Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country


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. Absolutely. Wish you were closer! You've got some great gear there @ray-dude! The DAVE's output would be an interesting one to examine because of the very clean, strong "ideal" filter it implements. Changes to things like dynamic range, noise floor and variations in harmonic distortion could show quite clearly with a DAC like that. Would be a nice documentation of the effect that the power supply has.
  2. Interesting read. Glad you liked the results... Just to state the obvious. I think it would be really nice to have a quick look at the noise level coming out of the DAVE with its stock SMPS vs. the others. The reason I bring this up is that in the past I have found at least one example where the power supply can clearly affect noise level and it was in fact a linear power supply that was problematic for the DAC. Sometimes the noise is ultrasonic so you won't necessarily hear the issue but nonetheless is being fed to the amp and speakers. Furthermore, you might find situ
  3. That's nice that a CD transport can do this... Billions of CDs out there to play! But these days, it's not like CDs are hot items. I don't know what cost-benefit equation would compel the record label to purposely mass encode MQA into standard 16/44.1 for the sake of the few consumers who might have this CD transport or MQA-capable CD player. Seriously guys, MQA-CD has to take the cake for being the most ridiculous thing they could do with MQA. What a waste of a perfectly good data bit which could be used for real audio instead of MQA control/"authentication" content!
  4. I don't want to be paranoid or make up conspiracy theories... But sometimes when this kind of thing happens, it's hard not to! 👽😈
  5. Absolutely. This was one of the early clues that there was something very wrong with MQA and its strongly hyped claims. The fact that they did not openly share, or even attempt some kind of A/B comparison at the audio shows using what should be their "reference" gear suggests that there was something they needed to hide. At the 2016 Vancouver Audio Show, @mitchco and I specifically went early and grabbed some prime seats at the MQA demo to be treated to that kind of demo. Questions were specifically asked to perform even an open A/B comparison between RedBook and this so-called "hi
  6. The way I see it, it's certainly OK to "enjoy the music" regardless of the container. It's rather silly to say "I enjoy MQA" as if this container actually added anything to the enjoyment of music. One could just as well enjoy the music with high bitrate MP3 or AAC or Ogg Vorbis (eg. Spotify)! Heck, in my blind test years ago, some people even preferred MP3-encoded music even though I trust no audiophile would advocate that MP3 is better than lossless because that would be factually incorrect fidelity-wise. So too MQA cannot be considered higher fidelity than the original hi-res PCM based on fa
  7. Absolutely. There was a time when artists, audio engineers, and record labels seemed to know how to judge "good sound". It's very sad how despite production technology improving, playback systems improving, so many artists these days - probably all in the popular music genre - have not been able to release albums with good sound in recent decades. Despite all our audiophile debates and inordinate amounts of time spent on silly stuff like $$$$ cables, MQA, 24-bits, high samplerates, etc. I get the feeling that we simply have not been focusing enough on the importance of
  8. Yes, indeed there are unfortunately plenty of SACDs which look like just 44.1/48kHz resamples. Here's a list accumulated over the years from my collection and from friends: LIST: Suspected 44 or 48kHz PCM upsampled SACDs. This was part of the reason why I stopped buying SACDs a number of years back. Other than known reputable sources like Channel Classics, much of the stuff was really of questionable provenance and side-by-side listening of SACD/DSD64 vs. 24/96 did not yield any benefits for me. I believe DSD128 is about equivalent to 24/96 PCM. Some of the SACD multichann
  9. Yes on 3 levels the "need" for hi-res audio is questionable: 1. Academically in the sense that there has not been good evidence of >22.05kHz frequency response being beneficial for music enjoyment. Oohashi and his research over the years claim that there are brain changes but we can question that research as well. (I discussed the Oohashi "Hypersonic Effect" here.) Notice that the Howie article brings up Oohashi in his references. 2. Empirically there is no evidence of significance to hi-res audio; at least among "real world" listeners. I found no difference back in
  10. Careful with Hans B. The dude is even afraid to show us a picture of what his soundroom looks like in his videos. Remember that the temporal resolution of audio is NOT "quantised at the sample rate" to simply say 7μs = 141kHz! Bit depth has a greater role as an exponential function. So even if we accept that human hearing has a capacity to detect down to 7μs, a basic 16/44.1 PCM signal already has a temporal resolution in the picosecond range. If you want to see the way this is calculated, check out this Kahrs & Brandenburg textbook from back in 1998. The "time unce
  11. I sit corrected 😉. Happy Holidays @Thuaveta.
  12. Yes @GUTB. Agree. That is how it's supposed to work with back and forth discussions; claims and counterclaims with evidence. I make no pretensions as being more than "a guy on the Internet". This is about ideas. We talk, and share in good faith, which when this started was my hope from MQA. As one who is not part of the audiophile industry or even the general audio industry, my interest is as a hobbyist trying to experience, enjoy, understand, and perhaps in the process teach what I have discovered. Having some background in computer technology even if this is not my career, clearl
  13. Back in 2018, Agitater did a great write-up using imported Japanese MQA-CD/UHQCD vs. CD: "MQA-CD x UHQCD" Listening Test by Agitater Summary: He and his buddies not impressed. No surprise since the MQA algorithm will take up space, leaving even less room for actual content/resolution on a 16/44.1 CD carrier.
  14. Good point @botrytis. There is that... That's pretty much it. You need "faith" to believe in stuff like it being "lossless" and that there is "vastly improved time-domain accuracy", or that the playback "presents music exactly the way the artist intended". With absolutely nothing to show for these claims except unusual graphs and testimonies from true believers. Correct. At the very least they will need access to the hardware maker's firmware to embed their decoding algorithm and settings for the playback filter. Nope.
  15. Yo @GUTB. What "hobby horse" dude? If you're referring to MQA, I haven't posted an article on my blog focused on it in more than a year. At most I might have mentioned it in passing over the last 60 posts. Sure, this is what they claim. But after all these years, can you show me one specific example, or concrete demonstration where the decoded MQA output has clearly improved time-domain performance compared to say the same original recording properly downsampled and dithered to 16/44.1? Surely, this must be easy to do if what they claim
  • Create New...