Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by beerandmusic

  1. Of course, everything is relative, and in most cases you will get the best sound with a higher budget, but i am curious if anyone is content with the way their relatively low cost system sounds and without a fancy computer and power supplies? If you think you have a decent sounding solution for under $3K excluding speakers and amp, please share it. I personally would prefer something you can buy (vs DIY), but would consider DIY if could be done in a day with little skill and knowledge...but of course anyone is free to share.
  2. thanks. I guess i should have said the digitized flat file would be more simple and easier to compare the original analog input to the analog output (assuming differences would be easier to be measured?) There may be an easier test for accuracy, but as a layman, that just seemed like a good example as a starting point.
  3. apologies..i didnt mean the music sounded bloated..but the interface concept sounds bloated....i personally just like to browse my own file structure and pick music that way, i realize others may prefer the interface as it is...i don't even know what musically sounds bloated would even mean (grin). We were talking about the interface...anyway, rewording, i should have said, the interface concept sounds like a cool idea, but i like a simpler interface. (i believe if they offered a feature where you could browse by folder in addition to the "more bloated" interface that would appeal
  4. amazing that much data is used in a 1 second sampling of a simple 1k sine wave. I am confused as how does this data look digitally in a flat file?
  5. REFOCUS:: We can discuss higher recordings later...I think for now i want to stick to resolving for original recordings at 44.1K still...I personally am not ready to move on from that at this time for my purposes....i think it is agreed, by at least many, that original recordings recorded at 96K with higher bit depths, may have benefits...... but most of what is in libraries today is 44.1k....so sticking with that "for now". On that assumption, i believe most people would agree it is "possible" to accurately reproduce the original signal with a 96K sample rate. The downside to up
  6. I agree, i don't think we should start with 16/44.1 but that is what mostly exists...but my current understanding is there likely wouldn't be any benefit to higher than 96K sampling rate( and unsure of if there is a theorem representing optimal bit depth?). I have many native DSD256 and DSD128 files and have downampled them out of curiosity and couldn't hear differences, whereas a quieter source and better bit depth have made an audible difference. I also agree, It may make no sense to downsample if we have the technology to "ACCURATELY" record and reproduce at higher rates, then w
  7. ^^^ I think that once the "end to end" D->A design is perfected, and mass produced, that it could be manufactured based on BOM for very little money....of course, initial runs, to be profitable and to carry engineering costs would be astronomical...but a lot of knowledge is already known... My thinking is that since we have a finite digital signal, the entire analog signal could be accurately mathematically reconstructed via software (and i am not sure i understand any need of high rate dsd to reconstruct a 44.1k recording), and that the actual analog out really wouldn't need expensiv
  8. and they get SO MANY FIRMWARE UPDATES THAT IT IS ACTUALLY ANNOYING (grin)...seriously, it shows they are always improving....
  9. another thought...i think bit depth is important for dynamics, and usually when i do critical listening, i look for dynamics in very quiet background sounds, and is where i typically find differences. I understand there is a theorem (nyquist) for sample rate and this is probably a very stupid question that i could probably google to find the answer, but want to continue to demonstrate that I am a layman, and that no question is a stupid question, so..the question is, does this theorem take into consideration bit depth? again, this is just a rambling thought that crossed my mind, t
  10. I may pop in from time to time simply to post a thought that entered my mind, that may or may not be applicable, but at the moment I post it, I believe it is applicable, and don't want to forget the thought..... this is such a moment, and just want to share this thought.... Part of the problem with DAC design may be the amount of different inputs it has to resolve for, that if the design could concentrate on a limited amount of inputs, the design could be better perfected....along this thought, if 44.1K fully encapsulates our audible spectrum, that if the DAC only had t
  11. I haven't read through yours or davides posts yet, so i will get to them later, but this posting captured my attention. I have lived in the digital world for my entire career and things are more "predictable", so maybe this is where my logic fails in the audio world....but i want to concentrate on where things break down....i think most people would agree that most dacs would produce the same output for a simple sine wave, so it is a good starting point....anyway...thanks for your input as always...will continue to digest. edit to add:: since you believe if everything was perf
  12. I noticed a few more have responded. Thank you. I will take the time to read through carefully. Again, I am a layman, and most of this stuff is way over my head. I am "extremely" left brained, which is likely why I am socially dysfunctional. My logic differs than most peoples. I am also ADD...which is why I am going to go here now::: Someone commented in another posting, that I made a rather offensive remark, where in my thinking, it was not offensive at all. Quite the opposite. In my obscure way of thinking, honesty conquers all other forms of communication, a
  13. The reason, i wanted to know about a "simple" 1K signal is because in the audio world it is simple, finite, and predictable. I believe in taking a system down to it's bare minimum for troubleshooting purposes. If there is a problem in a bare minimum configuration, obviously that would need to be addressed first. If there is "any" possibility that there would be any audible differences between 20 different dacs at any price point, then those should be discounted. Everyone suggests different DACS sound differently. This is a real problem and tells me that audio engineering is nowhere near w
  14. Thank you sir! That is what I love about this site. There is so much knowledge people are willing to take their time and share. Do you sell any products? You don't write many posts, but when you do, I am sure it can be trusted. I noticed 2 things about you but wish I knew more. 1. You don't have an "about me" in your profile...please do edit. 2. Your system is a modest Marantz and B&W system....a man after my own heart! Anyway, if you wish to remain "annonymous" I understand, but I would love to know more about you.
