Confused

This falls into a number of categories. Firstly, it deserves a NSFW warning, so be careful out there. Secondly, it has curious audiophile credentials. Apparently the performance was recorded "live", analogue, straight to tape. (Although it then gets released digitally on multiple streaming platforms and on YouTube, make of this what you will) Thirdly, it is a tune. A very lively, political, post punk kind of tune. Lastly, it has nothing to do with Radiohead.

Currently, I am using convolution filters created using Focus Fidelity Filter designer. Although for clarity, at the time I performed the "9 inches from the wall" experiment, as mentioned in an earlier post, I was not using any kind of EQ or room correction.

For clarity, per the KEF manual, 9” / 275mm is the minimum distance, not a recommended distance.

I recall experimenting with the positioning of my Blades. (Original Blade) Measuring with REW it was clear that I had a modest "null" at about 120Hz. Moving the speakers nearer to the front wall seemed to have little influence on the overall frequency response, but it did fill this null a little. So I thought to myself, OK - as an experiment, why not try going right back to the 225mm minimum specified by KEF? Yes, it did help with the null, according to the measurements at least, but some things started to sound a little odd, this I could not live with. It was not long before the speakers were moved much further into the room. So 225mm / 9" did not work for me in my room, what was interesting though is that I could move the Blades only a little further into the room, the "odd sound" disappeared and things started to sound pretty decent again. Obviously this is all very room dependant, but I think for some you could get reasonable results much closer to the front wall than you might expect.

It is confirmed that the Varese will be demonstrated at the Ascot show next weekend. https://www.hifinews.com/images/2024_Hi-Fi_Show_Preview_4.pdf No mention of of any A/B comparisons with the Vivaldi, so hopefully my remote (and my teeth) will survive the month, but we shall see.....

For anyone here with an hour to spare and some interest in the correlation between measurements and sound, these is actually some reasonably objective, and interesting, information here. The most objective information relates to speaker design, but other topics covered. Arguably off-topic, as one or two points indicate as to why can trust measurements, some of them at least.

As a thought on the cost of audio kit. Between about 2013 and 2018, I spent quite a lot of cash on audio kit. In recent years, I have spent very little. A case of being very happy with the what I have. I bought a 2 year old car in 2010 which cost similar money to the audio kit I bought in 2013. I got lots of use out of the car, taking it to well over 100K miles, but it died with a very serious engine fault. Basically more money to repair than the car was worth. The audio kit, in particular the KEF Blades, sound as good today as the day I bought them. I suspect (and hope!) this will continue for a few more years to come. (I have no plans to replace them any time soon) The Blades cost a lot less than the subject car. So those Blades were expensive, but seeing that they are pretty much as good today as they were when new, I see tremendous value there, in the overall scheme of things.

As an effort to nudge this thread back on topic. This is a theory, and pure speculation on my part, but I am guessing that in the context of what has been posted in the last two or three pages of this thread, the difference between the sound quality of the Vivaldi and the Varese will be relatively small. One thing that I am certain of, is that the difference in the sound quality of all the available recordings in the world will be somewhat greater.

I own and love my Mutec MC3+USB, but I do use mine with the Mutec REF10 external clock. It strikes me that the MC3+USB is quite an old design now. (I bought mine in 2016, and I think it was originally released in 2014) It would not surprise me if a replacement came to the market some time in the next year or so, it seems to me that it is due an update. I think it is fair to say that newer products from rival manufacturers are now available, and some of these appear to have a higher performance, at least from a pure measurement perspective. There is some interesting reading and measurements regarding re-clockers / DCCs on the GoldenSound website.: https://goldensound.audio/?s=ddc

OK - This will work. You could use the Auralic to feed the Mutec MC3+USB either via USB or AES/EBU, both will work. (as to which of these two options provides the best sound is debatable, you would need to experiment) The Mutec then feeds the Metrum via AES/EBU. As a final thought, Auralic make some pretty decent kit, so it is debatable if adding a Mutec MC3+USB in the chain will provide an audible benefit. It might, but it might not. Can you borrow one to try?

I am not sure if your question is completely clear? To clarify, the Mutec MC3+USB is intended to be fed a (music) signal from a computer, streamer, network end point, or similar. This can be via USB, S/PDIF (Coax or AES/EBU) or Toslink. The Metrum Onyx is a DAC with AES/EBU input. This is idea for use with a Mutec MC3+USB, as the best output from the Mutec is AES/EBU. So, connecting the Mutec's AES/EBU output to your Metrum's AES/EBU input is the ideal use case. This begs a question, what are you planning to use to feed the Mutec?

Why? I mean, the forum most certainly does two of us?