Jump to content

Quadiffusor HK

Members
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Quadiffusor HK

  • Rank
    Newbie

Personal Information

  • Location
    Hong Kong

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. BTW find the original PCM, non-MQA version of "Hotline Bling" to playback, as I suspect that MQA imparts a coloration which is not faithful to the original recording by injecting signals which reduce inter-aural crosstalk, similar to Bob Carver's Sonic Hologram (from the 1980s) to produce a more spacious sound which better delineates the images inside the soundstage as well as unbound it from the small "between the speakers only" sound. The way in which this is done is during the MQA encoding process, where the "juiciest" midrange portion of frequency spectrum is inverted and injected into the opposite channel and delayed slightly in a manner corresponding to the time it takes for sound to travel between the distance of the eardrums over the front face. Anyway, this discussion is probably done in private, as MQA fans have a nasty way of discouraging me from going any further with this line of reasoning. I would love to see a website which specializes in objective measurements test my hypothesis, but I think it would take some time before someone with access to an MQA encoder has the chance to produce just such a test disc which will demonstrate what I think may be happening. The bottom line is that if "Hotline Bling" was originally recorded with a particular phase-and-frequency shift synthesis/processor, it's best to hear it in its original file, instead of embellishing it with even more sauce, ala MQA.
  2. If your two-channel stereo system is set up optimally, with the listening room having ideal size, shape, and symmetry, and the speakers delivering to your two ears the ideal balance between direct and indirect (uncorrelated) sound that is correct spectrally and temporally, your ear/brain will be able to localize an astonishing variety of sonic events, including right-sized instruments, percussion, voices, and ambient cues in not only the front hemisphere, but also to the sides, and occasionally in the back. The reproduced signals from recordings are extremely fragile however, and most two-channel stereo systems struggle to achieve this ideal, typically requiring extensive room treatment as a fundamental which most people neglect to implement, much less understand. After much effort, my system (see photo) has achieved decent optimization, to a point where I routinely hear instruments "float" in high resolution inside a broad, deep, and vast soundstage in a gigantic virtual "cube" (or "sphere", depending on your preferred perspective) whose dimensions well exceed the physical boundaries of the perimeter defined by the borders of my two L and R speakers, and are proportioned evenly along the X, Y, and Z (width, height, and depth) - something I have not yet heard any other system. The components in my system are listed under the blue tab "Audio System" (after clicking through my ID name); alternatively, here's the URL link: https://audiophilestyle.com/profile/35333-quadiffusor-hk/?tab=field_core_pfield_3 Modern recordings increasingly frequently incorporate sound effects synthesized by the pre-programmed tweaking of frequency amplitude and phase to achieve localization which "pop" out or "ghost" out to the sides like an unbound floating apparition, right from the mixing board. Apart from the Q-Sound treatment of albums like "Amused To Death" by Roger Waters, one pop recording track which vividly demonstrate this a 360-degree wrap around effect is the song "Hotline Bling" by Drake. About halfway into the song, there is a passage which project floating sonic objects swirling around the listener's head in a large donut-shaped cloud. During this event, it's easy to turn one's head to both the left and right, to clearly hear the sound floating BEHIND the listening position. Give this a try, and let me know what you hear! :-)
  3. Thank you for your observations! Guess it’s not quite the same as Ethernet switches being stacked in series, exhibiting incremental improvements. Should I have the chance to home audition the Phoenix, I’ll keep that in mind.
  4. Ragiv, I already have a SOtM-USBultra connected between my Aurender W20 and my MSB Techology Select II DAC (using the Intona USB Ultimate cables). I’m very curious - did you try listening to the two USB conditioners connected together; ie. source > SOtM-USBultra > Innuos-PhoenixUSB > DAC ?
  5. How many “stars” were awarded by the reviewer, 4 or 5? The qualitative comments suggest the latter, but the header only shows four ⭐ s...
  6. FYI, I have been requesting this feature (to be able to “favorite” an album) for a few years already, with no response from Aurender... 😓
  7. Thanks to CCKeung (and Jay Luong), I’ve been infected and poisoned ! 😂
  8. @AriMargolis, congrats on your team for (finally) getting the Aurender Conductor 3.0 released ! Spoiler alert - I'm going to resume my request (rant?) to you and the Aurender software team to add a very simple feature, which I've been asking for several years (already). It seems you haven't yet grasped my analogy in my previous email (above) using restaurants and the contents inside menus, so let me turn to a visual aid (see attachment). Please add a feature in the Aurender Conductor which allows the user to mark/tag an album in the library (stored on the HDs) with a Favorite "star", so that the album can be grouped within a folder of "liked" albums for easy recall and playback. The attached photo shows just such as feature which is already available in the TIDAL app. Why can't the Aurender Conductor App be elevated above the Stone Age, regarding this very simple feature? I still do not understand just what the holdup is. I want to reiterate that this requested feature is separate from the "zero-to-five star" rating for individual songs/tracks, which still does NOT allow the user to file, select, and playback *entire* albums on command. The procedure which you described to me in recent exchanges to "star" rate all of the songs on an album simultaneously does NOT achieve the objective I'm asking for, as it spawns zillions of unnecessary and unwelcome star ratings on individual songs. The two lists can (and should) be mutually exclusive - do you understand this distinction I'm making between star ratings on albums vs. individual songs? Thank you again for passing along this request to your software team; fingers crossed that this feature will be incorporated ASAP! :-)
