speshal

I will vouch for Steve Nugent's prowess with digital and modding in general. In fact, I just bought his old speakers and was a customer of his back when he was just doing mods. That being said...I also just bought the newest Lampizator Superkomputer and it's in another league. It weighs around 60lbs and the power supplies/transformers used internally are nothing that can be duplicated on the cheap. Same with some of the other parts and design. It also has a separate AES/XLR and SPDIF output which is rare to see on servers. Software-wise, you can duplicate many things. I'm running Windows server 2016 by special request, but it normally comes with Linux. I also run Roon, HQP, and AO which can be duplicated too. However, I caution anyone thinking they are getting the same performance without having all the hardware in this thing too. I was super skeptical because I thought my previous custom made fanless server, outboard power supply and other tweaks had duplicated the same things in many other mega dollar servers. However, the Lampi Superkomputer made me a believer that much more performance could be extracted at the server level via hardware/software done right from the ground up. It's not cheap, but it's one of the most surprising and rewarding purchases I've made in over 30 years in the hobby. Thus, getting back to the original question of this thread, I would highly recommend trying the Lampizator Superkomputer if it's in your budget. If it's not...knowing what I now know...I would just tweak whatever PC/server I had now and save up until I could get one. BTW, it's my second lampizator product (Big 7 balanced DAC). The service/support has been excellent which is an important criteria for me and many others I'm sure.

True, but I'm still glad he found something like this as opposed to the countless anecdotes and formal reviews that do no measurements, blind testing, etc. Witchdoctor and I can debate whether this type of post he found is the exception or the rule, but it won't solve anything. I personally believe there are lots of snake oil salesmen taking advantage of audiophiles with regard to tweaks. My main point was to outline the things that could help most people's decision making in regards to vibration control. If someone is already a vibration control expert, doesn't believe measurements matter, and/or doesn't believe in blind testing, then simply ignore my post and take other recommendations.

Show me ONE post or review by a professional where they have credentials in physics with regard to vibration control. Show me ONE review where they used a vibration measurement tool to show improvement. Show me ONE review or post where they included blind testing. On the flip side, I can show you literally hundreds of people with no qualifications, no measurement tool, and no blind testing making primitive conclusions/recommendations that won't extrapolate to others. Let me guess...you're one of "those guys" that doesn't believe any of that stuff matters, lives on the forums, thinks every post is about them, gets your feelings hurt easy, and has to reply ad nauseum. If so, I apologize. I did not single you out and don't even have a clue who the hell you are. I made a fairly obvious and common knowledge generalization based on 35 years experience and meeting thousands at shows. Everything I said related to the topic is the complete OPPOSITE of a blanket statement, so the fact that you focused on just what I said about audiophiles means I probably hit too close to home. I suggest you just block me if you don't like my advice or disagree with what I said. It's not worth my time to argue with you, but I will be happy if you do find just ONE example of what I requested.

There are a couple problems with these tweaks: 1. an audiophiles' primitive knowledge of physics and 2. audiophiles' primitive methods of testing what they buy. Typically, you have audiophiles buying this stuff on faith and then doing zero A/B testing afterward...much less using a vibration measurement device or doing blind testing. As a result, most of their "conclusions" are not credible...or at best...they are only applicable to their exact room/piece of equipment. If you're going to buy vibration control products, you actually have just as much chance of making things worse (or zero effect) if you don't know what you're doing. There are so many variables (mass of the equipment, location of the footers, type of underlying surface, quality of internal damping, floor born vibrations, air born vibrations, volume of music, use of subwoofer, etc.). Generally speaking, I'd recommend saving your money for a better piece of equipment than a vibration control tweak. If the manufacturer sold you a piece of equipment with footers and didn't offer an option for upgraded vibration control, then that should speak volumes no matter what side the fence you are on. The designer of your equipment is going to know their piece more than you. They should also know whether they've heard a difference with various footers/vibration control products and where they exactly should be placed. If they made a great difference, wouldn't you think they'd add them just like any other part? If they chose not to use them, why should you? If they believe in them but didn't have the budget/performance ratio, ask yourself why is it worth YOUR budget/performance ratio. Maybe you have more disposable income or think the designer of your gear is wrong. If so, buy away. If not, stay away. If they believe in them and actually offer/recommend them as an upgrade, then follow their recommendations and use them exactly as they specify. (I know one designer who strategically puts Stillpoints internally in his amps/preamps to isolate the board.) Sorry that my answer is agnostic on the question, but, actually, that's the ONLY credible way to answer a broad question like this. If you have lots of disposable income and genuinely have a crappy situation with vibrations causing problems, I can give my personal recommendation for the things with a fairly good percentage chance to help. Try Grand Prix Audio for stands and Stillpoints for footers. Also, try adding mass to the top of equipment...like Bright Star Audio does (are they even in business anymore?) Have fun...

