Popular Post Ralf11 Posted August 28, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 28, 2019 22 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said: Yikes. This has been a brutal week for the audio press here. What is one level up from being beaten to a pulp? The ref needs to step in and show some compassion. 😎 did you mean to write compression instead of compassion? Ishmael Slapowitz, MikeyFresh, The Computer Audiophile and 1 other 4 Link to comment
Popular Post MikeyFresh Posted August 28, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 28, 2019 15 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said: Really, to know that, you must, as you've done, be at the recording session. Darn-it, so we can't just use the hamburger batch encoder in the sky to fully correct the flaws of all ADCs, and once that time smear has been deblurred, won't we then have the authenticity of the original session? Or is that only possible with the white glove treatment, and if so, who gets to wear those white gloves? esldude and Ishmael Slapowitz 2 Boycott HDtracks Boycott Lenbrook Boycott Warner Music Group Link to comment
Popular Post Jud Posted August 28, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 28, 2019 2 hours ago, John_Atkinson said: As I mentioned both much earlier in this thread and in Stereophile, I think that the probability of audible aliasing products appearing in the audioband with slow filters and the spectra of typical high-quality music recordings is very low, even negligible. And as I also mentioned, my experience has been that listeners prefer the sound of recordings made with slow-rolloff anti-aliasing filters and played back with slow-rolloff reconstruction filters. This is something the late Charley Hansen and I agreed about, despite our intense arguments over MQA. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile ”There’s distortion, but probably not so’s you’d hear it on a lot of stuff” isn’t quite what one thinks of when one reads the words “Master Quality,” is it? Regarding recordings made with slow-rolloff filters: - I don’t recall MQA saying its process ought to be limited to recordings made with a specific type of ADC filtering. Has Stereophile ever indicated this? - Do you happen to know whether all MQA material offered for sale/streaming is made with such ADC filters? All the MQA demo material you and Stereophile reviewers have written about? - In order to minimize aliasing and imaging from ultrasonics, a slow-rolloff filter must start cutting in the audible range. Do you regard a recording rolled off in the upper audible range to be a “typical high-quality music recording”? Teresa and MikeyFresh 2 One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Popular Post esldude Posted August 28, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 28, 2019 25 minutes ago, Jud said: ”There’s distortion, but probably not so’s you’d hear it on a lot of stuff” isn’t quite what one thinks of when one reads the words “Master Quality,” is it? Regarding recordings made with slow-rolloff filters: - I don’t recall MQA saying its process ought to be limited to recordings made with a specific type of ADC filtering. Has Stereophile ever indicated this? - Do you happen to know whether all MQA material offered for sale/streaming is made with such ADC filters? All the MQA demo material you and Stereophile reviewers have written about? - In order to minimize aliasing and imaging from ultrasonics, a slow-rolloff filter must start cutting in the audible range. Do you regard a recording rolled off in the upper audible range to be a “typical high-quality music recording”? My examples have plenty of not quite right aspects, but I think will illustrate a core point. First off MQA wants to use filters with few taps so the ripples on transients are short lived. Filtering with few taps forces you to have slow roll offs. Here is an Audacity example. Blue is the target, and green is the actual results. First with only 21 filter taps. Same target with 1035 taps. To get an okay filter with few taps you have to relax the rolloff quite a bit. It is inherent in MQA getting their unblurred filtering, but an unavoidable side effect is such shallow filtering necessarily lets in aliasing on the recording side. This means high frequency info can show up below 20 khz. On the playback side you are getting imaging which means below 20 khz sound is imaged in the ultrasonic region. Now MQA is using other techniques etc, but it explains why their short digital filters are going to give you aliasing and imaging. They claim to manage it so these are a non-issue, but superior general fidelity it isn't. Here is 21 taps again with a slow manageable roll off. This aliasing and imaging is inherent in MQA. crenca, oPossum, Jud and 2 others 2 2 1 And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
