QUICKIES: Black aluminum alloy footers. Equipment racks. Center channel in music. Underwhelming Spotify Lossless. More Paul McGowan/PS Audio USB cable & jitter foolishness.

Hey guys and gals, not much time this week to test stuff but to start I thought I'd show some pictures of the black version of the inexpensive aluminum footers that were discussed last week.

I got these black-colored ones for my center channel, the Paradigm Signature C3 v.3 which is a 3-way, 4 speaker design that sits on my wood/glass component rack. (You can see other pictures of that component stand in my room article, or earlier when setting up the room.)

I picked the black ones since the center channel is sitting straight in front of me when watching movies, keeping it black will not add any color contrast to potentially distract from the show.

Do loudspeaker footers make a difference? Inexpensive aluminum alloy "isolation" footers.

As you can see through my posts, I'm obviously not averse to trying out "cheap audio guy/gal" products. 😏 I trust that this is completely consistent with my perspective on audio hardware for the most part being mature technologies, refined over decades already. For the high-fidelity audio reproduction pursuit, we can achieve excellent quality at very reasonable prices. Many (not all of course) of the "high-end" stuff that go for very high prices are clearly targeting a luxury crowd without necessarily achieving better fidelity. And some products, like what we'll be talking about in this post, I believe only demand "low-tech" solutions anyway.

China is the de facto consumer manufacturing powerhouse of the world in the 21st Century and we'll often find interesting and inexpensive products by mail order from places like AliExpress or Temu. Possibly worth trying some of this stuff if tariffs or shipping charges aren't too high for your country (eg. the de minimis suspension in the USA could take a big tax bite out of easy access to inexpensive goods). Technologically mature products made of standard materials at reasonable quality do not need huge price tags. For example, in early 2024, I grabbed this Nordost-like cable which worked out quite well and I believe performs equivalently in the ways that matter.

Similarly, for this post, let's look at this set of aluminum "isolation" footers which we can easily source from places like Amazon, AliExpress, and Temu:

Price: only about US$25 for a set of four as shown above - available in matte silver, black and gold. I bought two sets of the silver color for my pair of Paradigm Reference Signature S8 v.3 speakers for less than $50 total from Temu among other trinkets in that shipment. 😆

Linn's SPACE Optimisation DSP feature for their DS/DSM digital audio streamers. Does it even work?

Linn Klimax DS/2 streamer getting tested.

A couple months back while evaluating the Linn Klimax DS/DSM streamers, I mentioned that the products have the capability to implement what Linn calls "SPACE Optimisation" (Speaker Placement And Custom Environment, we'll call it SO for short); available since 2015. Because the products are network-connected, they're always online and through the Linn Account webpage, you can check the settings for your streamer and activate the SO function.

I remember being intrigued by this function and the claims of significant room-correction capability. For this post, let's take some time to explore what Linn SO features. To start, here is what their literature says about the intent of the system:

Space Optimisation is a toolset available to all Linn DS/DSM system owners which uses highly sophisticated acoustic modelling to build up a complete picture of how your speakers, their placement, and the unique characteristics of your room interact to affect the sound you hear. Space Optimisation takes account of the characteristics of your speakers, such as the position of each drive unit and the response of bass reflex ports, and of the characteristics of your room, such as room dimensions, construction materials, and features like doors and windows, to accurately model these interactions. It then precisely identifies frequencies that are artificially distorted by your environment, and reduces their energy and decay time, to reveal the music that would otherwise be hidden. It also applies a delay to each speaker to ensure the content from each speaker reaches your ears at the same time.

SUMMER MUSINGS: What could possibly be wrong with the High-End Audiophile Industry?! 🤔 (The supplier side of audiophoolery.)

Alas all good things end including summer, so this will be the last instalment to my "Summer Musings" series for the year. For completeness, since we talked about the "audiophool" consumer hobbyist last time, let's make sure to address the other side of the coin when it comes to audiophile silliness - the supplier - manufacturers, and the media that sell us stuff.

As a pre-emptive comment against sounding like a grumpy old man who doesn't want audiophiles to have fun, let me just say that this commentary is not against "having fun". If fun means enjoying your music, trying out different hardware, exploring the various sounds you can achieve at all kinds of price points, I'm totally on board with that!

