Archimago wrote:
Ralph,
My apologies for asking such an obvious question about DSD downloads
here.
Of course, everyone here is too cheap to buy $100/ft USB cables and
unworthy of Chateau Petrus or Louis XIII. Clearly, you guys are not
True Believers in the Audiophile Experience (TBAE).
ralphpnj wrote:
Wow! Just like an other religion audiophilia allows for atonement and
redemption. So with that in mind I've decided to start small and slowly
work my back into the fold without destroying my credit rating.
Therefore my first purchase will be this Premium Upgrade Headphone
I particularly like this quote:
While the electrical signal in the conductor moves at the speed of
light, the charge propagation in dielectric material is limited to
approximately 78 percent of the speed of light. The discharge of the
dielectric lags behind the charge in the conductor, causing a
Archimago wrote:
Ahhh! Great to hear of the good news... The saints and all TBAEs rejoice
with you! Clearly the scales covering your eyes have been removed and
the bondage around your unrepentant heart has been broken.
Now, if you would only complete your salvation... We heard that
ralphpnj wrote:
I'm hoping that buying a pair of these interconnects will at least make
me a bishop, albeit a very poor one.
Alas, no sir, remember, for it is easier for a camel to squeeze through
the eye of a needle than mere mortals to achieve the upper echelons!
Bishop status requires the
Archimago wrote:
Alas, no sir, remember, for it is easier for a camel to squeeze through
the eye of a needle than mere mortals to achieve the upper echelons!
Bishop status requires the -whole house- to be rewired with Audioquest
Diamond ethernet cables on top of the aforementioned
RonM wrote:
I particularly like this quote:
While the electrical signal in the conductor moves at the speed of
light, the charge propagation in dielectric material is limited to
approximately 78 percent of the speed of light. The discharge of the
dielectric lags behind the charge in the
Yeah, clearly it's audible...
But no problem. Since these cables have a 30-day return policy, just
-believe-, buy, and send it back if you don't like it... You only lose a
smidgen on transportation costs!
:-)
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
Archimago wrote:
Yup... All valid points and I wish we could just have straightforward
information on pedigree. Like the SPARS code in the old days, it was all
meant to be a simple designation. The Wiki notes both Lack of detail
and Implications of quality as very valid criticisms as well.
Ralph,
My apologies for asking such an obvious question about DSD downloads
here.
Of course, everyone here is too cheap to buy $100/ft USB cables and
unworthy of Chateau Petrus or Louis XIII. Clearly, you guys are not
True Believers in the Audiophile Experience (TBAE).
Heed the words of *I
Other things to consider .
HD tracks have a lot of 24/192 that actually are SACD rips ? what about
the ultrasonic grunge in those ? and how to classify that .
More interesting why not use the intrinsic resolution in the recording
itself as a benchmark .
Old analog 60's rock classic master
Archimago wrote:
You know, I would not be surprised if by doing this - suppressing
dissent - sites like this ends up shooting themselves in the foot. I
suspect a good amount of traffic was created by the debates and
dialogue. Sure, they might create some kind of oasis of audiophilic
cultish
Mnyb wrote:
Other things to consider .
HD tracks have a lot of 24/192 that actually are SACD rips ? what about
the ultrasonic grunge in those ? and how to classify that .
More interesting why not use the intrinsic resolution in the recording
itself as a benchmark .
Old analog 60's
Archimago wrote:
Dammit man, stop with the DSD crap, guys :-). So has anyone bought an
actual DSD download yet?!
Archimago you of all people should know that attempting to play a DSD
download using anything less than a $100/per foot audiophile USB cable
will result in just about the worst
ralphpnj wrote:
A classic example of what it is like when extreme cynicism matches
reality.
You know, I would not be surprised if by doing this - suppressing
dissent - sites like this ends up shooting themselves in the foot. I
suspect a good amount of traffic was created by the debates and
ralphpnj wrote:
I like the overall idea of some kind simple rating system and your
suggestions are spot on. Now to throw a monkey wrench into the works -
what about DSD downloads?
From what I gathered DSD recordings cannot be mixed and edited in native
DSD and must be converted to PCM
Archimago wrote:
Multitracked and complex mixes will need PCM editing as you noted. I
think the most we can ask for is something like a declaration of Direct
DSD Album for the best that DSD can afford. How about something like
this:
*HH(DSD)* - hi-res PCM recording and production (maybe
Wombat wrote:
Showing? Real measurement? When it comes to JS i read since years that
people use him as prove because he measured and heard something with
measuring on some groundplate under some circumstances on some equipment
on some sunny day... Then comes some talk throwing in 3 tech
ralphpnj wrote:
Seriously you expected AudioStream NOT to block your login? Since the
whole thing is about making money by pedaling BS anyone who calls out
their total BS is going to be banned, it's that simple. Anyway please
keep up the good fight.
I think it's funny how in the New Rules
Archimago wrote:
Maybe John Swenson can show us something since they seem to like what he
says. Alas, it looks like they've blocked my login! I don't think I was
nasty over there and don't remember any heated exchanges... I guess
dissenting opinion is eating into the bottom line.
