
>
> I would be worried if I couldn't tell the difference between wav of any
> resolution and 320 mp3, that's like saying you can't tell the difference
> between medium wave radio/internet stream and FM radio.
OMG. Not *THAT* again!
-
New blog post with some measurement of a later version of the PS1
(SCPH-5501) compared to what Stereophile did back in 2008. My dad had
one he was using over the last few years as a music player...
Mid-90's 1-bit PS1 AK4301 DAC with some comparison to the TDA1543 NOS
DAC...
http://archimago.blog
Just a reminder to those unfamiliar with the Dunn J-Test.
Remember that if you're looking at the 16/44 version like the graphs
posted by tpaxadpom above from his AP2722, most of the peaks are the
jitter modulation signal. Here is what an "ideal" 16/44 J-Test should
look like:
14642
Of course the
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
> Looks like the jitter sidebands are way below 100db in most of the DACs.
> Does that mean we don't hear jitter at that level or is it some other
> distortion/parameters in the DAC that is responsible for the sound other
> than jitter ? (there are examples of DAC with hig
ralphpnj wrote:
> Welcome aboard, Nick
>
> I'm glad to read that Archimago's hard work is paying off. I think a
> thread of high resolution music recommendations is in order for the
> Music section, it could turn out to be very popular.
Yup, welcome Nick!
Hey, Ralph, why don't you start us off
701 - 800 of 1074 matches
Mail list logo
