Popular Post mansr Posted March 8, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 8, 2018 12 minutes ago, ednaz said: Watching the arguments of what's kept versus thrown away, what's real and what's invented, is it debarring or blurring, is it just upsampling, wait is that noise, brings to mind something from another domain - photography. When printing digital photographs at display sizes - 16x20 inches, 20x30 inches and larger - professional printers, the type that would print images for a gallery or museum show, do a couple of tricks to every image, just before printing. (Learned these working for a famous NYC fine art printer.) First, they apply an unsharp mask to increase the apparent sharpness (de-blurring), which paradoxically works by applying a mildly blurred image as a mask on to the original image. De-blurring by adding a mask of blurring. It raises the apparent sharpness of the image. Done well, it's not noticeable. Done poorly, you get visible halos in the image. Note that even done well, there are halos - the unsharp image absolutely makes them, but they're below your ability to see them - a pixel or two wide. (I learned to do this in film days. Much easier in digital.) Second, they add noise to the image. Everyone evaluates digital sensors based on their ability to produce an image free of digital noise... but completely noise free images look odd. In large areas with no detail - sky, a car fender, still water - they look artificial and plastic. The printer uses one of a number of techniques to generate digital noise that's similar to film grain, and blends it into the image. The size and frequencies of the noise are based on the size of the final print. Again, the goal is to have it be there and effective but not noticeable. (When I show people prints where I've done this, they have a hard time detecting it, even after being told what to look for.) That added noise does three things. It makes the image seem more real, and less digital. It reduces the visibility of actual digital noise from the sensor. And, it also increases the apparent sharpness of the image. In photography - which is about capturing the most accurate renditions of light and color with a recording device and then reproducing them for viewing - adding information that was never there to begin with increases the perception of it being a more accurate and sharply rendered image of the real world. I imagine that the same types of tricks, applied to audio files, may improve the apparent accuracy and crispness of the rendering of recorded sounds. After all, we see and hear with our brains, not our eyes and ears. You make a good point. However, our visual and auditory perception work in very different ways. Just consider that 25 frames per second is enough to produce a convincing video while audio requires a sample rate 1000 times higher to get anywhere close. We are far more sensitive to distortions in sound than in images. Audio with as much distortion as a good JPEG image is unlistenable. Tricks that work well for imaging and video rarely transfer to the audio domain. adamdea, tmtomh and blue2 3 Link to comment
ednaz Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 2 hours ago, mansr said: You make a good point. However, our visual and auditory perception work in very different ways. Just consider that 25 frames per second is enough to produce a convincing video while audio requires a sample rate 1000 times higher to get anywhere close. We are far more sensitive to distortions in sound than in images. Audio with as much distortion as a good JPEG image is unlistenable. Tricks that work well for imaging and video rarely transfer to the audio domain. All that scientific fact about moving images (I was talking about stills) ignores what I see about MQA. People with great ears (I was a union card holding musician until I was 30) talk about how MQA has more reality in the sense of environment. Which, given the de-blurring techniques, and noise feedback... makes a lot of sense. Detecting distortions... all those image print techniques are based on taking advantage of our perceptions. I think MQA takes advantage of our perceptions. Not reality. Brains hear. They function at a pretty damn low sample rate. Incidentally, I'm not talking about JPEG. Not even 100% JPG (although if you're willing to put up a big bunch of money I'll let you try to prove to me that you can ID JPG distortions.) I'm talking about raw images, or 16 bit TIFFS, in color spaces way beyond Adobe RGB. Really, assumptions make... you finish it. I'm also not talking about Joe from the Street looking at images, I'm talking about high name recognition photographers. BTW, I've spent my last few years building real time environments for visualizing brain activity in multiple types of visualization (fPET, fMRI, ERP) technologies overlaid... We may sample sound frequently but we don't use it. Your brain's activity sets early in a listening (or viewing) session and rolls it forward. Brains are lazy. Like humans. And I suppose I'm assuming an ability to grasp analogies. I could well be wrong. Most of my work is based on cross domain analogies, but not everyone can do that. Link to comment
ednaz Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 JPG = MP3 RAW = DSD TIFF = FLAC Link to comment
