mypasswordis wrote:
Hm, interesting findings there, beeman. I'm sure the new cable with the re-ripped wav files sounds the best, but could you try your old 192kbps files with the new cable and then the new wav files with the old cable, and let us know which you think sounds better?
With all due respect, thassss a lotta work.
FWIW, I have at least made comparison between old cables and new as well as new cables vs old compressed rips and uncompressed WAV rips.
Overall impression (Currently listening to Enya: "Orinoco Flow."), sound stage even wider and much more depth to the recording. Much better (more pleasant) echo and sound decay.
I'm now in the process of reripping the whole library. Fortunately, there are only about some twenty-five albums that I've ripped.
The Monkey wrote:
When you were previously listening to your ripped files, did you notice that they sounded different from your CDs?
I sure didn't. And why? I never listened to the CD's. First, I ripped them into the computer and then listened to them. So I didn't have a standard in which to compared ripped vs unripped to.
I make a very poor audiophile.
ROBSCIX wrote:
Just ignore the trolls...
Good idea.
I would just stick with FLAC over WAV but your system, your ears.
Okay, what's FLAC? More to learn; will Google FLAC after work. How's FLAC better than WAV?
If you want a more analog type sound perhaps a new amplifier might help?
My thesis was, no extra boxes on the computer table. Yes, a limiter but I personally hate, don't want the clutter as the desk is small and space is a premium. And yes, a tricked out
WA2 in black (audiophile porn) is looking mighty good right now.