Jump to content

Archimago

  • Content Count

    394
  • Joined

  • Last visited

7 Followers

About Archimago

  • Rank
    Freshman Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Would be nice to see Rob Watts try proving that claim. Doubt his rationale given that computing hardware gets cheaper and faster over time and the software can certainly target and exceed the computational precision.
  2. BTW, I know there is an "official" 24/96 version of the McLorin Salvant out there... Also, the 24-bit test samples are of lower level than the original by about -2dB. Make sure to volume correct if trying to compare with an original CD / download.
  3. Archimago

    Listen and choose the 8th generation digital copy

    Nice work @esldude! Just voted...
  4. Strange experience ("complete lack of dynamics") since the dynamic range of the recordings remain the same as the original... Plus I can run the test samples through digital subtraction with the original and demonstrate excellent null with the high quality device in the 4 samples. Perhaps you should double check your gear with 24/96 playback. Another possibility is that the Qobuz track has a different mastering from the CD I used and you prefer that version?
  5. Yes Arpiben, Will put a package together with the original 16/44 music used when the test concludes...
  6. Hi @Miska, I'm using the RME's linear phase sharp filter at 24/96 on the ADC side. Prior to putting up this test, I ran the devices through some testing of the filters and evaluated the performance with the music I chose. Yes, with test tones, I can see the filter imperfections quite well on a wideband capture to check for extreme amounts of high frequency material up to 384kHz. This was not a problem with the music used. Perhaps in the next couple weeks I'll put something up on the blog to show what I mean using what I would consider is the "worst" device in the blind test...
  7. Archimago

    Article: SOtM sNH-10G Network Switch Review

    Bring it on. Did Swenson even produce any of the promised measurements that he said he was going to from back in the day of the USB Regen (mid-2015)???
  8. Archimago

    Article: SOtM sNH-10G Network Switch Review

    Not true. There was a measurable difference as you can see in that post! And for most devices tested, there are actually differences I highlight - even between some cables! DACs easily show jitter differences. What's more important is for folks to actually recognize that maybe... Just maybe... The power of the mind to produce and claim differences and attribution theories is way more powerful than what is actually there.
  9. Archimago

    Article: SOtM sNH-10G Network Switch Review

    Oh my... There's this article from awhile back looking at the "noise" when plugging a Pi/DAC into a router vs. just WiFi. Hmmm, maybe I'll try that one more time with my even better RME ADI-2 Pro FS ADC to see if I can detect any noise or distortions out to near 200kHz plugged into my 10GbE-capable switch ($200) in the next few weeks. I have yet to see any company release data to back up claims that there's any extra noise being produced by a DAC when plugged into a wired ethernet (other than my experiment above which shows very minimal difference). Would be nice if SOtM produced some information as to what issue a >$1000 switch actually addresses? Then we can talk about facts and consider actual benefits instead of ruminate over vague claims? Nonetheless, I do like the music suggestions used for the evaluation though...
  10. Great @fas42. Looking forward to your submission... Hopefully it's already in :-).
  11. I'll have to disagree with you @Miska about this though: "This doesn't really replicate real device playback performance". IMO, high quality 24/96 capture is all we need especially with these devices...
  12. ?What validation are we looking for in this experiment? These are all 16-bit devices being recorded using the same equipment capable of greater resolution at higher-than-16/44. I know the cables I use and the ADC is capable of this higher resolution based on other tests. There are of course things I cannot control for but I trust that within reason, if there are very significant audible differences, the home listener with good equipment can at some level detect the significant. All I can say is that when I reveal the devices used, I think audiophiles will recognize that the price points and types of devices being used are quite different!
  13. Ya got until end of April 🙂
  14. No special upsampling done. The >22kHz content are from the devices themselves and of course the small amount of modulator noise from the ADC. I used the default settings (or at least a common setting) for the devices.
  15. Thanks for the note STC. For this as you can see, the volume is closely matched :-).
×