• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

About liffy99

  • Rank

Personal Info

  • Location
    Glastonbury, ,

Wigwam Info

  • Digital Source 1
    Squeezebox Touch
  • Integrated Amp
    Lyngdorf 2200/2175
  • My Speakers
    Perigee and Final

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. How would I have known it was in a hotel, and not an exhibition centre, school, college, etc ? not too much trouble just to stick the venue address here on the website surely . . .
  2. Where is it ??. Kegworth yes, but an address would be helpful ? or is it posted somewhere I ‘be not found yet ?
  3. Well, I won’t comment about the physics and neurophysiology that’s already been discussed but I cannot reliably tell any difference between a 16/44 and a 24/96 recording (google Mark Waldrep’s HD challenge if you fancy a go). That said, although anti-aliasing filters have improved enormously since the 80s it would appear that. 48kHz sample rate would have made like easier for whole integer processing between domestic release and studio mastering. Nor do I have a system that would enable even the full range of Red Book capability. Once starting above the 40dB noise floor of my room, peal levels would be so loud as to ruin my hearing in short order. Very few systems are going to exceed, say, 115dBa output, let alone more (and remember that dithered 16 bit audio can have a perceived dynamic range of more than 96dB, probably at least another ten. And no commercially available DAC can resolve more than 21 bits, even if 24 are encoded in the music. The noise inherent electronic circuits precludes getting any better. Of far, far more importance is the quality of the recording and mastering. Hi Res audio is just marketing hype designed to get us to buy unnecessary releases of the same music. There is certainly no reason for the over- inflated prices we see. We should be putting pressure on the recording companies to give us unmolested material in the first place, without undue compression etc. Surely, those that wanted their music loud can either turn up the volume or have a hardware enabled option (remember the old loudness control .). CD standard is plenty good enough for me !
  4. Hi i am running Audirvana on my Mac, linked to my downloaded music library and the Qobuz streaming service. Output goes via UPNP to my stereo rig. in our kitchen we did have a Squeezebox Touch fed from Squeezeserver on the Mac. This gave us access to my music library, Qobuz (via a 3rd party plugin) and internet radio. But, due to frequent, short, power cuts it has become painful to keep restoring settings. So we now have an Amazon Echo, which is great for. Radio, Amazon Music but it, as far as I know, cannot support UPNP or link to Qobuz. is there an all in one box (I.e. with its own amp and speakers) that can give me UPNP connectivity, and Digital Radio ? My portable Steljes SA60 radio can, except I cannot see or select tracks from the Audirvana server. I can choose them on the Mac, and hence send them to the radio, but obviously I don’t want to have to run upstairs every time I want to play a different track ! ideally we would love the Echo to do this, but there is no Skill for either Qobuz or Audirvana support. Nor is it UPNP capable as far as I can tell. ideas ?
  5. Donations gratefully received 😎 no, I just feel the wool is being pulled over our eyes (or ears). And I go by my ears and decent, evidenced, comparison tests. now, it may well be that a HD version sounds better than a CD standard version, but that is far, far more likely to be the result of the recording being re-mastered, perhaps with a sound balance that may be more pleasing to many. But it will not be higher resolution. CDs (and vinyl) has often been remastered, but we were not charged a hugely inflated price for those. As file size is not really hampered by today’s storage and transmission costs, why are the huge markups seen justified ? if a recording was originally made at ‘high res’ then by all means market a ‘high res’ product, and if you can hear the difference (very doubtful) buy it. But don’t fall for the con of reissuing lower res tracks in a high res wrapper. That’s like dropping a Mini engine in a Rolls and calling the result a Rolls ! I think I’d better stop now, and listen to some more 16 bit audio in darkened bliss with a nice scotch . . .
  6. This seems clear . . .
  7. So, that looks like a 60dB dynamic range and high frequencies up to about 12k ? Well within the compass of Red Book CD ?
  8. Is it Amazon, or Apple that define their HD service as just 16/44 ? seems that distributors can decide on their own interpretation of what Hi Res is (normally defined as better than red book standard).
  9. That’s fine - perfectly happy for you to waste your money. Or is it your pride that might take a step back ? i was only trying to help.
  10. There are several points to consider . . . 1) Can you actually hear a difference ? Trying Mark Waldrep’s challenge will help you decide. In his first challenge, less than 1% of listeners correctly identified the 24/96 versions. Even then, the perceived differences were so vanishingly small as to be rather pointless. I failed, and probably will in this trial too. 2) OK, storage space is cheap and download speeds fast these days, but still, why take up more space if you don’t need to ? 3) A better DAC, or other equipment in the chain, would hopefully allow you to hear more of the sources potential. BUT this goes back to point 1, if you cannot hear a difference between red book and hi-Res then a new DAC will not improve matters. And, sadly, the natural deterioration of your hearing will probably exceed any increase in resolving power of your system over the years. 4) Far better to get record companies to focus their resources on making good recordings with decent mastering than wasting time re-issuing their low res back catalogues in a phoney wrapper. 5) if you cannot hear a difference, then don’t waste money on hi res ! 6) Marks recordings are all uncompressed and not normalised, so use as much dynamic range as possible. Although I only like less than a third of the tracks, their fidelity is superb. But you will need to turn the volume up (and remember to turn it back down before playing a normal, commercial recording or risk your eardrums). As a result their average volume is quite a bit lower than the compressed, average volume of a normal commercial release. I found about a 10dB differential. You have nothing to lose by giving it a go !
  11. Why not give it a go - it might save you money !
  12. I don’t think Mark Waldrep contradicted himself by saying he enjoyed some HD recordings - just meant that the recordings were enjoyable and would have been whatever their fidelity. It is important though when we compare Red Book releases to HD ones that we are listening to the SAME recording in the two different formats. If an HD release has been re-mastered then it would likely sound different, although not of better ‘fidelity’. and there is nothing wrong with using 24/96 for example in the mastering process (to deal with steep hf filtering etc). Just that the final product needs no more than 16/44. can anyone here seriously hear a 22kHz tone, or have a system with a 130dB dynamic range capability (very quiet room at, say, 35dBa plus the 96dB + of Red Book) ? No commercial recording has even approached the potential of CD, let alone Blu Ray. The dynamic range of so many recordings over the past 25 years have been seriously squashed so as to be acceptable (over background noise) on portable players. It’s sad that even the venerable vinyl disc often exhibited a greater dynamic range (maybe 50dB) than most, non-classical, CD versions . . .
  13. Hi For something to waste my time now I’ve retired, I thought I would have a go at knocking up some stands for the Quad 57 electrostatics. The sort of feet that replace the old ones, and side rails, to give a much sleeker look and raise the wee beasties about a foot off the floor. Slight snag mind is that I no longer own a pair (I d9 have the 2905s). so, is there anyone within a gnat’s crotchet of Somerset that could indulge me in a visit to see if a couple of templates I’ve made might fit OK. No changes need to be made to your pride and joy - just removal and replacement of the rear leg and one or both side rails. cheers