Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Fyper

  • Rank
    Freshman Member

Personal Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

3436 profile views
  1. Very interesting. Thanks for this. But it looks like a lot of efforts for not much: if you have to use a PC in such a set up you need to make sure that the sound quality and/or the navigation software provide real added value compared to a PC also used as a source. I would think the main interest of using a standalone player is precisely not to have to go through the use of a PC and have a ready to play solution. That being said, it's a shame that these network players do not include a digital loop to insert a DSP processor like the old Slimdevice Transporter use to have. Now th
  2. I don't get it. What's the point of reproducing the flaws of your speakers/room combo in a headphone? Why add things which should never have been there in the first place to the original sound? One of the headphones main advantage is precisely to get rid of the room acoustics problems.
  3. Fair enough Maybe the poll question should have been: "Are you for or against or neutral on MQA becoming the industry's standard?" That's how I read it and why I voted against.
  4. Alexa or such could work when listening to music casually, while doing something else. But then, in those moments, I don't really care what I'm listening to, I set up the system and don't think about it. When I do some serious listening, I'm not interested in hearing anything but music, even the sound of my own voice. And I just don't see myself screaming "Alexa play next song" while the remote is practically always in my hand.
  5. I think I wasn't clear (sorry not my language). I'm not denying the possible high quality of the sound produced by a Homepod, I'm saying that considering buying a Homepod because of how it sounds is IMHO comparable to considering buying a car for the quality of its audio system: it's just not the reason to be of the thing, but merely a nice feature.
  6. I don't quite understand this topic : how is the Homepod related in any way to audiophiles? I mean, the main function of this device is not to provide high quality sound, that would be at best a secondary feature? Would any audiophile consider a Homepod to replace his current system? Or is it to ask "play me U2, that show in 1998, when everyone was singing Sunday Bloody Sunday with the band, and play it in the main system". I'm not interested in that at alll but I can understand that some might be.(the rooners ?)
  7. This sounds strange to me. If the only argument in favor of USB against dual AES is that USB is more recent or that you can't go above 24/192, it's quite a poor argument coming from "DCS designers"... What I understand there is that if I don't mind old standards and/or I don't listen to higher formats than 24/192 or DSD dop64, I'm fine with dual AES... Sounds Like a poor way to push people to upgrade to USB (for a fee).
  8. No I don't mean the Ref10 but the MC3+USB. More and more DACs have a 10M input (no need to use a word clock between the ref clock and the DAC. Therefore you can compare reclocking and master clocking with same DAC. Since the price tags of the MC3 and this TEAC is close, I'd imagine that the reclocking done by the Mutec would give a result comparable to the master clocking of the TEAC. Another way to say would be : if the TEAC Ref clock is used as a master clock on the MC3+USB, I wouldn't expect an improvement compared to the MC3+USB alone. I'd think the REF10 is way better than
  9. How does it compare to a Mutec MC3+ USB ? About the same price... looking forward to reading some comparisons.
  10. Sorry to come back to that so late in the discussion. And yes it's been said many times but still. There is a misunderstanding there. The target for MQA is not the people, but the Majors. If they have the majors they will have everything upstream (studios, artists) and downstream (streaming companies, hardware manufacturers). This is where they will make their money and control the market. What their comm. and their agents may tell the people is just to get us prepared to what may come, and accept it, better: embrace it. That kind of approach has been used countless times.
  11. Post EQ measurements would show objectively the effectiveness of the suggested correction, and could be the starting point of an iterative correction process if the customer so desires. Not that optional for a remote service IMHO.
  12. Theoretically: yes. From a clocking/re-clocking point of view. But it seems the PSU of the MC3+usb is better than the MC3+. So there is only one way to be certain...
  13. That is intriguing. Of course I'll fight for this even though I won't buy the album, I'll fight for all of them whether I like the music or not, whether it sounds good or not. The (maybe irrational) fear is that there might be a take over of the PCM standard by a private company, which may thus have significant control of much of process, from production to sale. Some players and consumers in that chain may be happy to let go the little influence they have against something more interesting to them, but many are not. And yes there is no proof that this may happen. May I say that
  14. You could try to plug you MC3+ and compare ?
  15. Not sure I understand this: if an external clock is used, then no work is required from the input section of the DAC - PLL, that work is done by the external clock. Same (better actually) if the source and the DAC are synced: no reclocking and/or DAC pll work is required. The reclocking concept, to me, comes from the fact that most sources and DACs don't offer a wordclock inputs (even more true when done through usb), therefore you've to tap the timing info directly from the PCM flow, whereas it takes a different path, and is being reclocked, when going from source to DAC through a m
  • Create New...