Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About FredericV

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I made a lot of power cords. The most easy way of avoiding an extra power distributor: one cable from the wall going into this plastic box then many output cables Versions of this box exist with thick copper binding posts, which I used. I did not use any resin
  2. Soundstage"s Doug Schneider has some amusing comments by the well known MQA shill, under his FLAC post of September 17 at 4:02 PM . It seems there's only one guy left on the internet pathetically defending MQA: https://www.facebook.com/douglas.schneider.378 Just scroll down to the big FLAC picture, and read the comments .... Why would a consumer keep defending the format, mainly using corporate arguments, such as one file fits all uses , the bandwidth argument (both have already been debunked), the provenance argument, and the guarantee the file is not illegal and/or modified? He is using all arguments someone would use to sell it to the labels. It just does not compute ...
  3. The local Benchmark distributor is not far from here, so I'm going to compare the AHB2 with my Vitus SS-025 soon. Technically the AHB2 has a much lower noise floor, but how it sounds, is a more subjective matter. From show reports, it certainly delivers, and you can use a pair and put them in bi-amp mode. My Amphion Krypton 3 like a lot of power. With the SS-025, I have to put my ear into the horn of the Krypton 3 to hear some very silent noise. When I move my ear 15cm away from the horn, it's gone. So an amp with a lower noise floor is not going to be day and night difference based on the noise floor criterium, most likely other factors will lead to a certain sound.
  4. Walk to any speaker's tweeter and listen for noise. When you replace the amp with an amp having a lower noise floor, this audible noise should be lower. For some ultra high gain horn speakers, this may be a decision criterium, as the high gain makes this noise cary further away. But even with the amp where you have tweeter noise when being very close, once you walk away, that noise is gone. On the listener's sweet spot, that noise is also gone. So in an actual system, can you hear the difference between amp with -100, -110 and -130dB noise floor?
  5. They did not even try to attack your MQA tools https://code.videolan.org/mansr/mqa
  6. Even worse, if you kill all the data required for the lossy hi-res part (the data required for the first unfold, to either 88.2 or 96 Khz sample rate), the DAC will still make you believe it unfolds to 352.8K as done in my experiments:
  7. Funny in the context of MQA. They delete Will Smith's fingerprints to make him anonymous. But MQA claims to fingerprint DAC's and make corrections per DAC model, while in reality the filter coefficients appear all the same across different brands of MQA enabled DAC. Proof of DAC specific tuning still needs to happen ... All those canned MQA articles which claim this, and more pseudo facts which were already debunked (like that absurd third unfold), are similar to what happens at 02:33 in this video:
  8. Interesting read, and very well written for those with a technical background. The price of your scope looks impressive: https://www.distrelec.be/fr/oscilloscope-4x-500mhz-5gsps-tektronix-mdo3054-mdo3sa-mdo3bnd-promo/p/30018059
  9. I saw that through from almost the beginning, which was the reason for further researching their dubious claims. How could MQA be master quality, and at the same time, be better than the master? It can't be both. In The Netherlands some press outlets who promoted MQA did not believe the research and debunking. Amusing was the fact that the outlet that first tried to fight me by preventing me to post further reactions (by requiring members to signup instead of allowing anonymous reactions), then posted a news article questioning if MQA is a fake format. He also did a video with Bob where BS explains that average content is hardly any better than redbook in terms of bith depth - which is why MQA gets away with 17/96.
  10. That's the whole joke .... they claim it's better than PCM, but as it's based on PCM, it has to abide by the laws of PCM and thus PCM based sampling. As MQA's second unfold is just upsampling and nothing more (no further musical content is recovered), and the first unfold resolves to something like 17/96, by consquence MQA can't encode an analog signal let's say at 55 Khz. Furthermore some of the MQA evangelists still do not get how the folding works, believing there's a third unfold. I recently contacted Hans Beekhuyzen to address his mistake, but he has failed to correct his article: This is complete BS: http://thehbproject.com/nl/artikelen/38/6/MQA---Kwaliteitsgarantie To bury data below 144dB you would need a 32 bit distribution file instead of the 24 bit MQA distribution files. There is no third unfold. Hans does not learn from his mistakes He is not interested in telling the truth
  11. I have an Anthem AVM60 as processor in my 11.2 home cinema. When I heard about the initial restriction, I decided not to update the firmware of my Anthem, which felt like a downgrade with more DRM. It felt like MQA. It's good that Dolby withdraws. I really like the DTS Neural upmixer applied on most of the Dolby formats. Too bad there are so few movies with DTS X which is the Atmos competitor. In a movie like Nerve, DTS X provides a wall of sound, in the beginning where they play the Soap track (the relevant part starts at 02:10):
  12. Off course not. I did not measure the analog out of this NUC yet on a bad PSU vs a good PSU.
  13. I have an old HFX 12V power supply, which makes so much noise, it's irritating when placed on my desk. The noise fluctuates with what you are doing in Windows when using this PSU on a NUC. The only reason I'm keeping it, is because of the high amperage, so it can power a whole lab of nucs, low power 12V based pc's and exernal hdd's from one PSU instead of using multiple 12V PSU's - but it's certainly not audiophile. Also on low quality motherboards, there's leakage of noise into the analog 3.5mm audio out, which also fluctuates with what you are doing on the PC. In the 90's when I had my first soundblaster pro, it was even more terrible. Sounds like modulated PWM whine.
  14. They only take one sided advice from MQA, under the umbrella that more research is needed (a delay tactic) and they would ignore the findings by the independent researchers. No hifi press news outlet republished my findings, and I did write under my own name: They are not interested in the truth. All they want is something new to write about, and MQA which they can't fully understand as the code is proprietary, is something to write about. Furthermore all their knowledge of MQA comes from Bob & MQA, which was given to them in small chunks. Once they got hooked to the idea, Bob kept feeding them more chunks. But they can't even encode test tones so there is no way to peer review the end to end claims of MQA. So they are 100% dependent of the canned stuff MQA is feeding them. One example is Mr Beekhuyzen who wrote about a third unfold: He believes analog content above 48 Khz is stored as a third fold - but he fails to understand that a 24 bit file stops at around -145 dB, so the buried content between -145 and -168 is just impossible. There is no coding space available for a third unfold. That could change if you use a 32 bit distribution file, but MQA uses 24 bit distribution files. http://thehbproject.com/nl/artikelen/38/6/MQA---Kwaliteitsgarantie Hans never corrected his article, and keeps spreading this BS about a third level of encoding. He also writes about quality guarantee (by means of authentication), while the authentication was already fully debunked, both technically and by mastering engineers seeing their work MQA encoded without their approval:
  • Create New...