Jump to content

Confused

  • Content Count

    790
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Confused

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Berkshire UK

Recent Profile Visitors

3935 profile views
  1. I have to say that I very much enjoyed the blind test, and it is fascinating to now be able to see the results. Many thanks to @archimago for doing the hard work, good stuff. One thing that interests me is that my personal results are fairly typical for my demographic group, except for the Sony disc player, that I seamed to constantly place lower than the other devices, and indeed rank lower than other listeners. Looking back through my notes, for most listening tests I placed "C" (the Oppo) top, with the "A" (the ASRock) either bottom or second to bottom. My "outlier" result though was the Sony, which I very often found worse than the ASRock. Looking at the measurements, I can see that the Sony is indeed the worse item with respect to jitter, but I note the comments that the Sony's jitter performance should not in theory cause any negative audible effects. Could there be something else about the Sony that cause me to pick it last? I can be quite specific about why the Sony troubled me during the blind listening, it was some kind of "digital hash" or artifacts / distortion in the treble / presence range frequencies. I think I became a little obsessed with this particular aspect when listening, maybe a case of focusing too much on a small negative factor and so my attention deviated away from the rest. So as an open question, is there anything in the Sony's measurements that might account for the presence hash / distortions that I seamed to be hearing? This is an aspect of music reproduction that tends to trouble me in general, I think I am a little oversensitive to it, so it would be fascinating if I could correlate this to something objectively measurable. Any ideas? Of course, I may just be tone deaf, but I would prefer to think not as I did pick the Oppo as my number one choice.
  2. As a clarification, were you using the MC3+USB as a “source” to the Vivaldi, Or was the MC3+USB/REF10 being used to generate the word clock for the Vivaldi? (I presume the latter) So if my assumption is correct, were you swapping the clock cables as pairs, or do your observations relate to the clock cable between the MC3+USB and the Vivaldi only? I’m just trying to understand the set up you were trying here.
  3. Actually, the fact that 16/44.1 removes the ultrasonic content was key to my point, although I do not think I explained the point very well. Looking at this another way, if we give a name to the audible change made to the fundamental frequency that is caused by the ultrasonic content, lets call this "toneX". During the original performance the subject instrument will generate the ultrasonic content, create tonex, and tonex can be recorded with brick wall filtered 16/44.1, because it is in the audible range. During playback via 16/44.1, tonex will be reproduced because it has been recorded and is in the audible range. Using say 24/192, tonex will be generated during the original performance and recorded. During playback, the original recorded tonex will be reproduced, the original ultrasonic content will be also reproduced , and this will generate a second tonex. So using 16/44.1 you would get one tonex per the original performance, using 24/192, you would get an additional tonex generated during reproduction, which would be a distortion to, or at least additional to, the original performance. I am not sure if that explains it any better, but it makes sense to me at least!
  4. I have heard this theory too. The problem is though, that if the upper overtones of musical instruments and has an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear directly, then this can be recorded by a microphone and captured at 16/44.1. If you record and capture at 24/192, you might then reproduce the lower frequency as effected by the original overtone and then recorded, as well as reproducing the upper overtones again during replay, which will effect the lower frequencies which we do hear directly for a second time. Thus reproducing the ultrasonics during replay will actually reduce the accuracy of the sound. (you could go crazy thinking about this too much!)
  5. But surely this does not matter if you can connect to the music via a properly sorted rig?
  6. Out of interest, did anyone get to hear the new(ish) PMC Fenestria? I thought they looked quite interesting, until I discovered that they are £45,000.....
  7. For what it's worth, I think the Mutec MC3+USB has given me the best "bang for buck" in terms of a sound quality hike versus any audio kit I have bought for a very long time. Excellent, no nonsense kit.
  8. Confused

    HQ Player

    I have been trying the new "loopback" input options this morning. At first I could not get it to work, but thanks to following the posts from @lucretius and others, all became clear and everything is now working, A bit of a learning curve, but easy when you know how. (I think some guidelines in a new thread might be useful for those trying it for the first time, the useful posts here have become very dispersed) Anyway, once up and running, I have to say that this new functionality is a bit of a gamechanger for me. I run a Windows 10 PC, and this morning I was able to stream upsampled NAA to my sMS-200Ultra Neo with a whole range of things as a source. iTunes / WASPI works without issue, I could stream YouTube music, I tried some music podcasts curtesy of BBC sounds, internet radio works. Basically, anything I could find to play music on my PC would play via HQPlayer, and all with excellent sound quality. I know some are a little upset by the new pricing, but for me the new functionality and possibilities with HQPlayer make it an absolute bargain, personally I could not be happier with this.
  9. Thanks, interesting. Maybe I’ll try Roon / 100BASE-T for a while, something to try until the issue gets sorted?
  10. Is anyone successfully using the new 100BASE-T mode with HQPlayer? I can get Roon, Shairport etc. working with 100BASE-T, no issues, but not HQPlayer. I am interested in any feedback from other HQPlayer users, as I am not sure if this is an intrinsic problem, or maybe something unique to my particular set-up?
  11. Confused

    HQ Player

    In the absence of any manual at the moment that covers all the new filter options available in V4, I would be interested in any technically sound recommendations for the recommended filter(s) for up sampling 16/44.1 to 24/192, with rock, pop and electronica. OK, I know I can try everything for myself and have a listen, I am just interested in the best starting point from a technical perspective. Thanks!
  12. Confused

    HQ Player

    Just as a general question. I run Roon feeding HQPlayer on one PC, then via Ethernet to a sMS-200Ultra. I presume in this configuration you just need to run HQ Player server? That is, there no additional benefit or required functionality to be gained from HQ Player Client?
×
×
  • Create New...