Vote

For me 'A' also has better clarity and the vocal sounds more natural.

A sounded bloated and soft on the bottom end. B sounded more natural and controlled.

I voted 'B' as I thought it sounded a bit more natural, but frankly neither of the files was really listenable.

I would love to compare the files but neither my Windows 7 PC nor my Chromebook will play them.

:(

Listening over my computer sound rig(AKG-K701s, Audioengine D1 DAC, Fiio Kilimanjaro Amp) A had a brighter and more dynamic presentation, while B seemed a bit easier in the upper mids/lower treble, and somewhat more solid and defined. Also, the lateral location of the voices are very slighly shifted to the right. The sound I would prefer would have the best of both, but B edges out A for me.

At first B sounded better, then on the second listening I thought A might be the best, but ultimately I voted for too close to call. However, Pluto's U-shaped cover looks upside down and therefore probably inverts polarity compared to Mani.

Well, for me it was hard to tell which was better. File A sounded warmer and yet pleasant, clear and not muddy while file B had more dynamic to it, but sounded a little more harsh. Although I have to account for the fact that this kind of music selection is not what I am used to, so it threw me as to exactly what I was listening for.
So I really have no vote.

There's something that I particularly don't like about "B": It sounds overall slightly panned toward the right channel. "B" has slightly more midrange presence and that would be a plus for me since I don't like the "smiley" EQ curve. In general terms, I'm a fan of a "flat" and "even" frequency response along the spectrum. But mids in "A" don't sound scooped to me. I like its overall sound quality in spite of the comparatively subdued mids. "B" seems to have slightly wider stereo separation, but that slight panning toward the right channel definitely bugs me. I vote "A".

Obviously more plays into it due to the fact I'm just streaming this from my iMac, but I found B great, but if I had to choose it would be A. It seemed more open and B had a bit too much top end for me.

If I were buying, I would buy a Mani, mostly because I've owned several Schiit components and have always been satisfied.

Audacity and VLC both play these files, as do iTunes.

I voted B. The vocalists were far easier to tell apart in this dub - and there was more space and air around all the various elements in the recording. A sounded like a mechanical texture was applied to everything.

I voted A mostly for the way it resolved the 10 seconds between the 0:50 and 1:00 points.

Back and forth three times. "A" had a richness that made it more enjoyable. "B" in comparison was noticeably flat, dry and lifeless. This on a MacBook Pro with Sony MDR V6 headphones.

I wasn't pleased with either, but I'm not sure whether what I don't like about B is more the cartridge or the preamp itself. If this is the only evidence I have, then I wouldn't choose either preamp. For the record, was the Mani set to 'standard MM' mode or 'Decca mode'?

'A' has more high frequency dynamic detail but at the expense of being, as others have said, shrill or gritty. In comparison, B is then "murky'.
I would have preferred to have the raw files (i.e. before Michael normalized them) and worry about level matching myself.

...I capture & load both files into Audition & compare them in Spectral Analysis view?

Just asking, Mike...

DL

B had tighter bass and wider sound stage (i.e. better separation between left and right).

A sounded clearer to me, especially vocals. B sounded smoother - but did seem pushed to the right side.. Or was A pushed left? (hmm)

Overall .. B more listenable.

I would strongly suggest that any audiophile buy this program that is generally on sale for under $70 for handling any files from 24/192 and down. You can save them as wav files if you wish and will allow you to manipulate them as you wish. It is a bargain as an audio editor.
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/audiostudio

Check out all that it can do for you. There CD Architect CD burning program is the best I have used.

But I preferred B, I think. Maybe less shrill.

I used SF for years to remaster & restore vintage recordings. I agree that it's pretty useful, and a fraction of the price of, say ProTools. But these days, I've migrated to an old copy of Adobe Audition 3.0, which Adobe actually posted online for free download (no copy protection). Newer versions incorporated a completely rejiggered audio engine that created backaward-compatibility problems. Audition 3.0 does everything that SF does, but quite a bit more. Particularly useful for an audiophile are its spectral-analysis functions. In my case, I was able to do some wonderful restorations, converting crappy old audience recordings such that their sonics were superior to those of commercially released live albums of the same performers.

FWIW.

I just thought the part of the song where the chorus hit was the most revealing. I'm playing in my studio/office on JBL LSR305 studio monitors. On B, I don't hear the natural melding of guitar, bass, and vocals that I get with A when the chorus finally hits. I usually pay a lot of attention to acoustic guitar sounds and both do pretty well there. B seems a bit more forward and harsher to me compared to A. Could just be my system in here. My computer runs into an Allen&Heath mixing board and then into the powered monitors.

To me, A sounds more like the sound I associate with vinyl than B.

B passes the toe-tap test for me. When I want to get up and boogie, things are working right. A sounded like what you'd expect a cheap phono stage to sound like - compressed dynamics, fuzzy, uninvolving. I can't believe that B is a cheap phono stage since I just got finished telling my Little Rock audio buddies that I never heard a decent phono amp for under $500!!

Michael,

Is that the stock stylus on the Shure or the Jico?

At work so using this: FiiO E10K > Audio Technica ATH-M40x

B sounds better to me.

A seems to decay/pan the guitar in the first bar much harsher than B. Bass sounds more boomy in A. Also A seems to pull the grit out of the fuzzy guitar around 48 seconds in.

I'm curious which preamp is B as I am in the market for a new preamp and it looks like I'm buying B.

I haven't read every message in this thread, so I apologize in advance if I'm duplicating already posted information.

i) When evaluating computer-based audio systems, I found it difficult to use dynamic "real-world" source material to accurately balance volume levels. It can be done, but requires a lot of diligence. An easier & more accurate way is to use pink noise (or even white noise). Doing so also eliminates the issue of whether you should calibrate peak amplitudes or average power. The thing to remember is that signal amplitude is not the same as perceived volume. Fletcher-Munson & all that...

ii) With the exception of Apple products (see below), an ability to play specific file formats is generally not a function of which player, much less which operating system, you use. Programs like Windows Media Player are mostly just user interfaces that call lower-level decoding modules. What matters is which codecs are installed on your system. If you want to play H.261 video, for example, you need to have installed an H.261 codec, regardless of which player you use. Most versions of Windows include only a basic selection of codecs, but it takes only a minute to find other codec packs that, once installed, allow WMP to play additional types of files. VLC Player is great because it includes a huge selection of codecs by default.

Having said all that, Quicktime, like many Apple products is hard-limited to functionality that Apple believes is all you should need. Thus, QT, e.g., will likely never be able to play proprietary Microsoft file formats, like WMA & WMV. That shouldn't be a limitation here, of course, but it's something to keep in mind when trying to push the envelope.

Hope this is helpful.

DJL

I thought A was a little brighter, but B had better balance in the midrange.