|
346
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Chatter and forum related stuff / Re: Testing a few digital cables
|
on: November 07, 2016, 11:53:07 am
|
Are you now serious ? Of course I'm serious! #2 vs. #1 nulls to zero. #3 vs. #1 nulls to zero (if clicks ignored). On conversion in the DAC, there can be no difference between the 3 files. It would be like loading file #1 three times and hearing a difference between them, surely? Peter, please enlighten me - where am I going wrong with my thinking? Mani. |
|
|
|
|
347
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Chatter and forum related stuff / Re: Testing a few digital cables
|
on: November 07, 2016, 11:48:02 am
|
|
I'm going to redo the test, but this time through an DAC and then ADC. The path will be:
microRendu (no DSP) or Mach II (no DSP) -> Chord 2Qute DAC -> Prism AD124 ADC -> Tascam spdif digital in
In this case, even though the mR and the Mach II are producing bit-perfect outputs (as proven by Ray on ASR), we certainly should expect to have a difference in SQ. We'll see...
Oh and BTW, this time I am not going to reveal which captured file is which! Let's get any listening biases out of the way.
Mani.
|
|
|
|
|
352
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Chatter and forum related stuff / Re: Testing a few digital cables
|
on: November 07, 2016, 08:32:44 am
|
So Anthony, what were we hearing when we said things like:
2. microRendu -> USB-to-spdif converter -> BNC cable -> Tascam recorder digital input
Flatter than the original CD rip - the dynamics are not there. But the colour/tone is pretty similar. I think this is about as good as you're going to get before getting into a fully optimised audio PC like the Mach II. For the cost of the microRendu/LPS-1, it's very good... but certainly not perfect. I'm sure the microRendu crowd on CA wouldn't agree...
3. Mach II -> USB-to-spdif converter -> BNC cable -> Tascam recorder digital input
OK, the dynamics are back. Very, very close to the original CD rip, though I feel there is a slight 'hardening' of the sound. The cymbals now sound 'cheaper', i.e. made of a thicker and inferior metal. I have SFS=4.00 and Q1-5=0 (xQ1=1). It might be possible to 'tune' the sound to become closer to the original by playing around with the XX settings - something that I'll do going forward, if I have the time and inclination. It also occurs to me that maybe this is 14393 showing some of its attributes?
#2 is not though, it interferes too much.
But why the heck is the bass (well, lower mid) is the disturbing factor ?
#3, strangely or maybe better : unexpectedly, is the best background music. It simply is (also) the best musically exhibiting. It is just flowing .... The original CD Rip is clearly the best sounding here, reasonably closely followed by the third through the Mach II where there is some loss of clarity and perhaps a touch of dynamics. The second file through the Microrendu is flat, thick and unresolved. The transients are flattened, the soundstage is less deep and it is what I would call a large departure from the CD rip.
Most notable is the piano rendition of the Microrendu: the touch of the hammer is muted and dull compared to the other two versions, and the notes are quickly truncated and fail to hang due to the lower resolution and smearing of other instruments and notes.
Saying that, I don't think the Mach II is perfect either, but it is much, much closer to the original CD rip, and remember that I am not playing back using a Mach II.
We've just established that the 3 files were identical (a few added clicks in #3). There simply could not be any sonic differences between them, right? BUT... we heard differences. All in our minds? Mani. |
|
|
|
|
353
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Chatter and forum related stuff / Re: Testing a few digital cables
|
on: November 06, 2016, 08:00:49 pm
|
|
What a total mind f**k...
I posted the 3 files on Audio Science Review. Ray Dunzl did some analysis on them and found that all 3 are absolutely identical (with a few samples added to #3 - I could hear the clicks but couldn't get rid of them).
And having seen his null results, I'm now having problems hearing any differences between the files!!!
Mani.
|
|
|
|
|
354
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Phasure NOS1 DAC / Re: B'ASS Current Amplifier
|
on: November 05, 2016, 10:53:48 am
|
I've got nothing to say really... but felt I wanted to say something... anything... I think it's so easy for each of us to forget that our relationship with Phasure is probably very different to that with any other manufacturer. I've never really felt a 'customer' of Phasure. More a 'collaborator'. My feeling is that if Peter wasn't offering us all the Phasure products, he'd still be developing them for himself. That fact that he offers them to us for, let's face it, ridiculously good value for money, is really great. How many of us would have the quality of sound we do without Phasure gear? Not me for sure... and not for pretty much any amount of money I could have spent elsewhere. Ah but that doesn't mean we shouldn't give Peter a hard time from time to time. But stick to criticizing his hearing ability (or lack of) rather than anything else  Mani. |
|
|
|
|
356
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Chatter and forum related stuff / Re: Testing a few digital cables
|
on: November 03, 2016, 09:22:47 pm
|
When the real #1 begins all kinds of discussions start to happen and all I can do is regard the music background music.
It is okay for that.
#2 is not though, it interferes too much.
But why the heck is the bass (well, lower mid) is the disturbing factor ?
#3, strangely or maybe better : unexpectedly, is the best background music. It simply is (also) the best musically exhibiting. It is just flowing .... Well, I should start 'remastering' all my collection with my USB-to-spdif converter and Tascam... and sell my 'remasters' for millions Over here, #1 still sounds the best... but only just. But with my newly redone files (see above), #3 is now very much in the same ball mark as #1. #2 remains flat and lacking to my ears. And just in case anyone is concerned - there's absolutely no trickery going on here - everything I've said is exactly as it is: #1 really is the original #2 really is the digital output from the microRendu #3 really is the digital output from the Mach II I'm surprised more people haven't chimed in... Mani. |
|
|
|
|
359
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Chatter and forum related stuff / Re: Testing a few digital cables
|
on: November 03, 2016, 05:22:09 pm
|
... it is totally obvious how XXHighEnd vs HQPlayet just will. It is made for that explicitly, so to speak. Just to reiterate, I'm outputting straight 16/44.1, with no DSP whatsoever in both HQP and XX. Even then, I know they will sound totally different, even if they were both on the same machine. Mani. |
|
|
|
|
360
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Chatter and forum related stuff / Re: Testing a few digital cables
|
on: November 03, 2016, 05:16:57 pm
|
|
If I wanted to compare XXHighEnd to HQPlayer, I would simply load HQPlayer onto the Mach II and do that. Why bring the mR into it?
As I said, my interest is in the 'best' mR playback vs. the 'best' Mach II playback, to determine which to go for in my office system. For the latter, I think Unattended is an absolute necessity.
Mani.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
