Jump to content

bafonso

  • Posts

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    country-ZZ

Retained

  • Member Title
    Newbie
  1. I much prefer atonally weighted power supplies when listening to Bartok. On the other hand, when listening to Mozart I go all the way to spectrally harmonized ones.
  2. Hi Jud, The issues you emphasize are hardware related, not software so I don't see how those can address the issue given we would use the same computer and interface. Furthermore, some of the issues mentioned by Damien have been experimentally shown to be true (hawksford paper is a nice reading), in peer-reviewed papers where people actually do experiments to substantiate their theory or hypothesis. That said, my question pertains to using the same hardware so all of this does not address the question at hand. Also, it's not my view. It is a technical implementation to address transmission of time-sensitive bits over the USB connection.
  3. Hi Jud, I've read the paper yet it contradicts itself regarding an asynchronous DAC. In theory, an asynchronous USB DAC makes sure anything upstream of it is not relevant and the timing information relies on its own clock (hence, the jitter comes from the quality of its own clock). That is the whole purpose of the technology and why it is used by well designed USB DACs: to remove the timing factor from the delivery method/protocol, thus insulating it from the computer. My question pertains to using the same DAC, hopefully a well designed one. I am not debating why some DACs sound better than others. Why this is so is known for people that design DACs. I'd like Damien's input as to how, given this design, he expects different sounding software. It's a reasonable question. I like audirvana, I use it. I've made lots of suggestions for improvement before it became paid software. I understood Damien's response regarding iZotope this is why I'm leaving out of the equation. I just stressed that what iZotope does well can be measured and people understand. I understand that iZotope et al is the rage now in audiophile world but yet, most people don't know that it is a well established name/brand in a studio setting (they have just released v5 of their suite at AES). People have been developing dithering and SRC algorithms for decades now and for the most part we grasp why some perform much better than others. They're not easy to design this is why for the most part people license someone else's like audirvana does. You could just use izotope technology using a plugin like studios use in DAWs or mastering settings. There's no voodoo in it, just very skilled programmers with input of smart people.
  4. Hi Damien, Given the same asynchronous USB DAC I'd like to know why you believe anything else matters if you deliver the same bit stream to the DAC in a timely fashion. Again, I am talking about a modern asynchronous USB DAC, not other types. :-) The only reason computer programmers optimize their code is for efficient running under heavy loads and to allow higher throughput given the same processor power. If any code optimization changed the bits that flow from one place to the other - in this case delivered to the USB DAC - , we could not trust computers at all. We hear music but other applications involve transmission of bit perfect data such as our precious data in PDFs, DOCs, etc. iZotope is only a part of the story but a well documented and clearly shown one by measurements.
  5. I've never heard anyone compare a DAC to cartridges but I guess it makes sense :-) So, how much better do you like symphony vs the duet 2 ? Did you ever get your hands on any metric halo stuff? the LIO8/uln8 or the uln-2? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on it. And how well could you design the homemade dacs? Did you do these from scratch? How did they fare? I'd be curious as to how cheap can you make a home made one that rivals a duet 2. DAC wise of course.
  6. I think it sounds great for 600$us. The pre-amps are amazing for the price and probably only the RME babyface and USBPre2 are in the same ball park. That said, if you're willing to spend time and money, why not get a better DAC to start off with? :-) I'm getting a uln-2 soon which I expect to be a step up both in pres and the dac. I'll compare both side by side before I sell the duet 2. you could try and hunt down a legacy (no 2d card) uln-2 to "mod", which you could probably find for ~800$us. For strictly DAC purposes, I'm not sure the Duet 2 beats the oldie DAC1 to be honest. And you can't use it standalone either, etc. Why did you decide to get the duet2? Looking for the apogee sound? I'm curious about it
  7. With your budget I would try and find a used Benchmark DAC1 (often on sale in gearslutz) or a USBPre 2. The benchmark DAC1 has been used to master countless albums and still used nowadays by lots of mastering houses! I think stereophile measured apple express digi out and it was pretty good but not sure if anyone has measured the aTV
  8. Hi Barry, I look forward to hearing some samples of the music and in particular, how you have gone about recording vocals. I'm also curious as to how you went from 24/192 to 16/44. Why not supply 16/48? Is your DAW chain all at 24/192? I'm assuming you a run a digital shop but I may be wrong :-) cheers b
  9. Garf, I was not questioning your abilities to conduct your tests, just pointing out that it could have gone both ways, yet, not informative. In these ABX tests it is assumed you can have all the time in the world to get acquainted with the material. It doesn't matter if you need to listen to an entire album to decide which one is which, as long you can point out which one is which :-) The bottom line is that you can come up with with arguments against ABX testing but you will never convince anyone that believes in the scientific method.
  10. Paul, Feel free to keep waiting for a study to show something you really want to believe based upon your expectations and assumptions. There's nothing to resolve, people cannot detect it in an ABX test. It's not a failure to measure anything at all. I don't see a bigger financial incentive than to sell a 1k cable that costs 20$us to make. But there must be something else :-) Expectation bias is not a magic wand, it is very real as countless drug trials have shown.
  11. Peer review is only as good as the peers that review it. Everyone knows that. I'll take a peer reviewed paper any day of the week over any other. That does not mean I will not critical read it and understand its flaws and limitations. Unless you can point out the flaws of that study and do a study that addresses those flaws and show your findings, you're not adding anything relevant to this conversation. That study - which has some flaws, widely debated - is to the best of humanity's knowledge, the most accurate understanding of the limits of our hearing abilities regarding PCM bit resolution.
  12. A peer reviewed study by AES journal showed some years ago that people can't notice anything above 16bit. Take that as you will :-) Regarding your study, what you want to do is to be able to play one of the two samples and always know which one is which. This means play the song X and then you need to tell the software if it's A or B. Several times. What you did is not statistically sound since you either got it right or didn't so you can't show that you can actually repeatedly identify the differences. You got it right but that may have been chance. Had you gotten it wrong, it would not say you can't distinguish them either. Yes, it is tiring but so is wine tasting after a while :-) The thing is, everyone can distinguish between a radio source and a CD, drunk or not Also, if you're serious about comparing sound sources this will be helpful to you: http://quiztones.net/
  13. Your issue here is that you don't know the limits of capturing a human voice. All mics impart a sound of their own to whatever voice/sound they capture. Normally, in a studio singers will try several mics until they find one that people feel works the best. This applies to recording instruments too. You should look for recordings that you believe have good captured vocals. A lot of audiophiles will suggest a bunch to you since these types of records are the ones that keep getting played over and over when comparing systems. Ideally, I think you should have some good recordings and then some you really like. I personally find a lot of audiophile-grade music (lots smooth jazz) boring so it's good to have a balance to keep you interested in your quest! Once you know some cds you then need to play them on ridiculously expensive systems all the way down to whatever you can afford or can't notice any difference :-)
×
×
  • Create New...