Jump to content

manisandher

  • Content Count

    2404
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About manisandher

  • Rank
    from-first-principles.com

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. If you use a PM1/2 to play back the HRx 24/176.4 files from RR, the HDCD LED will illuminate. However, don't be fooled by this - there are no HDCD processes beyond 16/44.1. So you can play back the HRx files on any DAC with no more added distortion than there would be playing them back on a PM1/2. (I used to have a DAC with a PMD200 filter, which also illuminated the HDCD LED when playing back HRx files. But DACs with this filter (as opposed to the regular PMD100) are few and far between.) Mani.
  2. Excellent article Rajiv. Another example of how reviews should be written, though I can only imagine how much time and effort you put into it. Have you ever had a chance to try a pair of old AKG K1000 'earspeakers' driven by a decent amp? I find them particularly good with classical music because you can angle them out, creating some semblance of a real sound stage. If you open them up too much, I find you lose too much bottom end, but it's possible to find a nice balance. Just wondered... (Edit: 'Nit Khair Mansan Sohnia Main Teri' is my favourite Nusrat track of all time.) Mani.
  3. Will have a look Jesus, but not sure if I'll be able to find any - it was a while ago now, and I gave up on 16/44.1 pretty quickly from what I can recall. Leave it with me... Mani.
  4. If the labels used a PM1/2, they certainly had the ability to encode HDCD fully. But whether they did or not would be down to whether they invoked any of the various HDCD encoding processes in the PM1/2. When I had my PM2, I could create fully encoded 16/44.1 HDCD files. I chose not to, because I preferred the sound with no HDCD encoding at all - perhaps other labels shared my preference? Actually, I created very few encoded/non-encoded 16/44.1 files - I much preferred the sound of 24/176.4 or 24/192, where the PM2 starts sounding really magical. Mani.
  5. I remember going into a hifi shop as a student in 1988 to buy a pair of headphones and being told by the sales assistant that they were "fully CD". He obviously knew nothing about 'qualifying' the customer - the resulting level of patronising was beyond believable. A bit like some posters here on AS unfortunately. Mani.
  6. So you identified decoded-MQA vs. hires correctly 5/9 times, right? Mani.
  7. HDCD 16/44.1, I don't think so - I can't imagine why anyone would do use HDCD processing nowadays. But 'HDCD' 24/176.4 or 24/192, definitely. But they're not really HDCD (see previous post). Mani.
  8. I owned a Pacific Microsonics Model Two for many years. I played around extensively with the various HDCD processes for 16/44.1, and always ended up preferring no HDCD processing. Above 16-bit, there was no HDCD processing applied by the Model One/Two. When you play an HDCD-encoded 16/44.1, you generally have no idea exactly what HDCD processing was applied. (Hopefully the HDCD.exe decoder in your SW player is smart enough to figure this out, if you're not using a built-in HW decoder in your DAC/CD-player.) For me, the biggest benefit of using HDCD-encoded CDs or files is that they were mastered on a Model One/Two, which was, and still is, a simply superb ADC. 16/44.1 is good, but try getting hold of some 24/176.4 or 24/192 mastered on a Model One/Two. Reference Recordings is the obvious source. The 24/192 of Kind of Blue was created using a Model Two. If there's any way you can play these files back natively (with no filtering or SDM), the sound quality is stunning. HTH. Mani.
  9. Try Munich High End instead 😉 My understanding is that the correlation between IQ and earnings is ~ 0.3; conscientiousness and earnings is ~0.2. So what, 75% accounted for by other factors? Mani.
  10. I don't need studies to know that cables sound different to me. (I suspect there are many people here who share this sentiment.) I could be imaging it. Yet, all the expensive cables I own (bought before the kids came along) sit boxed up in my basement. They simply don't sound as good as the much cheaper cables I currently use. The same is true of the amps I own, and a whole bunch of USB cables. This expectation bias malarkey is a really, really strange thing. Mani.
  11. IMO, we don't know all the challenges audio presents for cables. Why do I think this? Because cables sound different... when they shouldn't, according to our current understanding. The same could be said for USB audio. I find that an incredibly limiting belief. But you've every right to hold it, of course. (Can I just say for the record that I can't stand the fact that analogue and digital cables sound different. I absolutely hate it.) Mani.
  12. I'm sure they're all very impressive in their respective fields. But it doesn't prove that no audio cable company has people of the same calibre. Well, being brilliant in your field doesn't necessarily mean you're great at business - someone like Pat Di Giacomo springs to mind (no offense to Pat). What about someone like Nelson Pass for someone in high end audio who has "put two commas worth of income on a tax return"? Mani.
  13. I don't consider that sufficient evidence for your assertion. Now, had you merely speculated, that would have been different. Mani.
  14. I know nothing about AudioQuest, other than owning the original Dragonfly, which I think is OK for the price. There is no doubt in my mind that charlatans exist in the audio cable industry. BUT... it doesn't follow that all audio cable companies are charlatans. Mani.
  15. Where's your evidence for this?
×
×
  • Create New...