Article: The Denafrips Design Philosophy Part 1

[The Computer Audiophile]

View full article

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, luisma said:

Sorry, separate forum? Could you please explain? I guess I'm outdated

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

44 minutes ago, firedog said:

Not so impressed. There mostly isn't an "original analog recording". There's a digital recording. So there's no analog record to reproduce, just a digital one to undergo D/A conversion.

And if there is an analog recording such as a tape, please don't tell me that tape recording isn't distorted and full of noise by definition. It was that way before it was digitized.

 

Simplistic measurements don't tell the whole story. But better designers do more sophisticated measurements that tell them more.

 

There's a lot of equipment that measures horribly and is regarded as "good sounding" or even "audiophile". I don't buy it. Why pay good money for someody else's euphonic distortion? 

 

This post sounds in part like an excuse for people who can't properly engineer equipment. 

 

I want products that measure well AND sound good. The best equipment does that. That's real accuracy. Anything else is substandard, and you are fooling yourself that you are listening to something that's "high fidelity". You aren't. You are listening to something inaccurate  that "sounds good", but doesn't actually properly recreate the original.

 

 

Wow, tell us what you really think :~)

 

I enjoy publishing stuff like this because it gives everyone helpful insight about products. The info is useful to people who agree with the approach and for those like you who don’t. 
 

I think you may be reading into things a bit or at least taking decades of audiophile experience and piling it into one response, whether it fits or not. 
 

The gist I got from reading this is that Zhao doesn’t believe measurements are everything. Only a data point. 
 

We should also keep in mind that English isn’t his first language and I adjusted many sentences for grammar. I don’t believe that changed anything he said, but audiophiles tend to hang on every word and that should be done carefully here. 
 

Anyway, thanks for the honest reply. No product is for everyone. I like having options. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, mitch751 said:

a) Good Measure / Good sounding (audiophile)

b) Poor Measure / Good sounding (audiophile)

c) Poor Measure / poor sounding (audiophile)

d) Good Measure / poor sounding (audiophile)

 

Which one to pick ?

That I don’t understand, but I’m willing to be educated so I get the joke :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

20 minutes ago, semente said:

the “what matters is that it sounds good” excuse.

Excuse?

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, pbi76 said:

Are the other parts posted somewhere else?

Not published yet.