crenca Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 16 minutes ago, ednaz said: All that scientific fact about moving images (I was talking about stills) ignores what I see about MQA. People with great ears (I was a union card holding musician until I was 30) talk about how MQA has more reality in the sense of environment. Which, given the de-blurring techniques, and noise feedback... makes a lot of sense. Detecting distortions... all those image print techniques are based on taking advantage of our perceptions. I think MQA takes advantage of our perceptions. Not reality. Brains hear. They function at a pretty damn low sample rate. Incidentally, I'm not talking about JPEG. Not even 100% JPG (although if you're willing to put up a big bunch of money I'll let you try to prove to me that you can ID JPG distortions.) I'm talking about raw images, or 16 bit TIFFS, in color spaces way beyond Adobe RGB. Really, assumptions make... you finish it. I'm also not talking about Joe from the Street looking at images, I'm talking about high name recognition photographers. BTW, I've spent my last few years building real time environments for visualizing brain activity in multiple types of visualization (fPET, fMRI, ERP) technologies overlaid... We may sample sound frequently but we don't use it. Your brain's activity sets early in a listening (or viewing) session and rolls it forward. Brains are lazy. Like humans. And I suppose I'm assuming an ability to grasp analogies. I could well be wrong. Most of my work is based on cross domain analogies, but not everyone can do that. Unfortunately your allowing your imagination to get a bit carried away. We have no problem with analogies, yours just does not work with MQA given what we actually know about waveforms (sound and digital) and how MQA works internally. Also, it is simply not true that "people with great ears" report what you say. Some do, but some don't. The closer one gets to "insider status" in Audiophiledom, the more such creative defense of MQA becomes the norm. The further you move away from it "people with great ears" report a worsening of the very things MQA defenders report. Also, you appear to rely on the confidence game and who is saying what as opposed to what is said as Audiophiledom does. In other words, your "cross domain analogy" is a fail - it's bunk... MikeyFresh 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
michael123 Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 I still don't get why one should listen to lossy MQA (whatever fantastic it is), if there is plenty lossless material out there? As said before, the only justification might be for Tidal or other streaming services, where the bandwidth is not broadly available What else puzzles me, is that almost all manufactures jumped so quickly into MQA wagon, even quite respectful PRO-equipment, why? It took years to get proper support for DSD, and even today not an every DAC supports DSD Teresa 1 Link to comment
Archimago Posted March 8, 2018 Author Share Posted March 8, 2018 2 hours ago, ednaz said: JPG = MP3 RAW = DSD TIFF = FLAC I agree with the others, we need to be cautious. So in this analogy, what do you make of MQA? Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
michael123 Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 RAW is DXD, not DSD ednaz 1 Link to comment
skater999 Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 There are only two reasons I can think of why someone would say that MQA is not the BEST sounding format. NO other format comes close to the sound of MQA files. 1) That streaming MQA files will cause your business to fail. No one needs to buy high Rez files which do not sound as good as streamed MQA. 2) You have not spent enough time listening to live music.......and you have spent to much time listening to CDs.... Its about the timing, MQA gets it right, all other digital doesn't...Its that simple...and because the timing is correct, you will recognize more information in the recording. Link to comment
michael123 Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 1 minute ago, skater999 said: No one needs to buy high Rez files which do not sound as good as streamed MQA. You're sarcastic I assume, aren't you? MikeyFresh 1 Link to comment
firedog Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 5 hours ago, ednaz said: All that scientific fact about moving images (I was talking about stills) ignores what I see about MQA. People with great ears (I was a union card holding musician until I was 30) talk about how MQA has more reality in the sense of environment. Which, given the de-blurring techniques, and noise feedback... makes a lot of sense. "people with great ears" - only some of them, and almost all in sighted tests. Have you not read all the reports of listeners (many in blind testing) that don't agree? Or those who hear that the "softening" and "more natural" sound is also acdompanied by a loss of small detail? And it still isn't clear that the "deblurring" is being applied they way they claim, or that a user can't achieve the same result without MQA, just by using different filters. 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
