While we are here, check this one out:
http://www.audiophilia.com/hardware/yamamura.htm
--
slimkid
The sound stage will open up, bass will tighten and the imaging will
improve. DVD performance will also increase substantially.
jhm731;184621 Wrote:
I never claimed to have special hearing ability. I don't know what's
causing the SQ differences I'm hearing.
Some people seem to overestimate their abilities... You sincerely
believe that what you hear is always there? May I suggest you to
educate yourself, take this easy
325xi;185211 Wrote:
You sincerely believe that what you hear is always there?
Do you ABX two apples before taking a bite, to make sure one is not an
illusion?
OTOH, I thought it was common knowledge that reality is based on
perception. Is a color blind person not part of the 'real world'?
325xi;185211 Wrote:
1. Some people seem to overestimate their abilities... You sincerely
believe that what you hear is always there?
2. May I suggest you to educate yourself, take this easy reading first:
Brain Maps Perceptions, Not Reality
Skunk;185225 Wrote:
Do you ABX two apples before taking a bite, to make sure one is not an
illusion?
OTOH, I thought it was common knowledge that reality is based on
perception. Is a color blind person not part of the 'real world'?
Hey, I was serious this time! :)
Not sure if it's part
jhm731;184497 Wrote:
Thanks for your corrected response.
FYI- the clocks in my DAC are +/- 10ps.
How do you know that? And what does +/- mean? Are you even using the
clock in your DAC as the master?
I never said the SQ differences I'm hearing are jitter related, that
was 325xi's
seanadams;184579 Wrote:
jhm731;184497 Wrote:
I don't need the TP's DAC functions.
Of course that's up to you, but I'm curious why you would think that.
Sean,
I think this one is easy so I'll take the liberty of answering even
though I'm not jhm731.
A lot of people have external DACs
GaryB;184587 Wrote:
Sean,
I think this one is easy so I'll take the liberty of answering even
though I'm not jhm731.
A lot of people have external DACs that they enjoy and more to the
point they enjoy the sound of the transporter through their external
DACs more than the sound of the
seanadams;184593 Wrote:
That's perfectly fair, but in the context of a discussion about the
shortcomings of s/pdif, it seems odd to me that one would dismiss the
idea of simply not using s/pdif! Especially not having heard it...
I thought I mentioned that I actually own a Transporter and
seanadams;184579 Wrote:
How do you know that? And what does +/- mean? Are you even using the
clock in your DAC as the master?
What do you think it is then? If your hearing is as good as you say,
I'd think you could easily identify it.
Why would i2s sound good? You are still sending the
jhm731;184621 Wrote:
The clocks in my DAC are STUNSU STGJ3s which are spec'd to that figure
for frequency stability. My TacT 2150 doesn't have a clock
output.
Do you have a reference? I've never heard of STUNSU, and as far as I
can tell, a STGJ3 is some kind of industrial pulley block:
seanadams;184631 Wrote:
Do you have a reference? I've never heard of STUNSU, and as far as I can
tell, a STGJ3 is some kind of industrial pulley block:
http://www.yzweiyi.com/stgj3.htm
I am intimately familiar with i2s. What specifically did you want me to
look at? Did you follow
GaryB;184599 Wrote:
I'm thinking that the electrolytic cap coupling between the DAC chip and
the subsequent op amp stage(s) is probably an impediment to highest
quality sound.
Here we go with the caps again WHY do you think that? Is it because
of a decades-old audiophile rule of thumb,
jhm731;184637 Wrote:
Talk with Steve, he seems to think I2S is the best digital interface
for PC audio.
Are you asking me to do the legwork to try and figure out what the heck
you're talking about?
The TacT 2150 is a DAC, why would I want to feed it an analog signal?
Can your DAC
seanadams;184644 Wrote:
Are you asking me to do the legwork to try and figure out what the heck
you're talking about?
If I understand correctly, you agree that I2S, so to speak, is superior
to embedding the clock in the data over SPDIF, but don't think the
benefit is retained with two box
Skunk;184651 Wrote:
If I understand correctly, you agree that I2S, so to speak, is superior
to embedding the clock in the data over SPDIF, but don't think the
benefit is retained with two box units compared to an internal
converter.
Since there isn't a I2SSPDIFDAC chain inside the Sb, I
seanadams;184653 Wrote:
That is exactly right! (and easily demonstrated with a very fast scope)
Not to push my luck, but I did forget to add; and pretty much useless
as a retail feature, because who knows how the receiver end will be
implemented in any given external DAC (not that many have
seanadams;184642 Wrote:
Here we go with the caps again WHY do you think that? Is it because
of a decades-old audiophile rule of thumb, or do you know something
about how to wire up a DAC that I don't?
Sean,
I think this because I've built quite a few analog stages for different
DACs
jhm731;184128 Wrote:
An Aberdeen 2150 is a highly modified TacT 2150, which is a power DAC
rated at 150w/ch @ 8 ohms.
Feeding the same DAC from two high quality sources located at the same
rack is highly unlikely to show any significant SQ difference, unless
connection in one of your chains
325xi;184287 Wrote:
Feeding the same DAC from two high quality sources located at the same
rack is highly unlikely to show any significant SQ difference, unless
connection in one of your chains is flawed: bad connection or bad
cable.
Keep in mind: hearing something doesn't mean it's
jhm731;184315 Wrote:
The SQ difference has nothing to do with cables or connections.
If you can't hear a difference between the SB and your CDP, something
must be wrong with your chain or your hearing.
This eventually became rather pointless... Try to analyse why can two
digital sources
325xi;184393 Wrote:
This eventually became rather pointless... Try to analyse why can two
digital sources sound differently, assuming both are in working
condition, so data stream is bit-accurate?
One simple word - jitter. Applied to various parts of spectrum in
different amounts your
Phil Leigh;184401 Wrote:
The more I think about this the more I believe that people are unable
to distinguish between better and more accurate.
Exactly. Better usually means more pleasing, not more accurate.
Pleasing is subjective and personal, but easily determined. Accurate is
indeed
325xi;184393 Wrote:
This eventually became rather pointless... Try to analyse why can two
digital sources sound differently, assuming both are in working
condition, so data stream is bit-accurate?
One simple word - jitter. Applied to various parts of spectrum in
different amounts your
jhm731;184423 Wrote:
My Pioneer and every transport/CDP I've ever owned or tried sounds
better than the SB.
Higher jitter can never give the delusion of better sound,
unless you like glaring highs, reduced soundstage/separation
of images and reduced dynamics.
I'll bet dollars to
seanadams;184436 Wrote:
I'll bet dollars to donuts you can't tell any difference in a
double-blind test.
Then I guess I couldn't hear the difference between the SB and
Transporter off their digital outputs either, right?
--
jhm731
jhm731;184454 Wrote:
Then I guess I couldn't hear the difference between the SB and
Transporter off their digital outputs either, right?
No, I personally can't hear the effects of tiny amounts of jitter, but
I can easily measure it with great accuracy. Saying things like there
must be
Oops, I mis-read your question...I thought you were asking what _I_
could hear. But basically the answer is the same. If you are comparing
two devices whose output jitter differ by a few tens of picoseconds, I
would not expect you to be able to detect a difference simply by
listening to the
seanadams;184485 Wrote:
Oops, I mis-read your question...I thought you were asking what _I_
could hear. But basically the answer is the same. If you are comparing
two devices whose output jitter differ by a few tens of picoseconds, I
would not expect you to be able to detect a difference
So does anyone actually enjoy listening to their music and not their
system any more ;)
--
Rangdo
Gronda Gronda
Rangdo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5238
View this thread:
pablolie;183728 Wrote:
... Maybe you 'understand computers' but don't yet know of the
advances in DAW technology (shove a good audio interface on a
PC - and it's a DAW!) in fairly recent times?
Oh geez. I do have a Creative Audigy connected to my silent, $4k built
to order computer,
You mean a thread that starts out asking about CD treatment, morphs into
cosmic rays, flipped bits, etc, etc.
I'm just happy I'm not so sensitive to pick up all these audible
differences :D
--
Rangdo
Gronda Gronda
Skunk;183879 Wrote:
The precision circuits for the servos, separate housing for the
transport/DAC, and resonance damped platter proves that the design of
CD players is indeed compromised.
Not necessarily. Accuphase CD players are exquisite pieces of
engineering, and I'm sure that the care
pablolie;183869 Wrote:
And you seemed to made the point the superiority of computer based audo
is its supposed ability to utterly eliminate bit errors, and if I am
attributing it to you wrongly I apologize - it's a claim that was made
earlier in this thread. And I have simply never seen any
cliveb;183913 Wrote:
But this thread is all about whether there is a flaw in the DIGITAL side
of CD replay, and in this domain it is debatable whether the lengths
that the likes of Accuphase (and other super-fi manufacturers) go to
is necessary.
