Here's something a little different... Custom SACD-R and DVD-A disks
used to measure my old Pioneer DV-588A DVD/DVD-A/SACD universal
player.
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/03/measurements-pioneer-dv-588a-dvd-and.html
I don't think the conclusions are all that surprising but it was a fun
Mnyb wrote:
Archimago , I do have a theory about why the upsampling behaves so weird
on your DAC , it's intentional otherwise no one would hear any
difference when pressing that button :) and users would complain .
I thought about that possibility as well when testing the ASUS Essence
One
Mnyb wrote:
5. I'm not entirely convinced about the apodising fad even I do own
Meridian equipment , pre ringin is another jitter I think .
A. Is not so that the ringin is at frequencies 20kHz and would not be a
problem anyway ?
B.Is what people are hearing reallythe artefacts of the
ralphpnj wrote:
Regarding AudioQuest, Monster, Crystal - you guys interested? - Are
you serious? That's like asking Exxon-Mobil to help fund a series on
climate change. Remember: always follow the money!
Of course I was suggesting this in jest. I always find it hilarious in
some of the ads
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Archimago, as mentioned earlier. This is not the jitter characteristic
of the computer output but that of the receiver chip in Aune X1. You
need a simple DAC with only a PLL to measure the actual jitter, It is
quite possible that jitter is affected by what is going
ralphpnj wrote:
Audiophile digital audio flow chart/time line:
Middle aged audiophile would like to get in on the computer based audio
revolution and being an audiophile he only buys the best so therefore
the computer he owns is a Mac, since Macs are the best computers. From
here it all
Wombat wrote:
This is really becoming very entertaining in here! Thanks for the show
Archimago!!
Interesting someone that is not prone to hear terrific paranormal things
is backing some things up with measurements and more. The Clowns (as
ralphpnj calls them) often only use even more woozy
Wombat wrote:
Good idea! We only need some cool folks that travel the world in good
old Mythbusters (Earbusters) style :)
Any bored but cool ultra-rich reading this that want to travel the world
for audition tests?
Nice concept. Of course if we wanted to make it entertaining reality
TV, we
ralphpnj wrote:
If Archimago wrote for any of the audio magazines then he would hear
massive, as in night and day, differences in the sound. Remember every
jitter bit counts!
Yeah... Massive... The sky opened, veils were removed, soundstage
widened/deepened, speakers were like 20ft tall, I
Yay, got my 2x 5' AES/EBU digital cables the other day. Yup, the
AES/EBU's work better than TosLink in the jitter domain...
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/03/measurements-transporter-toslink-vs.html
Archimago's
garym wrote:
Nice work on Transporter measurements Archimago (and other things you've
measured). I've always been very happy with my Transporter.
Thanks. Even though it's been said that the AES/EBU interface isn't as
good as BNC, I gotta admit that what I'm seeing is pretty damn good
A look at asynchronous USB vs. old school adaptive USB. Also more
discussion about IMO the insignificance of jitter even with high CPU
load...
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/03/measurements-adaptive-aune-x1.html
Gonna definitely take a break from audio measurements for now and just
listen to
ralphpnj wrote:
Must be that el-cheap Ethernet cable that you're using that changed the
ps to an ns, you know the same kind of cable that induces jitter.
Dammit... You're right! I better call the local dealer tomorrow and get
myself some AudioQuest Diamond Ethernet cables. While I do that,
Julf wrote:
See, maybe, but hear? I doubt it :)
The big benefit of toslink is of course the galvanic isolation. Hard to
have ground loops over fibre :)
Agree. I AB listened +/-2ns jitter in place with the DEQ2496 and did not
hear a problem at all. However, it should be interesting to see
ralphpnj wrote:
Last night was I thinking (I know I shouldn't think because it only
causes trouble) about the above jitter measurements and I was wondering
what, if any, jitter is present when streaming audio, either via WiFi or
Ethernet, and using the Touch's or the Transporter's internal
ralphpnj wrote:
Key word the above quote: measures
However I would be much more interested to find out how better, if any,
the ESS Sabre32 DAC actually -*sounds.-*
Don't know about the BDP-103, but the 105 sounds great to my ears.
