Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
SeanMiddleton wrote: > I have a massive collection of flacs derived from 44.1 Khz CD's. I also > have quite a number of HD tracks ranging from 24/48 up to 24/384. In > many case I have the same album in both HD and 44.1. Most of the time, > when comparing a HD track that was distilled from a HD master against > the 44.1 version of the same track, the HD variant is better. Sometimes > very much so. For HD tracks distilled from 44.1 or old analogue masters > there is sometimes and improvement and sometimes very little perceivable > difference. For tracks with wide dynamic range (typically orchestral > stuff) distilled from HD masters there is a very considerable difference > between the HD and 44.1. Anyone that doesn't hear that improvement > should probably not spend too much on their audio systems. > > Assuming the HD track is distilled form a HD master the most significant > factor affecting the HD quality improvement is the dynamic range of the > material. The physics behind the dynamic range improvement of HD > recordings are widely published. If you have the gear and the > inclination try comparing a standard 44.1 version of Cassandra Wilson's > 'New Moon Daughter' album with the 24/192 recording from HD tracks. The > improvement is astonishing. A number of other albums are similarly > improved. For orchestral/wide dynamic range HD is almost always better > when a HD master has been used Define "same album" ? or better try this . Take the HD tracks 24/192 version downsample it yourself to 16/44.1 don't compare with a CD rip or other download source even if they claim to be the same . I've done this myself . yes HD versions vs bougth on CD can differ . But when you downsample yourself to CD rez the diffrence is not there . So in my opinion the diffrence is in the master the container is unimportant as long it is 16/44.1 or better . If had HD cabality for a decade and 100's of DVD-A and really did believe that bigger bit container did something , it does not. There really is no case at all for better 16/44.1 rez on consumer distrubeted formats (your studio should ofcourse operate on another level ). The real diffrence was discrete multichannel , an unbetable feature of SACD and DVDA that everyone forgets So thats marketting issue if have a better version and try to sell that they blown "remastered" as a moniker , it's usually interpretted uber compressed and worse . So selling it as "HD" in an impressive bit container of 24/192 or DSD or MQA does the trick . How to convince byers that our new CD or 16/44.1 has much better provence and more carefull mastering from better sources ? If you can slap an DSD or MQA sticker on it sells better. Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
I have a massive collection of flacs derived from 44.1 Khz CD's. I also have quite a number of HD tracks ranging from 24/48 up to 24/384. In many case I have the same album in both HD and 44.1. Most of the time, when comparing a HD track that was distilled from a HD master against the 44.1 version of the same track, the HD variant is better. Sometimes very much so. For HD tracks distilled from 44.1 or old analogue masters there is sometimes and improvement and sometimes very little perceivable difference. For tracks with wide dynamic range (typically orchestral stuff) distilled from HD masters there is a very considerable difference between the HD and 44.1. Anyone that doesn't hear that improvement should probably not spend too much on their audio systems. Assuming the HD track is distilled form a HD master the most significant factor affecting the HD quality improvement is the dynamic range of the material. The physics behind the dynamic range improvement of HD recordings are widely published. If you have the gear and the inclination try comparing a standard 44.1 version of Cassandra Wilson's 'New Moon Daughter' album with the 24/192 recording from HD tracks. The improvement is astonishing. A number of other albums are similarly improved. For orchestral/wide dynamic range HD is almost always better when a HD master has been used SeanMiddleton's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=65522 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
ralphpnj wrote: > CD quality but with a much larger file. I actually have purchased some good 44.1k downloads from them but they are far and few between. One of them is one of my favorite albums ever, Replicas by Gary Numan and Tubeway Army, this predates the sonf Cars by some months. Davesworld's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=63649 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
cliveb wrote: > Well - yes, it does sound like a rant. > And while most of your points are basically true, it seems a bit like a > stream of consciousness diatribe. > To a non-believer, it will sound like a bunch of opinions stated as > fact, and that's not going to convince anyone. > > Fair enough. > > I'd like to address a few points. cliveb wrote: > > For an in-depth explanation of the reasons why (and lots of other > digital audio fundamental truths), see Monty's excellent video: > https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml - this is the sort of hard evidence > you need to present to people who believe otherwise. > I've seen this but should have linked it since it clears up many misunderstandings and myths. cliveb wrote: > > Your screen shot showing the clipping is from Audacity, which is known > to have a flawed clipping detection algorithm. PCM samples of N bits > range in value from -(2^(n-1)) to +(2^(n-1)-1). A solitary sample at > -(2^(n-1)) is NOT necessarily a clip, but Audacity will tell you it is. > I'm not saying that the Dead Can Dance file doesn't have clipping, but > the Audacity screen shot is not proof that it does. > Yes, I just tried that same file using Ocenaudio and while it does not give a visual it did list dozens of clipped areas, over 40 on the right channel but I am open to more tools as I find them. cliveb wrote: > > I sincerely hope that is a typo and you meant to say 10ns! > Maybe should have but in the last ten years I have spent a good deal of time with VOIP and what affects MOS (Mean Opinion Score) and it's not critiqued in the ns, most equipment has an adaptive jitter buffer which will add delay if it becomes large since you are buffering 20ms or more in extreme cases, only the best trained listeners can notice a delay under 200ms though but this is for another topic in another forum. cliveb wrote: > > Indeed they have: > > Benjamin & Gannon. > Theoretical and audible effects of jitter on digital audio quality. > 105th AES Convention, 1998 > Jitter added to digital signal between transport and DAC with a > hardware device. > Conclusions: uncorrelated jitter inaudible below 10nS rms on pure > tones; uncorrelated jitter inaudible below 20nS rms on music signal > > Ashihara, Kiryu et al. > Detection threshold for distortions due to jitter on digital audio. > Acoust. Sci. & Tech. 26, 1 (2005) > Jitter simulated in the digital domain. > Conclusions: uncorrelated jitter inaudible below 250nS on music > signal. Ok now I see why you thought nanoseconds should have been mentioned by me, this is very interesting indeed! Thanks! Davesworld's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=63649 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
Davesworld wrote: > I know this is long and sounding like a rant. Well - yes, it does sound like a rant. And while most of your points are basically true, it seems a bit like a stream of consciousness diatribe. To a non-believer, it will sound like a bunch of opinions stated as fact, and that's not going to convince anyone. I'd like to address a few points. Davesworld wrote: > Many are fooled by the engineering representation of a sampled sine wave > that shows a stair step effect, this effect does not exist in > reproduction. It has never been seen on a scope or otherwise. For an in-depth explanation of the reasons why (and lots of other digital audio fundamental truths), see Monty's excellent video: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml - this is the sort of hard evidence you need to present to people who believe otherwise. Davesworld wrote: > > The Fatal Impact from the eponymous Dead Can Dance album that I > purchased as a download. The red sections are where the clipping > occurred. > Your screen shot showing the clipping is from Audacity, which is known to have a flawed clipping detection algorithm. PCM samples of N bits range in value from -(2^(n-1)) to +(2^(n-1)-1). A solitary sample at -(2^(n-1)) is NOT necessarily a clip, but Audacity will tell you it is. I'm not saying that the Dead Can Dance file doesn't have clipping, but the Audacity screen shot is not proof that it does. Davesworld wrote: > I do prefer jitter to be under 10ms though given a choice. I sincerely hope that is a typo and you meant to say 10ns! Davesworld wrote: > I'm sure someone has done tests where they induce varying degrees of > jitter while test subjects listen. Indeed they have: Benjamin & Gannon. Theoretical and audible effects of jitter on digital audio quality. 105th AES Convention, 1998 Jitter added to digital signal between transport and DAC with a hardware device. Conclusions: uncorrelated jitter inaudible below 10nS rms on pure tones; uncorrelated jitter inaudible below 20nS rms on music signal Ashihara, Kiryu et al. Detection threshold for distortions due to jitter on digital audio. Acoust. Sci. & Tech. 26, 1 (2005) Jitter simulated in the digital domain. Conclusions: uncorrelated jitter inaudible below 250nS on music signal. Transporter -> ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
ralphpnj wrote: > Well I for one enjoyed every bit of your wonderful post. You covered all > of the points about digital audio that are most often misrepresented and > backed up your statements with good solid scientific proof. > Unfortunately science in the Age of Trump is down on one knee and > hanging onto the ropes for dear life. > > One little thing that you missed is the inability of humans to hear nano > and pico second distortions, e.g. digital jitter. I hadn't considered that but I will say that a networked transport is likely to fare very good compared to a disc transport in this regard. Any good DAC should be responsible for clocking accuracy in it's end these days making it a moot point. I do prefer jitter to be under 10ms though given a choice. I'm sure someone has done tests where they induce varying degrees of jitter while test subjects listen. It would be neat to test DACs buffering and re-clocking ability by throwing a heavily jittered stream into it. Some say only re-clocking on the DAC end is necessary without buffering first. If DACs aren't doing this they should be to put the notion to rest. It takes hours if not days of listening to something to know if fatigue sets in. This is especially true with speakers, at first comparison the one with more harmonic distortion will give the impression of more detail but this new found detail is not supposed to be there. Third harmonics are the most annoying. Some like the coloration of even harmonic distortion and you would have to wait for them to die before pulling the single ended triode amp for their hands. Davesworld's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=63649 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