Good point and thanks for setting me
cliveb;183913 Wrote:
Not necessarily. Accuphase CD players are exquisite pieces of
engineering, and I'm sure that the care they put into the analogue side
of things is justified (at least to a certain extent).
That's the fun stuff. Since everything manufactured does indeed
represent a
325xi;183956 Wrote:
So we basically agreed :)
...
BTW, system using SB as a source is computer based, I don't know why do
you consider SB as The Third Way. Music is streamed from hard drive, and
SB is just a remote SPDIF interface module.
Which to me makes the SB part of the audio
Skunk;184027 Wrote:
A good test might (?) be feeding I2S into the Sb from a Pro2M or other
decent transport, preferably in the same box, then doing jitter
measurements at the DAC to compare with streamed audio.
Actually the Sb3 would have to be tested without the transport
mechanism in
pablolie;184033 Wrote:
When I look at my chain and consider new loudspeakers, I am starting to
think what the requirements will be 5 years down the line to make it
worth the investment... and the truth is I don't know, so I am likely
to stay put for now (unless I win the lottery).
That's
Personally I use Auric Illuminator, but only out of habit. It certainly
helps with some disk read errors but then again it could just be the
act of cleaning. Maybe you could try one of these:
http://www.furutech.com/produ_2.asp?ProdNo=242
Demagnetises vinyl as well as CD. Mad as a box of frogs
325xi;183956 Wrote:
So we basically agreed :)I said that major real world advantage of
playing ripped CDs on HDD based system vs. standalone CDP is
convenience, not SQ.
I agree. I like the convenience, but my tranport DVDP still have
better SQ than the SB.
Has anyone compared the SB's SQ
jhm731;184070 Wrote:
I agree. I like the convenience, but my tranport DVDP still have
better SQ than the SB.
Has anyone compared the SB's SQ wireless verses a CAT5 connection?
All right, just note this is so not because of old technology is
superior, but due to specifics of implementation
325xi;184051 Wrote:
That's going to be my own dilemma quite soon - exactly about speakers.
But quality speakers hold their value pretty well, better then any
digital components, aren't they?
A friend (and I am fully aware a lot of dubious speculation gets
started just like this :) was
325xi;184074 Wrote:
All right, just note this is so not because of old technology is
superior, but due to specifics of implementation of your system. Can
you describe your systems? Both SB and DVDP based?
Modified Pioneer DV45a or SB3 w/linear psu-Aberdeen 2150-
Custom Made Speakers(Focal
jhm731;184094 Wrote:
Modified Pioneer DV45a or SB3 w/linear psu-Aberdeen 2150-
Custom Made Speakers(Focal drivers).
Sorry for my ignorance, but what is Aberdeen 2150?
I'm just wondering what DAC and amp do you use?
--
325xi
simaudio nova cdp simaudio moon i-5 revel performa m20 via
325xi;184122 Wrote:
Sorry for my ignorance, but what is Aberdeen 2150?
I'm just wondering what DAC and amp do you use?
An Aberdeen 2150 is a highly modified TacT 2150, which is a power DAC
rated at 150w/ch @ 8 ohms.
--
jhm731
jhm731;183596 Wrote:
Universal players have large RAM buffers. The disc spins at x2 to x10.
The data output is free of error and jitter. The idea that computer
audio is superior is because it re-reads and buffers is false.
How can the output be free of jitter? That's nonsensical.
Bit
pablolie;183616 Wrote:
At the risk of losing something else elsewhere.
You're just kidding, right? Risk of losing something else elsewhere
doesn't depend on whether it's optical disc or hard drive based
playback.
Properly build computer based playback system has only advantages over
I'd like to emphasize - properly built. If you knew how to do
it we apparently wouldn't be discussing obvious things now.
I understand compuiter better than audio equipment. And I have no idea
what you're talking about. Please enlighten us on the fundamental
advantages when it comes to music
pablolie;183698 Wrote:
I'd like to emphasize - properly built. If you knew how to do
it we apparently wouldn't be discussing obvious things now.
