XXHighEnd

You know, I haven't been able to play 0.9u-9 or 0.9u-10, but I've been reading how people have found it harsh and preferred the smoother 0.9u-8. I thought 0.9u-11 was supposed to have the same "harshness" or "crazy dynamics", but I have found that 0.9u-11 sounds closer to 0.9u-8 than 0.9u-7. I think 0.9u-7 is really the one with the "crazy dynamics" and detail. I'm not saying that is the one that I think is best. Of course, I love bits and pieces of each of them, and would love to be able to combine the best attributes of all of them. (I don't think any of them is perfect, yet)

I haven't really heard anyone talk about 0.9u-7. What do you think?

FWIW, in my initial brief listening, my first reaction is that I do like 0.9u-11 better than 0.9u-8. But even 0.9u-7 makes 0.9u-11 sound "too smooth".

:rofl:

But how can you tell when you are used to Double, which now doesn't work for you ? And don't compare with Mem checked, because that is way different !

Sorry, please don't take that as an insult. You know I value all your hard work that you've put into this.

I just meant that each of these versions sound so different, that sometimes the new version isn't "entirely" better than the previous. Perhaps I prefer the dynamics from one and the soundstage from another.  :blush1:

Yes, you are correct, my comparisons tonight are based on setting 'DAC is 16/44.1' (no Double) for all three versions.

No no no, but I already expected that you'd thought I took it like that (didn't know how to make it clear). The contrary, I was really laughing outloud. I mean, if "we" are in the stage of being able to determine that it's not perfect yet, *THEN* we're talking !
And I mean that.

Saying something is wrong (and preferably why) obviously is more useful than saying it's so good.

Btw, might it help, I don't think Upsampling is good. It was at some stage (to the sense of "better"), but not anymore. Might be personal (but I don't think so).

I think I disagree a little bit with bits and parts with both of you - no offence thou.

Peter - first I tested putting myself in the fridge. It did not work well at all. Afterwards I tested a couple different versions. You say u11 is to dynamic, but IMHO it is not (now, I have only trid playing throu pre-amp (BAT VK5 Pi) and not direct from DAC which is absolutely preferable ("the less equipment involved, the better" theory)). But I will agree (maby) with your upsampling taste. I have tried upsampling throu dCs Purcell, or direct to Elgar plus (16/44,1) and for most music this sounds far better, more realistic, and more dynamic 16/44,1.

I also disagree with edward regarding tastes of the different versions (but as with all stereo equipment, you could never know what personal preferences or total system configuration/matching anybody has, now can you?). In my setup u7 sounds not more dynamic, but leaner and more hash, while u11 has more body and calm (!).

Short testing makes me belive I prefer u11 over u10 also.

Do you mean to say "harsh"? (I don't know what you mean by "hash") If so, then I understand what you mean. I think what I hear with 0.9u-7 is accentuation of the higher frequencies.

But do you agree with this comment?


I don't necessarily mean "too smooth" in a negative way, but just in comparison to 0.9u-7.

Yes, sorry! A bit quick on the keyboard there :-O
Given a second thought, it might be I hear less mid to low bass with u7? Like a grand piano suddenly appear sounding small. I only did a quick test and it is sometimes hard to pinpoint from just a small selection actually what is going on.

Whether or not then u11 is smother, or just more "full-bodied" I am uncertain. In testing I often find first impression (when not too much pre-expectations is in your head) to be, if not accurate - then more or less correct. My first impression here was that u11 sounds better. (but then again, I did nothing to change Q-settings or any other).

"All I know, is I know not all"