@kairosman @jasonbourne52 Dimensionality and roundness are indeed figments of the listeners imagination, as are all things stereo. But that is neithervthe question or the issue. The question is whether or not they are repeatable and reliable. If they are, then they are true, if unquantifiable. Likewise claims of blacker (a visual term) backgrounds attributable to lower noise are specious at best when the current noise floor is well below the listeners background noise floor to begin with. 'Improved dynamics' is another questionable term because dynamics have in our context a very specific definition: The change in the voltage envelope describing the event. A guitarist plucks a note. The microphone picks up that sound, its 'dynamics' defined by its voltage envelope. Pluck it harder, the voltage envelope increases. Absent an increase in the voltage envelope there is no change in dynamics. Likewise, a DAC whose output variations are greater than the input ('improved dynamics') is demonstrably defective. I'm not saying all equipment sounds identical. I'm saying if it does sound or present differently there are reasons, some quantifiable, some not. But to be valid they must be consistently repeatable.
Next step up on the streaming food chain?
I’ve been enjoying my Auralic Aries G1 for nearly 3 years now. If I wanted to explore a significant step up in my streaming quality, and not a small incremental increase in quality, what devices should be on my short list? Aries G2.2? Grimm MU1? Something else? The G1 is awfully good, however, I still perceive an extra layer of dimensionality and roundness with my analogs set up (see profile for details) that I would love too achieve in the digital realm. Or am I barking up the wrong tree, and should I focus on my DAC, a Bricasti M1, and try as non-oversampling R2R dac? FWIW, I think the Bricasti is excellent- it was the first DAC I ever heard that made me say- "that sounds terrific" instead of saying "that sounds great for digital"
- ...
- 39 posts total
- 39 posts total