I understand computer better than audio equipment. And I have no idea
what you're talking about. Please enlighten us on the fundamental
pablolie;183698 Wrote:
I'd like to emphasize - properly built. If you knew how to do
it we apparently wouldn't be discussing obvious things now.
I understand compuiter better than audio equipment. And I have no idea
what you're talking about. Please enlighten us on the fundamental
... Maybe you 'understand computers' but don't yet know of the
advances in DAW technology (shove a good audio interface on a
PC - and it's a DAW!) in fairly recent times?
Oh geez. I do have a Creative Audigy connected to my silent, $4k built
to order computer, you know. I use it to record
There are lots of audiophile quality DACs that take USB directly. Or the
USB can be converted to SPDIF. No gamer boosts or tin-eared computer
designers (if that is actually a problem).
At least one highly acclaimed DAC manufacturer (can't remember his
name, sorry) states point blank that the USB
I still have to see the first flipped sram bit! This might be a problem
for a satelite out there, but not for a pc. And no, ordinary pc's don't
do ECC. Servers can do it, but mainstream pc's don't even have the
possibility to fit ECC dimms. Only thing you can do is a checksum over
the whole file.
Havoc;183781 Wrote:
BTW, in the digital chain there is no error detection, let alone
correction. Once the RS is done, nothing can intervene. SPDIF has no
redundancy either.
Not true - while S/PDIF's error handling is indeed limited, it DOES
detect errors using parity bits. A DAC typically
... I still have to see the first flipped sram bit! This might
be a problem for a satelite out there, but not for a pc. And
no, ordinary pc's don't do ECC. ...
It's a known fact that every SRAM built will have very high probability
of bit errors. The calculations on how often vary - there
pablolie;183808 Wrote:
It's a known fact that every SRAM built will have very high probability
of bit errors. The calculations on how often vary - there are several
presentations by Sun (those somewhat self-serving). The fact ou haven't
seen that does not prove basic facts about SRAMs
Sure you have heard a scratched or pitted CD make clicking sounds, get
stuck in a loop, refuse to play, etc? I'm not sure what more
information one could provide - it just depends on how well you've
taken care of your CDs. I'm sure the error rates for perfectly
unscathed CDs are low, but have we
...Sure you have heard a scratched or pitted CD ...
Heaven forbid! I am from the old turntable school, and my CDs are all
pristine. As I have been ripping them by the hundreds, I must say I
have been proud of myself. I am a media nazi. :-)
--
pablolie
pablolie;183822 Wrote:
...Sure you have heard a scratched or pitted CD ...
Heaven forbid! I am from the old turntable school, and my CDs are all
pristine. As I have been ripping them by the hundreds, I must say I
have been proud of myself. I am a media nazi. :-)
So you have luckily not
pablolie;183820 Wrote:
... Define 'very high'. Call me dubious, but it has been years
since I have seen computers that used SRAM for main memory, so
there is a definite credibility problem when the wrong type of
RAM is being referred to.
Wrong memory? Look into your Squeezebox or
pablolie;183728 Wrote:
... Maybe you 'understand computers' but don't yet know of the
advances in DAW technology (shove a good audio interface on a
PC - and it's a DAW!) in fairly recent times?
Oh geez. I do have a Creative Audigy connected to my silent, $4k built
to order computer,
seanadams;183828 Wrote:
SRAM (static RAM) is really only used for cache and for tiny registers,
higyh speed buffers, and such. All modern systems use DRAM for main
memory, with the exception perhaps of a very small embedded system.
Squeezebox uses DRAM, (specifically SDRAM) which is a
Phil Leigh;183830 Wrote:
I've done these tests and an original untreated single track recording
coming off one of the high-end cards through a quality DAC/amp/speaker
combo -even at 16/44.1 - always sounds better than the same track burnt
to a CDR and played back through the same replay
All modern systems use DRAM for main memory, with the
exception perhaps of a very small embedded system.
I work in networking. SRAMs are used extensively. There are many
applications where SDRAM access times are not enough.
Squeezebox uses DRAM, (specifically SDRAM)
In that case someone
jhm731;183833 Wrote:
What soundcard/DAC and high-end CD players were used for your testing?
How did the soundcard/DAC combo compare to a SB or SB/DAC combo?
PS-CDs can also be upsampled to 24/96 or 24/192 and burnt onto DVDs for
playback on a DVDP or Universal player.
