|
Home
/ FAQ
/ News Classifieds / Events |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer |
Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
220.140.8.187
In Reply to: RE: cPlay 2.0b31 Released posted by Dawnrazor on October 23, 2009 at 18:51:37
Sometimes lowest is not "best". On my system, latency setting of 48 sounds the most powerful and "precise", but falls short in terms of "warmth" and treble smoothness. I found that 128 sounds the most pleasant, natural, and the bass is better than any other source I've heard in my system.
Incidentally, latency setting of 128 is also what cics recommended for 192k. He said, "for 192k output, latencies to 128 samples (ASIO Hz of 1500) will be excellent. This assumes there's no "dead bands" in PLL, i.e. PLL is inoperable for certain jitter frequencies."
My other settings are: Tiny, SRC 145db, 192k, AWE, Timer Off
"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we would let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines." N.P.
It just was more musical and 31 often left me uninvolved even though I was hearing more.
But I never tried 128. The cplay diagnostics reported that the Lynx liked 64 so I tried that and 32 and tiny, small, and medium. It just never sounded as good as 30. Perhaps I should give 128 a try.
I'm not sure if it's a glitch, but when I switch between different latency settings (i.e. 48 and 64), the cPlay diagnostics *always* report my current setting as "preferred". Hmm...
"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we would let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines." N.P.
Hey, I was on 32 and it reported 64 was preferred so I tried 64. So I dont think I have that issue.
she needs to make up her mind!
Quick update, I now prefer the 48 sample setting after remaking my I2S cable with RG179 coax. Digital audio works in mysterious ways...
"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we would let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines." N.P.
SOunds like!
I tried 128 with tiny, and that does seem to be much better. Not sure i will stay with 31 but right now it is pretty good.
Glad you like it!
In one of his posts, theo stated that "my system has many degrees of adjusting tonal balance ... [so] when I make changes I always prefer to go the way of better dynamics then adjust the tonal balance accordingly."
I happen to have very similar beliefs when it comes to choices of equipment/playback software. I believe that certain qualities, such as warmth, tonal balance, even better soundstaging, can be had through relatively simple tweaks. On the other hand, attributes like detail, dynamics, and low noise floor are more difficult to obtain. Oh, and I also happen to prefer to do things the easier way!
"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we would let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines." N.P.
Post a Followup:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Go Green ]
[ Take5 ]