Popular Post mansr Posted March 8, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 8, 2018 5 hours ago, Archimago said: I agree with the others, we need to be cautious. So in this analogy, what do you make of MQA? JPEG2000, of course. A "better" lossy format that nobody needed and never got any traction. MikeyFresh, Archimago, maxijazz and 2 others 3 1 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 7 hours ago, ednaz said: All that scientific fact about moving images (I was talking about stills) ignores what I see about MQA. People with great ears (I was a union card holding musician until I was 30) talk about how MQA has more reality in the sense of environment. Which, given the de-blurring techniques, and noise feedback... makes a lot of sense. Detecting distortions... all those image print techniques are based on taking advantage of our perceptions. I think MQA takes advantage of our perceptions. Not reality. Brains hear. They function at a pretty damn low sample rate. We know MQA messes with the phase of the signal. There are also hints at subtle EQ and trickery with the stereo spread. If you like those gimmicks, that's fine. Just don't foist them on everybody else. The noise MQA adds has nothing to do with perception. Most likely, the purpose is to mask the nasty artefacts of the MQA process, not from our ears, to which they are inaudible, but from measuring equipment. 7 hours ago, ednaz said: Incidentally, I'm not talking about JPEG. Not even 100% JPG (although if you're willing to put up a big bunch of money I'll let you try to prove to me that you can ID JPG distortions.) You might be surprised by the outcome. Luckily for you, I'm not going to put up "a big bunch of money" towards such a challenge. 7 hours ago, ednaz said: And I suppose I'm assuming an ability to grasp analogies. I could well be wrong. Most of my work is based on cross domain analogies, but not everyone can do that. That's getting dangerously close to an insult. Watch your step. Link to comment
Popular Post ednaz Posted March 8, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 8, 2018 3 hours ago, mansr said: We know MQA messes with the phase of the signal. There are also hints at subtle EQ and trickery with the stereo spread. If you like those gimmicks, that's fine. Just don't foist them on everybody else. The noise MQA adds has nothing to do with perception. Most likely, the purpose is to mask the nasty artefacts of the MQA process, not from our ears, to which they are inaudible, but from measuring equipment. You might be surprised by the outcome. Luckily for you, I'm not going to put up "a big bunch of money" towards such a challenge. That's getting dangerously close to an insult. Watch your step. "Watch your step." What kind of comment is that? Lovely. Not an insult at all, but a statement of fact. Most people don't do cross-analogy thinking very well. After 35 years of leading teams in neuro-science, computer code reverse engineering, photography, drug discovery, entity analytics, cryptography, human systems analysis, and more, I think I have a good perspective on that. There's a well documented phenomenon of "expert blind spots" - the deeper an expert someone becomes, the more certain they are about every aspect of their discipline. I'm a professional "dumb question" asker. Fun way to make a living, never bored. Particularly for a musician and theater major. People claiming they can detect jpg vs other file captures remind me of people who say they can always tell lossy compressed music files from non-compressed. I can with a lot of music, but when you get Alabama Shakes running a DR of 3... can't any more. I think that may be part of what's going on in the MQA arguments, and is a variable I can't remember being explored. People say that sometimes they sound better, sometimes just not worse, sometimes worse. Wouldn't it be interesting if, instead of challenging their hearing or expertise, someone tried to understand it? Took awhile before someone noticed that the volume levels of files, and pitch, influenced how people heard them. I've long wondered if DR=3 versus DR=15 might be part of that. Alabama Shakes at high bit MP3 doesn't sound much different to me than 24/96. Are people arguing about MQA missing a GIGO problem? look&listen and Currawong 2 Link to comment
mansr Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 2 minutes ago, ednaz said: "Watch your step." What kind of comment is that? Lovely. Just a piece of friendly advice. 2 minutes ago, ednaz said: Not an insult at all, but a statement of fact. Most people don't do cross-analogy thinking very well. After 35 years of leading teams in neuro-science, computer code reverse engineering, photography, drug discovery, entity analytics, cryptography, human systems analysis, and more, Jack of all trades, master of... 2 minutes ago, ednaz said: People claiming they can detect jpg vs other file captures remind me of people who say they can always tell lossy compressed music files from non-compressed. I can do that too often enough. Countless hours of codec testing does that to you. 2 minutes ago, ednaz said: I can with a lot of music, but when you get Alabama Shakes running a DR of 3... can't any more. I think that may be part of what's going on in the MQA arguments, and is a variable I can't remember being explored. Sorry, I lost your chain of thought. 2 minutes ago, ednaz said: Wouldn't it be interesting if, instead of challenging their hearing or expertise, someone tried to understand it? We did. Successfully. That's what the article is all about. Did you read it? MikeyFresh 1 Link to comment
mcgillroy Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 MQA Trolls are getting better. Nice to see. Bring it on. MikeyFresh 1 Link to comment
Popular Post botrytis Posted March 8, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 8, 2018 6 hours ago, skater999 said: There are only two reasons I can think of why someone would say that MQA is not the BEST sounding format. NO other format comes close to the sound of MQA files. 1) That streaming MQA files will cause your business to fail. No one needs to buy high Rez files which do not sound as good as streamed MQA. 2) You have not spent enough time listening to live music.......and you have spent to much time listening to CDs.... Its about the timing, MQA gets it right, all other digital doesn't...Its that simple...and because the timing is correct, you will recognize more information in the recording. I would hope you are joking. This Archimago post and others have shown that MQA is a joke and at worst a con job. Archimago has shown MQA actually increases timing issue not fixes them and MQA NEVER SHOWED WHAT timing issues they were fixing (and I mean actual proof). All they have done is statements and anyone can say that. What I recognize is, with MQA, more noise, more problems and definitely NOT what was originally recorded. mcgillroy, maxijazz, Ran and 2 others 3 2 Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
beetlemania Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 10 hours ago, michael123 said: almost all manufactures jumped so quickly into MQA wagon Schitt, Linn, Ayre, MBL, Playback Designs - give these companies some love. PS Audio apparently has caved. Roon ROCK (Roon 1.7; NUC7i3) > Ayre QB-9 Twenty > Ayre AX-5 Twenty > Thiel CS2.4SE (crossovers rebuilt with Clarity CSA and Multicap RTX caps, Mills MRA-12 resistors; ERSE and Jantzen coils; Cardas binding posts and hookup wire); Cardas and OEM power cables, interconnects, and speaker cables Link to comment
botrytis Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 Manufacturers, except a few, are very agnostic. If they see something that a buyer wants, they will add it. I don't think it is anything more than that. Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
james45974 Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 11 minutes ago, botrytis said: Manufacturers, except a few, are very agnostic. If they see something that a buyer wants, they will add it. I don't think it is anything more than that. Yes, it is just a tick box. I don't think you can see it as an implicit endorsement of MQA in any way. I would be interested in the cancellation process, although I am sure it is behind the NDA. If company X decides not to include MQA capability anymore what are the possible penalties. botrytis 1 Jim Link to comment
beetlemania Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 12 minutes ago, botrytis said: If they see something that a buyer wants, they will add it. I don't think it is anything more than that. Linn and Schiit each put anti-MQA statements on their webpages. Charles Hansen lit every forum on fire with his disdain for MQA. MBL and Playback were more reserved publicly but still resolute. PS Audio came out anti but more recently added MQA. I guess that's your "very few" qualifier. Roon ROCK (Roon 1.7; NUC7i3) > Ayre QB-9 Twenty > Ayre AX-5 Twenty > Thiel CS2.4SE (crossovers rebuilt with Clarity CSA and Multicap RTX caps, Mills MRA-12 resistors; ERSE and Jantzen coils; Cardas binding posts and hookup wire); Cardas and OEM power cables, interconnects, and speaker cables Link to comment
botrytis Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 1 minute ago, beetlemania said: Linn and Schiit each put anti-MQA statements on their webpages. Charles Hansen lit every forum on fire with his disdain for MQA. MBL and Playback were more reserved publicly but still resolute. PS Audio came out anti but more recently added MQA. I guess that's your "very few" qualifier. I was just pointing that out. Not really good or bad. Don't forget, Linn also produces music and has a very fine label for it. I think that is WHY they were adamant about it. Benchmark also put out a scathing blog post on MQA but they also think nothing is needed beyond 96/24 (that is another can of worms). Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
Popular Post John_Atkinson Posted March 8, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 8, 2018 14 hours ago, ednaz said: Incidentally, I'm not talking about JPEG. Not even 100% JPG (although if you're willing to put up a big bunch of money I'll let you try to prove to me that you can ID JPG distortions.) I'm talking about raw images, or 16 bit TIFFS, in color spaces way beyond Adobe RGB. Really, assumptions make... you finish it. I'm also not talking about Joe from the Street looking at images, I'm talking about high name recognition photographers. Interesting posts on imaging. I will admit that I don't know much at all about digital photography, but from my reading of sampling and filtering, it appears that sinc-function filters - which are almost ubiquitous in digital audio - are sub-optimal for image processing. Is that correct? Quote BTW, I've spent my last few years building real time environments for visualizing brain activity in multiple types of visualization (fPET, fMRI, ERP) technologies overlaid... We may sample sound frequently but we don't use it. Your brain's activity sets early in a listening (or viewing) session and rolls it forward. There was a very interesting article in IEEE Spectrum last year and how to design computationally efficient camera sensors that echo how the human brain works. (Apologies for not providing a link - will do when I enter the right keywords in Spectrum's search engine to retrieve it.) I also wrote about this aspect of perception in my 2011 Richard Heyser Memorial Lecture to the AES: https://www.stereophile.com/content/2011-richard-c-heyser-memorial-lecture-where-did-negative-frequencies-go-nothing-real Money quote: "The auditory system . .. attempts to build an internal model of the external world with partial input. The perceptual system is designed to work with grossly insufficient data." - Barry Blesser, The Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, October 2001 issue. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile andrewmg and HalSF 1 1 Link to comment
mcgillroy Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 Add Naim & AKDesigns to the list of MQA sceptics. Benchmark, Schiit, Linn, Naim, Ayre, MBL, Playback, PS Audio etc - if your little format manages that some of the most reputable names in consumer audio publicly question your integrity you got a problem. Not to speak of professional audio: apart from Mytek there is not a single studio ADC/DAC manufacturer that supports MQA. MikeyFresh 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Archimago Posted March 8, 2018 Author Popular Post Share Posted March 8, 2018 3 hours ago, ednaz said: Not an insult at all, but a statement of fact. Most people don't do cross-analogy thinking very well. After 35 years of leading teams in neuro-science, computer code reverse engineering, photography, drug discovery, entity analytics, cryptography, human systems analysis, and more, I think I have a good perspective on that. There's a well documented phenomenon of "expert blind spots" - the deeper an expert someone becomes, the more certain they are about every aspect of their discipline. I'm a professional "dumb question" asker. Fun way to make a living, never bored. Particularly for a musician and theater major. Interesting career ednaz. I'm not sure we need "cross-analogy thinking" here though. Might be fun as a thought experiment, but ultimately it won't capture the full essence of the amount we already know about MQA. Like Mans, I was thinking that if MP3 is JPEG, then MQA must be something like JPEG2000... Some kind of a "SuperMP3" incorporating lossless baseband or conversely a FLAC+ (baseband FLAC + sub-band lossy ultrasonics and crypto that presumably the Industry wants). Quote People claiming they can detect jpg vs other file captures remind me of people who say they can always tell lossy compressed music files from non-compressed. I can with a lot of music, but when you get Alabama Shakes running a DR of 3... can't any more. I think that may be part of what's going on in the MQA arguments, and is a variable I can't remember being explored. People say that sometimes they sound better, sometimes just not worse, sometimes worse. When doing listening comparisons, of course if it is "garbage in", then also GO. Which is why the "Internet Blind Test" used tracks from 2L instead of something like Beyonce's Lemonade. And back in 2016, when comparing analogue output, a true hi-res track was used; nothing equivalent to "DR3" stuff. Quote Wouldn't it be interesting if, instead of challenging their hearing or expertise, someone tried to understand it? Took awhile before someone noticed that the volume levels of files, and pitch, influenced how people heard them. Posts on MQA have. For example, when Tidal first released MQA, I made some comparisons to make sure the Tidal MQA decodes were of similar/same mastering as some hi-res files from HDtracks I had available. Although in that comparison, most tracks compared well, I did find that Joni Mitchell's Blue looked like it had been changed significantly compared to the usual HDtracks "studio master". This is indeed a warning that if one were to compare, it's essential that one checks the Tidal/MQA file first to make sure it is not of a different master or had some kind of other processing applied. Quote I've long wondered if DR=3 versus DR=15 might be part of that. Alabama Shakes at high bit MP3 doesn't sound much different to me than 24/96. Are people arguing about MQA missing a GIGO problem? The issue is not simply about GIGO. It is that MQA processing changes the sound with distortions that would not have been in the original high resolution master. This file format both adds anomalies (errors of commission) and is incapable of "containing" all that was fed into it (errors of omission). mcgillroy, sullis02, Currawong and 2 others 2 1 2 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
ednaz Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 1 hour ago, botrytis said: Manufacturers, except a few, are very agnostic. If they see something that a buyer wants, they will add it. I don't think it is anything more than that. I certainly wouldn't go out of the way for MQA. The little bit of testing I tried (low patience level) led me to think it did seem to make a difference with some music - at least in what I heard. Music where I thought, OK, that's a little better was: music with a lot of spatial information, like live albums where you can hear the venue, music with a lot of dynamic range, combos and not orchestras. All that on headphones. But not a lot, and not consistently. Made me think that part of what it does is upsampling with a little tweak of spatial reverb. Interesting that the filter post-rings. What difference I thought was there was less than what a slight upgrade in DAC would beat - if I had an incremental dollar I'd buy a dollar of incremental DAC performance. senorx 1 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