theoctavist

Yep, my playlist, curated for this very purpose. https://play.spotify.com/user/129670382/playlist/6FddkgT3Vnv1JBgOl45Cai also - chris whitley- dirt floor Lux Aeterna(RCM Records) Appalachian Waltz/Appalachian Journey (Sony) Cloudburst- whitacre Tom Waits- Filopino Box SPring Hog Tom Waits- Nighthawks at the diner True Widow- Flat Black

LMAO @ the folks here implying that audio players sound "different". no. THAT ISNT POSSIBLE. BIT PERFECT IS BIT PERFECT. egads, why do you ignore the facts staring directly in your face? jriver is the king. easy, intuitive, plethora of DSP options, ability to use VST plugins, room correction, tagging.. nothing else comes close. XXHIGHEND is absolute trash

it wasnt the change in dac. it was your brain fooling you. id stake my life on it. a dac adding bass?? LOL! Just...no.

any well designed dac(read any dac produced in the last 10 years) is going to sound the same as any other dac. audiophiles disagree, but fail to ever produce any proof that their golden ears are right. they always fail DBTs, and the mountain of evidence is undeniable.

if you want to optimize the room, then youll need to treat it acoustically. that will produce the biggest result, by far... it is crucial. the most important factor in listening rooms.. here are some links. Room Setup Case Study - GIK Acoustics Room Acoustics Primer - GIK Acoustics RealTraps - How To Set Up a Room Audio Physics Speaker Placement Method John Sayers' Recording Studio Design Forum • View forum - Acoustics WASP: speakers placement [English]

it is hardly a moot point at all, as 99 percent of music these days is mixed in the box. audiophile labels are minnows in an ocean. im interested in what the guy who records in his basement comes up with...the guys who can't afford to buy analog tape or work with the sonoma system. who record to a 60 dollar second hand portastudio...Morrisettes best album was recorded to ADAT. Iron and Wine the creek drank the cradle- portastudio. "audiophile" labels while possessing nobel sonic goals are normally bulging at the seams with material that is lackluster, boring... im more interested in the MUSIC than the technology. there is amazing music on every format. analog tape cant rescue terrible "audiophile" music, nor can "mixing in the box" destroy an excellent record. i am wary of anyone who says "it has to be x y or z" whatever gets me MORE MUSIC im going to stand behind. DSD and Analog Tape are tilting at some awful large windmills.... *ANY* technology has the ability to produce excellent results. what good is a "minimal signal path" or "lack of VST/AU plugins" if the MATERIAL sucks? and the vast majority of the time, with audiophile labels.. it DOES. Sheffield Labs- sound great. terrible music. Chesky? a horrible marriage of world music jazz lite and random oddball cutting floor material.. since the "quality" thing is not an issue anymore(redbook is more than capable of excellent quality" , i am searching for good material. sonics ALWAYS come second. for that reason, I listen to independent artists...many of these guys record themselves. (east river pipe is an excellent example..elliot smith another) i like an audiophile "quality" recording as much as the next guy, but the lack of an "audiophile" label is hardly a reason to turn away. actually in many cases, its more of a motivator to listen..

There *IS* no benefit to DSD unless in one application. Mastering from ***ANALOGUE****. When used this way(analog master straight to disc) the benefits are there, it is pretty transparent.. however, when a digital DSD recorder are used or any edits or anything are done in the digital domain, all the benefits go out of the window due to the HF present in the source material hitting a second delta sigma modulator. if not captured straight from analog, DSD is useless. all of the editors work start with a 1-bit DSD source. All can deliver a final 1-bit DSD "master." How they get there is a different story, though. The Pyramix, the instant you put the system in edit/mix mode, converts the DSD source to 24bit,325.8kHz pcm for all editing and then re-converts back to DSD for the output to DACs or mastering. All DSD audio, from beginning to end of what you're working on, has gone through the conversion/re-conversion process. This is NOT just simple math being performed. The audio goes through internal pcm and sigma/delta converters for the process. SADiE (or Sonoma) keeps the DSD source as DSD (no conversion) except at the actual edit crossfade, where an insert occurs the length of the crossfade of 8bit,2.8Mhz pcm and back to DSD.