Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


  • Member Title
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Allow me to throw some voodoo at the party ... In my original post about this config (A:W-Y-R-G, B:W-G) you can see me talking about "getting used to". However, more often already I squeezed a "configs must break in ?" in between the lines; Well, this could be a first config which most clearly demonstrates that the configuration itself requires a (long) break-in period ? I say this because the responses from others (like "you") seem to come down to a common denominator of not liking it at first, which makes a 180 degree U-turn later into liking it the most. It seems so hard to imagine that our brain needs to adapt, but it is quite likely that.
  2. Something like 10 years ago I reported the very same. That is, that there is a sweet spot for volume. I reasoned that it could be about consistency which only happens when playing back at the real level of how the instruments played during the recording. Or maybe: how instruments okayed through loudspeakers would only sound real at their real levels. Since then I tend to tune/calibrate my playback around the real level of a grand (because I own one), which is 90dBSPL. But mind you, doing that makes all quite loud. In consistency a crash cymbal is at 110dBSPL. And when your system is capable of rendering cymbals well (mine does that), then 110dBSPL is really (really !) loud. For fun I'll ping @acg; he may remember me talking about this in my own forum, although I recall that not much response came from that. But at least he owns a Placette too. Haha. His (very) fine system may encourage for the same happening. Yesterday @roberherrera talked about the same, though in a very different context. Hopefully he can contribute in this thread ?
  3. Interesting ... This is what I wrote on my own forum only a couple of days ago: -------------------------------------------- Hi all, This must be the longest "review" I experienced ever. Say that from day one I loved it, but it is so good that it seems "wrong". But I now finally decided to come forward with it. A:W-Y-R-G, B:W-G This is from July 17 (2021). It was handed by a nice man Roberto Herrera and he plays music himself. He and his band, also record music and to me it sounds as the finest recordings. What he himself tells about this configuration, comes down to "very realistic" (my words). I will make this of it, after more than 2 months of listening : This is what I wrote down during the very first moments of listening : First impression, … too technical. Not analog. This kind of thought remains until today. But it is always immediately followed by my impression "but hey, this can't be more real !". It really and seriously is so much representing all realties imaginable, that, well, I am still listening to it with open mouth. It once again is something that changes your existing and well known music so much, that you are sure you are playing a cover band or something. The detail in the mid is enormous. Things which should be forward just are that. Laid back ? then it is there in the back indeed. It just all fits. The old music is now even more new than it already was. And yes, music from that era of concern (say mid to end 60's) show even better what a lack of compression was (but avoid the remasters). It is like what happened with the NOS1-USB version : we could not tell about its sound any more. This now happens to this config too. I can't describe it other than "so good" (which should mean : so real). Notice that the real stuff happens (for me) in combination with these XXHighEnd settings (this is really crucial) : Q1 = 14, xQ1 = 4 (the xQ1 4 disallows Hi-res to play); Q3,4,5 = 0,0,1 (the most crucial of them all); SFS = 10.13 ClockRes = 10ms Core Appointment Scheme = 3-5 (just saying as I am using this always). I hope you will be shocked. And oh, somehow I am very sure that this config requires breaking in. Not sure whether this is "my mind" needing that or that it is physically in the cable. But even after this more than 2 months on a daily basis I judge it as better again. This is really odd. Possibly this relates to my first impression of "not analog"; so indeed it really is an other direction of the sound (it could be quite opposite to what we know from the introduction of the Lush^1). Anyway my message : try not to give up too soon. Instead try to envision all the extra "messages" now present. See though how the drummer hits a cymbal. It's really these things which were added. More visuals on the artists. But also stuff like cymbals themselves. More metal. Less analogue ? no, more metal because a cymbal *is* metal ! That kind of thing(s). Thus, force yourself a couple of days into this. Try to watch yourself smiling more and more. -------------------------------------------- Re: Lush^3 (see in there for a few most positive responses from others) And I was still reluctant to post this in A/S. Now I finally did - haha. And no, I am not changing back. 😊 So thank you very much, Roberto ! Peter
  4. A Cue file "set" is nothing more or less than the complete album (CD) in one file with in the .cue file the layout of the album (see more below). So this is the (folder-)contents of the complete album. The one playable file in there in this case has a size of 378MB. In this example the audio file is a WAV file. But it can be anything, like FLAC or APE or even MP3 etc. Here you see the content of the .cue file : It denotes where the trackstarts are and the Index 00 which is possibly in there will be shown on the originating CD Player as well (this is something like an intended gap with silence). The .cue file can be seen as the index to the album. A Cue-file compatible audio player will show these "embedded" tracks as normal tracks: and each track can normally be selected/played or skipped and everything the rips with separate tracks would allow for. As others have already said, there is no relation whatsoever with the originality of the originating album.