odw199 wrote: > Hi, > > A very interesting read, thank you to everyone who's clearly put time > and thought into the research. > > A couple of questions from my rather naive (and very computer science > orientated background). I ripped my CD collection to FLAC many years ago > using Max on a Mac (http://sbooth.org/Max/). I can't remember the exact > settings, but would have probably been very close to the defaults as > shipped with the application. My understanding being the software > digitally extracted the 1s and 0s from the CD and then converted these > to a FLAC file. In such a setup, how can you produce a bad FLAC version > with clipping not present on the original as mentioned by Davesworld? > > Secondly, where do people recomend downloading lossless files from if > not HDTracks? Is 7digital regarded as a better source (I'm mainly > thinking about new releases as opposed to old recordings re-issued for > the digital age). > > Cheers I've not purchased from 7digital yet but they do have some material I am interested in. I am reminded that I need to occasionally seek out which lossless downloads are available from where. Davesworld's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=63649 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
Hi, A very interesting read, thank you to everyone who's clearly put time and thought into the research. A couple of questions from my rather naive (and very computer science orientated background). I ripped my CD collection to FLAC many years ago using Max on a Mac (http://sbooth.org/Max/). I can't remember the exact settings, but would have probably been very close to the defaults as shipped with the application. My understanding being the software digitally extracted the 1s and 0s from the CD and then converted these to a FLAC file. In such a setup, how can you produce a bad FLAC version with clipping not present on the original as mentioned by Davesworld? Secondly, where do people recomend downloading lossless files from if not HDTracks? Is 7digital regarded as a better source (I'm mainly thinking about new releases as opposed to old recordings re-issued for the digital age). Cheers LMS Server: Mac Mini with music library on Drobo 5D Living Room: Raspberry Pi + AlloBoss -> Onkyo A 9010 -> KEF LS50 Study: Raspberry Pi -> Audio Engine D1 -> Audio Addon Pro T3 Kitchen: Squeezebox Radio Bedroom: SB3 -> B Zeppelin odw199's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=15387 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
Davesworld wrote: > I know this is long and sounding like a rant Well I for one enjoyed every bit of your wonderful post. You covered all of the points about digital audio that are most often misrepresented and backed up your statements with good solid scientific proof. Unfortunately science in the Age of Trump is down on one knee and hanging onto the ropes for dear life. One little thing that you missed is the inability of humans to hear nano and pico second distortions, e.g. digital jitter. Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0 Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar Garage: SB3-JVC compact system Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso Server: LMS 7.9 on dedicated windows 10 computer w/2 Drobos 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
pablolie wrote: > I remember the days when they would print -in the back of quite a few > CDs- whether it was DDD, ADD or AAD. I don't think I ever saw vinyl > stating whether it was "ADA" or something like that... :-D But I have to > admit my vinyl days were over as soon as CDs came out, and that I > digitized my vinyl collection as soon as some home digitization became > possible. > > ...p Some of the best sounding vinyl I had was digitally mastered. Most new vinyl is made from CDs but nobody ever talks about what amplifier runs the cutting heads. In the old days the best vinyl was cut using McIntosh 250 watt tube amps. Still, like you if there is no digital version I would at least digitize the vinyl which is better than nothing. I preferred the carefully mastered high quality DDD cds. At first they simply threw the analog masters that were mastered for vinyl onto CD and they sounded bright and harsh. Few people can appreciate just how well pure digital can sound if done properly. Some still think digital is not continuous and analog is. There are no gaps. There was an episode of Ghost whisperer where they propped up this myth by giving the boy a turntable and he said, "wow, it does sound better". The mom of the character said, "that's because it's continuous". I almost screamed and wrote an angry letter to the writer. I'm amazed at how misunderstood digital audio is by even people who should know better by their background. By the same token I would never return to analog TV or video. The codecs are just getting too good and efficient. Davesworld's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=63649 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
I can tell you from experience exactly what one gets, a convenient way to buy digital material without buying and storing CDs. I actually use SOX to downsample and downbit these recordings to 16/44 using the default dithering setting which is triangulation dithering. Some of the worst earbleeding recordings I own are remastered hi res albums and some of the best sounding I have are redbook 16/44. I bought Nirvana's remastered high res Nevermind, I also own the 1990s CD. For compulsory reasons I listened at high res first as I always do since I paid for it and was not prepared for the nails on the chalkboard overly compressed with occasional clipping sound that was produced. The 1991 CD version sounds superior in every way. When I wanted a copy of Peter Frampton's Frampton Comes Alive, I bought the so called High res version. While it sounded as good as I have ever heard