Jump to content

Jean Paul D

  • Content Count

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    France

About Jean Paul D

  • Rank
    Freshman Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. which Dacs allow to run TI/BB chips in DSD mode at DSD256 ?
  2. @Zaphod Beeblebrox If I remember correctly @Miska recommends to output to at least twice the source rate when applying convolution for so called DRC. Regarding PGGB what is your recommendation ? Use PGGB, LPSU etc only, to tailor the sound and no DRC? PGGB up to say 8fs for a 16fs capable DAC and have HQP do the last mile? Add a new offline step for applying convolution filters? which SW does that, HQP pro? Use an analog solution ? (ie my Meyer CP10 parametric eQ does marvels but I might opt for digital convolution for the sake of convenience, switching filters on fly
  3. I'm using the latest Loopback that is MAC M1 native and seems OK. @Miska why doesn't Loopback stick as Input in Preferences that always reverts to Default ?
  4. I once had it working on my MBP but I tried anew with my MIni M1 and still no joy. Loopback receives Qobuz's input OK but HQP does not play and in Preferences I can't make Loopback as an Input (keeps reverting to Default).
  5. now I regret not picking a 16 GB RAM, only have 8
  6. I have been listening to 4 PGGB processed to 8fs tracks and their sources this morning, this evening. this morning I considered files as remastered and OK to apply my usual process : HQP output everything as SDM and applied the same filters and 7EC modulator to A & B in A/B After reading the afternoon remarks I set HQP as bit perfect but that raises several questions when comparing to HQP processes: level matching? is it OK then to search for the best matching HQP filter per track for the unprocessed? doesn't it boil down to compare PCM vs SDM performances o
  7. do you confirm, though, that differences with your Topping D90 are subtle ?
  8. Will report tomorrow hopefully on pure audio tracks compared to HQP on my system but yet, through my laptop speakers, there is something good in the opening drumming of the Hozier video I did not get when I found and played the regular youtube
  9. From your own FAQ : "What if a song is composed of many 30 second recordings that all got digitized and mixed together? Any tap length more than 30 seconds would be using bad information. " Not to mention an artist (ie Bjork) recording her voice in her bedroom and then completing the track in 3 different studios, even a classical movement is more often than the other way round made of splices of different takes. Seems to me that without knowledge there's a risk of doing serious harm in many cases with modern digital productions. Of course, analog tapes digitized in one
  10. I don't have the machine to create the files and my DAC is 8FS limited Sigma Delta BB 1795 based that I currently use exclusively SDM fed by educated choice/preference, but I reissue my call to try a file if someone is willing to send me one. In exemple I think I own about every mastering of Kind of Blue, starting with the first CD, including original SACD, Mofi's, long format Mastersound Gold etc etc, so I guess at least one PGGB proponent has a copy I have too for comparison. BTW, I thought of an alternative to KOB : G Gould 1981 Goldberg as another CD "everybody" has. But it's f
  11. I congratulate you for your humbleness ( I'm humble enough to consider myself part of the system and to admit that some days no gear no nothing can make me consider my system or even the acoustics of a live event perfectly palatable). But at the end of the day, 20 or 24 bits, is it worth having a (or 2) 32 fs capable DAC and mining a 333 Mo CD into a 10 Go file with a 64 Gb machine or are differences within margin of error of appreciation?
  12. I'm currently in the process of evaluating digital convolution, coming from analog parametric eQ that I will keep anyway for my vinyl rig. The thing is that with my Meyer CP10 parametric eQ there are only 3 useful bands (that is with frequencies below 400) : teaches to not go narrow In the attached pictures (1/12 th resolution but the smooth one, "Psy" smoothed presenting the end result with boosts) there's an intended 1.5 dB elevation, bandwidth 1 octave anchored @59 Hz.No eQ at all is applied above 350 Hz. There are 5 additional cuts not shown here. This is the Right channel. The
×
×
  • Create New...