Popular Post esldude Posted August 28, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 28, 2019 To follow up on the previous post, I created some 384 khz files with silence and one single sample to max. The typical Dirac impulse which is an illegal signal to feed a DAC. So it doesn't fully represent what is really happening in an ADC, but is the visual that is sold to audiophiles about what is good about these slow leaky filters. Steep filters are -120 db from 20 khz to 25 khz. Shallow is 18 db per octave starting at 20 khz. These are in waveform DB scale and exaggerate the size of the pre and post ringing. Top one is a steep 21 tap filter. 2nd one is a steep 2905 tap filter. Notice it rings about 1450 sample before and 1450 samples after the Dirac pulse. Next is a shallow 21 tap filter and the bottom is a shallow 2905 tap filter. The shallow 2905 tap filter still has 2904 samples of ringing though the level of the pre and post cycles are smaller. This is the idea of your deblurring MQA is selling. MikeyFresh and crenca 1 1 And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
Popular Post Jud Posted August 28, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 28, 2019 31 minutes ago, esldude said: My examples have plenty of not quite right aspects, but I think will illustrate a core point. First off MQA wants to use filters with few taps so the ripples on transients are short lived. Filtering with few taps forces you to have slow roll offs. Here is an Audacity example. Blue is the target, and green is the actual results. First with only 21 filter taps. Same target with 1035 taps. To get an okay filter with few taps you have to relax the rolloff quite a bit. It is inherent in MQA getting their unblurred filtering, but an unavoidable side effect is such shallow filtering necessarily lets in aliasing on the recording side. This means high frequency info can show up below 20 khz. On the playback side you are getting imaging which means below 20 khz sound is imaged in the ultrasonic region. Now MQA is using other techniques etc, but it explains why their short digital filters are going to give you aliasing and imaging. They claim to manage it so these are a non-issue, but superior general fidelity it isn't. Here is 21 taps again with a slow manageable roll off. This aliasing and imaging is inherent in MQA. Which is why MQA filters work best with a slow rolloff ADC filter at the recording end, so there will be little or no ultrasonic content to cause intermodulation at the DAC end. Which unavoidably means rolloff of the high audible range in the recording. Of course if the ADC filters cause the Gibbs effect to occur (less precisely, ringing or “blurring”), the MQA filters at the DAC end, being slow rolloff, *cannot remove it*. That is to say, MQA DAC filters, to a mathematical certainty, cannot “deblur” anything! All they can do is be relatively free of the Gibbs effect themselves, meaning they unavoidably image and alias if there are ultrasonics in the recording, and pass along any “ringing” if that is present. crenca and MikeyFresh 1 1 One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Popular Post John Dyson Posted August 28, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 28, 2019 1 hour ago, esldude said: This will be off topic. I know, a first for this thread. Minimum phase filters. When I've had the chance to hear the direct mike feed and then the captures done and played back with minimum phase filtering, it seems to soften the sound most especially of sharp transients. If you are listening to the final mix and mastering with all the compression and other processing done I can see where you might prefer the sound that way. It however isn't fidelity to the signal. Preferences need no justification, but one of the big issues in audiophiledom is confusing preference with fidelity and truth. I agree 100% -- anything but a constant delay filter -- commonly called linear phase -- will tend to scramble the arrival of the audio signal on the other side of the filter. 'Sounds good' is sometimes important. Also, 'Deadly accurate' is also sometimes important. I really enjoy it when i can simply do a good design when using linear phase filters, but using minimum phase can sometimes be... interesting. An interesting exercise to consider -- filter a gain control signal. It is important that the shape be kept the same, and also restrict the frequency response, but cannot allow Gibbs... There are some really useful tricks, but minimum phase or approximate phase controlled filters need not apply. Phase can sometimes be crazy critical, and keeping timing all in sync can be life or the death of a making a design work correctly. Keeping significant Gibbs from happening in a substantial freq response cut, without nonlinear filtering is a 'real treat'. John MikeyFresh and crenca 1 1 Link to comment
MikeyFresh Posted August 28, 2019 Share Posted August 28, 2019 23 minutes ago, Jud said: That is to say, MQA DAC filters, to a mathematical certainty, cannot “deblur” anything! Damnit, so even the white glove treatment can't fully ensure the deblurring authenticity?!!! crenca 1 Boycott HDtracks Boycott Lenbrook Boycott Warner Music Group Link to comment
