|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.204.94.107
In Reply to: RE: my 2 cents posted by Jolida on October 18, 2011 at 05:22:16
Jolida, what I wrote was a caution not an attack. I had read all you wrote before carefully and also with great appreciation. You have done enormous work to the benefit of all. I took you seriously enough to reinstall unaltered cMP and cMP up thru 5 in order to compare to thru16 to try to hear for myself what you were talking about. I was ready to be reborn to plain optimized cMP as you seem to have been, but I found thru5 still sounded better to me. I don't (yet?) perceive what you find missing. I am now comparing thru4+Jolida1,2 to thru5 at kclo's recommendation.
You have shown much to us. It may be possible that we can show something to you...or bring you back to something...or, without there being any disparagement of you.
Follow Ups:
Hi riboge and jolida,
I am now back to 4.5 (Steppe 4 + jolida's first batch).
As I come down from the full stepp 5, to steppe 5.5, to 4.6, and now 4.5, its like turning the tilt knob (remember the Quad amp?): the high is reduced and the bass filled up. What attracted us in the file deletion path was that the high frequencies seemed to be more refined as more files are removed. By focusing on the highs we were not aware that the balance was being tilted, and artificiality crept in.
With 4.5, Paul Mccartney's bass in Sgt. Peppers now has the right weight. How do I know? UK pressing vinyl is my benchmark.
KC
Hey kc,
What u mentioned above, is it any different from what I've been saying all this while?? This is what I have been trying to convey ever since I got back to the Original cMp. The only difference is that u are taking a reversed-walk & I took what I would say a reversed-jump...
Now as u are moving incrementally in the opposite direction (which is a good thing), u are getting a sense of what had been compromised. This 'tilt' which is apparent in the music, is a cumulative effect of hundreds of file deletions. So to rectify, or to say "balance" the equation, one needs to pin down the offending files which should-not-have-been-deleted. But as the number of deletions are a lot till step 5, it made more sense, TO ME, to start from the Original cMp, which sounds closer to that "balance" I am looking for.
I agree, & have always agreed, that step 5 sounds very clean & strain-free, but the Scale & Weight that's in the Original, is lost somewhere in the route..
Also, I suggest u do try one more thing at this point. Staying at step 4.5 (where u are now), uninstall the cPlay b39 u have, reboot the computer, install b38, & give it a listen.
I have been listening to five cPlay versions since two days now, starting from b35 to b39. It may seem un-necessary for others to validate what I am doing, by trying all this. I do not intend to post my opinion about this b35 to b39 session, as I feel, or as riboge said, may bias others as well. So try & decide for urself. If not all the five, try b38 atleast...
Junaid
Hi Jolida,
I am reversing stepwise because of 2 reasons:
1. steppe 4.5 is my earliest backup, so I can't jump any further backwards; and
2. I was very happy with each tweak until after 4.5, or 4.6; somewhere around there is the optimum for my setup, I think, and I want to capture that.
Will try out b38 like you suggested.
KC
That's wonderful. U are close to the Optimum for Ur set up, which is a real bold statement to make. Im glad u feel that way. I wonder what the others are upto. No news about the outcome of Steppe 21 or Mihaylov's list??? Some are at step 5, u are at step 4.5, I'm at where I started (original cMp with b38).
Also I would like to mention one more thing. When I put up my post for the Batch files, I received hundreds of emails even from people who do not post on this forum. This proves that there are a lot of them who are just playing safe & being Spectators of this whole Deletion roulette. I strongly suggest, they too post their opinions so that this discussion would be more elaborate & beneficial...
I agree with Ur other post as well. I'm doing exactly the same since I reverted to the Original cMp (looking for a good Transport or Cd player to assess where we stand now). I hope to get hold of one soon, to double-check the worth of all the pains we have taken in this project...
I'm sure cMp will have it's own Class. Atleast that's what I hope happens :)
Junaid
Hi Jilida,
Just tried b38 with steppe 4.6 (with most codec removed or disabled).
Comparing to b39, there is a sort of glare to the high which could make it more compatible with a native cPlay. with 4.6, because of the cleaner high end, b38's high frequencies might seem to be exaggerated. Moreover, the bass is too controlled such that some of the bloom of natural music is gone.
To my system b39 is more natural and is a better choice.
KC
That's good. It's all about synergy. Though I find quite the opposite here. The Highs are very smooth & the Bass needs control :)
Junaid
"With 4.5, Paul Mccartney's bass in Sgt. Peppers now has the right weight. How do I know? UK pressing vinyl is my benchmark." -
Tell me please you were listening the own digital copy of YOUR vinyl at cMP2? If not then you need to do such copy. Then the comparison will be correct.
