Jump to content

miguelito

  • Content Count

    3469
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About miguelito

  • Rank
    homo sapiens

Personal Information

  • Location
    NYC

Recent Profile Visitors

16068 profile views
  1. BTW, forgot to mention: if your DAC does not handle DoP over it’s coax input just set your disc player to send PCM when playing SACD and you will get 24/88 PCM out of this device.
  2. Exactly. Disc players that play SACDs do not play any sound out of the coax out when playing SACDs. However, they transcode to 24/88 PCM and send that over HDMI. In principle there’s no issue in sending that same transcoded 24/88 PCM to the coax output except for license issues of course. Most of these players also allow you to send untouched DSD over HDMI since some receivers are able to convert DSD directly to analog. Examples are all Oppo’s (I have both a DV-980 and a BDP-93), Sony’s latest DVD players, etc. What this device does is take the DSD out of the HDMI, encapsulate it in a PCM stream via DoP, and send it over coax to your DAC. If your DAC’s coax input can handle DoP, it will decode the DoP PCM stream into the original DSD stream. My Rossini does just that.
  3. I've done some listening tests and I am extremely impressed with this device. Comparing to the sound of ripped SACDs and CDs, I cannot tell them apart. More careful listening would be required. But so far the performance is pristine and operationally flawless.
  4. I just got this device, and it actually works! When I play an SACD, I get DSD via DoP into my Rossini! And the appropriate PCM hi res with other sources like DVD-Audio and BluRay. Awesome.
  5. Funny enough, I enjoy listening to my system from afar also. My speakers (Avantgarde Duo Messo) are definitely not usable for near-field. They are positioned firing along the long side of the room and the presentation you get when listening from ~ 27ft away (vs the sweet spot listening position of ~16ft away) is quite different. It is basically like sitting in the back of a club vs first row, quite like that actually, and it’s fun for how much more relaxed it is. Some pics of my room in my signature’s url.
  6. I have not listened to Vivaldi on my system so I cannot say, but I have Rossini and master clock, and it sounds amazing. The addition of the Vivaldi filters and mapper in v2.0 was just amazing. More importantly, I have had an amazing experience with dCS in terms of evolution of the platform (via firmware updates, for free!!!). This is in extremely sharp contrast with my horrible customer service experience with my previous DAC (which was not much cheaper at all). Kudos to dCS for an amazing product, support, and the pleasure I get when I listen to music every day. Flawless.
  7. Curious about this RPG Room Sizer thingie... A google search took me to RPG EU, but can't figure out a way to the software.
  8. Couple of things... 1- John visited me in NYC, I was having some issue with (the first release of) MQA in the Rossini. John is a technician, a gentleman, and represents everything dCS stands for - amazing. I'll be a customer forever. 2- Rossini v2.0 is truly amazing. I experienced the same as you and I would add my soundstage acquired more depth. Finally... Can you publish your AXPONA 2019 playlist please?
  9. The point was to make money for Bob Stuart. The fact that his initials are BS is just so right.
  10. “Errors that MQA can introduce are equivalent to air.” 😂😂
  11. There’s sometimes an advantage to be the first mover - TIDAL and Qobuz are non-existent here. Two key things here: storage and streaming bandwidth and licensing. In this regard I would deem the order of easiness to enter is Amazon, Google, and Spotify/Apple in similar boats (in that order). As for the MQA question, I would expect it not to be used. Three reasons: 1- There’s much more content in traditional hi-res 2- Bandwidth is a non-issue 3- None of those big players want to be seen pushing a tech that requires customers to bother with decoders or anything else I don’t see MQA to be longer lived than HDCD.
  12. App update approvals do not take much time. I would think testing for power consumption does not take much time - it’s standard testing methodology. Obviously any internals of the MQA unfold are not visible to Apple. I don’t think Apple will ever license MQA.
  13. The fact that it got such much later than the corresponding Android version is why I inferred this. I have no doubt MQA Co would like to have licensing fees on every iOS device. I don’t think Apple has any interest in audiophile sound quality. Just good enough sound quality.
  14. My read of TIDAL finally adding MQA to the iOS app is that MQA Co failed to convince Apple to license the tech from them. The pressure from the US Qobuz launch was too much and TIDAL forced their hand. Thankfully. If Apple enters the hi-res streaming market, they will almost surely not do so with MQA. But frankly I very much doubt they will. If Spotify does, then they might. Amazon is the elefant in the room here - with reports that they will enter the hi-res market.
×
×
  • Create New...