SBGK;681554 Wrote: > don't mean to offend anyone, but 20000 is the default setting, the fact > 3200 or 4000 sounds better in your system is highlighting that there is > an imbalance there, likely that the bass is not being articulated > correctly and needs emphasis which the lower values give. not defending > 20000, but these are my thoughts.
I finally got around to test, back-to-back, the differences between the buffer size 3,200 and 20,000. On my system, after careful listening and evaluation, I find that 20,000 beats 3,200. I did a lot, and I mean a lot of critical listening. I was using George Duke's song "Love Reborn" (from his album "Brazilian Love Affair"), because it is well recorded and has lots of different instruments, variety of percussion, plus a very nice deep bass guitar. Without a doubt, 3,200 sounds woolly and muddy compared to 20,000. I haven't noticed much (if any) loss of musical details between the two buffers, only that those said details, while still being present with the 3,200, sound somewhat fuzzy, out of focus, muddy and woolly. I honestly find it surprising that anyone would equate this fuzziness and woolliness with more articulate bass. Quite the contrary, the bass is less articulate, less muscular with 3,200. It was most noticeable when I was playing, back-to-back, Jethro Tull song "Back To The Family" (from their "Stand Up"). With 20,000, Glen Cornick's bass is amazingly, incredibly articulate, to the point that I can almost physically see where is his right hand positioned on the neck (I play bass guitar). With 3,200, while I still hear the same notes, I can't really envision his left hand on the fretboard. Amazing, isn't it, when you think about it? This is what high-end hi fi can buy you -- unprecedented involvement and enjoyment in listening to the playback. And now for the ultimate test in the hardening of the high frequencies: Sade's "Punch Drunk" (from her CD "Promise"). This instrumental piece was recorded hot, and then the mixing crew had over-processed the living shit out of it. The highs are pushed very hard to the very limit of endurance. With 20,000, this track flies by bringing nothing but sheer enjoyment. With 3,200, the enjoyment is still there, but not so exhilarating. Flipping over to the Dec 31, 2011 SBGK mod, this track is simply unbearable to listen to. Still, I must say that these differences are surprisingly subtle. I was expecting bigger, bolder differences between 3,200 and 20,000. When it comes to hardening the highs, I was able to produce much more prominent differences by removing the Shakti stones, than by changing the buffer size. Shakti stones appear to have a calming effect on the harsh highs, which is perhaps why now I can take a lot of overproduced shit and play it on my system and not cringe in pain. -- magiccarpetride ------------------------------------------------------------------------ magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