If/when my Panasonic Blu-Ray dies, it'd sure be on my list
ralphpnj wrote:
So sure measure has much you can but listen as well and understand that
some measurements really don't mean all that much. This obsession with
jitter kind of reminds me of the obsession with tweeters that can
reproduce 50Khz tones - great but NO ONE can hear 50kHz tones
that you've
since recovered :)
Not sure about recovery - that would imply the possibility of a
cure... Maybe temporary remission for now :-)
Hello Audiophiles Anonymous, my name is Archimago, I am an audiophile...
It has been 3 weeks, 2 days, and 7 hours since I last worried about
jitter in my system
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
@Archimago - you are doing a great service in the understanding of the
issues in high-fidelity music reproduction. We just cannot rely only on
audiophile mag/webzines. It also encourages people (like me) to be more
technically involved in this hobby. That said, I do
tpaxadpom wrote:
Absolutely, feel free to post the data on your blog.
I don't have identical cables in different lengths. I didn't see direct
correlation in jitter readings between short and long toslink cables of
different brands. Today I broght a couple of optical cables from home,
one
tpaxadpom wrote:
I corrected my post with measurements for toslink connections. Measured
values are in ns not ps as stated before. 50Hz - 100kHz bandwidth.
I wouldn't rely on peak or average jitter measurements to make any
conclusions. Looking at the spectrum would be more instresting, but
tpaxadpom wrote:
Archimago, I believe I can hear the difference between different cables
(not just damaged toslink). I haven't blown kilobucks on cables, but I
have quite a few expensive cables in my system, if that is what you are
asking. I had a lot of sceptics in my house that change
tpaxadpom wrote:
Thank but I may want to hang out here for a little while, I have my
doubts :o.
BTW did you ever A/B transporter and touch with single ended cables in
your system (volume matched or not)? Did you hear any difference?
No, I haven't AB'ed the two since I've never had them
probedb wrote:
How do I listen using my eyes? I've not worked this out yet.
Nobody's asking anyone to listen with eyes... Like Julf said it's
complementary. IMO, when it comes to audio tech, good engineering comes
first then lets validate with the ears, not the other way around if I'm
going
Lovely link Julf! Watching it right now... Great demonstration of dither
and noise shaping. Definitely required viewing for audiophiles who want
to understand digital audio and start reversing the decades of FUD.
There is of course one example of stairstepping analogue output he
hinted at -
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
So does better measurements correlate with better sound subjectively ?
Otherwise, it might be just a waste of engineering effort. Maybe the
companies are building over-speced pieces just to justify the high-price
of the equipment.
That's of course a very important
ralphpnj wrote:
Slightly off topic: I've owned the Oppo BDP-83 (the first Oppo blu-ray
player) for about 3 years and it's a very good player. Sounds great,
plays almost any kind of disc and it makes regular DVD's look great. I
do a have few minor complaints: the disc drawer sometimes does
tpaxadpom wrote:
Ok I have measured transporter and touch on AP2722. I've only looked at
digital out as promised.
Here is the run down:
Transporter:
AES/EBU 377.3-424.5 ps
SPDIF RCA 566 ps
SPDIF BNC 283-330.2 ps (rca cable with 2 bnc adapters yielded the same
results)
Toslink 1.462 -
ralphpnj wrote:
If I am reading the results correctly what we are taking about is jitter
(it is jitter which is being measured, correct?) that is at worst just
above 0.5 nanoseconds (SPDIF RCA 566 ps = 0.566 ns) and at just below
0.002 nanoseconds (Toslink 1.462ps = 0.00146 ns). Which just
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Archimago also knows the exact meaning of Nirvana - freedom :-) I think
I have to work through my karma before I attain this state. My system
sounds different at different times of the day. Plugging in different
power cords into different condtioners or outlets seem
As promised in the MEASUREMENTS thread... Nice unit!
Realize that the Transporter came out in September 2006 - 6 years ago;
I'd say it's still very competitive to the latest generation of Sabre
DAC's from a measurement perspective.
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
@Archimago - you make it sound like your system has attained a stage of
Nirvana that nothing changes the sound of it :-) Or maybe you have so
that you can hear the music clearly in your head, even without the
system being on :-)
Anyways, reading a thread
Julf wrote:
See, you *have* reached a nirvana :)
:-)
True, there is a pleasant sense of contentment freedom.