I used a Nuendo
... The key is to detect most errors, but no error detection
scheme is utterly immune to overy possible combination of
errors. CRC definitely isn't. ...
Moreover, I should have stated that applications ultimately decide the
error correction important to them. DRAM implements overhead for
pablolie;183834 Wrote:
I work in networking. SRAMs are used extensively. There are many
applications where SDRAM access times are not enough.
Pablo,
This is getting pretty far off topic but are you talking about SRAM
that is embedded on a chip or a stand alone SRAM? I was aware that
// I work in networking.
Really? Me too.
// SRAMs are used extensively.
If by extensively you mean in certain specialized applications, or
where tiny amounts of RAM are needed, then yes, I'd agree.
// .. buffer chip is a 128K x 8 (1Mbit) SRAM.
Do you realize that you are having this
// SRAMs are used extensively.
If by extensively you mean in certain specialized
applications, or where tiny amounts of RAM are needed, then
yes, I'd agree.
Odd that, you didn't do that one post ago.
// .. buffer chip is a 128K x 8 (1Mbit) SRAM.
Do you realize that you are having this
pablolie;183858 Wrote:
You'd like to think that, but no. You claimed all memory is equally
reliable. I proved you wrong. SRAM is 1,000 times as likely to be
affected as DRAM.
Point conceded, SRAM is indeed more susceptible to cosmic rays. So? Was
that the crux of your argument?
pablolie;183574 Wrote:
... An appliance player typically has one shot at reading
the CD in real time - and is therefore more prone to all sorts
of issues compared to using a ROM drive to rip with re-reads,
buffered, asynchronously ...
In that case the quality of the music using our
Havoc said I still have to see the first flipped sram bit!
This might be a problem for a satelite out there, but not for
a pc.
So your basing your entire argument on an entirely circumstancial
observation by a forum member? Has Havoc been measuring SRAMs for
years? Or will you acknowledge
seanadams;183862 Wrote:
Actually I believe that was _entirely_ the matter at hand. If you refer
to the post that kicked off this silly discussion, Havoc said I still
have to see the first flipped sram bit! This might be a problem for a
satelite out there, but not for a pc.
Let me start by
... I think I'm missing your point. What idea are you pushing
promoting your theory of cosmir rays?
(a) It's not my theory. It's a proven (and solved, for the applications
where it matters) issue.
(b) It was just a way to illustrate that the utter obsession on every
single bit seems to miss
Point conceded, SRAM is indeed more susceptible to cosmic
rays. So? Was that the crux of your argument?
I see little reason to revisit that for the umpteenth time, since it's
obvious you can't answer my original question.
... Havoc said I still have to see the first flipped sram bit!
This
pablolie;183870 Wrote:
But since we talk flipped bits - my original question was: are they
truly common when ripping CDs in good condition using standard tools?
What are the Red Book issues that I see alluded to but never quite
explained that cause that? But I no longer care, I'll
seanadams;183871 Wrote:
I really did try to answer this when you first asked the question.
...
Thanks for doing it again, the first time got lost in the noise. I
appreciate the information, and your taking the time at 10.20pm to post
it.
--
pablolie
pablolie;183867 Wrote:
And I have simply never seen any data or proof or material anywhere
that shows that a red book audio CD playing in a regular CD player is
plagued by enough bit errors to fundamentally make it inferior to a
PC-based system where the CD has been ripped into it.
The
Skunk;183873 Wrote:
We've established that Sb uses a large high
quality buffer, but what kind of RAM do CD players use that
isn't prone to cosmic rays (which opaqueice originally pointed
out hours ago)?
I don't think I ever made such a claim. I just don't think the design
of a CD
pablolie;183875 Wrote:
I just don't think the design of a CD player is as compromised as some
have made it out to be. This seems a pretty solid audio reproduction
path to me, and I thought it read well at the time:
http://www.accuphase.com/historys/cate/dp-65ven.pdf
The precision circuits
GaryB;183146 Wrote:
Or one could accept that these differences do exist and try to
understand what's going on. I find it very telling that jhm721 found
the differences to disappear once copied to a hard drive.Somehow
the timing / jitter issues of the originals are getting replaced by
325xi;183337 Wrote:
That's interesting, I didn't know unreadable disk can really be
repaired. What commercial kit do you use? Where can it be found?
Since you're in Canada, you can pick up the same exact one I use at
your local The Source (I hate that name).