Jud Posted August 28, 2019 Share Posted August 28, 2019 1 minute ago, John Dyson said: Keeping significant Gibbs from happening in a substantial freq response cut, without nonlinear filtering is a 'real treat'. The point is, it takes expertise and good design, but can be done. Or you can throw out the "good design" and "substantial frequency response cut," and voila! - MQA! One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Jud Posted August 28, 2019 Share Posted August 28, 2019 4 minutes ago, John Dyson said: I agree 100% -- anything but a constant delay filter -- commonly called linear phase -- will tend to scramble the arrival of the audio signal on the other side of the filter. 'Sounds good' is sometimes important. Also, 'Deadly accurate' is also sometimes important. I really enjoy it when i can simply do a good design when using linear phase filters, but using minimum phase can sometimes be... interesting. OTOH, if you're making room response filters and trying to correct for timing idiosyncracies.... John Dyson 1 One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
John Dyson Posted August 28, 2019 Share Posted August 28, 2019 1 minute ago, Jud said: The point is, it takes expertise and good design, but can be done. Or you can throw out the "good design" and "substantial frequency response cut," and voila! - MQA! Some really 'uncommon' or 'tricky' design techniques are like a 'secret handshake'. Figuring out the specific problem about filtering the gain control signals without disrupting the dynamics at all was a major challenge (I didn' t have anyone else to learn from.) A simple linear phase brickwall won't work - the key is a carefully crafted filter characteristic -- once the technique is understood, then it becomes one of those Eureka moments. Now, there is no overshoot in any of my gain control cruves, but also have a nicely limited spectrum -- with absolutely ZERO nonlinear filtering. *That* was a major breakthrough that allowed me to open up the signal processing opportunities in my project. If I was stuck with IIR filters, even using optimization techniques -- my code would still be in the dark ages. Imagine doing the advanced processing in HW? I cannot even ponder it... Learn how to use the tools!!! This was slightly off topic -- I am (in my long-winded way) trying to state (and effectively agree with others) that being religious about one technique or another does limit opportunities and choices. Knowing how to use ones tools -- including something as simple as audio bandwidth filtering -- makes stuff more deterministic, more consistent results, and less snake-oil. None of us EVER quits learning, or if we do -- we then 'fall behind' into obscurity or maybe, start becoming a 'high priest' who knows less and less over time, but still happy to accept money from sponsorships... crenca 1 Link to comment
John Dyson Posted August 28, 2019 Share Posted August 28, 2019 9 minutes ago, Jud said: OTOH, if you're making room response filters and trying to correct for timing idiosyncracies.... Oh yea -- I agree that is a case where both the phase and the amplitude need to be crafted. It is all about 'knowing ones tools', and being willing to learn how to use new tools (or even, when really necessary -- truly innovate!!!) Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted August 28, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 28, 2019 Jim Austin reviews Mytek Brooklyn Bridge in Stereophile, just published: https://www.stereophile.com/content/mytek-brooklyn-bridge-streaming-dacnetwork-server Quote MQA files will still unfold to their full resolution (although it must be acknowledged, without going into detail, that above 96kHz, an unfolded MQA file is not equivalent to a PCM file of the same specification) So somehow that "unweildy" explanation finally makes it into Stereophile and in context of a review, not in comments or in "measurements" (sorry JA, but not everyone who reads the review reads all the detail in the measurements). I hope neither JA tries to tell us that this sudden decision to accurately describe such files has nothing to do with the discussion here. Score one for the good guys - us. And yes, I give belated credit to Austin for doing the right thing, even if it is at least of couple of years too late. Better late than never. Now he just has to tell JVS.... Funny how all those nasty and uncivil (not) comments on this thread had an impact. Just proves we need to keep plugging away. The thread has impact. BTW, more cudos to J. Austin for giving a relatively moderately priced item (or at least it's non steamer equivalent) an "A" rating. He includes an interesting discussion on the "neurtral" sound of the pro type DAC (which he means positively, as in "uncolored") and what that means: Quote The notion of neutrality is powerful in perfectionist audio; there's a reason people call this high fidelity. If you value fidelity above all, then, yes, a studio DAC is superior. But it isn't a moral issue. There is no right or wrong. Choose the DAC you love. The Computer Audiophile, Kyhl, mcgillroy and 4 others 5 1 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Tintinabulum Posted August 28, 2019 Share Posted August 28, 2019 6 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said: This has been a brutal week for the audio press here And if it was less of a hate fest/campaign, more people would read it. As it is, it's just a dark corner...