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread:
tpaxadpom wrote:
Archimago, thanks for posting Logitech touch and transporter
measurements. It would be really good to have this post in front of all
the measurements you have posted. It is good to see what your measuring
hardware is capable of. Though ideally you would measure the ADC
caseyse wrote:
-IPodPJ- of Bellatone Audio recalled a conversation he once had with
Sean Adams where he stated that the AES/EBU output on the Transporter
is the worst of any of them. It was added as an afterthought. The BNC
output yields the best digital signal his words, not mine.
This weekend, decided to hookup the Behringer DEQ2496 digital EQ
processor to the test gear and see how this measures. Normally, this
unit is set up to provide room EQ via a digital loop with the
Transporter so I've rarely had a listen to the analogue outputs.
Internal DAC is the AKM AK4393, the
With the DEQ2496 test I just posted, I was wondering what happened to
the Transporter in digital loopback mode with that unit connected (but
bypassing the DSP processing). Here's what the digital path looks like
for those unfamiliar:
computer server -- ethernet -- Transporter -- TosLink --
Mnyb wrote:
How does,the EMU board itself measures ? I realise you can't only
measure it's AD you have to also use it's DAC ?
What happens if only measure you test rig
Hi Mnyb. Yeah, it's hard to get a sense of what the limit of the ADC is
but I agree that the Transporter XLR is hitting
jfo wrote:
Wow...an audiophile thread that actually includes facts and data! This
might even entice Phil Leigh to come back to the forum, now that the
loonies seem to have gone elsewhere.
Always bad when knowledgeable people get scared off a place. Although it
looks like the end of the road
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Confused..isn't your Asus Xonar E1 cm6631 based ? I am not sure it is
worth testing the adaptive USB. If you do an ls on your computer, while
playing it might change the jitter spectrum. This is what took many
audiophiiles into the rat hole.
Yes, the E1 is based on
I realized over the weekend that it has been at least 10 years since I
actually played any cassette tapes! My dad was interested in getting
some old cassettes transferred and I discovered both my cassette players
at home didn't work.
So, off to the local Wal-Mart-like big block store and I came
ralphpnj wrote:
This unit looks like a perfect match the Monster Beats headphones (full
review -
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/monster-beats-dr-dre-solo):
Wow! Brilliant!
Last year as I was deciding on my Senn HD800's, I was pouring over the
Inner Fidelity data and remember his
ralphpnj wrote:
And this differs from high end audio marketing how? Rap star for one and
golden eared guru for the other.
BTW how do you like the Senn HD800s? I've been dying to get a pair but
the finances just don't support me buying a seventh set of headphones to
go along with the Senn
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
@Archimago - if this is the case with asynch USB, I cannot imagine the
situation with 'adaptive' USB earlier. No wonder, the exotic USB cable
vendors 'made hay when the sun shone'.
I'm gonna have to take a look at the adaptive USB AUNE X1 DAC I measured
again and have
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Archimago ..awesome speakers and amps. I am sure they load your room and
you need treatments/equalization, probably you dont even need
subwoofers. In your case, I suggest equalization on the server side. I
am afraid, Behringer may not be up to the spec
Since it's a long weekend here in British Columbia, I was thinking today
about that spectral smearing which I showed the other day out of the
XONAR Essence One when testing the Touch with various digital cables.
I had noticed this spreading of the base even with my USB playback. As a
result I
StridingEdge wrote:
For all that there's the Hoffman forum but, and it's a huge BUT, be
prepared for colossal levels of sycophancy towards the host and, as a
result, you will not get anything like unbiased opinions. In other
words, LP always beats CD for audio quality, early CD always beats
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Yes, headphones are not good for this (atleast in my case- I am ok wiht
listening to mp3s also with my headphones) . Even though people at
head-fi seem to buy expensive transports/DACs. I think I can detect
differences in digital cables to some extent, but the
Hi guys,
Last few days I've been trying to get a sense of jitter measurements. As
many know, magazines like Stereophile
(http://www.stereophile.com/content/case-jitters) publishes these
measurements using the Julian Dunn J-Test based on the original paper
ralphpnj wrote:
Nice work but the attachments are not showing up. Oops after I refreshed
the page the attachments showed up! Thanks!
