Recent content by audiventory

Fully agree. Since early childhood I was musician. But I always love audio and music apparatus. It defined my engineer career.

I suppose, the watermarks was developed for minimal audibility.

Hearing control is secondary. But it also necessary for catching issues that may be occationally passed standard tests. Also human perception of many features (harmonic distortions, frequency response deviations, ringing, etc.) is complex. Because there we have "threshould of audibility". These...

It is impression terms. It linked with measured features of music (modified by audio tools). How to do it described in books about mastering an mixing (panning, reverberation, EQ, compression, may be other).

In my opinion, same model is preferable. At there, there you may set identical settings. After it adjust by room.

Such errors (pauses and clicks) is too audible. Local damaging lower bit only in each sent word almost improbable.

I expected of demonstration of binary difference :) And double blind test is not home entertainment due big number of measurements, used equipment and development of methodic.

Computer may be HDMI-connected to AV-receiver/amp via cheap HDMI-video card (ATI, as example) of audio card, if available. For achieving minimal loses due additional processings, need avoid Windows processing (if you use Windows) - resampling, mixing, etc.. For it need install ASIO driver or...

If currently all ok (you don't listen sound difference berore and after), I think, you have not reasons for disturbance. Very probable, at factory, speakers and amps put under overload tests too. Let wait several days, may be you forget this unpleaseant case and will enjoy you system further.

This terms is fully clear in direct translate to Russian even. May be reason there is articles in local magazines. As developer audio, I try always bound figures and sound perception. In my opinion: 1) "Dry system" ("Dry monitor sound") - absolutelly flat frequency response, very low...

Also need consider, what 7.1 records are rare. And 7.1 will as upmixing of lesser number of channels.

I alway thinks what MQA is simple compression format. For me alway was strange claims about «sound improvement» compressed/uncompressed audio comparing original PCM. If look to 2L.no samples, MQA cause better compression than FLAC. The samples may be considered as proof of compression.

I prefer don't listen music, than listen it in lo-fi quality. Except instant access for some music pieces for fast acquaintance. It is really give discomfort for me.

"Better sounding" is personal perception only. "Sound qua;ity" have 2 meanings: 1. Fidelity - distortion/noise level 2. Nice subjective sound perception, despite point #1. An external DAC (I don't mean certain model) may as increase as decrease distortion/noise level of analog signal. So...

MQA may used in mobile devices for saving space (comparing FLAC).