Jump to content

Shadorne

  • Content Count

    312
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Shadorne

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Interesting. There are countless links in countless audiophile forums that pointed to discussions and technical information on Computer Audiophile. These hyperlinks all over the Internet are now all broken and useless. These links from other sites brought you extra traffic and new subscribers. A simple website name change did not require a complete change in the domain. Domain and URL hyperlinks are what computers use to communicate. People see only what is presented to them and won’t care about URL details. You could have changed content and presentation without changing URL namin
  2. So the data fed to a DAC isn’t in a format? Changing the sample rate or bit depth fed to a DAC isn’t changing the data format? For a website titled “Computer Audiophile”, I am rather gobsmacked by this remark.
  3. Hand waving for your own products again. More unsubstantiated claims that DACs are inadequate without your magic sauce. So what’s new?
  4. Wow. This is sure to get some folks out to defend their BS. Let me get some popcorn and watch. Roon and HQplayer and many others claim to do miracles with software manipulation of original files upsampling, apodizing, minimum phase etc. Didn't you get the memo? - there is as much big business to be made massaging audio formats and files as there is in skin cosmetics!!! Don't you dare say the truth.
  5. Great review. I like the MoFi myself. Not sure you can really comment about bass accuracy with headphones. I really question your approach. No mix or mastering engineer I know of would rely on headphones to adjust bass. Large speakers with often multiple 12 or 15 woofers are used for bass checks. Of course it still needs to sound good in a car which many folks will check. Nobody I know of would use headphones as they simply are unable to provide reference quality bass - too many variables - fit, head size, adjustment of head band etc.
  6. Beautiful. McIntosh sound beautiful too. Not perhaps as resolving as Audio Reseach but McIntosh tube amps and preamps have that “just right goldilocks” sound and much better reliability.
  7. Completely agree. A domestic setting will often serve multiple purposes. There is a limit to how much acoustic treatments will be acceptable. Listening position in a domestic setting may necessitate sitting close to a wall even though the detrimental aspects of this position are very easily audible. Multi-million $ studio facilities have a much higher priority on sound quality versus a multi-use domestic setting. That said, the control room needs to contain lots of equipment - the mixing console in front of the mix engineer is often an unavoidable acoustic problem itself. I have n
  8. GIK make great products at reasonable cost. Their corner tri-traps are excellent - you would probably need 8 of those. They work as broadband absorbers too - so you get more than just bass trapping.
  9. The worst thing you can do is to have clutter (or worse a wall) close to the listening position. Look at every multi million $ studio ever designed!
  10. Vicoustic proposal looks aesthetically good but not sure it makes complete sense. The trouble with the room is that it is roughly in the shape of a half tube. This room is going to sound like a subway tunnel unless you add a lot absorption and diffusers. I would suggest more corner bass traps and broadband absorbers at each end and around the listener (at least double what you have) and use only RPG diffusers on the slanted ceiling portions instead of the curved panels. The curved panels are great but work better for larger spaces. You actually don’t need curved panels and should n
  11. McIntosh indeed continue to make great sounding tube preamps and power amps. Neither the last word in resolution nor the last word in lush warm tube sound but often as Goldilocks would say “just right “! I would not recommend any of their SS products nearly as strongly.
  12. @Miska I am sorry but you are still wrong, as you have been from the beginning of this discussion. The very definition of apodizing is to “remove the foot” - it is to smooth or soften the transition band. The mathematics are very clear as to what this does versus the original non-Apodized filter. You can play with symmantics and you can play with filters so that the apodizing effect is small or place the filter far enough from the audible band such that it won’t affect audible frequencies (easier to do with higher sample rates than CD). Nonetheless the apodizing filter function fun
  13. All entirely straw-man arguments. I never said Apodizing Filters had to be minimum phase. I have tried only to give examples that were not behind a paywall that is all. The mathematics is the same and applies in all cases. Your reading comprehension is as bad as your comprehension of mathematics. An apodizing filter that increases ringing would not really be an apodizing filter - apodizing means “to remove the foot” the concept is based upon a soft or smooth transition band (no foot). You can add the apodizing function at any stage and in any order, as a window, or already incorpor
  14. The ignorance on display here is truly mind boggling. All my statements are correct. You folks are just way out of your depth and sadly, as far as physics and mathematics go, this is NOT rocket science. You folks should know better. Please refer to Section 5.4 ( page 32) for a description of apodizing filter. https://www.xivero.com/downloads/MQA-Technical_Analysis-Hypotheses-Paper.pdf Frankly, I certainly know what I am talking about. While you folks continue to embarrass yourselves.
  15. You clearly haven’t a clue. There is no difference mathematically but all you are capable of is to argue symmantics because you don’t understand.
×
×
  • Create New...