However, freedom to do all kinds of things obviously doesn't imply that we shut down our brains and accept that "anything goes!". Many things can be a lot of fun at the time but not good for us, the hangover could be nasty, and regrets more common than we might want to admit. So if there's foolishness when it comes to the Industry itself, let's make sure to think about that and come to terms with it for ourselves.

In the recent post about audiophoolery, Solderdude and Mikhail wrote the following comments:

Solderdude 18 August 2025 at 23:13

I have often wondered how many snake-oil sellers actually believe in what they are selling and are equally 'misguided' by their hearing (they are human after all). Examples could be Paul McClown and Danny.

Some, for sure, are just unscrupulous money grabbers (think Machina Dynamica and absurdly priced cable sellers).

And, oh boy, most audiophools as well as audiophiles usually have plenty of money to spend on their hobby and being human and lacking actual knowledge are very easy to 'hear' things that aren't there just as they are equally fooled by optical illusions.

Some might simply have fallen for the same 'perception effects' and fully believe in what they are selling. Are these sellers also unscrupulous ?

Perhaps only the ones that sell their wares at way too high margins for what it costs to manufacture ?

Mikhail 19 August 2025 at 07:18

Should we start calling this sector of the audio industry "alternative engineering"? If there was Federal Audio Administration they would require putting labels like "Claims not verified by double blind testing" and "This product is not intended to actually improve the sound of your audio system" on their products.

Interesting points. Let's talk about this.

SUMMER MUSINGS: Who/What is an "Audiophool"? (And old quad album mixes.)

Hey guys and gals. This week, I thought it'd be fun to just talk about something that was brought up over at the Audiophile Style forums in this thread "Who or What Is An Audiophool?". Seeing that there were a number of comments already, I figured why not jump in over the past week and engage?

Doing this brought back memories of the early 2010's when I would spend more time on the forums to chat with fellow audiophiles. As you can imagine, over time with work, family life, having fewer questions to ask as I progressed through the hobby, and turning to writing articles here, my time on the forums have significantly been reduced. I'll still pop in once awhile but not like in the early 2010's to read and participate.

So this past week, as you can see from Page 6 of the thread onwards, it was fun to get back into the weeds a bit and liberally engage. Over many pages, we got into quite a few topics including ideas around blind testing, importance (or not depending on whose opinion) of objective measurements, anecdotes, human behaviors, the role reviewers play in the Industry, examples of bizarre pseudo-science, why we enjoy audio as a hobby, JG Holt's interview from 2007, personal values, anti-vaxxers, agreeing to disagree, ASR, website traffic numbers, quotes from Richard Feynman, what is knowledge, etc.

A look at the music library: How much DAC intersample overhead is enough? True Peak analysis of genres in an eclectic digital collection.

In a recent article about Linn DS streamers, I touched again on intersample peaks ("True Peaks") as I measured the DAC hardware. In the comments section, there was further talk about this topic so this got me thinking over the last few weeks to spend some more time on this but from a different angle.

For those who are not aware of what "intersample peaks" are, recall that DACs implement filters to ensure accurate reconstruction of the waveforms (unlike the jagged-looking NOS DACs which some audiophiles still subjectively appear to prefer). Typically this is done through oversampling whereby 44.1kHz (ie. CD samplerate) might be increased by something like 8x (352.8kHz) while applying a low-pass filter that cuts off content beyond the 22.05kHz Nyquist frequency. The DAC will interpolate to create those extra upsampled datapoints. In this DSP process, some of the reconstructed "intersample" points might have >0dBFS values. If these "True Peak" values are too high beyond the limits of the digital filter or output level of our DACs, the samples will "clip", resulting in extra distortion in the playback.

For this post, instead of considering from a hardware measurement viewpoint what kind of overhead a DAC can handle, let's consider from the music content side by using a relatively large music library - my library of thousands of albums - and consider just how much overhead peak we might find and "need" based on the commonly-owned music genres in an audiophile's collection.

Another Digital Volume Control Article 🙂 (Guest post by Bennet Ng)

Back in 2019 I wrote the article "Why We Should Use Software Volume Control / Management" which not only addressed about intersample overs, but also floating point induced clipping which cannot be solved by having intersample headroom in the DAC. (For a quick listening test, try the files in this thread on ASR). However it seems that some people are still not happy with the proposed solutions (e.g. ReplayGain) and resort to some other methods. For example in some of the recent blog comments someone mentioned about BitShiftGain.

