Jump to content

Blu

  • Content Count

    175
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Blu

  • Rank
    Music Lover

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I went to the Audirvana site and was able to download 2.2.5, does anyone know how to access 2.2.4 & 2.2.9.6 which Dyson stated where references, so I can check them out?
  2. Hello Mario, if your gift certificate offer is still available I would like to review "Cabrera play Debussy". Many thanks, Blu
  3. Digital Music: Can You Hear Above 16-bit/44.1kHz? - The Mac Observer Here we go again, another computer journalist jumping on the low resolution is enough bandwagon.
  4. Today's album "Arvo Pärt: Creator Spiritus" is beautiful music, also the "Handel: Great Oratorio Duets", with Soprano Carolyn Sampson, Counter-tenor Robin Blaze and The Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment is superb.
  5. Thank you for the poll, I prefer WAV on my system, which gives the most realistic instrumental textures and venue space creation. However from years of reading this site, it does appear that if I upgraded to a more powerful Mac computer my choice may change, as indications are that cpu power limitations, means that the format requiring the least processing, such as WAV sounds best. I was hoping that AIFF would be the best in my system with it's advantage of metadata. I will have to try the transcoding AIFF to DSD mentioned by Paul, but that may have to wait till I upgrade from my 2007 Mac mini.
  6. Hello Damien, Thank you for A+, do you have an area on your site where I can download versions 1.4.9.6 and 1.4.9.7 to have a listen? Cheers from down under, Blu
  7. I missed 1.4.9.7 as well, is there somewhere we can get a hold of 1.4.9.6 and 1.4.9.7 to listen and compare, I have 1.4.9.11.
  8. Thanks for the review Chris, I've heard the Linn streamers and also the Naim media players, you might also like the Naim NDS media player, which comes with it's own external power supply. It's in another league altogether, another fine product from the UK.
  9. Hi chopper87, I'm a bit confused here was it 1.4.9.1 or 1.4.9.11 which you found sounded better?
  10. Thank you Chris, my first amplifier was an integrated 60 watt Luxman, which always made me want to listen to music for hours. I certainly want to hear the DA-06 DAC, which from your review indicates Luxman has still got the magic.
  11. All I can comment on is what I hear in my system, and at the moment .WAV format files of a good recording sound more like music in an acoustic space than any other file format. Maybe that will change when I upgrade but that is my findings at this time. All I would say is test rip a favourite CD to different format's and if you can hear a diference use the favoured format. If you cannot hear any difference between the formats use some other reason to decide which format is the best for you.
  12. "I know of no examples where differences cannot be detected by careful measurement, but nonetheless, I can hear them." WG Scott. I'm not sure if their are measurable differences between WAV files and FLAC or ALAC files of the same music, but I can hear the difference and the WAV version always sounds more realistic, whether it is the extension of the shimmer of the cymbals or the sound of the resin in the interaction between the violin strings and the bow, or the increased space between the instruments playing?
  13. Sorry Barry on re-reading my comment it does read the opposite of what I was intending. I was intending to say that it wasn't until the copy got to 24/192 that it was indistinguishable to the master tape. But as you pointed out, you were talking about comparison of 24/192 recording to the microphone feed and not master tape, which is an even better judgement on hires digital recording. My apologies again, I just have to listen to the, you are in the recording venue sound, I get on my system from the 24/192 WAV's of your 'Equinox' recording, for verification.
  14. A misquote indeed as it is essentially the *opposite* of what I said. Please allow me to restate what I said (as it would appear I was mistaken in thinking I was clear the first time). What I said was that with the better converters I've had the good fortune to use, recording at 24/192 provides results which, for the very first time in my experience, I have not been able to distinguish from listening to the live mic feed. For me, this is something to be quite excited about as I've never had this experience with any other recording device, regardless of price or format. Best regards, Barry Soundkeeper Recordings Barry Diament Audio Sorry Barry on re-reading my comment it does read the opposite of what I was intending. I was intending to say that it wasn't until the copy got to 24/192 that it was indistinguishable to the master tape. But as you pointed out, you were talking about comparison of 24/192 recording to the microphone feed and not master tape, which is an even better judgement on hires digital recording. My apologies again, I just have to listen to the, you are in the recording venue sound, I get on my system from the 24/192 WAV's of your 'Equinox' recording, for verification.
  15. Oh Bill, still playing the audiophool, I think it was Barry Diament from Soudkeeper Recordings who found that when making digital copies from the mastertape that he could not distinguish between the sound of the master tape and the digital copy until the digital copy got to 192/24. Barry please forgive me if I misquoted, if it was not you, it was someone else in the recording industry. Cheers from Australia.
×
×
  • Create New...