Tim-If I read the specs on your speaker correctly (and your DAC is built into your speakers), the DAC is capable of decoding 24/192. However, since you listen through iTunes, you can't get there from here. Aren't you stuck listening at 16/44.1 with iTunes?
Computer Audio: confusing, complicated, & INCONVENIENT. About MUSIC or inner nerd?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
Tim-If I read the specs on your speaker correctly (and your DAC is built into your speakers), the DAC is capable of decoding 24/192. However, since you listen through iTunes, you can't get there from here. Aren't you stuck listening at 16/44.1 with iTunes?
Not really, if you contact Item Audio he will come over to your place and do the whole set up for you. With a modded desktop or the Aurender, depending on if your dac is sensitive to USB or SPDIF (easy to check), and voila it will all be up and running. Aurender works out of the box without any complications. If you are worrying about all that hard-drive, anti-raid etc you have mentioned in your post, than all you are doing is reading too many forum posts. The Aurender should sound quieter than any CD player, incredibly smooth, powerful and dynamic. Setting up computerized audio is almost instantaneous if you know whom to call.
Mike,
You will almost never get an answer about real experiences with real music or any details from several of our members. I have found they love speculative debates, but hate real life. It seems we, the "deluded" and "uninformed", are often guilty of our practice of exchanging opinions about how the music sound in our systems in a non scientific way.
Mike,
You will almost never get an answer about real experiences with real music or any details from several of our members. I have found they love speculative debates, but hate real life. It seems we, the "deluded" and "uninformed", are often guilty of our practice of exchanging opinions about how the music sound in our systems in a non scientific way.
when I challenged Tim about his dismissal of the benefits of hirez, I had no illusions that he would response with any substance, and he did not disappoint me....
when he asked me to 'move on', I decided not to extend the dialog with further engagement. so I said.....
I simply had better things to do with my time. I had rocks I had to remove from the treads in my tires. it was much more fun and satisfying than trying to pin Tim down about his alledged specific listening experiences.
garylkoh
WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
when I challenged Tim about his dismissal of the benefits of hirez, I had no illusions that he would response with any substance, and he did not disappoint me....
when he asked me to 'move on', I decided not to extend the dialog with further engagement. so I said.....
I simply had better things to do with my time. I had rocks I had to remove from the treads in my tires. it was much more fun and satisfying than trying to pin Tim down about his alledged specific listening experiences.
Just a reminder, gents, this is the post you're talking about....
A post in which I did not dismiss hi res, and I did describe a specific experience. The missing link was the gear used. I referred you to it, in my profile, in a subsequent post. I don't know what you guys want...well evidently it is unqualified agreement you're looking for because a pretty benign discussion of possibilities that might contradict your position set you off on a public discussion of the person who dared to question. Bad form.
Tim
and btw; I have about 10 Reference Recording CD's where I also have the HRx 176/24 master file on my hard drive. the CD's use those HRx masters as their source.....which is essentially what you are suggesting with that earlier post.
it is quite quick and easy to do that comparison all day long, I've done it many times and it is child's play to pick out the redbook. I do expect that as you go down the road to the most modest digital players that there may be a point where you find gear that won't tell you much (enough?) about the difference between those different digital sampling rate levels. and you might be there with the gear you list, I really don't know....but it's possible. I'm not being elitist, I'm simply stating probability.
it is quite quick and easy to do that comparison all day long, I've done it many times and it is child's play to pick out the redbook. I do expect that as you go down the road to the most modest digital players that there may be a point where you find gear that won't tell you much (enough?) about the difference between those different digital sampling rate levels. and you might be there with the gear you list, I really don't know....but it's possible. I'm not being elitist, I'm simply stating probability.
Last edited:
Phelonius writes :
Where's the experience eg. Listening?
Again not to mention Bruce has already provided REAL samples making your suggestion moot and flawed.
Where's the experience eg. Listening?
Again not to mention Bruce has already provided REAL samples making your suggestion moot and flawed.
Maybe there needs to be a point of comparison to facilitate better understanding.
I don't think anyone said there's NO DIFFERENCE between redbook and the higher resolution version from the same master. However, the differences between higher sample rates are minor compared to many of the other parts of music reproduction in my room. Things like the room itself, the speaker position, type of speaker, bass dynamics and linearity and seated position. If one's room has gone from mediocre to great in any or all of these factors, then higher sample rates from the same master really are trivial and mostly unimportant to music enjoyment.
It's in this context that I judge high resolution. High resolution and especially DSD can and is intimidating to many computer audio neophytes. DSD also greatly limits bass quality because DSD prohibits use of DSP, which is essential to excellent bass linearity in most rooms. I have personally gone down this high resolution road using some of the "best" DACs available in a very good room with great speakers and amplification. In the end, I've come to mostly the same conclusion as Tim.
Michael.
I don't think anyone said there's NO DIFFERENCE between redbook and the higher resolution version from the same master. However, the differences between higher sample rates are minor compared to many of the other parts of music reproduction in my room. Things like the room itself, the speaker position, type of speaker, bass dynamics and linearity and seated position. If one's room has gone from mediocre to great in any or all of these factors, then higher sample rates from the same master really are trivial and mostly unimportant to music enjoyment.
It's in this context that I judge high resolution. High resolution and especially DSD can and is intimidating to many computer audio neophytes. DSD also greatly limits bass quality because DSD prohibits use of DSP, which is essential to excellent bass linearity in most rooms. I have personally gone down this high resolution road using some of the "best" DACs available in a very good room with great speakers and amplification. In the end, I've come to mostly the same conclusion as Tim.
Michael.
Last edited:
Are you guys actually reading the posts you're attacking me for? In both the posts mike has cited I said I believed there is a difference between Redbook and hi res. I just said I thought the difference was subtle.
A three pronged attack and a complete derailment of a thread over "subtle?" Really? Best, I think, to take Charlie brown's advice henceforth...
Tim
A three pronged attack and a complete derailment of a thread over "subtle?" Really? Best, I think, to take Charlie brown's advice henceforth...
Tim
Similar threads
- Sticky
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |