Jump to content

March Audio

  • Content Count

    172
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    Australia

1 Follower

About March Audio

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

547 profile views
  1. I hevent looked at the video but my initial reaction to the OP is how does he define "high end"? Expensive? Sound quality? Technical performance? There is precious little objective performance data about decks out there, so what is highend?
  2. Hi Yes there is a lot of misunderstanding about Nyquist theorem. With respect I'm afraid your assertions there are incorrect. This video demonstrates why and busts a few other commonly held misconceptions. https://youtu.be/cIQ9IXSUzuM
  3. Certainly for the ADI2 Pro FS R BE. I dont know what other devices the feature is available in.
  4. I am currently waiting for my ADI 2 pro fs be to return so I can start making the test files. Should be here early this week. The RME importantly has a test routine that checks for bit perfect output from the source as the first thing we need to do is confirm any playback software is indeed bit perfect. I will start with some "control" files for people to compare.
  5. Whilst always open to it being a possibility it seems very unlikely. Its possible to measure to a far higher resolution than our hearing. I think the point I would make is that it seems more sensible to me to look towards the mundane explanations before leaping to the extraordinary conclusions
  6. Ok that's a theory but we need some evidence to support it. The data coming into a dac is not directly "coupled" to the dac chip. It's buffered a clocked out locally. So the potential ringing has to produce some secondary effect which influences the dac output. It's not in the data. As an example you could suggest it causes jitter in the clock. Well we can easily measure that in the dac output. To be audible any effect will be measurable yet it isxseemingly not possible to do so. Hence I would look for different causes for what people claim to perceive.
  7. So if you agree the microphone test is inconsistent and insensitive why draw the conclusion the differences you perceive are due to the player? This conclusion implies the differences are gross and yet we can measure no differences and any evidence suggests that differences would be subtle at worst. Anyway we could debate this endlessly without conclusion hence let's do the some listening tests
  8. Hi Mani Sorry I haven't had a chance to yet. However as I alluded to earlier recording differences with a microphone has so many variables that it really is impossible to draw any conclusions as to the cause of any perceived difference. It's a very insensitive and inconsistent test.
  9. This thread is clearly about the subjective - what people can hear. How "Bit-identical playback can sound different" I would be really grateful if this doesnt degenerate into some pointless semantic argument. Those that wish to participate in some fun tests can, if you dont thats fine.
  10. So I am surprised that you wont participate in a listening test.
  11. Well thats a shame, its what this thread is about.
  12. This wont be a "measurement" test, its a subjective test about what you can hear. Whatever may or may not be going on out of the audible band, to be audible it must have effect in the audible band. It must be something you can hear. So lets see what you can hear.
  13. Not an assumption, its based on testing. Anyway please take part in the forthcoming test.
  14. Those changes will be the same if two players feed the same data.
  15. So to be clear your position is that it's the rooms modification of the sound which reveals the specific changes one software makes even though every single room makes often very different changes to the sound?
×
×
  • Create New...