I posted about it here:
325xi;183328 Wrote:
I accept Nespa might improve readability of CD, which might cause to
better sound on an appliance player. However if your CD could be read
perfectly before treatment, nothing can make it better. And
bit-identical rips cannot sound differently - they are just copies of
jhm731;183472 Wrote:
If you can accept that the Nespa might improve readability of CD, which
might cause to better sound on an appliance player, why you did you
make fun of the sixmoons review?
BTW- What is an appliance player?
An appliance player typically has one shot at reading the CD
... An appliance player typically has one shot at reading
the CD in real time - and is therefore more prone to all sorts
of issues compared to using a ROM drive to rip with re-reads,
buffered, asynchronously ...
In that case the quality of the music using our regular CD players
should
Phil Leigh;183503 Wrote:
An appliance player typically has one shot at reading the CD in real
time - and is therefore more prone to all sorts of issues compared to
using a ROM drive to rip with re-reads, buffered, asynchronously.
Universal players have large RAM buffers. The disc spins at x2
jhm731;183472 Wrote:
If you can accept that the Nespa might improve readability of CD, which
might cause to better sound on an appliance player, why you did you
make fun of the sixmoons review?
Because they claimed the device to consistently improve how CD
sounds. The only thing any CD
... computer ripping has much better chances to retrieve
the lost stuff ...
At the risk of losing something else elsewhere. Flipped bits in SRAMs
are quite likely. The thing is - they don't matter. Which is why the
obsession with utter and constant bit perfection everywhere is a losing
I'm waiting for GaryG to clarify what he wants tested. Is it two
identical CDs, one treated and one not, through a CD player? Or two
files over SB, one ripped from a treated CD and one not? Or is it just
to see if the treatment helps with read errors while ripping?
--
opaqueice
I can accept the notion that the Nespa treatment might alter the CD so
that a CD player plays it back differently than it would pre-treatment.
One hypothesis is that it introduces additional errors that trigger the
CD player's correction (guessing) algorithms. Another hypothesis is
that it
regalma1;182600 Wrote:
I find that Brasso and other polishing compounds helps with the lighter
scratches, but have not had any luck with the deep ones. I've also
tried Plexus which fills in scratches in polycarbonate. Again, no luck
with the deeper scratches.
The most luck I've had with
opaqueice;183063 Wrote:
I'm waiting for GaryB to clarify what he wants tested. Is it two
identical CDs, one treated and one not, through a CD player? Or two
files over SB, one ripped from a treated CD and one not? Or is it just
to see if the treatment helps with read errors while ripping?
Well my experience has been the (sort of) opposite. I used to use a
small blue disk thing that sat on the CD's in my CD player. It
definitely improved the sound. When I started ripping I tried it in my
CD-ROM drive. The wav's were identical (bit for bit) and BOTH sounded
like the CD player WITH
jhm731;183028 Wrote:
It's amazing how people who've never heard something feel quailfied to
comment on it.
Well, you said it. I'm amazed how a grown up person can have so little
understanding of obvious facts and underlying mechanisms. And then to
put personally offensive comments, with
Pat Farrell;183019 Wrote:
I'm lost. with either md5sum or sha1sum, if two files have the same sum,
they are identical. So if you do two rips, and the checksums are the
same, the files are the same.
How could they sound different?
:-) That's what I was trying to say - I'm in computers
Mark Lanctot;183141 Wrote:
I use a commercial (and cheap!) CD repair kit on scratched discs.
It comes with a buffing compound just like Brasso. Even looks like
Brasso although it doesn't have that solvent smell.
The kit comes with what I think is 1200 grit wet-dry sandpaper. Use it
And anyone who thinks two identical audio files can sound
different is operating in an alternate reality ...
I am sure that's not what you intended to say, since as we all know and
agree the same CD will sound entirely different omn different systems.
If you meas the same file in the same
It won't work unless you provide perfect coupling to the floor, and
arrange anti-vibration platform on top of it. Add a baking stone on top
to make it even better. And cryogen treated power cord - a must!
--
325xi
simaudio nova cdp simaudio moon i-5 revel performa m20 via
acoustic zen
I am an objectivist. There, I admit it. But I am still open minded. Just
ask my Physicist brother-in-law who I drive nuts with my alternative
explanations of things. The Stereophile article is very convincing.
Something seems to happen with CDs that classic digital theory doesn't
seem to explain.
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