  5. Very nice of the feedback, Jake. Thank you. And the best is that it helped you out. 🙂 Peter
  6. People should read this as long as it takes to get the message out of this; If you can't hear that a floor tom is really that (and confuse it with a kick) when played singular (hence out of the context of the other), then your system is not doing well at all. Obviously this requires the knowledge of the sound of the two *and* how they are played (which obviously is totally different from each other). I really don't need to know whether it is a Yamaha or Pearl. I also don't need to know the brand of skin used. Harder it becomes if you don't know the tension of the skins because a lower tension is quite similar to an under performing system in the transient-bass (making drums sound like paper). @Judand his little contest also hits the nail on the head with the differentiation between electric and acoustic guitar. This too is something not every system can do easily. Here too, I really don't need to know the make of the guitar. You'd need the experience of the sound of the two types, though. Might you be more in the beginning of your travel to good sound, then you could start to discern nylon vs metal strings, the latter with wound vs non-wound. And talking Yggy, the vibrancy of the ever back not-so-good-measuring device which nobody was supposed to hear because of the too low level, would make all metal strings sound like wound ones. Would I need to know the make of the guitar ? of course not. The sheer fact that suddenly too many strings are wound ones (especially for their (frequency) reach), would make me decide something is wrong. I would need to have the real-life reference of the wound string, though. One of the best examples of things which can go wrong, is that most cymbals suddenly sound like China cymbals. Many drummers have one, but few have more than one in the set. Thus, if in a track two different cymbals sound like China ones, something is definitely wrong. I would need to know how a China cymbal sounds in real, though. There's really no need to know whether it is a Zildjian or a Paiste, never mind the two sound distinctly different in themselves. Would I need to know the microphone used ? My father ever practicing the viola, my mother the grand, I know perfectly what to watch for when I tune gear or elements in it, for the most realistic sound. The grand really does not need to be a Steinway or any other make I never listened to because it is not about that. However, it *is* about how the artist brings across his mind, mood and feelings to the instrument. This is obviously totally different for both instruments, including the drums and *all* instruments. Would I need to know the mood or intent of the artist ? it would help - but it works so nicely the other way around; his/her music would teach me that (and the title may be / should be telling). Once you got the hang of this in real life, you can do it with each instrument, if you only have that reference in your own system. From there on it can improve (no reference makes you blind and left to taste). Btw, this is one of the most difficult aspects of music reproduction (I suppose, obviously ?). There are dozens and dozens of these examples, which may not tell you a thing. But they really exist and can be used for measure when it is about how realistically a system performs. Or better said: what still annoys and distracts, hence what's subject for improvement. I don't recognize really that this is about distortions as such (as in shrill sound). It is far more about the consistency in frequencies which create the timbre. Jud's example with the woofer via the cross-over to the mid is almost a good one, but in the end it is not so much because the speaker would be not-so-good if that would really show (but is a first thing which goes wrong in a chain). The theoretical improvements are so infinite, that it makes the hobby ever-lasting just the same. The best fun is that your standard of today, is your challenge for tomorrow.
  7. My previous post springs somewhat from all the (very) old recordings I show to auditioners, be that The Buoys or The Beatles and so many more from that era. Without exception I am told that I show them cover bands. Not so. This obviously indicates that so many can change to the sound that all our references are trashed, but also that we don't know what reality is (I never talked to John personally, you ?). Still, because all gray cymbals from back then have turned to the most realistic cymbals as if recorded day before yesterday (but without the compression), you(r brain) will know that the voice is the voice you were looking for too. At least this is how I more explicitly deal with it.
  8. I am currently listening to Grace Jones "Hurricane".. Her music is al(l)(ways) with "drive". Would I have seen the James Bond and would I have seen a local interview with her (at the age of 70) and would I know a little more of what she all did (good and bad) then ... Then I would find this album convincing that it is her, at her age of 60 or so). Would I ever think that it is accurately her ? Or worse: that my system is capable of representing her accurately ? The whole accuracy thing doesn't even come to my mind. Drive, spirit, fast, beauty, yes. And not because I see it. But I hear it (PRaT). Combined with visual experience from white screen or TV.
  9. As an audio manufacturer you can not depend on taste - especially not your own. Besides, any applied taste in my own music room would be killing for me, as all will sound the same. And thus, totally neutral is the devise. I really don't see what can be the problem with envisioning how an instrument should sound through reproduction, never mind you never heard the instrument in real life; there's sufficient consistency in numerous parameters to know whether it is wrong(-ish) or right(-ish). Relatively, we can work towards more right(-ish). It takes a lot of time though (as in 3+ hours per day for listening) and after the many years doing this, I am 100% confident it still can improve. About grand piano's: the other day I had a visitor who plays the viola in an orchestra (who was educated by my father in the conservatorium, but alas). He played in very many concert halls, and could hear in which concert hall which recording was taken from the random classical albums I presented him. He told me he had all his life been searching for a well-representing music system, but could never find it and was always fooled by fake salesmen (who appears to know sh*t about music reproduction, according to him). So apparently what I have over here could be better to some degree than at least he was used to, but that he could hear these concert halls ... I was astonished. He was always correct ! (and he was floored himself that such a thing could exist). I still never met Mark Knopfler in live nor did I attend a concert from Dire Straits. Still since 5 years or so I am confident that I now have "tuned in" his real voice. I will repeat: there are so many parameters that allow you to think that and it is all about consistency. The major tell is that you start to see someone singing or playing. Not because you like to see that, but because you can tell / know. This is a bit similar to what Chris told in his Denafrips review. And the fun: later there appears always to be more. Example: Once you are pretty sure how Neil Young will sound for real (when he would be live in front of you), there may apear this next dimension that you start to see that he is never at the same distance from the microphone. This could be stepping away - this could be turning his head but it is either of that. A next step in my reproduction quality could be that I can tell which of the two it is (stepping back or turning head). Out of everyone, a few years ago I started to see Charlie Watts being happy behind his drums. He even moved. I suppose I used a wrong cable there. Can't check that one out any more.
