Jump to content
Computer Audiophile


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Archimago

  • Rank
    Freshman Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Wow @mitchco! That's one heck of an article :-). Indeed a labour of love and generosity to the hobby and audiophiles at large. Man, now that's what I call a kickass looking rock 'n roll sound room! Impressed at the level of optimization you've achieved with that combination of hardware and software. I'm sure the new curtains have "unveiled" another level of fidelity to the sound you're achieving... Beautiful how you've also combined thoughts on the "Trinity" of what comprises good sound for the 21st Century audiophile who's willing to do some "work" to optimize what they have: 1. Great, sane equipment that one doesn't have to sell a kidney for. 2. Room correction - digital & physical. Of course the room has to be reasonable to begin with! 3. Well recorded music that actually was made to sound good - especially music that does not lose the emotionality embedded within the nuances in the expression of dynamics. Dad-Rock rulez in this regard! Looking forward to your followup articles...
  2. Archimago

    MQA is Vaporware

    Just responded to the man. Sigh... MQA/Austin must keep the myth of ringing going and ensure that the "beauty" of the minimum phase, slow roll-off filter remain virginally desirable.
  3. Archimago

    "Audio Without Numbers" by Herb Reichert

    For your consideration as one of a number of voices in The Audiophile Consumer and Technical Union (TACTU) : On the joy of numbers... Yet more on that audio "Subjectivist" vs. "Objectivist" debate.
  4. Archimago

    HD Vinyl

    Love the picture of the dirty LP on that page . Bring it on...
  5. Archimago

    WAV or FLAC

    Have your brother cue up WAV and FLAC versions (max compression) and see if you can accurately tell a difference. Make sure things like ReplayGain aren't active of course... Have fun. Enjoy some music. Ask yourself whether you thought the magnitude of the difference if there is one is significant to one's enjoyment.
  6. Archimago

    WAV or FLAC

    Digital bitperfect accuracy is the same whether from a $15 transport or a $500 one (? what's the most expensive one out there?). What difference do you suppose there is?
  7. Archimago

    WAV or FLAC

    The options are not mutually exclusive. 3) All of the above Trust you ears achieves one level of subjective "sounds great". Trust AccurateRip achieves another level of objective "certainty".
  8. Archimago

    WAV or FLAC

    Good job @beerandmusic! Now that's what I call function over form .
  9. Archimago

    WAV or FLAC

    Something that data doesn't tell us is what rip speed is being used. Typically, with the higher read speeds (like 52X), there will be more errors than say a 16X speed. If the AccurateRip database has numerous identical CRC32 results from around the world and your rip matches, there's nothing to worry about with something like 99.99999+% certainty. I'll likely win the lottery jackpot before I run into an inaccurate rip with identical match on AccurateRip!
  10. Archimago

    WAV or FLAC

    With analogue measurements using the methodology employed in that test, there will be variability in the results. For example, as devices warm up slight variation in noise level will be seen, also microscopic temporal drift can be detected. This is why when I did the 'DiffMaker Audio Composite' Test, using the standard signal, I also run it multiple times to get a sense of the variance I can see using the gear (see that post under "Reliability" to show the potential range I got over 24 hours with purposeful exposure to temperature variation). Notice that the range could be between low 70dB to 90dB even with the same test signal over the course of that 24 hours. Since I ran the lossless tests within a shorter timeframe, I didn't see as much variability (they all stayed between 80-90dB correlated null depth as per Audio DiffMaker). And notice that the MP3 and AAC results were all <70dB. Bottom line is that all lossless file formats played back the test audio which included actual music with extremely high correlated null depth well within my expectations of the limits of the methodology. And all lossy compressed results clearly fell outside the "range". My suspicion is that if I ran the test today, I would see lower inter-test variance as I have since upgraded the ADC used.
  11. Archimago

    WAV or FLAC

    Never said I was a pure "objectivist" . But 2 is not correct. WAV does not measure better.
  12. Archimago

    WAV or FLAC

    Actually, it adds tagging data .
  13. Archimago

    WAV or FLAC

    ? Dirt cheap ? 1GbE dirt cheap for 10 years. Just since last year 10GbE cards ~$100 and switches starting to go below $500.
  14. Archimago

    WAV or FLAC

    I would say they measure the same (as expected) within boundaries of inter-test variability. So the bottom line is: 1. FLAC allows tags, WAV doesn't. 2. FLAC is ~30-50% smaller. 3. Being smaller, FLAC files copy faster, and reduces the need for data transfer to/from HD or SSD. One could argue this reduces stress to hardware and even noise (as per @mansr earlier). 4. FLAC has 16-bit CRC in each frame for detection of errors. 5. IMO they sound the same. Free to choose...
  15. Archimago

    WAV or FLAC

    That's fine... If UpTone figures that noise is too much, that's up to them to see fit how to implement their gear. Personally, I do like the overall move towards GbE since the price point is obviously good these days. For 2-channel it's not a problem but for some multichannel streaming and file access, gigabit speeds are palpable and reduce issues with music stuttering. BTW guys, anyone using 10GbE in their home network yet? I'm tempted to update my home network "backbone" accessing my server/NAS - prices dropping...