Jump to content

Confused

Members
  • Content Count

    932
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Confused

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Berkshire UK

Recent Profile Visitors

4557 profile views
  1. I signed up, but have not received the files. Is it just me? 😕
  2. My apologies for the on topic post here, but has this "Hi-res" test actually started yet? I signed up a while ago, but heard nothing since. Has the test not started or have I missed something? I notice that most posters in this thread have very established views, but I am interested in trying the test myself, if only for my own interest in what I can discern with my own ears in my own system. I much prefer New World wines to a French Bordeaux by the way, but that's just me.
  3. I appreciate the listening impression posts so far, however, as a point to note it would be appreciated if people could briefly summarise where and how they are using their EtherRegen. For example, is it feeding a DAC directly, a network endpoint, or whatever. Plus, what is upstream of the EtherRegen, PC, Mac, NUC, Network player or whatever? Some posters have sufficient detail in their signature, which is great, but for those that do not some basic details of your "audio chain" would be very useful in order to give context to your observations. Thanks!😀
  4. Confused

    HQ Player

    I have had a similar problem, the various "audio:default" options disappeared after I updated HQPlayer last weekend. This was a new install on a replacement PC. As a simple workaround, I simply hand typed in "audio:default/44100/2" and the functionality reappeared, in terms of music playing at last. This morning I have updated to 4.2.0 and have the same issue. Not a big deal, thanks to the simple workaround, but hopefully this will be fixed in a future update.
  5. I tend to agree with this. To put it another way, I can think of no audio device, or set-up technique, no matter how well regarded or generally accepted, that does not somewhere have it's detractors claiming it is too expensive, foo, does not work, sounds terrible, or whatever. It is true of the big brand kit, niche products, every kind of accessory, you name it. So chill out, enjoy, and if you happen to stumble across someone who disagrees with your view, worry not, it's inevitable.
  6. My dealer sells a range of cables. They also use the same cables during demos in their store. If you happen to be interested in buying a cable, you can borrow one of the shop demo cables to try at home. If you like it, you then buy a brand new one, with no likely reason to need to return it. Is this uncommon? It seems a straightforward approach to me.
  7. I tried the infamous X & Y files today. To me, they both sounded like reasonably well recorded pieces of music. I had a very slight preference for Y, but certainly found nothing that I would consider irritating or offensive with version X. Does anyone actually think there is a big / significant difference between the two, or would actually be irritated by listening to one particular version?
  8. Another thought re the above. I read Hifi News and Record Review each month, being lucky enough to receive a subscription as a gift each year. Recently there has been some reviews covering kit capable of MQA decoding. Nothing unusual or interesting about that. What is striking though is how MQA is covered. In each article the fact that MQA capability is there as a feature is accurately reported. But that is pretty much it, nothing about what MQA offers or it's influence on sound quality. As a typical example from the dCS Bartok review: "….the Bartok used via the dCS app offers instant access to streaming services such as Tidal and Spotify and plays a wide range of file formats including MQA". And that's it, no other mentions, just a matter of fact note that MQA as feature is there. It s much the same with reviews for the dSC Rossini, Audioquest DragonFly Cobalt, and others.
  9. Not much of a mention at the UK's HiFi Show Live at Ascot last week. it's almost like it's...…., now what's an appropriate word? Vaporware maybe? Some nice kit though, pictures per the links for those interested: https://hifipig.com/uk-hifi-show-live-20...ow-report/https://www.stereonet.co.uk/features/uk-...nd-gallery
  10. So thinking about this, if we are told what filters are used to convert (upsample and down-sample) the files used for Mark Waldrep's "blind" comparison test, would it be possible to come up with an optimum filter(s) in HQPlayer to perform the comparison? I am wondering if there is a possibility to have a setting in HQPlayer that would make this test as valid as possible? Or maybe this is not possible?
  11. Yes, a good point. However, let's say you have a set up where you typically upsample everything (including 16/44) to 24/192, would this eliminate the difference, either in part, or maybe 100%?
×
×
  • Create New...