Here is a snippet from the BitShiftGain website:

Digital audio is like some crystalline structure: it’s fragile, brittle, and suffers tiny fractures at the tiniest alterations. There’s almost nothing you can do in digital audio that’s not going to cause some damage. But as long as you stick to 6 dB steps and rigidly control the implementation (BitShiftGain doesn’t even store the audio in a temporary variable!), you can chip away at that least significant bit, and the whole minutes-or-hours-long crystalline structure of digital bits can remain perfectly intact above it.

Dolby Atmos Visualization: Elton John's "Rocket Man (I Think It's Going To Be A Long, Long Time)". [And Deadmau5 & The Neptunes' "Pomegranate".]

Still image from the official "Rocket Man" video.

For those who have attended multichannel demos over the years, you've probably come across Elton John's "Rocket Man" as a good track to listen to especially if it's the first time experiencing Atmos. 

[Other multichannel demo tracks you'll run into may include Pink Floyd material from Dark Side, Miles Davis' Kind Of Blue, Roger Waters' Amused To Death, Beatles Abbey Road, even Madonna's Immaculate Collection all are pretty cool.]

You might be surprised to learn that this track was remixed by Greg Penny in 2013. Recall that Atmos was first shown in theaters in 2012 with the Disney-Pixar movie Brave. So even though we typically associate multichannel audio and Atmos with movies, realize that music mixing in this format should not be seen as an after-thought that came many years later! Of course, we've had many multichannel music releases since the early 2000's on SACD and DVD-A but without the height dimension, potentially with audio objects, available now in Atmos, DTS-X, Sony 360 RealityAudio (MPEG-H 3D Audio) and Auro-3D content.

SUMMER MUSINGS: Multichannel and the audiophile - recent articles and thoughts, 2025 update.

Preamble: In this article, I'll clearly be supportive of multichannel/Atmos music playback for audiophiles. This in no way should be seen as disparaging to those who feel that 2-channel stereo is completely adequate if not optimal for their listening! Simplicity, space considerations, availability of content, budgetary factors, perceived artistic intent, subjective preferences always play into the personal choices we make.

After 25 years of collecting multichannel content since the early days of DVD(-A) and SACD, currently about 15% of the albums on my music server are 3.0+ multichannel. With hopes that this continues to grow, of course!

Every once awhile I'll look over some of the posts I've made over the years to see if there's anything substantial I might revise or provide an addendum for. Most of the time, it's just for historical review to consider my thoughts back then, but sometimes, I'm encouraged to see how nicely things have changed over the ensuing years. Such has been the case for multichannel audio, so I thought I'd make this post as a review and pointer to the topic of multichannel music as an audiophile.

The first time I wrote a post titled "multichannel and the audiophile" was back in 2019, also during the summer - "SUMMER MUSINGS: Multichannel and the audiophile. MCh streaming with a TV Box. And Thoughts on the Future..."

As you know, things have changed since then with the advent of "Spatial" streaming thanks initially to Apple Music's push into the territory, the "chicken or egg" concern I discussed around not having enough multichannel music content has been addressed very nicely. As expected in that 2019 post, streaming came in the form of lossy EAC3 compressed audio. While we didn't quite get the 1+Mbps 7.1 data rate I was thinking about, EAC3-JOC Atmos with 5.1 bed channels at 768kbps is still high bitrate for audio and an excellent-sounding standard that's hard to fault. In my own testing, this bitrate has generally been "perceptually transparent" compared to an equivalent lossless TrueHD-Atmos encode using Dolby's reference Media Encoder (recent version 3.7). I'm sure there are some edge-case killer samples where TrueHD would audibly beat EAC3 (similar to killer samples like jangling keys with higher frequency details or detailed hand claps used in lossy compression testing), but I believe differences would be hard to spot even in volume-controlled blind listening side-by-side with actual music!

Of course, if you have access to the lossless TrueHD-Atmos Blu-ray or download, go grab that over the EAC3 version as a more accurate representation of the intended Atmos presentation potentially with higher number of bed channels like 7.1. I just don't think we need to get neurotic over the high bitrate lossy vs. lossless divide.

Linn DS streamers: Majik DS(/1), Klimax DS/2 and Klimax DSM/2 measurements. (Examples of "high end" audio.)

