tuga

Wammer
  • Content Count

    7,320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

tuga last won the day on October 30

tuga had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,508 Excellent

About tuga

Personal Info

  • Location
    Oxfordshire, UK
  • Real Name
    Ric

Wigwam Info

  • Digital Source 1
    MacBookPro/HQPlayer
  • Digital Source 2
    CuBox-i/NAA
  • DAC
    Teac UD-501 @ DSD128
  • Integrated Amp
    Bespoke transistor
  • My Speakers
    Stirling LS3/6
  • Headphones
    NAD VISO HP50
  • Trade Status
    I am not in the Hi-Fi trade

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. tuga

    Which format?

    A FLAC is a lossly compressed WAV. You are paying for the exact same thing but FLAC takes less time to download and less bandwidth.
  2. tuga

    Which format?

    More than in the Government.
  3. tuga

    Which format?

    Why do you say that? Equipment may have more processing power but does this mean it will produce less noise? That is not what Jussi Laako (HQPlayer) or Peter Stordiau (Phasure) amongst others defend.
  4. I have a super power which allows me to reasonably correlate listening with measurements. I combine this with previous listening experience of brand and topology as well as technical knowledge to sketch up a shortlist of speakers worth listening to. I found the Audio Vectors overly bright and thin for my taste, but that may be just what you're looking for. This is why I asked which of the speakers you previously owned sounded more pleasing to you. The older Serblin-era Sonus Fabers usually had a likeable sound. I wouldn't mind owning a pair of Elipsas, Stradivari or Amati. Bu some years ago I spent a bit of time listening to a pair of Concerto Domus and they sounded like toy speakers. You have a large room and I'd be looking at larger boxes.
  5. Better to me means how accurately they reproduce the recording. Better qualifies performance which, unlike preference or taste, is universal. But to find out if you like a speaker (preference/taste) you have to listen to it.
  6. It would help to know which of those you prefer, and, if you're able to say, why?
  7. I would say that Kef is the speaker with less own sound; perhaps that means that the Kef house sound is whatever is in the recording.
  8. If you can't find clues in measurements then I see no point in suggesting any. Measurements are performed to provide clues about sound quality, that's why they exist. It's up to those reading them to make good use of measurements. I understand that correlating measurements and listening preference is difficult, unlike correlating measurements and sound quality, and not exact or absolute; in my view you are doing what most people do which is conflating listening preference with sound quality. And even then if one is able to perform that correlation measurements are useful whether you prefer accuracy or moussaka. Don't you perform measurements of your cables? Do you decide to add more or less ferrite beads by ear? What did the "project to radically modify and improve a pair of speakers" mentioned in your website consist of? Was it just re-cabling or did you make any other changes which would have required measurements?
  9. I can't remember. To me there is an obvious correlation between measurements and listening and thus I can confidently rule out equipement not worth listening to by looking at its measured performance. No one can decide but the person asking the question. I just wanted to know if my advice based on technical assessment and measured performance was helpful to @ChemMan when he was replacing his amplifier and speakers.
  10. Drop-outs are an issue. I an unable to stream DSD128 with my budget mesh-wifi system without hiccups... I wonder if DSD512 would not work at all with any wifi. . I have a dedicated audio-only network for serious NAS-streaming listens, and use Toslink from my laptop when web-streaming.
  11. You need a chip for Ethernet as much as you need a chip for USB. For me the ideal DAC is just a D/A converter and an analogue stage. I prefer to leave the processing (upsampling, filtering, EQ) to an external box. . Unlike with external master-clocking, evidence actually seems to indicate that there may be benefits to place the upsampler in an external box. It only logical since there isn't much to difference the sound of a high measured performance DAC other than upsampling and filtering, and the noise-filtering capabilities of its input. By using a computer with a really good NOS DAC the only limiting factor of the latter is its highest admissible bit depth and sample rate. One can now buy a near state-of-the-art AKM-based or resistor-ladder NOS DAC and still be able to reap the benefits of more processing power in future upgrades.
  12. I agree with your first sentence. But we can also advise based on technical assessment and measured performance to meet the OP listener's taste and needs. Maybe @ChemMan can comment on the effectiveness of a more rational approach to advising?
  13. Protocol, speed, some degree of isolation (transformer compling at both ends of the wire). Yes Wi-Fi would even increment on the isolation albeit at lower max speeds but I would rather not have a wireless transceiver module nowhere near my system (analogue signal). You can also use optical Ethernet for full glavanic isolation if necessary (many reports over at Computer Audiophile).
  14. I've not listened to post-Serblin Sonus Fabers and I always cautious whenever a manufacturers changes designer. (Spendor is a case in point) I'd add Dynaudio to the list, and since the room is wide then Dali might be worth a listen too. Maybe Monitor Audio since they seem to be veering away from their "bright" house-sound.
  15. That's a dangerous trail to tread... They'll sound good to you, but will they to others? I have yet to see a Totem that has reasonable measured performance. They would definitely not find a place on my shopping list.