Jump to content

firedog

  • Content Count

    10929
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

About firedog

  • Rank
    Masters Level Member

Recent Profile Visitors

27617 profile views
  1. You actually don't know that as a general rule, you are just assuming it is across all files. I have UMG files that don't have the watermark (as far as anyone can tell). You are welcome to any assumption you want, but responding as if your assumptions are the only ones possible or the only ones that make sense has no particular credibility over other scenarios. It's just your personal prejudices. And it shows your comments about paranoia and conspiracy theories are baseless.
  2. I looked up your DAC and it's capable of DSD playback. Is your software playing the DSD as is, or converting it to PCM? So either you need to change a software setting, your NAS is having difficulty, or you have a network issue. The above post is correct. Try to play the DSD back directly from a computer, this will help you see where the problem is.
  3. Well it has been established that Universal has "watermarked" streaming versions of albums. So they are going to sound slightly worse than other versions. There's been discussion here about this before. You can search for it. (But, of course, only a paranoid conspiracy theorist would believe that).... edit: saw that there's some online discussion that UMG stopped uploading watermarked versions of files to streaming services. Maybe, but it still means you don't know if what you are streaming is watermarked.
  4. Correlating doesn't actually show that anything is happening that improves or degrades SQ. Can you actually show: a) cause and effect - any of your changes, and "less jitter" etc? b) if you show changes in (a) does that cause any change at the output of the DAC? c) Is that change audible? Changes at -115 db and more don't count. No one can hear them. And I'm being generous.
  5. That isn't at all what you were doing, but that's okay. I leave you to your habit of making zero evidence assumptions and assertions about other peoples motives and ideas. Enjoy yourself and your bubble of falsehoods.
  6. Yes, there are versions of it available, apparently not that one. That's why the previous comment that it's not available. There are theoretically SACD versions which may be the same.
  7. Where does the word Paranoia fit in? It doesn't unless you are making all sorts of assumptions that have nothing to do with what I wrote. I didn't write anything that hints at a conspiracy. It's all in your head, not mine. And where does double come from? I said I know of a couple of instances. I didn't say every album. And btw, what makes you think there's one copy of the file and the streaming servers and the download servers are necessarily the same ones?
  8. Not necessarily. Physical media (ripped), downloads, and the stream may not all be from the same master source. Even when they seem to be. I've come across this a couple of times, where each different source was clearly not the same master (for instance, different levels of volume compression), even when in the same data format/sample rate.
  9. And you are wrong. In the days of physical media, songwriters were paid enough that a hit song gave them a significant income. A million sales of a song meant from $20000-$90000 (rising over time during the decades of the previous century). Today a million streams gives them very little, about $1000. How many songs do you think have 90,000,000 streams, which would give that same $90000? A CD sale paid the artist a dollar per CD. So even a hit single paid signicant money. Something like $100K for a million seller. The money these days is in performance and mer
  10. https://www.raspberrypi-spy.co.uk/2020/11/raspberry-pi-temperature-monitoring/
  11. Very nice. Any issues with the internal temperatures on the Pi?
  12. Well, they did let your answer thru. At least that. I loved his comment, "You're a smart guy (whoever you are)". They just can't get over the fact that you use a pseudonym and have to take a dig at you every time. Childish. Also, even more amazing that he says: "Yes, I agree that MQA has presented no evidence that it is accomplishing this, and I regret this." He "regrets" it, but that doesn't stop him from assuming it's true and pretty much stating it as accepted and true. And the fact that no evidence has been presented since 2014 should tell him something, no?
  13. Go back and read JA2's post in reaction to mine under that article. He's totally bought in to MQA, and accepts their claims at face value.
×
×
  • Create New...