Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fitzcaraldo215

  1. Facetiously, maybe, I dismissed the sound field from consideration, for a reason. But, that plays into @barrows hands. There is an infinite number of sound fields anywhere, slightly or drastically different in the hall. And, on reproduction, you do not know which sound field was which. All of which is beside the point. But, it’s the plausible event of a symphony orchestra in question. How can we not know, with whatever sound field, how he damn thing sounds, whatever the sound field to our ears was measured.
  2. Who cares about the original sound field? It betters the stereo paradigm by a fair bit, at least for classical music. By that I mean two things. Objectively, by having sound sources better able to reproduce the enveloping surround and a center channel to improve imaging. Subjectively, on an “absolute sound” scale, it delivers clearly more realism.
  3. In my home, not me. I listen overwhelmingly to discretely recorded multichannel. What you say is completely valid, though, in home stereo. It was 12 years ago, and I heard my first Mch system. I heard a much, much closer approach to the idealistic “absolute sound”, considerably narrowing the gap between my live classical experience at concerts and my home system. I remain a complete devotee of multichannel.
  4. I have in excess of 4,000 to 5,000 of discretely recorded on my NAS. It is mainly classical, and it encompasses SACD and some downloads plus BD-A and -V. I am thrilled to own it. I find it to be a substantial upgrade in sonics to my previous attempt at recording collection - previously vinyl and CD over many years, I have thousands of each. I have not bought a CD in over 10 years or certainly and not an LP. I listen avidly to almost nothing but Mch music, and it indeed is very satisfying.
  5. I agreed with Alex mainly about shifting filter artifacts into inaudible ultrasonic territory. He and I likely differ on other details. I am not seeing the elimination of filter artifacts in typical DAC measurements in RBCD, even with oversampling. These are most visible in the time domain, not the frequency domain.. But, even if a DAC were near perfect with RBCD in this regard, the filter artifacts are likely to still be there in the signal itself from the A-D on the recording production side, unable to be fully and accurately dealt with in D-A. As for audibility,
  6. You are quite welcome. Kal and I and others are still here if you need us. Having wandered about in the audio wilderness for decades and hearing exaggerated promises about this or that stereo system or upgrade sounding “just like live music”, hirez discrete Mch was the first time I was truly happy with comparisons to my live concert experience. I have been at it for 11 years with no regrets whatsoever. No multi, multi kilobuck stereo, and I have heard quite a few, is as good as this. Mch is easily the biggest and most satisfying audio discovery of my lifetime. Good
  7. I don’t think I am saying what you say I said. I think what I said was there may be a benefit to using higher sampling rates and bit depths, ideally as natively recorded, for hirez playback. I never did advovacate upsampling everything to hirez for all playback. I don’t think upsampling accomplishes much, if anything. I thought I was fairly clear that many, if not most, of the advantages of hirez seem to occur on the recording production side, but that to hear all of those advantages, one must play in hirez. I don’t think there is any consensus agreement on the notion that ove
  8. Many audiophiles assume that all hirez has to offer is ultrasonic frequency response, which we can’t hear directly. Ergo, they conclude hirez must be BS. But, that is overly simplistic. They ignore the added bit depth, which on recording better preserves low level detail though the many stages and level adjustments of the recording production chain. Many engineers know this, and many CD releases today use 24-bit recording/mixing/mastering chains prior to final downrezzing to RBCD as a result. I don’t often agree with @sandyk, but I also agree that hirez potentially a
  9. For amps, I have 3 stereo amps plus a monoblock for 7.1: a Spectron Class D, 2x Parasound A23s and a Bryson Powerpac 120. I believe in short speaker wires, hence long interconnects, ergo my Exasound E28 has balanced XLR outs. I have 10-meter interconnect runs to my surround and back channels. Incidentally, I have not done an E28>E38 upgrade because I am a bit worried about those long interconnect runs, and there is no balanced E38. Also, those Parasound amps are terrific, especially for the price. And, they make bigger models in 2/3/5 channel configurations. But
  10. And, no one but Frank has heard a “well sorted” system. We are all the losers in these miracle audio breakthroughs. Only he can save us, but he just won’t tell us how it is done. Just idly speculating here, but either he does not wish to reveal his precious secrets and make a fortune from publication of them, or it is total, uncontrolled, boastful audiophile crap conjured by an egomaniac web troll childishly wanting attention. Take your pick. Anyone up for a holiday pilgrimage to rural Australia to hear these audio wonders for themselves? They just do not seem to
  11. Here is something that is not clear to me. Say I have tagged DSF files accessed by JRiver. I apply WavPac to one or more of them. Now, can I go back and edit their tags in JRiver as usual? Can I then store the edited tags back in the compressed media file without having manually to unpack to DSF then repack using WavPac? In other words is tagging functionally identical in JRiver with a WavPac file to a DSF file with no extra steps?
  12. Hmmm is right. And, it is JRiver compatible. If you decide to play with it, please let us know how that turns out.
  13. The Exasound E28 is connected to the PC via USB. No exotic cables are of benefit, in my opinion. That is the only way to get Mch to the Exasound. The E28 is connected directly to my amps and sub. I have the XLR version of the E28. I use the digital master volume control in the E28, synchronized with JRiver volume. Yes, JRiver performs the bass management. There is a Wiki page on that. Dirac Live then EQs the bass managed sub channel prior to the DAC.