The Linn Klimax DS/2 here at home for auditioning back in 2024.

Readers might recall about a year ago, we ran a blind listening test using hi-res captures of the analog output from different DACs to see if there was a clearly audible difference between a very cheap DAC (the Apple USB-C headphone dongle) versus much more expensive "audiophile high-end" streamer DACs which were the Linn Majik DS(/1) and Klimax DSM/2 Katalyst. If you don't know the results of that online study, here they are, and the subjective comments around what was heard.

While I showed 0dBFS 1kHz THD+N results for the Majik DS and Klimax DSM/2 back then, there was quite a bit more data collected as part of the preparation for that Internet Blind Listening Test that I did not publish. Even though my friend linnrd (who has contributed to these pages), as suggested by his screen name, happened to be quite the Linn fan, I appreciate that he is not blinded to the complexities of human preferences. He's well aware that both subjective impressions and objective performance play their part and he was totally open to me running measurements on his Linn digital gear to examine for technical accuracy.

For this post, let's dive deeper into the technical performance of some Linn streaming DAC gear. Here are the devices I'll be showing results of...

SUMMER MUSINGS: Paired speaker testing, more crossover thoughts, running tests ourselves and for ALL speaker reviews!

Paradigm Signature S8 v.3 speakers with grilles off. miniDSP UMIK-1 microphone for some simple testing with Room EQ Wizard (REW).

Well it's summertime which means (hopefully) a bit more opportunity to enjoy the nice weather around here in Vancouver with the family, more time to listen to music, maybe a little trip out of town on weekends.

As for my audiophile interests, it also gives me time to think about the broad topics and maybe run a little bit of testing here and there. Often these summer articles flesh out ideas and results covered over the last few months I may have left aside or on the "cutting floor" when writing.

This post will be along those lines in that these results were actually captured back in the January-February 2025 timeframe when I was doing the ferrofluid replacement for my tweeters, and then subsequent discussions about "audiophile" crossover parts and addressing beliefs of people like GR-Research/Danny Richie.

Since I grabbed these measurements and pictures when I was considering the importance (or not) of crossover part affecting sound quality, I thought I'd post them with some further summertime-meandering and related discussions.

1kHz Test Tone: Does increasing the number of PCM values really matter? And Stereophile's "still listening" to the community (so they say).

Hey there audiophiles, lots happening in life to keep me busy these days as we enter summer 2025, so let's do another little follow-up of a topic based on reader comments.

In the previous post, there was a comment by Mister MB about the 1kHz test tone and the idea that it would be good to use tones that employ more PCM values as quoted from Ken Pohlmann's book Principles of Digital Audio (currently 6th Edition, 2011, from page 81, emphasis mine):

"Digitally generated test tones are often used to measure D/A converters; it is important to choose test frequencies that are not correlated with the sampling frequency. Otherwise, a small sequence of codes might be reproduced over and over, without fully exercising the converter. Depending on the converter’s linearity at those particular codes, the output distortion might measure better, or worse, than typical performance. For example, when replaying a 1-second, 1-kHz, 0-dBFS sine wave sampled at 44.1 kHz, only 441 different codes would be used over the 44,100 points. A 0-dBFS sine wave at 997 Hz would use 20,542 codes, giving a much better representation of converter performance. Standard test tones have been selected to avoid this anomaly. For example, some standard test frequencies are: 17, 31, 61, 127, 251, 499, 997, 1999, 4001, 7993, 10,007, 12,503, 16,001, 17,989, and 19,997 Hz."

Certainly a good point to think about. However, if we look at actual hi-res DACs these days, and the way we're running 1kHz tests to show routinely >100dB SINAD, would we actually see significantly different results depending on how we create these test tones, specifically whether more or less PCM codes are being used in the signal sent to the DAC?

Well, while I still have the Topping DX9 on my testbench, let's have a look at the analog output from the device with a few ~1kHz test tone variants.

Follow-up: Topping DX9 DAC tests. And reduction in the ability to comment on the Stereophile website.

Topping DX9 DAC sitting on Linn Klimax DS/2 which we'll talk about another time.

