F...and of course I responded by calling the product pure BS and of
course I was dismissed with some typical audiophile mumbo jumbo...
What goes around, comes around.
Don't get me wrong, this laminar thing is marketing fuzz at its worst.
But I really think you guys sometimes overdo.
Quad wrote:
What goes around, comes around.
Don't get me wrong, this laminar thing is marketing fuzz at its worst.
But I really think you guys sometimes overdo.
Yes probably , but think of it as a long lever :) as the majority of the
audio hoby have turned into this mess...
But that
Mnyb wrote:
You can't really make this up :)
Ah, a good one!
Computer operating systems are extensive and require many services,
which all compete for processing time. These processes are allocated
according to what are called priorities. It is known through the
world-wide consensus of
Mnyb wrote:
Sigh .
The oppo itself is good stuff .
But a pity (but expected) that stereophile is jumping on the DSD
bandwagon .
The last thing the audio world need is even more consumer formats
especially as we have several that are perfectly fine and transparent to
human listeners
callesoroe wrote:
Totally agree with you in this. I have just purchased the new Eric
Clapton album Old Socks in 24/96 on HDTRACKS.com.
The album was available on release date in HD version FLAC. This is the
way to go...More of that please :)
exactly is there maybe 1% of the legally
Julf wrote:
Ah, a good one!
Computer operating systems are extensive and require many services,
which all compete for processing time. These processes are allocated
according to what are called priorities. It is known through the
world-wide consensus of experienced computer audio tweakers
Mnyb wrote:
That is actually a gem , this is how they do it laminar and turbulent
streams are fluid dynamics (hydrodynamics and aearodynamics) it has
nothing to do with information ,you could aswell ask about the taste of
bits , I want blueberry zeros and vanilla ones :)
But to non
ralphpnj wrote:
Wow! You posted something that I almost completely agree with. As I
wrote several posts ago (and was promptly ignored) if pro-audio is so
great why do most modern recordings sound so bad?
And on a related topic, active speakers, just like every other kind of
speaker, have
jh901 wrote:
...Fortunately, it's also no secret as to how to accumulate
well-mastered digital. Stock up on the Audio Fidelity titles (most,
anyhow) and, if you so choose, rip them to your hard drive for network
play. Also, the hybrid SACDs on the Analogue Productions label are
generally
callesoroe wrote:
Totally agree with you in this. I have just purchased the new Eric
Clapton album Old Socks in 24/96 on HDTRACKS.com.
The album was available on release date in HD version FLAC. This is the
way to go...More of that please :)
Have you checked if it really is hi-res?
Julf wrote:
Have you checked if it really is hi-res?
It doesn't matter because hi-res, CD res or low res it doesn't matter
because it's not DSD :)
ralphpnj's Profile:
mlsstl wrote:
However, particularly with pop rock, if you listen to a recording made
in the 60s, apart from the style of music, it also sounds like a
recording made during that period. It does not sound like one made in
the 70s.
Stereo had not even taken hold in the early 60s much
I agree, Elvis and other 50s stuff can sound really good, actually a lot
better than modern stuff. A case of less is more ... SOTA sound
processing can't replace correct acoustics, mic positioning and skill
... and huge dynamic range doesn't help modern recordings if it's passed
through a
Taking this thread back to the issue of active speakers versus passive
speakers I have a couple of questions for the active speaker
proponents.
It seems that the area where active speakers most differ from passive
speakers is in the use of crossovers. So just how much distortion is
introduced by
It's more than just distortion measurements. Some types of crossover are
only possible done actively e.g. time delay, all-pass phase correction
etc. Also it is about driver transient control which might not be
obvious from steady state distortion measurements. And also dynamic
range is better too
darrenyeats wrote:
It's more than just distortion measurements. Some types of crossover are
only possible done actively e.g. time delay, all-pass phase correction
etc. Also it is about driver transient control which might not be
obvious from steady state distortion measurements. And also
Thank you Darren and Mnyb for those excellent responses. It seems that
are many things about active versus passive speakers that I need to
learn about but you have each my a very good starting point from which
to continue my research. And I also thank you both for understanding
that I was and am
ralphpnj wrote:
Thank you Darren and Mnyb for those excellent responses. ..
+1 ..yes very good ..much appreciated
SoftwireEngineer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7000
View this thread:
Julf wrote:
Have you checked if it really is hi-res?
Sounds great. I have no reason to believe it is not. The bas response is
a lot better on my 24/96 files. This one too. And my Tact indicates it
is 24/96.
callesoroe's
Julf wrote:
Have you checked if it really is hi-res?
callesoroe wrote:
Sounds great. I have no reason to believe it is not. The bas response is
a lot better on my 24/96 files. This one too. And my Tact indicates it
is 24/96.
I think means for you to get all anal and check the frequency
On the topic about 1% distorsion has been quted for passive filters
there is the AVi forum for AVi active speakers .
Very baised about thier product
http://hddaudio.net/viewtopic.php?id=886
The loss of cone damping is one issue another less known one is because
driver impedance vary with signal
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-2013-consumer-electronics-show-neil-gader-on-loudspeakers-under-20k/
^ About mid-way down the page for the S1. These are some fine looking
speakers. Very much interested to find how they sound compared to my
Focal's. Gotta hope that Magico is only
ralphpnj wrote:
I think means for you to get all anal and check the frequency response
curves, spectrum analysis, dynamic range, etc. As far as I'm concerned,
if you say it sounds good then it sounds good. Plus remember that it is
not DSD so it's not worthwhile to start with :)
Yes if it
jh901, I think you misunderstood my post. Your reply seems to indicate
you thought that I was suggesting one period's recoding fashion is
superior to another. That's not the case. I was only saying the decades
were different and generally recognizable. There are some excellent,
poor and a lot of
Mnyb wrote:
And also an old analog master is not hires no matter how much we wish
it where , it's like carry around 1liter of water in a 10liter bucket.
Not so fast. An old analog master tape of an old fully analog recording
is just as valid a source for high resolution digital as a new high
mlsstl wrote:
jh901, I think you misunderstood my post. Your reply seems to indicate
you thought that I was suggesting one period's recoding fashion is
superior to another. That's not the case. I was only saying the decades
were different and generally recognizable. There are some excellent,
ralphpnj wrote:
Not so fast. An old analog master tape of an old fully analog recording
is just as valid a source for high resolution digital as a new high
resolution digital recording. The real issue is just how carefully the
analog master is converted to high resolution digital.
What
mlsstl wrote:
I don't need the latest version of the endless remasters in hopes of
hearing one of boys shuffle their shoes at 2 minutes and 17 seconds into
a track.
Actually it's more of a tapping of the shoe and it happens at 2 minutes
and 22 seconds. Plus it can only be heard on the long
Mnyb wrote:
I would argue that analog and digital resolution is equal in practice
it is simply not true that analog recordings have infinite resolution
and what we need to do is sample them better and better .
Sn ratio is Sn ratio either analog or digital ( wath the video recently
linked
jh901 wrote:
But nevertheless, the difference will be shocking.
That sentence alone marks a big difference between us.
Yes, I prefer clean recordings more than poor ones. While I have been
irritated at finding I've purchased a CD suffering too much from the
loudness wars syndrome, that was
mlsstl wrote:
think of Steve Hoffman as a miracle worker
You said it! Don't you just love out of context quotes.
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread:
jh901 wrote:
I'd recommend the Beatles mono box set. The original '87 CDs are stereo
mixes (which are not definitive) and were poorly mastered. I'm not sure
why you would listen to The Beatles only for nostalgia though!? We
don't pop on Beethoven or Mozart for nostalgia do we?
I
Note, the comparison with Touch -
http://www.the-ear.net/review-hardware/nad-m50-m52-streamer-server
SoftwireEngineer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7000
View this thread:
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Note, the comparison with Touch -
http://www.the-ear.net/review-hardware/nad-m50-m52-streamer-server
Thanks for the link... A few choice quotes:
You could either work with a Logitech Squeezebox or you had to look for
high end solutions like dedicated music servers
34 matches
Mail list logo
