|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
122.174.153.237
In Reply to: RE: my 2 cents posted by riboge on October 18, 2011 at 05:56:10
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: 10/18/11Follow Ups:
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: