Jump to content

JensPH

  • Posts

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    country-ZZ

Retained

  • Member Title
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. From what I've read of the documentation on MQA I can't figure out why the processing can make the differences I hear. I tend to think, that MQA probably requires a less clipped master than the loudness ruined ones used by Apple, Spotify and in CD production. Maybe like SACD/DSD which can't handle clipped material - Depeche Mode "Ultra" is a perfect example of that. The SACD is the only version worth listening to apart from the first edition vinyl.
  2. Am I the only one genuinely confused here? Several of the TIDAL MQA Masters sound not just different but clearly better on my gear and so much so, that family members who were oblivious to the fact that I only just started a TIDAL 30 day trial asked what was playing. I have 24-bit versions of everything available but even they are often squashed with compressors and limiters but the TIDAL version is much clearer and "airier" or more three dimensional. Those recordings which are only available in Red Book CD quality and sound bad both as CD and download sound exactly the same via TIDAL HiFi. I have no trust in the MQA mumbo jumbo as the end resolution clearly is way below 24 bit, but something is different since it is possible to hear the difference from the kitchen and my guess is that the masters are way less limited or for some reason have far less clipping but it also sounds like there could be used a slightly different EQ or mix. Does anyone have any proof of what is actually going on or has anyone been able to put a decoded TIDAL stream through the Crest Value/Dynamic Range test?
  3. After having surrendered to the fact that I am the only one in the family who likes my customized Foobar and MonkeyMote solution I have done some testing of the Sonos Connect, the Heos Link and finally the Bluesound Node, and to my surprise I have at last found peace :-) Both Sonos and Heos apparently resamples everything internally regardless of settings (fixed output, Volume and tone controls of, no compression and so forth...) but the Bluesound not only plays the few 24/96 and 24/192 recordings I own but also plays my more numerous 5.1. DTS recordings absolutelse flawlessly. Finally I can let everybody play anything without risking my precious tweeters being killed by the white noise made by corrupted DTS. I have a lot of DTS music demuxed to .dts, then wrapped in a Wav container and finally compressed and stored for convenience and adding of metadata as lossless FLAC. All made with the python script available at the old SlimDevices forum. The sound when it plays ordinary stereo, btw, is noticeably superior to not only Sonos and Heos, but also to my Win 8.1 with Foobar2000 and WASAPI output via HDMI. Both Heos and Bluesound streams the local library without any glitches, whereas Sonos quite frequently made small cutouts when my 60/20 Mbps line was busy. Why Sonos requires internet connection to the outside world to play content on my LAN is beyond me... Not sure about the perceived differences in sound either as i.e. Foobar is playing bitperfect at fixed 100% volume, so it is not due to resampling. But perhaps the HDMI output is plaqued with jitter. Was it not for two people unaware of the switch between the sources commenting on the difference I would perhaps attribute it to "placebo effect" but the calmness in the space on some old recordings does feel quite differently - though I must admit that I have not yet made any blind a/b testing. If anybody has any experiences with Bluesound or has made a successful attempt to make Heos stream bitperfect please let me know. BR/Jens
  4. Maybe I am a bit slow :-) but I do not quite get what makes you prefer Amarra over Pure Music. I am somewhat impressed by the comparison scheme here CHANNEL D - Pure Music Not least the "Native FLAC File Format Support" and absence of "Ghost Play" is preferable to Amarra. Coming from Foobar2000 and Windows my Mac experience is limited but plan to "all in" on Mac Mini controlled via iPad and with a Lacie Thunderbolt drive for the library. Only problem seems to be deciding on the player and how to handle my substantial amount of music in DTS 24/96 format wrapped in Wav and then FLAC'ed. Any thoughts are welcome :-) Br JPH
  5. I guess you are only converting to ALAC to allow more music on your iPod then. I have just realized that I have spent endless hours flac'ing everything when i should have stored it all as AIFF - which by the way was pointed out to me but only after having ripped more than 2/3 of my music... AIFF is also supported by Foobar and the 30% more storagespace it needs is a minor concern. There is one thing though; will AIFF contain dts in the same way as when it is "wrapped in wav" or should stick to flac as the container for those files? The latter option would make the risk of somebody killing of my speakers by white noise less of an issue (when iTunes resamples dts it becomes white noise once the DAC has decoded it...) and I could keep playing music with Foobar and the rest of the family could go about their iPod business without my help - a perfect solution!
  6. Hi! Applescript is all very well on a Mac but on a Vista/Win7 is of little use - I do get your point though ;-) I am curious: What format do you have the music in before making a duplicate ALAC version? - and are you seriously proposing to duplicate everything you want to put on your iPod(s)? Also I would still prefer to have iTunes read my FLAC files even if it means going with your "conversion as needed" way as iTunes is unable to play dts and 24 bit material and does not even manage bit perfect output on a Win machine. Does anyone here know if it is possible to make Foobar "convert as needed" from FLAC to ALAC? If so I would rest my case :-)
  7. "I doubt there is any logical / technical rationale for claiming that FLAC would be superior to ALAC." No and I do not claim that that is the case. I am just so tired of having to maintain 2 libraries and as my primary library is in TB size (in FLAC) it would be nice to have it supported by Apple. In a perfect world my main music machine would be a Mac, I would convert the lot of it to ALAC and enjoy bit perfect output from iTunes. But a lot of my music is in dts 24-bit/96 KHz, or "wav" 24/48 and that is a challenge in iTunes and therefore my machine is a Vista running Foobar2000. Furthermore even my ten year old daughter prefers lossless to AAC, mp3 and the rest of the really lossy formats so they (dts being the only exception) have no place in my world :-) I do however agree that there are other shortcomings in iTunes - but none so irritating for me as this particular one :-)
  8. I'm not sure if this is in line with the forum rules but i think you should join the group at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=123018676203 if you agree that FLAC should be supported by Apple. If I am out of line: Admin just delete my post. Best regards, Jens
  9. Ash I am so curious, what cd's are you listening to? I find that 2 out 3 cd's sound truly awful. And by awful I also mean far from true to the original event. Also claiming that 128 bps mp3's can sound great is somewhat disturbing ;-) I would seek professional help for those ears right away... On a really great system they can sound almost acceptable provided they are made from a really good original - but great? Never! By the way I think you claimed that vinyl has no output above 5 KHz in an earlier post. My previous vinyl system had a healthy output at least up to 12 KHz which again makes me wonder what records you are/were listening to and on what turntable/cartridge ?
  10. that I really like the Benchmark DAC1 - have only heard in a friends system but it sounded very smooth and detailed at the same time.<br /> <br /> I have also heard a soundcard which sounded very nice - opamps were replaced by AD797 - here it is: http://www.auzentech.com/site/products/x-meridian.php <br /> <br /> It is discontinued but their newer models look promising as well.<br />
  11. Hi Chris and Kurt<br /> I have not had the chance to listen to the Beresford. <br /> Currently I use a NAD M15 pre/processor which when it it works (knock on wood) sounds really good with the rest of my system which is made up of a NAD C272 amp (a bit cold sounding), a custom built class D poweramp and a custom built speaker system based on Seas Excel and Scan Speak Revelator units.<br /> <br /> My wet dream is to make the speakers digitally active - meaning I want to make the crossover completely in the digital domain and a separate dac in front of a seperate class D amp driving the units directly. <br /> <br /> I have a Sony (no fan of the brand) ES SACD player which has been modified using the same components as outlined here:<br /> http://www.sacdmods.com/DVD2900.htm<br /> except that the clock is an older version.<br /> <br /> My only regret is that it is impossible to put my music server (Vista, Foobar) output into the sony - and equally impossible to rip SACD a replay the SACD stream.<br /> What someone at NAD might want to consider is that the modified Sony sounds better than the M15 - to my ears anyway - and the difference is particularly clear when playing SACD analog out versus normal CD digital out.<br /> <br /> I know that I was out of line claiming the Cambridge should be pulled from the market, but I bought the unit based on all the hype and I got so disappointed with the sound and started looking on the net for an possible explanation. <br /> When I found out that it was built using the NE5532 my adrenalin levels set a new record...<br /> <br /> Back in 1989/90 I modified a very expensive Denon CD player and for the first time heard the difference between opamps made for answering machines and opamps made for audio on another level.<br /> Seeing the same chip in 2009 was far from my idea of good fun..<br /> <br /> I should have counted to 500 before posting - but now you know why :-)<br />
  12. This article has the AES papers I mentioned in its references: http://www.stereophile.com/reference/106ringing/index.html
  13. http://www.audiocom-uk.com/<br /> http://www.audiocom-uk.com/mod_inner.asp?id=82<br /> <br /> The proposed mods will most certainly make the dac sound superior to an of-the-shelf receiver, but it does not come free...
  14. But my 2 cents is still that the NE5532 op-amp is an inferior component which always sound inferior and harsh.<br /> <br /> If you can not hear it, that is not my problem - I would immediately replace it with a Burr-Brown, National or Analog Devices chip made for audio and I have done so on a number of devices and even my wife immediately notices the difference though she has no clue as to what have been done!<br /> <br /> The 5532 is a component which sounds inferior to almost anything made with audio quality in mind. The output section of the Squeezebox Classic is even worse. That is made with an opamp made for telephones and comms systems. <br /> <br /> Also, my reaction is due to the fact that I get very disappointed when a DAC with the word MAGIC in its name in 2009 uses an opamp which I replaced the first time in 1990... <br /> <br /> That being said, the DacMagic does not sound too bad, but why spend that kind of money on a dac, when the same (analogue) circuit can be found in a receiver which is so much more versatile - and eventhough the DAC-section is less sophisticated still sounds way better than the DacMagic when properly modified... <br /> <br /> So you're right in recmmending people to use their ears, I've done so, and my conclusion was clear: The unit was sent back, full refund received.
  15. but "The majority of external dacs will be better than receiver dacs" is simply not true. Just look at the circuit designs in the av products and compare them to the DacMagic. The DacMagic is just as inferior in quality as the cheapest NAD receiver on the market!
×
×
  • Create New...