Jump to content

Le Concombre Masqué

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Le Concombre Masqué

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

7171 profile views
  1. thanks. the closest dealer is in f**** Paris, hundreds miles away. Anyway I'm quite happy with what I have
  2. Right but never said that only #8 matters ; wrote : "I'm not convinced that 20 K put in a DAC brings much more than a change of filters". OK I get where I could be misunderstood : I did not mean that the 20K are invested in filtering and D/A conversion design ; I meant that a simple change of filters in HQP might yield the perception of changes of the same order of magnitude
  3. Maybe there's no point at all, then, in sharing each other's opinions and evaluations... Here it's a 13K$ point. I'd like to see rankings on scales ; ie : if, for free once you have HQP or if you're testing it, you can set your perceived evaluation of differences between, say, mqa mp and long lp filters to 10, how much is the perceived difference between 2K and 25 K Dacs (3, 8, 9 ; need to set a new range where that difference is 20 while the difference between filters become 7 or what have you...) dCS can send me a Rossini to change my mind ; I'm not convinced that 20 K put in a DAC brings much more than a change of filters
  4. Stereophile's Jim Austin, ROON ROCK feeding the Bartok, doesn't place it (to say the least) in another league than a 2K$ 2 yo Benchmark DAC... I doesn't seem to measure better either https://www.stereophile.com/content/dcs-bartok-da-processorheadphone-amplifier
  5. You perfectly understood but for me implying that running SW upsampling via HQPlayer is always superior to a DAC's internal upsampling and filters. I don't imply that but suggested you include an appreciation of computer based upsampling and filtering input into the DACs you test. You now did for Bartok and Roon, that's a start, thank you.
  6. Rajiv, I wish I could share the general enthusiasm for your reviews. I can certainly praise your dedication but I find them pretty moot for they don't include the leveraging of computer based processing. I can see references to usb usb cables ethernet stuff etc that certainly pertains to computer world but I don't see* leveraging of computer based processing. I'b be interested in comparisons between DACs fed by, say, HQP delivering to the max of the DAC capabilities. You're using a computer anyway, right ? so since you do mention diminishing-returns region and price-performance curve, what $300 of software can save us in $K of hardware is of interest, IMO. *Roon does not seemed to be used for any heavy processing and you even specify "library management and output to the DAC all in one"
  7. moon phases definitely make differences
  8. so you would not agree that you have bested it with the new long lp ? btw, how do they differ ?
  9. @Superdad criticised the Audirvana option for he perceived Audirvana has adding "a flavour" . On one hand, we now know there's an actual transformation of the files (unless they are stocked as wav), on the other hand, the processing to wav being made on the Audirvana machine, no extra processing is done by the Embedded machine. Another difference comes from Audirvana making RAM as the source I hang my head : When I compared wav to flac on the same machine, I attributed beefier character to wav and more airy to flac ; when I compared origins of files, I did not like much RAM, "thinning" the music, disembodying* it, preferring wifi streaming from a local HDD (or SD card but so much less practical) Bottom line : Though @Superdad got be puzzled for a while, Audirvana, on an old Macbook Air, fronting Embedded is no handy dandy that I can't think of a simpler more convenient system (files are still wifi streamed from external HD) and so I decided that whatever flavour, if any*, Audirvana is bringing, I'm OK with the solution anyway. Since another post mentions Tidal, I also hang my head there : Qobuz does not sound as good as my own rips whenever I compared (but never can be sure it's the same mastering etc), so some would say there's something wrong in my system. But maybe it's the other way round ! *I'm perfectly conscious that using the term "disembodying" (ever so slightly) for RAM based playing suggests (but does not prove or state) the perception of differences as mentally projected in this instance
  10. does it really pertain to technology (only)? Amplified live gigs I recently attended flirted with the legal 104 dB while 97 dBC in my room at Listening Position is already a lot and I don't really wish for more. Even with acoustic sounds, how many of us can play at realistic SPL (say 92 dB C for an symphonic orchestra) ? SPL is key And so is mimicking concert hall attenuation of frequencies I'm quite happy with current tech actually and I'm not even yet able to enjoy all the possibilities of HQP
  11. not sure those solutions would have triggered me to promote MCH down-mixed but thank you...
  12. almost one year after, at the time of Stereophile's last Music in the Round, it seems that nobody has even bothered to try... My collection has grown to 130... And I definitely wish Rock/pop albums (studio productions when natural acoustics don't matter) would be offered in a down-mixable with standardised values MCH vehicle ; it would make much more sense than 384 as use of space IMO and an improvement while lossy options such as MQA get promoted a kid play, as a moron suggested in the thread ? well, a PITA process for sure, but well worth it btw, I had a doubt about respective channels levels because of the recent Abbey Road BR, feeling that background voices were missing in my down-mix ; they are not in the HD tracks ST or the (different) ST extracted from the Blu-Ray. If they do miss (need to pull my UK original) this would indicate that the ST were taken from the MCH. Still, my 3 times bigger personal down-mix sounds much better
  13. Would you recommend converting to wav offline and rip + download wav to get better SQ and/or smoother operation when using Audirvana as front end/library management ?
  14. could use 4.12.1 changing filters via Client dealing with occasional strange behaviour from Audirvana while it worked just fine with 4.11.2. (relaunching from bottom line is a no go, relaunching from the track list is safer but still I sometimes I got the speaker or pause logo instead of the Play arrow though, of course I pressed stop before turning to Client for filter change ; had to fiddle, even to restart sometimes) Anyway gonna use long lp 2s for everything for a while I think, works with everything here (output SDM 128 convo ASDM5EC), MCH and 192 sources included. Your most resolving filter so far. Maybe mqa lp was a comfier dark with Coltrane's Blue World 24/192 Mono but the double bass was much more delineated and separated from the piano and drums with long lp 2S. Beat ext2 and al with 24/96 remaster of Kempff's Beethoven's piano sonatas : 60's tape noise and piano better separated , firmer piano. idem with recent Mozart's trios led by Barenboim in 24/48 : better spatial cues of the instruments + I perceived what sounded fuller with ext2 as boomier, revealing shrieker stuff in contrast (vastly exaggerated comments, noticeable (if not imagined !) only in a comparison. backup/restore functionalities I had not taken notice before convinced me it was not going to be that much of a ordeal. However, I had to recreate the links/reload convolution filters. First launch was painful : no eQ + several dB too loud though on screen it said it was set.... I guess you're exhausted and with obvious priorities such as desktop but there's definitely something less smooth when using Audirvana though it seems I can live with those glitches and maybe never suffer from them again if I don't launch 10 times the same track to do comparisons... overlap save for matrix would be appreciated the possibility to check enable matrix/disable convo on the same page (as well as the possibility to check enable convo/disable matrix on the relevant page) would be comfy
  • Create New...