(waits for click counts data...) askat1988, The Computer Audiophile, james45974 and 3 others 6 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 28, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 28, 2019 8 hours ago, MikeyFresh said: Darn-it, so we can't just use the hamburger batch encoder in the sky to fully correct the flaws of all ADCs, and once that time smear has been deblurred, won't we then have the authenticity of the original session? Or is that only possible with the white glove treatment, and if so, who gets to wear those white gloves? Kyhl, crenca, lucretius and 3 others 1 5 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 28, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 28, 2019 3 hours ago, firedog said: Jim Austin reviews Mytek Brooklyn Bridge in Stereophile, just published: https://www.stereophile.com/content/mytek-brooklyn-bridge-streaming-dacnetwork-server Quote MQA files will still unfold to their full resolution (although it must be acknowledged, without going into detail, that above 96kHz, an unfolded MQA file is not equivalent to a PCM file of the same specification) So somehow that "unweildy" explanation finally makes it into Stereophile and in context of a review, not in comments or in "measurements" (sorry JA, but not everyone who reads the review reads all the detail in the measurements). It's still far too generous. How about this instead: it must be acknowledged, without going into detail, that above 48 kHz, an unfolded MQA file bears no resemblance to the original. And how about then publishing a full article going into said detail? Rt66indierock, Hugo9000, esldude and 5 others 6 1 1 Link to comment
John_Atkinson Posted August 28, 2019 Share Posted August 28, 2019 10 hours ago, Jud said: - In order to minimize aliasing and imaging from ultrasonics, a slow-rolloff filter must start cutting in the audible range. Do you regard a recording rolled off in the upper audible range to be a “typical high-quality music recording”? When it comes to recording with slow-rolloff antialiasing filters, as the original sample rate is generally 2Fs or 4Fs, there is no significant top-octave rolloff in the audioband. For example, the "Listen" filter of Ayre's QA-9 A/D converter with a sample rate of 192kHz reaches –3dB at 70kHz but is flat in the top octave (–0.1dB at 20kHz). With playback of CD-resolution recordings, a slow-rolloff reconstruction filter typically gives a rolloff reaching between 1dB and 3dB at 20kHz. See fig.8 at https://www.stereophile.com/content/mytek-hifi-brooklyn-da-processorheadphone-amplifier-measurements for example, reproduced below. I doubt that is audibly significant. YMMV. BTW, IIRC it was mentioned elsewhere in this thread that Ayre's Charley Hansen was not a fan of minimum-phase reconstruction filters. This is not correct, as can be seen from the impulse responses of his "Music" and "Listen" filters, both minimum-phase, at https://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-qx-5-twenty-da-processor-measurements John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 28, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 28, 2019 4 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: BTW, IIRC it was mentioned elsewhere in this thread that Ayre's Charley Hansen was not a fan of minimum-phase reconstruction filters. This is not correct, as can be seen from the impulse responses of his "Music" and "Listen" filters, both minimum-phase, at https://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-qx-5-twenty-da-processor-measurements Charley was definitely a believer in minimum phase filters, and I don't recall anyone suggesting otherwise lately. What he didn't like was the MQA style of minimum phase not-really-a-filter-at-all and how the components of MQA (preprocessing, compression, resampling) are bundled into an inseparable package. If you look at your own graphs, you'll see that even the Ayre "listen" filter reaches about 90 dB attenuation at 40 kHz and stays there. In contrast, the MQA filters achieve at best 40 dB attenuation apart from a few narrow dips. Like this: asdf1000, crenca, Kyhl and 4 others 5 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Doug Schneider Posted August 28, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 28, 2019 1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said: With playback of CD-resolution recordings, a slow-rolloff reconstruction filter typically gives a rolloff reaching between 1dB and 3dB at 20kHz. See fig.8 at https://www.stereophile.com/content/mytek-hifi-brooklyn-da-processorheadphone-amplifier-measurements for example, reproduced below. I doubt that is audibly significant. YMMV. If you've ever played with tweeter rolloffs, 1-3dB is significant and clearly audible as you're usually talking about a fairly wide bandwidth in the top octave of the audioband. We recently received a speaker that allows .5dB adjustments in its topmost frequencies -- easily audible. Go take an equalizer and do the same thing -- you *should* hear it. And that hearing it will be a softer, more forgiving top end. Sound familiar? Doug Schneider John_Atkinson, MikeyFresh, opus101 and 4 others 3 2 2 Link to comment