BTW, so the coax digital interface already has really low jitter when
used with a reasonable cable. What a surprise :)
Should show up now... Replaced the
ralphpnj wrote:
Yes now all the images are showing up. BTW I beginning to think that
perhaps you should change the name of this thread to MEASUREMENTS:
Showing FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) in action! - particularly
when it comes to that big old bogeyman JITTER!
:-)
It's amazing how
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Awesome..you did it . Archimago - BTW, did you label the graphs wrongly
?. Looks to me the Toslink is better than coax (the base is wider with
coax). Or I dont know to read the graph ..
Nope, the labeling is correct. From the perspective of data-correlated
sidebands
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Right, even though everything is way below 100db .. do you hear any
differences in sound quality between the various cables or the
Transporter into the E1 versus the SBT into the E1 ?
NOPE.
Throughout these tests on occasion I have tried listening to music with
my
For fun, I thought I'd run an old NOS DAC I had lying around to see how
it measures...
This is the ancient Philips TDA1543 DAC, 4 chips in parallel. This
particular model is the MUSE audio one you can find on eBay for about
$60 with case, wallwart...
The DIR9001 digital receiver in this unit
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
@Archimago and Mynb - I have not bought much vinyl in recent years
either. Of course, the surface noise is bothersome too. Also, right now,
my turntable is packed up. My kids damaged the stylus and I dont want to
replace it till my kids grow up a bit.
We're
ralphpnj wrote:
Interesting thread filled with very worthwhile posts! Hopefully this
post will be up to these high standards!
Thanks Andy for the link to that most amusing video. Is that the same
Mr. Smith from the Matrix movies because they sure do look very
similar.
I have a fairly
cdmackay wrote:
ho, this takes me back...
I remember in the 80s taking my vinyl copy of The Wall back to the shop
4 times because I couldn't get a copy without background noise in the
quiet passages on Is There Anybody Out There?.
I bought a CD player that year (a very early Philips,
Wombat wrote:
One thing that poped in my ears lately is Patricia Barbers Smash. I like
her for the cold cool way she presents her stuff. Lately on a HDtracks
promotional forum one asked for it, like with almost all new releases
from there and the common sense of course was positive only.
Wombat wrote:
This looks like maybe on one instrument track was used some highly
noise-shaped dither. Most likely that instrument was captured at 16/44.1
or 24/48 max. and was put into the mix.
Interesting. You're probably right. I had a look at the spectrum during
playback and it looks
P Nelson wrote:
Interesting read and I like that you included people's comments as that
is very useful in understanding what is happening during the test.
My only comment is that if you want to test if people can actually tell
the difference between two options is to give them three
Mnyb wrote:
Hi there , Dan Lavrys white paper on the issue .
http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-white-paper-the_optimal_sample_rate_for_quality_audio.pdf
And on sampling
http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-theory.pdf
Even in an ideal world you just get 3dB more
I was originally going to respond to the 24/192 discussion with this but
thought it more apt to start a new topic instead of tangential hijacking
:-)
I wonder if we've had a good / serious discussion here around the
question of what as audiophiles we're trying to accomplish with our
gear. No
Julf wrote:
Well, I don't really have anything to add to what you wrote - I am 100%
in agreement. But then I started out when it was Hi-Fi and not
audiophoolery
Wow... On old timer.
Did they use wax cylinders back then? ;-)
andy_c wrote:
My philosophy is similar to that of Mr. Smith in
'*_this_1957_hi-fi_video_*' (http://archive.org/details/HowtoLis1957).
Thanks for the video, Andy! Fantastic :-) Just watching it right now.
By hearing them use the term high fidelity rather than generic terms
like audiophile
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
I think I am in the 'hi-fidelity' camp on this. Yes, the term audiophile
has become associated with 'euphonics', over a period of time. I do
think though that vinyl lovers do not necessarily fall under that
euphonic category. I have a MMF-5 turntable and I feel it is
garym wrote:
You don't need two Touch players. My understanding was that the Toslink
and S/PDIF are both live at the same time, so you could connect both to
your DAC. Maybe I'm wrong about this as I haven't tried it (I do know
the analog and digital outs are live at the same time).
garym wrote:
Thanks for the info. I was referring to the earlier specific comment
(above) and something much simpler in terms of the question of testing
S/PDIF vs Toslink (no USB involved). And this could be done without EDO
being involved.
