Jump to content

Confused

Members
  • Content Count

    1235
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Confused

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Berkshire UK

Recent Profile Visitors

5662 profile views
  1. Possibly, yes. Indeed, I mentioned this very point in the rest of my post that you selectively quoted. So, as a thought experiment. Let's say you made a very high quality recording of a rig that sounded overly bright due to playback distortion, then replayed this recording through a fully transparent non-distorting system? How would this sound? And how would this be any different to if an equivalent combination of distortions were in the actual recording itself?
  2. Not only is this a top tune, but these guys were 28 years ahead of their time in terms of fashion trends.
  3. Interesting, it sounds like we might actually agree on many things after all.🙂
  4. Actually it is even worse than this, if you had a procedure stating that your manufacturing practices can be inconsistent, you could get an ISO certificate for poor and inconsistent practices. So quality is verified only in terms of consistency with procedure, which may not count for much.
  5. This annoys me too. One option here is to switch to mono, possible on some systems, but not all.
  6. Lets' take a sample of just two people who have posted so far. For @Bill Brown the biggest factor is compression. For me, the biggest factor is tonal balance, I am very sensitive to overly bright recordings, and have been for decades, on every system I have owned and many others I have listened to. Compression? OK - I know what Bill means, and I prefer dynamic & uncompressed recordings, but to be honest compression does not bother me that much. So, if we found a highly compressed recording with poor tonal balance, the chances are that Bill and myself would agree it is a bad recording. For other examples, such as something highly compressed with good tonal balance, or uncompressed & dynamic but overly bright, we would not agree. I would imagine that there are very many other issues that annoy others, and probably hundreds of versions of the above in the murky world of the highly subjective. I would mention on thing though, as a mindset it is wrong to initially blame the recording, it is possibly distortions in your rig preventing your ear brain system from tuning in to the essence of the recording. Get your rig sorted and those "bad " recording will snap into shape. Unless your rig is sorted of course, in which case your rig's transparency is simply accurately reproducing any issues in the recording that might annoy you personally, how could it do anything else if it is properly sorted?
  7. I don’t think you have missed anything, but he does state “it’s time to start presenting the data and analysis.....’ , which I read as meaning this is to follow. The preliminary results hint that some of the detail you mention will be provided, but time will tell.
  8. That is actually a very good point I think. It does beg a question though. To what measurements would you allocate a high weighting?
  9. Has he advised which version was which for the tracks? Maybe I missed it? Yes, I know I could check using Audacity or similar, but time is short at the moment.
  10. Yes, and never pause to measure it before running.
  11. Another one mentioned by Darko: ("Sounds hard") Maybe Darko needs to get his rig sorted?
  12. How would you approach this task? Mindful that the two DACs might have different chipsets, different digital filters, output stages, power supplies and so on. Would it not be easier to try a number of DACs, and go with the one that is most neutral and transparent?
  13. Yes, I would agree with this. Of course I cannot speak for Darko either, but knowing that he has listened to a decent variety of DACs as an equipment reviewer, I suspect he has done the same thing when he has declared the Cambridge DAC to "be somewhat warm somewhat rounded and somewhat burnished in the top end" and goes on to say it is not neutral sounding. Out of interest, this the soundcloud / Darren Price track that he mentioned sounded better on the Cambridge DAC. (it is easy enough to find the full version on soundcloud, if anyone is interested) Sounds perfectly listenable on my system, but to be honest, I can imagine it sounding better on warmer more rounded sounding DAC.
  14. Personally I do not have much of a problem with measurements being quoted that are below the limits of audibility. The problem as I see it is that this in itself might not tell anyone very much. It does tell us something, in that a particular measured aspect of a product is below the level of audibility, so need not be worried about. So you might have an amplifier with 0.00005% THD or something, then ok, distortion is not an issue. What this does not tell you is that this amplifier will sound identical to all other amplifiers with THD levels below the threshold of audibility. Of course you need to measure power, to check this is adequate to drive your speakers at the desired volume, but even if power outputs are adequate for both subject amplifiers, they may not sound the same. As an example, at one time I was auditioning a whole range of amplifiers, all with the KEF Blade. One thing I noticed was that some amps seemed to go slightly deeper with bass, with better definition. Checking specs, I seemed to find a of correlation between this aspect of performance and the amplifiers output impedance. To put this another way, subjectively I seemed to prefer amplifiers with lower output impedance when driving one periductular brand of speakers. Although this does not prove causality, it may just be a coincidence. It might be related to slew rate or a whole host of unrelated factors, who knows. There was a thread a while ago discussing how measurements relate to sound quality. Some excellent posts and insight there, but remarkably few solid conclusions. Herein lies the problem I think.
×
×
  • Create New...