Hey guys and gals, thanks for the comments and feedback over the years on this blog. It really helps to refine the testing and of course explore broader ideas about audiophilia and what it is we're after in this hobby. I think it's important that we're free to discuss and critique not just the hardware, but also the ideas (including the philosophy and psychology) that "we" as individuals believe in. There's so much unsubstantiated audiophile cultural beliefs out there based on myths such that everything should be up for examination regardless of who says what. It's not unusual to find that audiophile review "high priests" are wrong, and some "heroes" of the audiophile world are nothing more than false prophets.

It's also good to get feedback suggestions on the published measurements, for example in the recent series on the Topping DX9 flagship DAC (based on rare AKM AK4499EQ chip), Nick in the Part III comments suggested that I consider this:

"Hi Archi,

Prior to version 5.40.78 beta rew had a gross error in IMD vs Level plotting, the results were underestimated by about 12 dB. It looks like the version you used has this error.

IMHO there are not enough performance measurements at high frequencies for a complete picture. If still available, it would be very interesting to see THD (without noise) vs frequency performance, accurate THD measurement at 10kHz and wideband fft (without weighting) with a weak signal such as the signal for the DR test.

Thanks!"

Excellent feedback and suggestions Nick, let's focus on checking this out in this post!

Roon in 2025, 10 years on: Sound quality, thoughts, and suggestions. And an increasingly AI-generated Internet.

Notice it has been "10 Years" for Roon as per the top left.
Roon 1.0 was released May 2015.

Obviously, it's impossible to get on all the discussion forum about the myriad subtopics in this audiophile hobby. However, I do get newsletters in my inbox and I see frequently asked questions that inspire many of the topics addressed here.

If we've come across each other on the audio forums (places like Steve Hoffman's site, or Audiophile Style), you'll notice that I often will respond with links to articles on this blog. I've posted more than 600 long-form articles already, the vast majority digging pretty deep into the audio topic. One of my intentions over the years is for this to be a repository of information, articles I can use as "landmarks" when I engage in discussions with fellow audiophiles; how I understand the hobby including big-picture philosophy, psychology, the debates. Contained within these pages are the thoughts, character, understandings of "Archimago the anonymous audiophile from the early 21st Century" with contributions from guest posters. Familiarity with these articles I think will provide a good starting point for "rational audiophiles", without necessarily going too deeply into technical details.

Apart from discussing individual products, broadly, I think we've covered many of the usual issues raised in audio circles already, much of it analyzed with data to seek out the facts, rather than mere opinions. Feel free on the main page of this blog to use the "Search This Blog" widget as I suspect you'll find articles addressing many questions.

So, coming back to a frequently asked question, for this post, let's think about Roon software in 2025 (currently version 2.51 build 1534). In a recent Roon forum newsletter, I saw this question posed by Eric_Pell:

"I am wondering for years why the most expensive app in the world of hifi and high end only has a sound quality which is only ok. If you compare Roon with JPLAY i think JPLAY has only a few people to develope (sic) software and improve sound quality. But here the difference. What is Roon doing to improve sound quality and do they compare with JPLAY or not?"

As It Is. - Guest post by T.S. Gnu.

"His Master's Voice" - Francis Barraud, 1898
(2025 color remastered.)
Original Nipper with Edison cylinder phonograph.

The Journey

We live at a time in history that many consider to be unique. However, this can be said by anyone at any point in history, and not for the multitude of reasons they believe it to be so, but rather due to the unassailable fact that it just happens to be to the only period in time that they happen to be alive. That is... just the way things are. While it may be entertaining for people to write (or read) about something "As We See It" or even "As We Hear It" along with all the pitfalls that come with those points of view, reality only cares about, and I'm anthropomorphizing here, what is — reality doesn't care about how we see it. This phrasing is also testament to how we are ill-equipped (post-modernists more so than others 🙄) to deal with the fact that the Universe is — it simply exists. The Universe is. It is cold (ca. 2.7K). It is indomitable. And it is uncaring of what we see, what we want… even what we are. 

With that foremost in mind, this missive aims to outline what is as far as our little hobby goes, along with a view of the sauntering journey (with a little ambling off the path) to what we discovered when we arrived here, here being the present time. What is presented here is factual information about past events that is verifiable, and with the odd scientific principles that have been verified by mathematical proofs; in addition there will be the odd opinion, which will be clarified to be as such. Readers are free to disagree with the latter and I encourage active engagement on the same.