  15. Understood and as expected (e.g. no experience at UI software), but maybe you could consider teaming with someone some day for a one-off project....could be a killer and break up the monotony... Either way your dacs have always had some "magic juice" that I can't really find a word for other than just "lively", where all others just seemed "flat" in some way, and kudos for your great work on unison. inre, "some other features I forget", of course you had to leave us hanging (smile).
  16. Initial thoughts were that I finally have a solution that i can be content with (FOR my everyday windows pc), which is probably more important (to me) than my critical listening system, because I use it more often (I intend to combine them at some point). I don't think my feelings will change, that there are more dynamics playing DSD over ENET for most critical listening, but it is now for the first time, in 8 years (after trying a dozen different dacs) "close" and certainly acceptable for my everyday pc....i strongly believe that Mike Moffat has "finally" created a well designed dac that doe
  17. I have pieced together many quotes from many respected people, so i still have questions.... Just curious, what is your take on if PCM 192K can sound the same as QUAD RATE DSD provided original source is 44.1K?
  18. Yes, he was...i specifically stated in the thread, "differences within the audible spectrum" and i repeated it many times.
  19. +1...imho, it is the first dac i have had that sounds decent out my noisy everyday windows pc.... i think it's the first well designed usb input for a dac (in this price range)....about time! Not quite convinced it beats the dynamics of what is possible with a quieter player via ethernet, but it is very close ....i have to do more critical listening....(too many other projects right now).
  20. I don't know if he misunderstood my question or , but i laid out clear assumptions:: 1. All hardware (besides DAC) is the same 2. Source File is the same (a wav file recorded accurately at 44.1k) 3. Assuming no DSP EQ or any other changes to original file besides upsampling. Wanting to know if the original recording was 44.1k, is it possible if a 192K PCM DAC is capable of sounding the same as a QUAD RATE DSD upsampling of same file, i wanted to know what the measurable differences within the audible spectrum of a DACs output (at analog out) might be between the 2
  21. This effort has nothing to do with music in itself, it has do with a project of mine to decide if i want to consider a PCM dac. My current belief is that I can be very content with PCM, whereas I used to believe that i would not ever purchase anything that did not support DSD...so you just have to have patience to see where I am going. My guess (but i may be wrong) is that most audio engineers already accept PCM is more than sufficient and capable of playing the full audio spectrum equal to quad DSD "if done properly". I still do not understand even the smallest fraction of what most he
  22. i don't like much country, but there are probably 100 or so exceptions....
  23. depends....can be "good schitt" or "badass schitt" ...whatever he did,, seems that it worked well for marketing.
  24. ^^^ Reminds me of a audiophile group meeting i went to in Rancho Bernardo...One of the people that came was a "retired" editor for a main magazine (i think it may have been stereophile...but don't quote me)...but the biggest thing i got out of that meeting was when he publicly acknowledged how happy he is to be retired where he can openly talk about his true feelings about everything, and didn't have to get creative with his use of words....I guess I always realized that, but it was just entertaining for someone in the profession to come out and say it publicly....I wish I noted his name.
  • Create New...