Evidence?At that price it is not possible
You are talking about just the DAC? Icon does the job better in what way than another device with the same DAC chip?Wiim Pro and SMSL SU-9 were tested here as transparent. The Icon does the job better. So the test methods do not seem to be sufficient.
Do you believe all the stories like this that you hear or only the ones that seem to support the product hype? Maybe someone will make some recordings and we can see if anyone really hears a difference. Until then I wish you would stop saying Qrono is some kind of great improvement when you don't know that and there isn't much to it where it should matter much.I can't tell you that. And the listening experience Centuriaromano has had is now one of many with a similar result. The fact is that Bluesound relies on MQA QRONO.
The evidence is the fact that measurement microphones that cost 10 times or more than these need an individual calibration file (and need to be recalibrated over time...).Evidence?
This will probably not work if QRONO does what is described in the Technical White Paper.Maybe someone will make some recordings and we can see if anyone really hears a difference.
Only if you believe that Qrono filters for 44KHz and 48KHz files are some kind of magic instead of recognizing that they are just minium phase slow filters. A high sample rate recording should be fine for capturing everything for listening tests, but I know the MQA devotees will never accept that.This will probably not work if QRONO does what is described in the Technical White Paper.
You work for Bluesound.NAD/Bluesound's approach with their mic will be no worse.
And with which hardware (DAC) do you play back that can show the possible advantages of QRONO? As I have already written, this will probably not work.A high sample rate recording should be fine for capturing everything for listening tests
This is my assumption as well. Where are the moderators to reign on this kind of marketing behavior and baseless claims?You work for Bluesound.
That is where you are buying into the magical thinking as well. Any DAC that can play the high sample rate of the recording. The idea that the reconstruction filter matters at extremely high sample rates is far fetched.No.
And with which hardware (DAC) do you play back that can show the possible advantages of QRONO? As I have already written, this will probably not work.
He claims not to, and I see no reason not to believe that. I presume he would be described on less friendly forums as a "fanboi".You work for Bluesound.
At last we are the quality control.Wiim Pro and SMSL SU-9 were tested here as transparent. The Icon does the job better. So the test methods do not seem to be sufficient.
Test methods? I still see no independent measurement and no controlled/blind testing. "I say it sounds better" is what is not sufficient.Wiim Pro and SMSL SU-9 were tested here as transparent. The Icon does the job better. So the test methods do not seem to be sufficient.
I have nothing to do with the hifi industry and I am not affiliated with any hifi stores. I am an ordinary hifi user with a technical background who likes to think outside the box.would you care to say a bit more about who you are, and lay the employee claim to rest?
To qualify my remark, you are entitled like everyone else to like any particular product. I'm not challenging that.To me is perfect
No you aren't. You are a consumer expressing a personal preference. From the small sample of reports we have here, quality control might not be that great. We're already greeted here by problem devices including one with a dead display, remember?At last we are the quality control.