Showing?
Archimago wrote:
No I don't think it's unnecessarily literal... Fact is that I think even
DSD can be coded in some way after seeing all the SACD rips where the
original signal looks to be nothing but upsampled 44/48kHz. So I think
seriously it can be done. The question is why bother as you
ralphpnj wrote:
Archimago you are way too literal since I was only trying to make a
point about how the concept of audio purity goes right the window when
there's money to be made. The DSD craze/nonsense is just a perfect
example. As for using DSD files, I can't since I only use run of the
Archimago wrote:
I haven't see him around these parts for awhile now. Wasn't he working
on some cool DAC? (I see Bottlehead DAC in search engines.)
I didn't see a built DAC or other device from him reviewed lately but i
am not on much places. No idea what he is busy with. Maybe retired?
Archimago wrote:
I think it's funny how in the New Rules post he puts us this little
rant on being civil and respectful. And how he was tired of dealing
with comments that are abusive, disrespectful, slanderous, and
completely lacking in any relevance to the post at hand. You know, I
kind
I believe that JS, Triode, and JackofAll were all involved, to some
unknown degree, in the cluster f*** that was the Community Squeeze
project. To a great extent---and maybe I'm completely off base in
assuming it's relatedbut the three of them have been very scarce
here ever since.
Rg
rgro wrote:
I believe that JS, Triode, and JackofAll were all involved, to some
unknown degree, in the cluster f*** that was the Community Squeeze
project. To a great extent---and maybe I'm completely off base in
assuming it's relatedbut the three of them have been very scarce
here
Archimago wrote:
Good question...What do you guys think? Maybe we can brainstorm a way to
propose something like this as a blog post for posterity...
I like the overall idea of some kind simple rating system and your
suggestions are spot on. Now to throw a monkey wrench into the works -
what
Wombat wrote:
I have no idea if this helps. None if it guarantees good sound.
My biggest problem with downloads in online shops today is how the
16/44.1 version is created from the HiBit version in the same shop. It
is a gamble. When asking before buying you normaly get no answer.
Yes if
Mushroom_3 wrote:
Thanks for another really interesting blog Archimago.
At what point does this become fraud?
Good question... I guess it's especially important to remember -caveat
emptor- when we're wading in the high resolution domain of data
downloads. Unless there are some guidelines
Wombat wrote:
I have no idea if this helps. None if it guarantees good sound.
My biggest problem with downloads in online shops today is how the
16/44.1 version is created from the HiBit version in the same shop. It
is a gamble. When asking before buying you normaly get no answer.
True,
I have no idea if this helps. None if it guarantees good sound.
My biggest problem with downloads in online shops today is how the
16/44.1 version is created from the HiBit version in the same shop. It
is a gamble. When asking before buying you normaly get no answer.
Transporter (modded) -
Mnyb wrote:
Yes if the 24/192 , 24/96 and 16/44.1 version really sounds dramatically
different from any download vendor I would be -realy- suspicious
I lately was shopping for the last Ben Howard and asked qobuz about the
different versions but got no answer. I did byte the bullet and got me
Wombat wrote:
I lately was shopping for the last Ben Howard and asked qobuz about the
different versions but got no answer. I did bite the bullet and got me
the 24/48 version after finding no real info on the net.
The 24/48 version is indeed 5dB less compressed. Imho i should be able
to
Thanks for another really interesting blog Archimago.
At what point does this become fraud?
Mushroom_3's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13434
View this thread:
ralphpnj wrote:
The second sentence is exactly the response that HDTracks always gives
whenever there is any question about the quality of their overpriced
garbage: We just sell whatever garbage the labels give us (and keep the
money!)
I've written to HD-Tracks about the compressed files
Bill50x wrote:
I've written to HD-Tracks about the compressed files they sell as more
dynamic and have so far got no answer. I mean, what's the point of
24/192-files if the dynamics are like 5 dB lower (which often is the
case, not always however) than the original CD? Now, dynamics isn't
Archimago wrote:
It'll be interesting how this gets addressed since it's such a flagrant
deficit! I mean, taking the 16-bit file, amplify by 0.1dB in a 24-bit
container to make it sound a little louder and better!? Add a little
temporal misalignment to we can't directly compare without a
Thanks Archimago! Another excellent blog post.
I love this comment by Rafael Lino:
Your friend should send an email to Qobuz, they will answer or at least
see in to that problem.
From what I'm told they work with what the sources give to them.
The second sentence is exactly the response that
Archimago wrote:
Folks... For a relatively high profile album, this is truly awful!
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/02/measurements-bob-dylans-shadows-in.html
Impressive! Your blog is much better as wathing TV often enough manwhile
and now with voice! Very entertaining :)
This discovery
Wombat wrote:
Impressive! Your blog is much better as wathing TV often enough manwhile
and now with voice! Very entertaining :)
This discovery just shows one more time what the business and so called
professionals think of us customers.
P.S.: I just redownloaded track 1 at qobuz in
Folks... For a relatively high profile album, this is truly awful!
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/02/measurements-bob-dylans-shadows-in.html
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
41 matches
Mail list logo
