It is.Sorry Correction, l believe this is the battery version
Based on sampling theory, you have to truncate everything above half the sample rate. For 44.1 khz, that would say nothing above 22.05 kHz should be left there. The wiki is good write-up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_filterMay I ask why the attenuation of frequencies beyond ~22kHz is at all important?
<snip>
in my listening I find the unit to be very engaging musically, and thought this was one of it's good attributes
<snip>
The simple explanation is that what is heard is not what is produced by the equipment.Who knows why, as I don't.
The simple explanation is that what is heard is not what is produced by the equipment.
It doesn't work that way. From the instructions:@amirm Could you try testing it just on battery power alone?
Expectation bias aside - this doesn't explain it though?
I've even had similar experiences with in car stereo - some gear just sounds amazing (in the context of what it is) but yet in the same vein I've heard car systems where $$$$ have been spent, but although there is plenty of power and clarity - it just doesn't sound "right", where the cheaper system did.
I've experienced this many times, across a broad spectrum of gear - even when I've not known what I was listening to, that excludes any kind of bias.
Here a good example in a schiit bifrost review...:You can start to glimpse the explanation for this when you listen and hear the night and day differences, only to realize later that the same exact equipment was playing both times.
It doesn't work that way. From the instructions:
"It needs a 5V supply through it's charging socket at all times except when the unit is put into storage."
You can start to glimpse the explanation for this when you listen blind and hear the night and day differences, only to realize later that the same exact equipment was playing both times.
All my findings were that the gungnir still had more bass punch, weight, voices had a nicer richness to them that made them sound natural and more realistic.
<snip>
After two nights of back and forth, I was done and thought nah, this bifrost ain’t for me. Got up to unplug it. Lo and behold I had confused myself. I got my ABs the wrong way round.
I think you misunderstand my point though.
To cite an example; back in my audio repair days, I had a pair of speakers mounted in a vertical panel (part of a shelf) on the rear of my bench.
Some speakers (we would replace them quite frequently!) would sound "right" with certain amplifiers - by that I mean the sound wasn't superfi, but it was inoffensive, good even - and yet you could connect source and they would just sound bad.
So what should sound bad actually sounded ok...
I'm not really sure how else to explain it!
There are good explanations for speaker differences that don’t require belief in magic or faith in audiophile myths. Of course I can’t tell you what was different with the speakers you tested. Unless you’ve done some measurements and properly controlled blind testing, there is not much to discuss, I’m afraid.
So what should sound bad actually sounded ok...
I'm not really sure how else to explain it!
I'm not referring to A/B comparisons here.
What I'm trying to convey (quite badly apparently) is that some gear just sounds "right" regardless of how it measures.
This is not in A/B comparisons - it's just 'having an ear' for a good sound, and hearing something that sounds good / right even though it's not that good.
You may well have a good ear, but what sounds good to you may sound awful to me.