You're right garym. Didn't read closely enough
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
hmm..surprising you should hear these differences even with your 851c. I
hear the same characteristics (glass toslink/zu ash) with my humble
Panny and to a smaller extent with my TACT S2150. This is the reason I
am banking on Archimago to settle the issue once for all
garym wrote:
I don't think you'd have to limit this to personally speaking... Can
any human being possibly hear a few dB difference below -100dB? ;-)
I believe there are quite a few out there with the golden ears
phenotype. Sadly, I did not come from such a well endowed gene pool :-(
garym wrote:
Thanks for that. My best laugh today. ;-)
Ya know, as much as I enjoy testing my gear, I think it would be
fascinating to gather a group of folks like the above who claims to be
able to differentiate expensive power cables, bi/single wire
configurations, (presumably) electrically
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Right, the problem is , these audio systems of these 'crazy' people do
sound better than mine. So should I also follow whatever they did ? This
is the main reason, I am reading, researching and trying things out
myself. (BTW, is there a way to defeat the upsampling in
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
I have not seen your mp3 tests. But I myself prefer to listen to some
mp3's, especially with headphones, because it acts like the 'contrast'
control in TVs. But in my main system, you can tell the images are
messed up/all over the place. The reference for me is live
Wombat wrote:
Worse even! Imagine your system really creates lower harmonics from
higher harmonics on playback. You now have pretty much garbage on
playback, namely the lower harmonics already deep inside the recording
and played back + the newly created ones.
Apart from the fact that
pippin wrote:
The way most of these tests are being done is that you write a set of
rules (we can compress in this way), use them to do the compression
and then you let people listen to the result (blind ABX test). You then
test for two things: whether people can discriminate between the
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
@Archimago - this is awesome. But it feels like work though (I was
benchmarking some Big Data code yesterday) :-)
If you want to just load the CPU without network, some scripts (like
while 1: ls -lR /dev/null) would do the trick.
What does the Spectrum Analysis do
AlexM wrote:
Thanks Archimango - good stuff. Nice to know that the analogue outs
aren't measurably affected by CPU utilisation. That is what my ears are
telling me too.
As a side issue, I notice that SP/DIF input to my 851c sounds quite a
bit better than via USB 2.0 High speed (or USB 1.0
ralphpnj wrote:
Reading and following along on this thread makes me think realize
something that I've been saying for quite some time with respect to
digital audio which is that one of the reasons that digital audio was
developed was to lessen or eliminate many of the problems inherent in
cdmackay wrote:
very interesting, thanks all.
and now I have a good answer for anyone who insists they can tell that
MP3 is much worse (and I do get told this), is to tell them they are
old and their hearing is going :)
Good one!
I just updated the blog with the subjective impression
Well, the Radio is (sadly) the only Squeezebox device still in
production these days. DAC is the TLV320AIC3104.
I calibrated the headphone output to my E-MU 0404USB.
14434
Not expecting hi-fi performance out of this unit of course and pretty
well got what was expected... Overall, an OK
Well, for posterity and completeness, here is the SB Boom.
Internal DAC is the TI TAS3204.
Like with the Radio, this was connected from the headphone out in the
back -- E-MU 0404USB.
14435
Again, not a hi-fi unit by any means. OK dynamic range but stereo
crosstalk is a bit on the high side.
AlexM wrote:
About a year ago I replied to the TT3 thread with some measurements
comparing CPU utilisation in the Touch at 16/44 and 24/96 with and
without server-side FLAC decoding. For my tests, I used a wired Ethernet
connection. CPU utilisation was measured simply by connecting via SSH
Lets see if the RightMark results deteriorate with increased CPU usage
(all done with WiFi @ 60% strength, EDO kernel, analogue output
measured):
14431
Far left, Touch playing at 24/96 SERVER SIDE DECODING, default Now
Playing.
2nd left, Touch playing 24/96 SERVER SIDE DECODING, with Spectrum
It's Transporter time!
In order to do the measurements, I brought the gear downstairs to the
basement which is an electrically quieter environment. There's a Belkin
PureAV PF60 power center there for all the equipment. Also, the
measuring computer is now an AMD Phenom X4 laptop with Win 8
One more thing before leave the Transporter alone... I wanted to see if
turning on the TosLink effects loop affected measurements. Normally, I
have the Transporter -- TosLink -- Behringer DEQ2496 (room EQ) --
TosLink -- Transporter as DAC, so it'd be nice to know that the DEQ in
digital mode
Mnyb wrote:
Great ! It also seams like flac has a bit higher distortion a whooping
0.0002 % more :) atrocious .
So the FLAC/WAV thing is also an Nigerian letter to the audiophiles .
The most interesting thing is that the ones claiming that they hear this
difference often uses external
I think the results will be surprising for most. I was certainly
surprised as I checked the survey day to day and started to see the bias
/ significance building strongly a couple weeks into the test!
Bottom line - most respondents thought the lossless Set sounded
inferior!
garym wrote:
Very interesting. You'll now need to change your identity and go into
the witness protection program. The Audiophiles will hunt you
downparticularly with this line:
... it seems like the participants with more expensive equipment
preferred the lossy tracks.
Seriously
azinck3 wrote:
Very interesting results. Thank you for the time and care you spent
doing this.
I am not a researcher, just an amateur like yourself :), but I have a
few methodological concerns:
1) You bundled the files into two complete bundles (all mp3s were in
group A, all lossless
FWIW since folks are talking power cables now, I compared the Essence
One's output using the stock power cable vs. hospital/biomedical power
cable used in ICU equipment. Obviously the biomed cable is much better
built and more robust, with better shielding.
No difference with the noise floor
jvanhambelgium wrote:
Did you perform some measurement between regular PSU of the Touch and
some ultra-lineair one ?
That would be interesting too.
No. Don't have an (ultra)linear PS to test.
Archimago's Profile:
cdmackay wrote:
Is this really consistent with that? This test seems to show a
preference for MP3, which suggests a lack of transparency, for whatever
odd reason. Or are you saying this test is the rare special case?
and thanks to OP for the excellent test :)
Exactly. It was frankly a bit
pippin wrote:
Hi, let me chime in for one more question: did I overlook the test for
server-side FLAC decoding vs. FLAC decoding on the touch itself?
I would be really interested in that one, especially also in a
comparison between the WiFi vs. Ethernet performance.
The rationale is that
You guys are hilarious :-).
Well, it's cloudy and 6C today in Vancouver, humidity 80%, so probably a
terrible time to do any real audiophile listening! Guess I'll have to
wait a month or two before humidity gets to 60% so I can seriously
listen (or import that crisp Tibetan air). Sorry Ralph,
Study complete! Total respondents - 151.
Follow on my blog as I post the procedure and analysis in the days
ahead. Thanks for all the input.
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View
jh901 wrote:
Typical. For example, a wine connoisseur with 15 years of critical
tasting experience merely adheres to a religion when he describes the
flavors of a given wine in a way that a layperson can't grasp.
Frankly, you have little experience as an audiophile yet you feel the
need
Mnyb wrote:
Thanks for this measurements series a lot of real work done .
4. Urgh , very fine recording but you tikled another toe here , the
intrisinic resolution of the old recordings are less than any modern
format you chose to present them in . Even if it's fantastic sounding
with
Okay, got home and did some testing with the Touch and 24/96 with LMS in
my basement PC doing server-side decompression of FLAC (labelled as PCM
FLAC in my chart below), streaming uncompressed PCM/WAV over to the
Touch.
Setup:
Touch stock firmware -- RCA outs (standard shielded stereo cable) --
Julf wrote:
To some degree they are just riding the trend of people giving up even
trying to understand technology, and relying on second-hand information
and superstition instead. As technology got more complex, it turned into
magical black boxes. How many people understand what is going on
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Based on my following of these high-end companies - many just push the
specs wherever they can, even if they translate into improved sound or
not. Sometimes, I feel they themselves do not know why it sounds better
(I do know one designer mentioning this), if at all
Before packing up the Touch and moving it back upstairs to my bedroom
music system, I thought I'd try it in combination with the AUNE X1 which
I had previously used as an adaptive USB DAC (I see that newer models
have the Tenor 24/96 USB chips).
This is an example of the level of functioning
801 - 900 of 1055 matches
Mail list logo
