magiccarpetride;681772 Wrote: > 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.
I would attribute what you call "somewhat fuzzy, out of focus" with 3200 to the fact that the highs are less prominent and there is less sharpening of the sound. On my system, this looks more natural. Interesting is that you don't feel that there is any perceptible loss of details. For me indeed the details are still there but they are less highlighted and more balanced with bass and mids. magiccarpetride;681772 Wrote: > 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. Basic acoustics physics would tend me to say that the positioning of the right hand on the neck is more due to good in phase highs than good bass. You don't hear the hand by the sound of the guitar but rather by the noise of the hand slipping on the neck, isn't it? Indeed, I have noticed with buffer at 20000 that the localisation of the sound was surprisingly precise. Spatialisation seems a little more unfocused with 3200 on my system because bass, mid and highs are more balanced and enlarge the noise source a little bit. But paying attention to it, this is not because of a loss of focus, but rather because the sound is richer and fuller and hence sounds wider... also due to the law of acoustics. magiccarpetride;681772 Wrote: > ... Still, I must say that these differences are surprisingly subtle. I > was expecting bigger, bolder differences between 3,200 and 20,000. This is a rather good news. My acoustics Nirvana must not be so far from yours... but for a reason unexplained so far, there are not at the same place. :) Somewhere my system must be less bass heavy or be more highlighting the highs than yours (or both) hence loosing the balance at higher buffer settings. It is true I have only two way speakers that generally do not tend to highlight bass. I am also using DYI FFRC speaker cables (full range response cable) that drastically improve the high frequency response, creating a lot of air and openess. Combination of the two might be why it is sounding better at 3200 for me. -- evdplancke ------------------------------------------------------------------------ evdplancke's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=43147 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
