Jump to content

Mike48

  • Content Count

    120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mike48

  • Rank
    Freshman Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes. It says nothing about the frequency response issue found here. How could it? No measurement were made, and the reviewer apparently listened to only a few pop tracks. It's a poor excuse for a review, a heap of regurgitated manufacturer's claims and entirely subjective audiophile assertions, some of which say even less than they appear to. Even worse than an entirely subjective review, it's an unsigned entirely subjective review.
  2. Tom, Thanks!! --Both for reviewing all that and for doing the review in the first place. It is quite shocking just how bad the FR of these speakers is. In audio, one cannot depend entirely on measurements, but they are useful to know whether competent engineering underlies a product one might buy. With speakers as with people, "little quirks" can become unbearable over time. Perhaps even more shocking are the favorable reviews by subjective reviewers, even while noting the need to turn down the treble. I would imagine that getting 4 kHz down enough with the treble control would bri
  3. I keep looking at this and wondering . . . could this speaker really be operating as designed? A huge peak at 4 kHz and huge dip at 10 kHz? It seems so bad, it's hard to imagine it's operating at spec. I can't remember, did you measure only one speaker at a time? If so, did you measure both speakers of the pair, and did they really both measure like this? Did you try repeating the measurements with different amounts of toe-in and different vertical axis? Sometimes, speakers develop such anomalies when measured strongly off axis. Just curious if there's any explanation (
  4. Thanks for this informative article. There is only one word for a rise like that around 4000 Hz: ouch! The Tuk is off my list of small powered speakers to consider. Try using a log scale for the frequency axis next time. It matches what we hear better, which is why everyone else uses it.
  5. Maybe the approach could be to support the devices that do follow the rules. Others can come later, if ever.
  6. I call it "concern for quality" and "knowing what you're doing." Not just JRiver, but the majority of other firms have been able to do it right. Only a few have been doing audio streaming as long as JRiver. Selling something that doesn't work, I call "sloppiness" and "hiding your head in the sand." Would you excuse a bad power amp by saying design is difficult? I don't think there is anything in life that is easy to do right. I thought high-end audio was about doing it right, not taking the easy path and then complaining it was too hard. Honestly, Chris, I h
  7. I appreciate your saying that. I use products at price points ranging from an Auralic Aries G1 to a Raspberry Pi, and they all work reliably with DLNA. None of the software I use is expensive; from free apps such as Volumio to JRiver at about $60. All handle it fine. JRiver has done that since before I started using it, about 8 years ago. MinimServer (which was free for many years), also. @The Computer Audiophile, I understand that companies complain, but companies that have had trouble with something new might just blame it on on someone else. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in ou
  8. So, people are thinking the answer is "no"? Maybe we'll hear from Qobuz themselves.
  9. I confess to not having read all 118 pages of comments here. Is it Qobuz's intention to get DLNA working? I tried it from the Windows Quobuz application to two different DLNA renderers that work perfectly with other devices on my home network. In neither case was Qobuz able to play music through the renderers. P.S. Readers, please do not tell me to get Roon. I know that works, but right now, it's not my choice to add it to my system.
  10. This illustrates again how horrible the RCA connector is. Something probably designed to be cheap and just good enough has established itself as a standard.
  11. My issue is that I still have not received the promised refund for the unused part of my high-priced subscription to Qobuz (after I re-subscribed at the lower price), despite several emails to customer service. Has any user received the promised refund? The lack of any reasonable answer to my questions is beginning to feel like a scam.
  12. This is not the same as I have requested, but it again shows the need for more structure in Favorite Releases, not just a big heap of albums sortable by very few factors. To sum up what would be nice and what has been suggested -- one or more of: Additional sort factors, including multifactor sort (including Genre, Label, release date . . .) User-created folders under Favorites for making sense of the heap. Sort or put into folders by label (publisher)
  13. Ability to sort favorite albums by genre, please. Multilevel sorting would be great -- genre, then artist or release title. Favorites is now a haystack, in which one tries to find the needle.
  14. Yes, I would like to see this, too. Only 6 (of Haydn's 84) are available, unless I've missed something. An issue with cataloging is that some of their recordings are under "Festetics Quartet" and others under "Quatuor Festetics." This is a general issue I've noticed for ensembles with non-English names, such as quartets and orchestras.
  15. Is there still no way to group favorite albums into subcategories or folders? Any intention to implement this? It's a big usability problem to have all "favorites" dumped together in one heap and not even separable by genre.
×
×
  • Create New...