  14. Yes, some Mch SACDs are 5.0, some are 5.1. There is no rhyme, reason or consistency. 5.1 is really not necessary for music, but many exist nonetheless. The metadata on the disc itself identifies 5 or 6 channels of audio. Incidentally, some Mch SACDs from remaster are actually 3.0 or 4.0, but they are in a 5.0 container with the unused channels having zero signal. So, no problem. I listen to all sources, including stereo, using bass management with my sub via JRiver. That automatically handles the 5.0/5.1 issue, and it provides better sound even in stereo. In JRive
  15. Yes, now I get it. Also, testing of this device at ASR forum reveals it is pretty good, setting new, higher standards for miniDSP. I think it may be a good solution for many who have been frustrated with proper sub integration in stereo. I don’t need it, since I am already doing Mch using bass management.
  16. My Mch collection is mostly ripped from SACDs, though increasingly labels are turning to downloads for Mch with corresponding disc releases only on CD. There are other downloads in PCM and DSD and the rest are ripped from BD-A or BD-V. Most all are imported and tagged in my JRiver library on my NAS, though the BDs are more troublesome. Obviously, ripped CDs could also be in my library, but I have not bought a CD in over a decade since being smitten by Mch. I have no desire at this point to rip and tag my thousands of CDs. The sound does not justify it. Combined, there are over 5
  17. I may be out of date with my BDs and I always listen in Mch. So, I don’t even look anymore to see if there is an LPCM stereo stream. But, I used to, and the BD menu defaulted to it rather than a Mch codec on my Oppo player. It does not seem to do that with JRiver playback on the PC. So, I don’t even see it anymore. There are no rigid standards for this in BD authoring. So, perhaps more recent BDs have dropped the LPCM stereo choice from the discs. It was prevalent, though, before.
  18. On BDs, the lossless codecs are usually only used for the Mch stream. Most BDs have a menu choice on playback of the uncompressed LPCM stereo stream or the Mch codec, as both exist on the BD itself. So, for stereo, there is usually no issue even with spdif/Toslink.. HDMI output can handle any of the streams, including LPCM stereo, depending on player settings. The Mch codecs can be decoded by the player to Mch LPCM or they can be bitstreamed as codecs for decoding by a downstream processor. But, yes, spdif/Toslink can handle Mch only as the lossy core of the codec d
  19. Kal’s advice is excellent, as always, of course. I chose speakers all from the same manufacturer, Martin Logan, with electrostat hybrids all around - 3 different size stereo pairs plus a horizontal center for 7.1. I listened to them all individually prior to final setup in stereo or mono vs. the large front pair I already had. There was very little noticeable difference except in the deep, bass, which is offloaded to a single JL Audio f113 sub via bass management anyway. I highly recommend a sub or subs no matter how large the main speakers are. The design of MLs i
  20. BluRay videos are almost always in 48k/24. Few are higher than that. I think I have a few San Francisco Symphony albums and a Concertgeboow Mahler cycle at 96k. BD-As are often at 96k. The 2L label has some with stereo at 192k and Mch at 96k or 192k. Usually, the stereo is unencoded LPCM. The Mch typically uses a lossless codec, either DTS HD MA or Dolby THD. The PC player software should be capable of decoding those codecs prior to a DAC for Mch. I use JRiver. HT players and processors can also decode.
  21. I play hirez audio from my PC in PCM all the time via USB, including ripped BD files and discs via the BD optical drive in the PC. No problem. It is limited only by the DAC. You cannot bitstream DSD files via HDMI from the PC, however, although you can via USB if the DAC supports it. But, that does not pertain to BD. The USB/spdif converter may have its own sampling rate limitations. I don’t know the Monarchy DAC. The hot, inexpensive DACs over at ASR Forum are the Toppings. Excellent measurements are provided at ASR. The Monarchy has not been on their radar scre
  22. I had a very high level, carefully selected stereo system in the $60k MSRP range before deciding to add Mch HT to it, but planning to keep stereo playback from CD or LP untouched. The front channels were used for both stereo and Mch via HT bypass in my preamp. The brands in my system were familiar - Krell, Levinson, Audio Research, Theta Digital, Martin Logan, Cardas, etc. I was a typical high end guy, carefully tutored in that approach to sound by the magazines, dealers and many audiophile friends over many years. As I selected the new added components for Mch, I got a chance
  23. I guess the tricky question is whether sound from speaker cabinet vibrations directly into the floor is/is not more important than sound from the speaker propagation into the air getting into the floor structure? I think both may be important. Overthinking and over investing in one at the expense of the other may yield suboptimal results.
  24. I agree with your conclusions, as far as they go with prevailing commercial media. I have dabbled and experimented with many of those same alternatives. If concert hall sound is your reference standard, and I quite agree it should be, then the next step beyond what you have considered is discretely recorded Mch sound. To me, it is, without question, the closest approach in reproduction yet to concert hall sound, and not by just a little. Equipment choices are always important, but breaking the sonic, spatial barriers imposed by 2-channel stereo are even more important if you w
  • Create New...