rickca

  • Content count

    1,068
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About rickca

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,960 profile views
  1. Even more processes coming to Windows 10. We'll probably see these in the fall Creator's Update. Per app Runtime Broker: If you open Task Manager, you will notice UWPs now use per-application instanced Runtime Broker processes, rather than all sharing a single session-wide Runtime Broker. This will help improve resource attribution, resource management, and fault tolerance.
  2. Although I enjoyed the rhetoric in the first post, it's so much more polite to just call people brain-damaged.
  3. I liked that part.
  4. I think you and I agree. The provenance thing is really about control of distribution. The MQA metadata may, in fact, be useful information if it helps the DAC select the best filter for a particular track ... but implementation is going to be different on different MQA devices. The MQA marketing message puts a very generous spin on all this. I'm being polite.
  5. Seems like MQA assures you only that you are playing the MQA distribution file. That's all there is to the authenticated claim. There is no assurance of getting the sound that the artist or recording engineer intended. That's just marketing hype.
  6. Can you please clarify what you mean by behave in this context? I fully expect that different MQA devices will apply different processing (such as filters) based on the same MQA stream metadata (hints). There's no way I can see the Berkeley Alpha DAC Reference Series 2 implementing exactly the same processing as something like an Audioquest DragonFly. The price difference between these devices is huge. Surely Berkeley is going to want their implementation to sound superior. Why would a DAC manufacturer do something wimpy when they have the resources to do something more sophisticated? If that's what it takes to get MQA approval, I don't think you would see high-end DACs supporting MQA. Perhaps I've entirely missed your point about MQA devices behaving differently. That's why I've asked you for clarification.
  7. Eric, Rajiv and Moussa I'm certainly looking forward to the results of your experiments. I'm just wondering ... why does it make sense that multiple reclockings with the same quality clock is better than one? I've read the input from @romaz that the modded switch significantly improves the sound quality vs using only the sMS-200ultra, but that switch mod also includes replacing the regulators and capacitors on the switch. Wouldn't one top quality reclocking be better than multiple reclockings with something less good? I'm not looking for a scientific explanation at this point, just something plausible. Even without this, if it sounds better, it sounds better! So carry on.
  8. My programming brain is engaged for some reason. Right now, an ignored user post still shows up in the activity stream. It just says 'You have chosen to ignore content by userX'. Sometimes userX is a very prolific poster, so there's a lot of such entries. So here's a potential solution. We have the ability to exclude posts from a given thread from the activity stream. Is there a way to exclude a custom defined activity stream from the general activity stream? If so, just make a custom defined activity stream consisting of all posts from ignored users, then exclude that custom defined activity stream from the general activity stream. Poof! All gone. This isn't about intolerance. It's about productivity.
  9. I know @Superdad said not till next year because he has other things in the pipeline that are higher priority. I'd love to know what those things are! But, like you, I'm ready to buy an audiophile ethernet switch today.
  10. Hey, you've never made that point before.
  11. I have very fond memories of hanging out in Berkeley at that time. I was 16. It was perfect. I made some lifelong friends ... and a few imaginary ones.
  12. Problem is that Bluesound has most likely signed an MQA non-disclosure agreement and can't talk about it. Welcome to Catch-22.
  13. Galileo had some good observations to back up his theories. Didn't help him much.