Serge.
http://cmp2-mihaylov.narod.ru/
My cMP2: Windows XP SP2, Gigabyte GA-H55M-UD2H, Intel Core i3-530, Corsair CM3X160C9DHX 1GB, system drive - Transcend IDE FLASH MODULE TS2GDOM40V-S, ESI Juli@, full linear PSU, NAS - WD My Book Live, iPad
Hi Mihaylov,
If I do that, then I would be comparing 2 digital transfers (assuming playing both on the same cPlay/cMP platform): one is the CD remastered from the original master tape, and the other is my own digital conversion from the LP.
What we are trying to do here is to test/confirm the validity of the cPlay/cMP platform. To do that I think we need another trusted platform as a benchmark. To me, they are:
1. My vinyl setup with a good pressing as source, Another digital source (a good CD player?) might do as well, but a good CD setup is WAY too expansive. Moreover, a vinyl platform gives a very good contrast as it has a different set of good/bad points comparing to a digital source. And my other benchmark is;
2. Life. Play some acoustic instrument recording recorded in a natural space and ask oneself, is the human voice , etc, more natural in this cPlay configuration comparing to the previous cPlay configuration? Good candidates for comparison are: human voice because we are all very sensitive to it, piano, brass, and strings. I also found that cPlay tweak # 5.5 onward creates an artificial space that sounds quite attractive, but when played a live recording with real space information, the natural sound stage of the recording would collapse.
KC
Well. I agree that a proper comparative testing cMP2 is not easy. I just would like to say that in my opinion any CD remastering from old master tapes doesn't sound as good as the good old vinyl Edition.
Serge.
http://cmp2-mihaylov.narod.ru/
My cMP2: Windows XP SP2, Gigabyte GA-H55M-UD2H, Intel Core i3-530, Corsair CM3X160C9DHX 1GB, system drive - Transcend IDE FLASH MODULE TS2GDOM40V-S, ESI Juli@, full linear PSU, NAS - WD My Book Live, iPad
At the moment, I am at the plain Original cMp version, trying hard to locate sections which need refinement. The two main areas I find needing attention is as I mentioned earlier, the Upper Bass & the Upper midrange. Rest everything sounds perfect to me. I agree it does not sound as Liquid as step 5, but the offending parameters for it are the ones I mentioned above. Everything else sounds way superior, Correct & Full sized & scaled than step 5, atleast according to me. I have images of All the steppes till step 16. So it's easy for me to revert to any step anytime. And I did so. Back & Forth with step 5 & Unaltered cMp, I find the difference is not subtle, but a lot. If I am to listen to step 5 & revert back to the Original cMp in less than an hour, then I too may get puzzled. Because initially, the Original cMp sounds dry & hard, as our ears will be used to the Open & Liquid sound of Step 5. But when u remain with the Original & listen to it for atleast two days, anybody can sense what has been compromised & to what degree.
As I have posted, the Original cMp too needs tweaking. But slightly & carefully, so as to not let go of it's main qualities. This tweaking may be in terms of settings, file by file deletions, hardware optimisations like capacitor choices (I use Elna Silmic 2 which had a warmer sound than the Oscons), or a newer version of cPlay. I don't intend to do deletions in Full Steps which will take ages to ascertain what contributed to what. Though the file by file deletion is as labour-intensive as the former, it can make me pin down the effect of a single file vs the Cumulative effect of many files in a particular step.
By the way, my cPlay settings as of last evening are as under:-
Sampling rate: 44.1
Buffer : Small
VHQ with alias at 96.0
Intermediate 20
AWE engaged...
When playing any track, & adjusting each parameter shows a very profound effect in it's tonal variation. For eg. When I change the Buffer to Medium along with Intermediate Minimum, the Bass definition changes. So once we, or should I say "I" arrive at the best setting that gives the cleanest Blend I'm looking for, I can then move to the next line of tweaking which may be any of the ones mentioned above.
I do not want to follow the route of starting from step 5 & going backwards. Instead, I move with the Original cMp & go forward incrementally, because I feel it's more closer to the Sound I'm looking for...
Junaid
Edits: 10/18/11
You realize don't you that VHQ with alias at 96.0 Intermediate 20 and all that doesn't make any difference when you use 44Khz sr and listen to 44khz sr files. They only apply when upsampling.
It has never made sense to me, but these settings have quite an effect in my system, even though I rip basic CD's to 44.1, and play at 44.1. I use VHQ into a NOS DAC. If I have a harsh szz at instead of a sssss in female singers, I adjust down to linear and the szzzz turns to ssss. I also cannot check the alias box without losing dynamics. All this and the software is not suppposed to be engaged. go figure
Well to me it does most certainly. May be because all my music is 24/96 either from HD-Tracks or ripped via LP in 24/192. None of the Albums in my cPlay library are in the Native CD bitrate...
Junaid
ok fair enough but why would you listen to 24/96 or 24/192 files downsampled to 44khz sr?
I knew that question would come up :)
As simple as it is... My Wadia Dac is not an Upsampler. It accepts only 44.1 my friend...
Junaid
ok good answer. :)
Now don't ask me why am I keeping 24/192 files having a 44.1 Dac :)
Junaid
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: