Metatron

Wammer
  • Content count

    472
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Community Reputation

74 Excellent

About Metatron

  • Rank
    100% serious, 50% of the time

Personal Info

  • Location
    Bracknell

Wigwam Info

  • Turn Table
    Old Rega P2
  • Tone Arm & Cartridge
    RB300 with AT33PTG
  • SUT / Phono Stage
    something crap
  • Digital Source 1
    dCS Network Bridge
  • Digital Source 2
    RPi3 / Sonos Connect
  • DAC
    Chord Hugo
  • Pre-Amp
    Modwright LS36.5
  • Power Amp/s
    Pass Labs X250
  • My Speakers
    WB ACTs + Torus
  • Headphones
    none
  • Trade Status
    I am not in the Hi-Fi trade

Recent Profile Visitors

567 profile views
  1. PAYPAL.....advice please

    Only true if item is posted and has suitable tracking. The scenario for the OP is the exception to the vast majority - where items is for collection and not posted. Paypal have zero seller protection for collected items and no means of providing what they consider acceptable proof. So Paypal is useless in such a scenario.
  2. Guess the album cover

    Stunned it's a Renaissance album. It was one of the bands I came across trying to solve this one. I went to Discogs to check the published albums and didn't see it. Checking it now shows I missed it. David, isn't it your go?
  3. @Sir_Franc How did the RPi3 trial go? What are your thoughts? Have you managed to compare to components from hifi brands?
  4. Guess the album cover

    From the eye alone, my first thoughts are Sophie Ellis Bextor or Amy McDonald
  5. Guess the album cover

    Yes, sorry, was slowly tapping in replies by phone while on lunch. So my response came after you finally got it. Back in the office now. Well done! It's a bit like Ludovico Einaudi, but more inventive: http://site.alexisffrenchmusic.com/
  6. Guess the album cover

    Answer: The Piano Whisperer by Alexis Ffrench Go google! David, you got close, so your go.
  7. Guess the album cover

    What kind of thesaurus you using man!? One extra clue: you can put Horse before the second word and its would make a type of job.
  8. Guess the album cover

    Variations, not synonym!
  9. Guess the album cover

    Very close. Play with variations of 2nd word
  10. Guess the album cover

    Recap: We know it's piano music. I gave a clue of saying something quietly and there's a word for that. Put "piano" and that other word in Google and you'll likely find it.
  11. Guess the album cover

    I'm unlikely to be available to comment for a few days after today.... so I'll post up the answer later if no one gets it. Additional clue:
  12. Well I didn't view things as kicking off in a personal way. No foul meant or received from my viewpoint. This is "2 channel debate" and not "2 channel agreement" after all. I think I've been misunderstood in why I would post a YT clip. Not for comparison, not to determine actual sound quality via YT as if you could because you cannot. That doesn't mean there is zero use for a YT clip at all and to what exent (the grey area). I cited it was just to see if you feel positive/negative about a particular system, assuming the recording is well made. I think that's all that can be done with it - and you use that how you see fit.
  13. Guess the album cover

    Very similar album cover, but no, not it.
  14. More foo!!! (Schumann Resonators)

    Indeed, the TL;DR version is just illustrating that what we hold true today can change (as it often does) as we learn more. I guess I have an objection to calling the flat earthers stupid. Uneducated certainly, but maybe not stupid. The fact they stick to being flat-earthers is down to the human element where people don't like to be proven wrong and often will entertain schisms to hold on to beliefs. With proper education, these things subside in time.
  15. The first point implies that quality doesn't have to be stellar to make some first impression over what in-person quality might be like. Your brain can somewhat account for the lack of quality and perceptual masking in codecs is a related area of study in this regard, though it's becoming less necessary with high bandwidth internet.. I repeat: "Actually no. We are not comparing DACs based on YT." - we can compare DACs when we've actually heard them in person in our own systems. You are seeing things in absolute black/white terms and not understanding what your brain does when hearing a poor quality source. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2124214-your-brain-fills-gaps-in-your-hearing-without-you-realising/ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091125134655.htm In short, you completely discount a YT sound clip. I believe you do so on the premise the quality is crap and bears no measurable (objective) resemblance to real life in room measurements. I agree with the bold part, but unlike you I do not discredit the medium in full - why?.... While the measurements are certainly not comparable, the human brain can augment what is heard beyond its pithy playback rate and give a sense (not an actuality), but a sense of what that system (not any specific unit) might sound like in person. Just like you can take a rough sketch and imagine a polished manufactured version of a complex object, so too you can with audio impressions. It's simply a modeling process in the brain. Assuming the in-room recording is of reasonable quality, the brain can derive a positive/negative overall impression of the presentation and a person can decide whether to seek out a similar system to hear in person, or not. To disprove what I'm saying, you have to disprove the research that shows how the brain can fill-in and tidy up what it sees or hears, and how the brain then produces impression models from the input. Don't discredit something because engineering science tells you to when it misses what psychology will tell you about the same thing - you need the full picture. I equally could have posted the specs of a Hegel HD30, and while the measurements are excellent, nobody's brain turns it into an auditory model. In the end, we're talking about opinion on sound right (?), not comparing objective measurements, or necessarily being objective at all, since 'taste' and opinion are subjective things.