Popular Post esldude Posted August 28, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 28, 2019 35 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said: If you've ever played with tweeter rolloffs, 1-3dB is significant and clearly audible as you're usually talking about a fairly wide bandwidth in the top octave of the audioband. We recently received a speaker that allows .5dB adjustments in its topmost frequencies -- easily audible. Go take an equalizer and do the same thing -- you *should* hear it. And that hearing it will be a softer, more forgiving top end. Sound familiar? Doug Schneider +1. Pretty funny MQA deblurs and it's audible. Aliasing, imaging, and FR droop are apparently inconsequential according to JA. Hugo9000, MikeyFresh, firedog and 2 others 5 And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted August 28, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 28, 2019 4 minutes ago, esldude said: +1. Pretty funny MQA deblurs and it's audible. Aliasing, imaging, and FR droop are apparently inconsequential according to JA. Not only audible, but knocks the socks off the old guard at an audio show with an average background noise level of 65 dB. MikeyFresh, Ran, lucretius and 4 others 3 1 3 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
John_Atkinson Posted August 28, 2019 Share Posted August 28, 2019 45 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said: 1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said: With playback of CD-resolution recordings, a slow-rolloff reconstruction filter typically gives a rolloff reaching between 1dB and 3dB at 20kHz. See fig.8 at https://www.stereophile.com/content/mytek-hifi-brooklyn-da-processorheadphone-amplifier-measurements for example, reproduced below. I doubt that is audibly significant. YMMV. If you've ever played with tweeter rolloffs, 1-3dB is significant and clearly audible as you're usually talking about a fairly wide bandwidth in the top octave of the audioband. Fairly wide bandwidth? Not really, Yes, if you are talking about the level of a tweeter, I have found, in a blind test, that I can detect a level difference of just 0.5dB. But that 0.5dB difference covered 2.5kHz-20kHz, ie, 3 octaves, which is a large "area under the curve." In the case of the example of the slow-rolloff reconstruction filter I gave, the output is flat to 10kHz, -0.1dB at 13kHz, -0.86dB at 17kHz, and -2.4dB at 20kHz, ie, the area under the curve is very small. And that area is in a region where human hearing sensitivity is reduced compared with frequencies below 13kHz. I doubt that it will be audible. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile Teresa 1 Link to comment
Popular Post esldude Posted August 28, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 28, 2019 Just now, John_Atkinson said: Fairly wide bandwidth? Not really, Yes, if you are talking about the level of a tweeter, I have found, in a blind test, that I can detect a level difference of just 0.5dB. But that 0.5dB difference covered 2.5kHz-20kHz, ie, 3 octaves, which is a large "area under the curve." In the case of the example of the slow-rolloff reconstruction filter I gave, the output is flat to 10kHz, -0.1dB at 13kHz, -0.86dB at 17kHz, and -2.4dB at 20kHz, ie, the area under the curve is very small. And that area is in a region where human hearing sensitivity is reduced compared with frequencies below 13kHz. I doubt that it will be audible. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile So what is audible about MQA? MikeyFresh and crenca 2 And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 28, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 28, 2019 37 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said: If you've ever played with tweeter rolloffs, 1-3dB is significant and clearly audible as you're usually talking about a fairly wide bandwidth in the top octave of the audioband. We recently received a speaker that allows .5dB adjustments in its topmost frequencies -- easily audible. Go take an equalizer and do the same thing -- you *should* hear it. And that hearing it will be a softer, more forgiving top end. Sound familiar? Since few of us hear anything at 20 kHz any more, the precise drop at that frequency is obviously irrelevant. However, with the slow roll-off filters, a 3 dB drop at 20 kHz means it's likely down by 0.5-1 dB at 15 kHz, and that can be audible. Probably not with all music, but it is likely to have a subtle mellowing effect on anything with strong high-frequency content. Jud, MikeyFresh and Thuaveta 1 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted August 28, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 28, 2019 Just now, mansr said: it is likely to have a subtle mellowing effect on anything OMG! Mans has entered the dark side of subjective audio lingo :~) Ralf11, Ishmael Slapowitz, crenca and 4 others 1 1 5 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now