  10. What !? If we change the story somewhat, then I ever back created playback software which today sounds better to anyone trying it out of the box, which means : in Demo mode, while 95% of (bit perfect) SQ features unleash when activated. And now you are going to ask me how I do that, right ? Don't expect any perceived clear answers, because from A to Z you won't believe a thing of anything. And if you are going to measure the (by others) perceived differences, then you won't believe one thing of it all definitely. 😉 Still I myself showed the differences easily, and you know it ... ... But there we go again ... those minute differences can't be audible. You know, I don't care about this all. However, I do care a little if someone tells me that I don't know what I'm doing. Not that you said exactly that, but Paul, this is how it reads. I suppose I am biased. 😙 It is the first time that I hear about this. If true, it sheds some new lights on matters like these, namely that apparently people exist that even after pointing out, still won't hear. I have had countless auditions over here and not a single time it happened that after one track me pointing out the whatever differences between whatever settings, people could not do it themselves at a next track. I should add that it requires the small education, but this is really small indeed. A most easy example is the stereo separation in the bass / lower frequencies which commonly is not much there at all. But with some prerequisites it can be unveiled easily and from there on everyone can do it instantly. One of the prerequisites is a track possessing that separation in the first place (eureka). So Paul, now you know (and start to learn) why I need to pick the music when you are doing the recordings (as talked through in a thread 10 months or so ago).
  11. Hi Jake - sure. And no fakes here. You can email me about them, if you want. sales at phasure com Regards, Peter
  12. For everybody's memory refreshment: This thread was started in order to prove that "poor" PC's would show differences at CPU load vs idle while decent PC's would not. It started out with the former ... The latter was attempted (IIRC the 2nd and last test) and again no differences showed. Most probably the OP forgot himself what he set out to do. Because this last test was many weeks prior to the OP being sacked here, I am pretty sure he just could not do it. I will also remind people of the many times that people claimed (not only March Audio) that poor PC's "obviously would show differences". I myself have claimed many times that no matter the PC, nothing would show. Don't ask me whether this was in this thread or in an other leading to this one, but I did, more than once; N.b.: I tend to refer to the red or blue pill thread from ManiSandher where I also promised that Mansr would not be able to measure a thing of what Mani definitely would be able to hear (which he did - the 9 out of 10 story). Mind you, I made the software implying the audible differences, which were measured to be bit perfect (Mansr sure was able to do that). Let me add that I possess the analyzers that could show the differences and that I thus easily can know that nothing shows. Maybe GoldenSound has more luck with his AP. Really, all it takes is that (my) software with its dials (somehow all the 1000s of users of it, hear right away the differences the dials imply). Whether this is about cpu load ... I can't repeat enough - it is not (as a matter of fact the best SQ emerges at the highest load). Fact is: (and this is exactly what Blackmorec says - and it is even a logical as can be) if you don't have a very well behaving audio system in the first place, all is lost. a. you would have not the best sound (what that is, is apparently determined by me ;-) b. you will not or hardly be able to force changes in SQ by mere minor stuff like "cpu load". I can't repeat this enough as well: there is nothing to understand here but one thing: get it between your ears that what is deemed inaudible, just very much is. I mean, I know exactly what I am doing and what it causes where, but as long as people keep on thinking that differences at proposed thresholds and even beyond can-not-be-audible, then it is just a matter of, well, disbelief ? I could also say: all the "scientific" tests so far fail, but are used for proof that we can't hear those minute changes. In other words: give me that test group of 100+ people (100 different Mani's) and I will re-do the tests (with indeed my system, my software and my music) and the result will be the "9 out of 10" in general. The same differences beyond those thresholds will be measured, or as some put it: that is no difference (or: we don't know what to - or how to measure). But everybody will hear the differences. That is, if 9 out of 10 for each of the contenders is sufficient for that claim.
  13. Btw, HQPlayer's goals and the Taiko contradict each other to some degree. Maybe it is that what you mean. Nah, I don't get it. As how I see it (this is already conflicting) : The Taiko uses way too much current etc. to be "audio" as such; HQPlayer is not interested in gaining SQ by means of "audio servers". Compare what I do and all is 180 degrees different. 1. As low usage as possible (eliminating spikes as much as possible); 2. Aid that with software (like mine). PS: I agree 100% with Blackmorec about all he says. But maybe that is unimportant.
  14. I actually always agree with you, but this one seems to be a miss-fire ?
  • Create New...