Actually, it's easier to do primitive listening tests and then come on to a forum and write a few paragraph "conclusion". I took the time to write a detailed method to objectively and thoroughly test for yourself. If you don't like it, don't want to do it, and/or prefer to read anecdotal conclusions based on primitive testing, it's totally fine by me. I've given my thoughts and results of testing to anyone who PM'd me, but, AGAIN, anyone can easily do the test themselves. It's not rocket science and it doesn't take that long. I prefer finding out for myself versus reading opinions on a forum, but to each his own.

Can you share a link to these measurements you referenced...especially related to the clock. Tons of critical digital devices use clocks so it's important to see the difference in performance if this has been measured as you say. Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

I purposely left off my personal thoughts on MQA because I gave a method to find out for yourself. There's no reason to further color people's expectations when we now have an easy method to compare MQA/Non-MQA in a blind test. If you really want the results of my testing, I can send a PM.

I don't come on here often, but it's pretty entertaining to read all these reports on MQA. The unfortunate part is that nothing being "concluded" is reliable...at least to me. We got one guy making conclusions, but using totally different DACs for the comparison (Meridien/MQA vs Yggy/Non-MQA). We got another guy making conclusions off of one song he knows so well, but then changes his mind later. We got others concluding that MQA adds sibilance... digititis...and is fatiguing. Others like it a lot. The biggest problem (and one that plagues professional reviewers too) is that everyone is using very primitive means for making "conclusions". Before drawing conclusions, I'd recommend doing more thorough testing that includes blind testing. The good news is that it's really easy to do now with Tidal. Here's what I did.... 1. Listen to songs you know well that has both a Master and Hifi version on Tidal. Compare the two WITHOUT blind testing and make your preliminary conclusions. These results will obviously have a high potential for expectation bias to creep in, but it's still an important step because it further validates/invalidates the accuracy of your hearing in the blind testing phase. 2. Whichever song you feel most confident in hearing a difference, create a new playlist with just the Master and Hifi version of that song. (You can add a third random song to the playlist to help with the next step.) 3. Bring up the new playlist and click the Shuffle icon so that songs will be played randomly. Position your cursor over the Play button on the Playlist and close your eyes. Then, with your eyes closed, click it randomly a bunch of times and listen. Whenever you think you've identified the right version, open your eyes and verify that you chose accurately. 4. Close your eyes again and repeat #3. If you get 7-8 in a row correct, then your "conclusions" from #1 are probably valid and accurate. If you don't, there is no need to feel bad...Everyone is susceptible to expectation and other biases, but it's NOT helpful to go on forums making definitive conclusions after unsophisticated and primitive testing. BTW, the above test assumes that you use the same equipment, plus it only tests the difference between Tidal Masters and Tidal Hifi. The goal is to isolate the improvement brought by the new "Masters" versions, so this keeps the variables to a minimum. Also, if there is a difference for you, it won't tell you if it's related to re-mastering or MQA, but what does that really matter anyway??? The goal of an audiophile is to enjoy the music better. If the one labeled "Masters" legitimately sounds better to you after blind testing, who cares if it's because of remastering or MQA. If it's LEGITIMATELY better or worse on some songs versus others, what does that matter either? You have Tidal and you have both versions...put the one you like best in your playlist. Sometimes I think audiophiles prefer drawing primitive conclusions and arguing about them more than listening to music. At this point, we don't have enough information to know exactly what's being done on a technical level for each song called "Masters" on Tidal, so why argue. Just do a LEGITIMATE test and enjoy whichever you prefer.

First off, have you tried using a preamp to give you extra gain and drive your amps better...must be a preamp WITHOUT a chip-based volume control or that 5.6v will cause problems for it too. Whenever I hear about system sounding thin or distorting/blowing fuses, there is usually some equipment mismatch, malfunction, and/or missing a quality preamp. Second, your room is just too big. It may not even be closed off, so pressurizing it will take large and very efficient speakers if you want to play loud. Subs are a must for that size room...yes multiple subs...otherwise I can almost guarantee you're not hearing the lowest octaves which means the system will sound hyper detailed and bright. Regardless, you're not going to get the typical "punch" with Maggies that you hear with boxes. In most cases, it's actually the box you're hearing and the point source nature of those speakers. Thus, if that's what you're used to hearing and prefer, it's best to stay with speakers of those designs.

