Search results

Modern AVRs generally can and do apply DSP to *all* inputs, including analog. Avoiding that is what the 'Direct'/"Pure Direct' options are for. see discussion e.g., https://www.avsforum.com/threads/denon-x4400h-does-analog-input-gets-converted-to-digital.3286182/

I have no idea what this means, can you explain? And how is low bass leaking *in* to the room?

That Arcam performance hit is hardly an across-the-board finding in Amir's tests of AVRs, nor does Amir determine if and when it is *audible*, which is what really matters. Nor have you determined it. The differences you purport to hear with your great are easily within the usual realm of bias...

I go away for a few days and whackable moles proliferate, oh dear. Huh? The above bolded statement isn't my only puzzlement; I can't figure out if this person is a mathematician, astrophyisist, or doctor of 'physical medicine', as it seems to have claimed to be all three. I for one sure do...

Russian torrent sites? Are you a troll, or just gormless?

Indeed. Audible (at enhanced levels) degradation of 'reverb tails' is an issue when there is insufficient bit depth ('resolution') and/or truncation has occurred (e.g. conversion without dither). Neither has been an issue for decades.

The case for content moderation of subjectivist nonsense on ASR grows by the day.

Much older than this thread, is testimony like yours being offered as sufficient evidence of sonic diffence between DACs. It's not.

I am happy not to have the 'purist' mindset. Is seems Dr. Toole doesn't either. I want the audio product that is delivered to me to be 'purist'. What I do with it from that point on, to make it sound better to me, is my choice.

So do we in the non pro audio world. It's hard to avoid them. At what playback level do you listen to reverb tails? Can you perceive the difference at the normal playback level, or do you have to crank things up during the reverb tails? Uh huh. There's a reason for that. Alas, over...

Surely 'good fitting headphones' aren't the only necessary condition.

Yes, and it was beside my point. Most people will never 'need' to add an upsampling step in their signal chains because if one is used it will be built in already, e.g. in DAC,s e.g in convolution in Audyssey. If you've gone down the road of crafting bespoke 'sound treatment' filters-- I'm...

i.e. pathological conditions. No one listens to audio that way normally.

:rolleyes: If you have constructed a Rube Goldberg signal chain that literally requires you to add a separate upsampling step, that's on you.

Toole uses and enjoys upmixing. And massive DSP for bass. He is hardly skeptical of 'post recording revisions' tout court.

Is TAS's award based on science? If so, it would be a first.

Huh? Any competent 'treatment' gear is going to resample as necessary.

Simply: no. Not a good or bad idea. Just pointless. If you have an AVR , it is almost certainly resampling anyway. And if not, still no benefit to upsampling.

Your issue is with recordings, not speakers.

COBY Though I always smiled at how they even copied the SONY font.