[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC - Did it Compress Correctly?
The style of music can definately affect how well files compress. I've noticed on the highest compression of FLAC that pop/rock/normal(?) music compresses high 60s to mid 70% ratio. Things like classical music that have a lot of low-volume, silent or single instrument sections can compress much better than this and can even get to sub 50%. -- tass tass's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1231 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=18174 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC - Did it Compress Correctly?
tass Wrote: The style of music can definately affect how well files compress. I've noticed on the highest compression of FLAC that pop/rock/normal(?) music compresses high 60s to mid 70% ratio. Things like classical music that have a lot of low-volume, silent or single instrument sections can compress much better than this and can even get to sub 50%. Indeed. My collection is mainly dance (think: complex, lots of transients, no quiet bits) and I'm lucky to get 70%. I remember last time I brought this up I was told that either (a) I was hallucinating or (b) I didn't know how to run the compressor :) -- radish radish's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=77 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=18174 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB-3 and external DAC
Actually, while the Benchmark does trumpet (and performs) exceptional performance in terms of jitter management...my understanding is that it does not buffer the incoming stream. IE, it manages internal jitter. The new lavry unit (due out in a couple of weeks) buffers the incoming stream and effectively does away with jitter. The question, of course, is can we here this? Personally, I think the SB3 is just scary good and, at three hundred bucks, the most outrageous bargain in audio. -- highdudgeon highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=17948 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
RE: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] FLAC - Did it Compress Correctly?
Your compression ratio (45.5/64.74 = 70%) seems a but high - that said most of my FLAC compressed files have a compression ratio around 55% so you're not too far off. I use FLAC.exe to compress my files with the maximum compression setting. Malcolm PS I do know that the type of music can affect the ratio . . . But I still think you can do a bit better than 70% -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of flidget Sent: 14 November 2005 11:29 To: audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com Subject: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] FLAC - Did it Compress Correctly? I've just created my first .flac files to see what difference (if any) I can hear through my Slim v2 and Arcam AVR300, via a digital connection. What shocked me, was that after running Exact Audio Copy (EAC) which called WACK, configured to compress using FLAC, I found that a CD image of 64.74Mb only reduced to 45.50Mb. Given, the string of applications I used, I was wondering if this was correct or if I had missed a parameter or two between applications, and not asked for enough compression? -- flidget Best Regards, Neil McCarthy http://www.lottomatch.co.uk flidget's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=91 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=18174 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Sound Quality w/ Latest Firmware
I have filed this as bug 2557 http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2557 As things stand, the patch above (which I have tested and works well) is not considered important enough to make it into 6.2.1 So if you think different, you'd better vote for it and/or add you comments fast! -- Patrick Dixon www.at-tunes.co.uk Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=17269 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Sound Quality w/ Latest Firmware
6.2.1 is likely to go out today, sorry it didn't make it. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Sound Quality w/ Latest Firmware
Patrick Dixon Wrote: It's worth holding for this! Is the patch in any nightlies yet? if so, which version and which firmware version? I agree that if it affects audio quality, it's important. To be clear, I assume that at 100% volume the problem does nto exist...correct? -Joe -- skyrush skyrush's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=853 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=17269 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Sound Quality w/ Latest Firmware
Given that the Squeezebox has a 24 bit output, the rounding error should be down at around at 138-144dB, not 90-96dB and I have a hard time believing that the effect would be as obvious as you state at that level.This is simply incorrect - the rounding error is at the 16th bit of a 16-bit audio signal, therefore it is at -90/96dB. It's not just that I like it better - it's also that it's 'correct' to maintain the accuracy of the original digital data - in a similar way as it's 'correct' not to sample rate convert 44.1KHz audio to 48KHz (as some other manufacturers do). Even if you don't understand it and won't take my word for it, the difference between the 'rounded' volume multipliers and the unrounded volume multipliers is so slight that it cannot possibly have a negative effect! -- Patrick Dixon www.at-tunes.co.uk Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=17269 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sound Card
Will it make a difference what sound card I have in my system as far as ripping and listening quality? -- bgrounds bgrounds's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2314 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=18188 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sound Card
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 13:51 -0800, bgrounds wrote: Will it make a difference what sound card I have in my system as far as ripping and listening quality? For ripping? none at all. For playing, since this is a Slim list/forum, I assume you have one. They are tons better than any consumer sound card. If you are talking about studio I/O cards, like from M-Audio, Echo, etc. then for playback it might be interesting to compare. But nothing like a Soundblaster or an onboard audio chipset is going to be worthy of the term audiophile. Well, maybe the very latest and most expensive kit from Creative Labs X-FI -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Sound Card
Thanks for the quick reply. I just ordered a Squeezbox version 3. What sound card to you recommend? Or are you saying that the sound card will not affect the sound of the Squeezebox? -- bgrounds bgrounds's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2314 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=18188 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Sound Quality w/ Latest Firmware
On Nov 14, 2005, at 1:34 PM, Patrick Dixon wrote: Given that the Squeezebox has a 24 bit output, the rounding error should be down at around at 138-144dB, not 90-96dB and I have a hard time believing that the effect would be as obvious as you state at that level. This is simply incorrect - the rounding error is at the 16th bit of a 16-bit audio signal, therefore it is at -90/96dB. The output audio signal is 24 bits. The rounding error is at the least significant bit there. The source material is 16 bits and when you scale that value it necessarily needs to be rounded to the output resolution. It's not just that I like it better - it's also that it's 'correct' to maintain the accuracy of the original digital data - in a similar way as it's 'correct' not to sample rate convert 44.1KHz audio to 48KHz (as some other manufacturers do). It's a tradeoff between the accuracy of the gain control vs the rounding error at the 24th bit. Even if you don't understand it and won't take my word for it, the difference between the 'rounded' volume multipliers and the unrounded volume multipliers is so slight that it cannot possibly have a negative effect! Yet they can have a positive effect? I can believe that it does sound better in some cases because you would be rounding up the gain value. The oldest trick in the stereo salesman's book is to turn up the volume to make something sound better. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I do want to understand this before we make a change. Another proposal moved the 8 to 16 bit threshold from -35db to -30dB. What's the right value for this? ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Sound Card
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 14:05 -0800, bgrounds wrote: I just ordered a Squeezbox version 3. What sound card to you recommend? Or are you saying that the sound card will not affect the sound of the Squeezebox? Right, A Squeezebox is a computer, display and soundcard and NIC. It replaces the whole idea of a big ugly noisy computer with a nice little box. Just plug the Squeezebox into your amp/stereo and you are done. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Import method in Itunes for best possible sound quality?
can you specify what storage you recommend for say...700-1000 CDs in either FLAC lossless or WAV? thx -- jplatner jplatner's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2320 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=17672 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Import method in Itunes for best possible sound quality?
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 18:37 -0800, jplatner wrote: can you specify what storage you recommend for say...700-1000 CDs in either FLAC lossless or WAV? I'm not sure I understand what you are asking, I can't see the start of this thread. The sound quality between FLAC and wav/PCM should be identical. Storage for 700 CDs in Flac takes about 280GB for me, YMMV. I'd get a couple of 300GB disks and have backup. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC - Did it Compress Correctly?
I use EAC + FLAC and was getting averages aroung 60%, so I think you are definitely in the ballpark. You can set the level of compression in the command line of EAC if you use FLAC as the external compressor. The tradeoff is that the higher the compression, the longer it takes. I have read several threads on Hydrogen Audio that led me to make the personal decision that the tradeoff (i.e. amount I could further compress a file) was not worth it. I use the -6 setting. Here is a link with some of that info in it: http://tinyurl.com/a34go Peter -- ob_kook ob_kook's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=18174 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC - Did it Compress Correctly?
tass Wrote: The style of music can definately affect how well files compress. I've noticed on the highest compression of FLAC that pop/rock/normal(?) music compresses high 60s to mid 70% ratio. Things like classical music that have a lot of low-volume, silent or single instrument sections can compress much better than this and can even get to sub 50%. Noise is also a lot harder to compress than pure tones. My time series professor used to argue that if you look at the frequency spectrum of rock and roll, it looks a lot more like noise than classical music does! -- Mike Anderson 'FREE RADICAL RADIO!' (http://nvo.com/cd) Hours of free radical MP3s. Mike Anderson's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1705 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=18174 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC - Did it Compress Correctly?