  9. @AriMargolis, yes I'm afraid I don't understand. I would appreciate your patience, to explain once again how to tag single albums without birthing zillions of unrelated stars ratings (for individual tracks inside that one album) in the process, as this would cause great harm in destroying and diluting my carefully-curated star rating database on individual tracks I had already built separately. Essentially, I'm interested in tagging a couple of restaurants out of the thousands I've visited over my lifetime without having to star rank every single entrée on each restaurant's menu. I hope you understand this analogy, so you can help direct your software team to develop this software feature in the Aurender Conductor App. Thank you!
  10. How does one delete this post? Please help - thanks!
  11. @AriMargolis That would be an interesting feature for those accustomed to star-rating individual tracks for the majority of their music library, but my guess is that very few people actually do that, as there are 10s of thousands, if not 100s of thousands of individual tracks in an audiophile's rather large library. For example, I have only star-rated less than 100 individual songs which I believe are truly exceptional, so that I can track and recall them discretely. Hence, this new feature would not be something I'll ever use, as doing so will create a massive and equally unmanageable situation of a zillion stars, whose utility and value will likely become severely diluted. AGAIN, I implore the team to add a new feature to be able to star-rate ALBUMS (and not just individual tracks) - or just as useful, to be able to simply apply a binary star-ON or star-OFF identifier to individual albums. This simple feature will help separate noteworthy individual albums from the ever-growing, hundreds of thousands of albums out there, whose utility and value should be very simple to see and understand. TIDAL already offers this feature, and simply said, it is THE most useful tool to have, bar none !
  12. “Additional features”? Being able to “star” an album should hardly be considered rocket science - besides, it’s a feature that has been requested since a couple of years ago already! ”Can probably add”? What does this mean, exactly? Will the database architecture for Conductor 3.0 be able to support this very basic feature? Why all the obfuscation? I’m more confused than ever.
  13. Hi @AriMargolis - will the new Conductor 3.0 be able to "Star Rate" albums? Even a binary yes/no star system would be totally adequate; as we discussed, users really need a method to distinguish their favorite albums (a discrete collection of songs in a single vehicle) to separate them from the tens of hundreds of thousands of individual songs, typical of an average Aurender owner's collection.
  14. Regarding the "Star" rating system, I've written Aurender multiple times over the past 6+ years since I've owned the W20, to request incorporating the ability for the Aurender Conductor software to "Star" albums, and preferably rank albums with none (default) or 1 to 5 stars. For me, it's FAR more important to be able to rank albums than to be able to rank individual songs, as I normally select entire albums to play (and not individual songs). The TIDAL software allows a star/no-star selection process, and I love it. What do other Aurender owners think?
  15. Hi iSquirrel, I also have a W20 coupled to a MSB Select II DAC (with dual mono Powerbases), but with a Trinnov Audio Amethyst room-correction preamplifier in between. The source components are connected using Stealth Audio Sextet AES/EBU digital cables (circa 2007), which I’m very happy with. I have 2 x 1.5 meter VH Audio Pulsar Ag 75 ohm S/PDIF cables terminated with Furutech BNC connectors; one for the clocklink from the MSB going into the W20, and the other for the S/PDIF output from the Aurender going direct into the MSB DAC. https://www.vhaudio.com/pulsar-cu-airlok-single.html Note that the MSB’s clocklink is actually designed to work with the 50 ohm standard which apparently is standard in broadcasting, as opposed to the 75 ohm standard which is common in home audio. When asked about compatibility between these disparate standards, MSB replied that it shouldn’t be an issue because the physical distance between the transmitter and receiver is short. My Aurender W20 has a defective USB 2.0 output since I bought it about four years ago, and it has been an absolute nightmare to repair - it was in the shop for an entire month for troubleshooting and replacement of the USB 2.0 connector, which ultimately did not solve the problem. Now awaiting the arrival of a new motherboard from Korea for replacement. I need the USB 2.0 output to be working so that I can finally experience native DSD as well as full MQA decoding from my DAC. On the subject of which connection (AES/EBU vs S/PDIF) yields a better sound, I confess that I haven’t yet had a chance to compare the two, as in my current component rack placement configuration, I don’t have an AES/EBU cable which is long enough for the W20’s output to reach my DAC... ? But lots to report and share once the USB 2.0 connector is fixed ! ?
×
×
  • Create New...