We might have been in the YG/Audionet - GTT - room at the same time. When they first put on the Archie Shepp, was it blaring loud by mistake and some guy was worried they blew the tweeter? Everything was turned out fine, but I was wishing I had my camera snap a picture the instant it happened. Watching about 10 audiophiles grab their ears ( and one guy run out of the room) would have been an epic audiophile pic for a room that cost north of half million dollars.

No need to lighten the load unless you have a really poor amp for the job. Even if you do, it's best to buy an appropriate amp versus trying to bandaid things. Maggie's actually have quality bass definition so I don't use any crossover. For 2 channel, I let Maggie's play full range and augment the very lowest bass (usually < 40 hz) with 2 subs. Crossovers are usually noisy/poor in subs so I don't use them at all. Rel makes subs that augment low frequency response without using a crossover for hookup. A DSP like Dirac Live is a good option for certain multichannel integrations of subs. I have full Maggie HT and use Dirac for sub integration in that scenario. Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

You can use an autoformer on Maggie's to increase the impedance. I use the 2x multiplier but you can go as high as 4x with the Zero Autoformer by Paul Speltz. I personally prefer tubes on Maggie's (ARC my favorite), but there are countless SS options that work just fine. The issue with Maggie's isn't finding amplification...the key is using a subwoofer and finding a good one to match. Two subs are even better. Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

I seriously doubt it was the power conditioner. I suspect unplugging and replugging the power helped reset the USB connection. I have a Big 7 and leave my server on 24/7. However, when I power up the Lampi, I sometimes have to click the Dacusb input twice (I use primarily Tidal so not DSD) for sound to come out even though the server shows a healthy USB connection. Next time it happens...click DSD and then back to Dacusb. It's just the nature of some servers and finicky USB connections. If you power off the DAC and not the server, that's when I notice issues the next time you power up the DAC. The only way it could be a power conditioner is if you're using a severely defective model.

I have his meter and filters. I'm not as qualified as John S to speak on the patent/technology, but I feel confident saying it's a far superior approach to Audioprism which uses a cheap amp/speaker to "measure" the noise on your lines. As for effectiveness, the filters do work in reducing the meter readings when placed in strategic spots. Whether it has an audible impact on your system is variable and debatable. Even though I use them and think they are far better than other tweaks that do absolutely nothing, you still have a low ceiling as to how much these can help. I kept them in my system because I'm a stickler for having the lowest possible noise floor (i.e. zero hiss, no ground loop hum, and total silence at full volume). How much they are really contributing is unknown because I didn't bother doing extensive A/B testing. In most cases, I suspect the impact will be minimal to none if you are using quality gear with quality power supplies and don't have terrible power issues. On the flip side, if you're debating between getting a tweak like upgraded fuses versus these things, I would not hesitate saying you should try these over all those snake oil audiophile fuses. I'd put them in the class of tweaks like Furutech outlets where they have POTENTIAL to help, but not a high priority.

It's an interesting comment that I mostly agree with, but have you tried Dirac Live? It does a little more than just tame nagging peaks and troughs. In fact, it's the one area that I have a slightly different perspective/experience. Personally, I would use "organic" room treatments, subs, and speaker placement to tame the BIG "peaks and troughs" NOT the DSP. In my experience, when you use the DSP to correct huge peaks and troughs, that's where the problems come in. You could be adding/subtracting +10db to certain frequencies and this often leads to problems/clipping. (FYI, most MAJOR issues occur in the bass region and 2 subwoofers are particularly powerful allies in curing these - just play with crossover settings/volume/room placement) Unfortunately, once you correct the MAJOR issues with traditional room treatment, you're still left with tons of SMALLER issues that are too numerous to address conventionally, yet they can add up to be just as audible overall. Thus, I almost ALWAYS recommend using a DSP like Dirac to fine tune the countless smaller issues in every room. The benefits are clearly audible AND measurable without the downsides of stressing a DSP to do too much in one area. Frankly, the problem with DSPs though are usually related to operator error, inexperience, and/or bad measurements. I can easily see someone trying Dirac (or any other DSP) and making things worse if they don't know what they are doing. It's kinda like cooking...even if you follow the recipe/instructions, you still have to learn certain tricks to getting things just right. I had to do my measurements and adjustments no less than 10x just to perfect things. The great thing with Dirac is that it's extremely easy to A/B test on the fly. Once you hear ruler flat freq response and impulse response correction, you will never go back to the "no filter" setting. I could buy a $125k Soulution amp or Kronus Turntable. It still won't make the audible and measurable improvement of proper DSP correction. Thus, my conclusion is slightly different than yours. You're right that you don't want to immediately run to a DSP first to solve all your problems, but no matter what you do conventionally, it's still going to be essential in virtually ANY room. For a computer audiophile already listening to digital processing, it's a no-brainer.