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 19:35 -0800, ob_kook wrote: I use EAC + FLAC and was getting averages aroung 60%, so I think you are definitely in the ballpark. I think mine are a tad better, but I have a lot of jazz and classical which are rumoured to compress better than pop. You can set the level of compression in the command line of EAC if you use FLAC as the external compressor. The tradeoff is that the higher the compression, the longer it takes. Actually, the higher number just tells the program/algorithm to take more time to try to get a better compression. It may not actually decrease the size at all. And it sure takes a lot longer. As long as you kick it off and do something else, there is not much downside from cranking up the parameter, but I usually use 5 or 6. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC - Did it Compress Correctly?
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 20:02 -0800, Mike Anderson wrote: Noise is also a lot harder to compress than pure tones. My time series professor used to argue that if you look at the frequency spectrum of rock and roll, it looks a lot more like noise than classical music does! Wise guy. Actually some of this is true. The famous Wall of sound production style of the 60s tries to put something in every part of the spectrum. So there is a lot more stuff than a most classical arrangements. more important for this topic, the producers and labels in all pop genres for the last decade or more have been on a crusade to make each song louder than the rest. They do this with compressors and limiters, sometimes several cascading sets of compressors and limiters. Look at the waveform on a lot of pop, and you will see very little dynamic range. Which doesn't compress very well. Calling it noise sounds like something a father would say to a teenager. I won't go there. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC - Did it Compress Correctly?
Off-Topic: Your mention of wall of sound and references to noise makes me think of the band My Bloody Valentine. www.allmusic.com has this to say about them: My Bloody Valentine redefined what noise meant within the context of pop songwriting...Though My Bloody Valentine rejected rock roll conventions, they didn't subscribe to the precious tendencies of anti-rock art-pop bands. Instead, they rode crashing waves of white noise to unpredictable conclusions, particularly since their noise wasn't paralyzing like the typical avant-garde noise rock band: it was translucent, glimmering, and beautiful. If you are familiar with the movie Lost in Translation, you'll recognize the style of Kevin Shields in a lot of that Soundtrack. Living in Tokyo as I do, that movie really struck a chord with me. Wonder what kind of compression we'd get with their album Loveless??? -- ob_kook ob_kook's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=18174 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Signal Strength -- Ideal
Firstly, I'm not having connectivity problems on the order of dropped connections. Sometimes, however, the connection does seem to freeze up or an annoying thing happens where I might press one or more buttons on the remote, the machine freezes, and then quickly cycles through them. In other words, I wonder If my signal is decent enough. I'm using an Airport Extreme base station (mac) in one room and an Airport Express in the next to extend my network. Signal strength, as seen in the web interface, varies between 40-64%. Is this fine, average, etc? I'm thinking about picking up another base station, placing it where the Airport Express stands, and then moving the airport express behind the SB3. Might be overkill, but, hey...if anything, I should be able to carry a laptop anywhere in the house. Thoughts? -- highdudgeon highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=18199 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Newbe Questions
Would appreciate any and all assistance on the below questions. I'm a bit swamped, but definitely want to upgrade. thanks much jp Which format is best to import in? Lossless or WAV? (FLAC vs. Itunes lossless, vs Windows Media lossless or uncompressed WAV?) From what Ive heard FLAC is best, but its a bit temperamental, and not supported by Itunes or WMP · Is EAC the only Audio grabber / ripper you would recommend? Or is WMP 10 or Itunes sufficient? · What song container should I use? Does Windows media 10 support FLAC? I know Itunes doesnt. If not, what should I use or just say screw it and go with ease of use? · Which external hard drive should I use? (lacie vs wdc or something crazy like this http://www.infrant.com/products_ReadyNAS_X6.htm), · Once I run out of room, can I just add 250 gig drives like popcorn? Or does it add complexity / high cost? · Do I stay away from a Network drive to eliminate wireless issues and use firewire / USB drive? · Do I need to modify at all my dell Pentium 4 win xp box (circa 2005) to get rid of the fan noise or other random things? · Once the CDs are in the drive, and I have the Squeezebox do I need a Brick, DAC or other digital converter / transporter to get past the USB interference / bad computer fuzz? · What speakers / receiver / amp / preamp etc. should I eventually upgrade to? Im basically running a medium level sony component system thats anywhere from 5 to 15 years old, with pretty-much-blown-out old TDL speakers thanks ! -- jp1 jp1's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2322 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=18200 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