of this album and saved me from buying yet another CD, it was merely an upsampled 44.1k version. There was a brick wall at 22khz. everything above that is merely padded with zeros creating a huge file. I'm amazed at people swearing that upsampling something that was originally sampled at 44.1k can somehow add information that was never there to their bigger file. Sampling is done in the pre-digitization process and can never be raised above what it was originally sampled at, only lowered. See attached image and notice the brick wall at 22khz, this is a 96k file! I will tell you that many recordings DO sound better due to more careful remastering by someone who actually can hear but when I convert them to Redbook, they retain every bit of the improvement. I keep the original hi res downloads in an archive folder and all my music files are on a fault tolerant raid server using one of the few filesystems that protect against bit rot, a COW (copy on write) filesystem that does self checksumming and can restore itself due to the copy on write data. To give a visual example of what bit rot can do, think of when you visit a website and only part of an image shows up and the rest is grayed out, that my friends is bit rot of an image file. You do not want it EVER on any file. Trying to reproduce non musical noise above 22khz if your speakers and amp etc could even reproduce it if anything might be cruel to certain pets you may have, there may be some musical information there but it's effects within our hearing range have already been captured once. No human in the last 100 years has ever heard very far beyond 20k just as none of us can see infrared and ultraviolet. Do certain lower harmonics of certain instruments exist in the audible range, sure they do but those lower harmonics we can hear in our audible range were already captured by the recording equipment as I touched on above, trying to reproduce it twice, once before the recording and once again on playback is not what I would consider proper reproduction. In many cases, your tweeter as well as amplifier, preamp and such have a good chance of creating problems above 20khz since they are designed to behave in the audible range and are not designed to double as an RF amp or transducer in the case of the tweeter. Throughout my life, the poor harsh quality of some recordings has always been in the upper midrange and in my late teens as well as now, it is the same and can drive me up a wall while cursing the deaf engineer who subjected us to that. Some of the best tweeters on the market that I would unhesitatingly use in my speaker designs, have a breakup node well above 20khz to the point that I would use a notch filter outside our hearing range just to kill it unless it somehow keeps pests away without bothering me or pets. There are benefits to rolling off sharply above 20khz. Many are fooled by the engineering representation of a sampled sine wave that shows a stair step effect, this effect does not exist in reproduction. It has never been seen on a scope or otherwise. The assumption is that the higher sampling will make this non existent stair step effect more fine grained and thus closer to an analog sine wave, nope, one only needs the sampling to be twice that of the desired top frequency to reproduce a perfect waveform. Digital audio was worked on for nearly a century before we got it. As far as 24bit depth, well it harms nothing but a dithered 16 bit recording can easily produce a clean -105db signal. 96db is not the limit on these recordings, even at that, the worst sounding digital recordings are usually compressed to have about 20db dynamic range at the top of the scale and are are overdriven above 0db producing clipping. You don't need even four bits of depth to produce some of these awful recordings. With digital, distortion is extremely low below 0db but increases horribly above 0db. It is not like the analog days when it was common and preferred to have an occasional signal hit +3 or +6db on peaks only since good tape had headroom and not much signal to noise so you had
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
I remember the days when they would print -in the back of quite a few CDs- whether it was DDD, ADD or AAD. I don't think I ever saw vinyl stating whether it was "ADA" or something like that... :-D But I have to admit my vinyl days were over as soon as CDs came out, and that I digitized my vinyl collection as soon as some home digitization became possible. ...p ...pablo Server: Virtual Machine (on VMware Workstation 14 Pro) running Ubuntu 16.04 + LMS 7.9 System: SB Touch --optical->- Benchmark DAC2HGC --AnalysisPlus Oval Copper XLR->- NAD M22 Power Amp --AnalysisPlus Black Mesh Oval->- Totem Element Fire Other Rooms: 2x SB Boom; 1x SB Radio; 1x SB Classic-> NAD D7050 -> Totem DreamCatcher + Velodyne Minivee Sub Computer audio: workstation --USB->- audioengine D1 -> Grado PS500e/Shure 1540 pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
Archimago wrote: > Interesting history there Arny... I assume the effect must have been > transparent. > > Also I presume there's an AD/DA in the device. What kind of conversion > quality are we looking at with the ADD-1 back in the day for these > LP's!? > > I'm sure Michael Fremer would have no trouble identifying these > digitally compromised LPs :rolleyes:. I can only talk about what I read from the dB article, what was SOTA at that time, and analysis of the measured evidence that I observe. Back in the day we had very little analog test gear that was accurate enough to make judegments about gear this good. It was indeed composed of a pair of discrete ADCs, probably sucessive-approximation, the digital delay line was probably based on shift registers implemented in TTL, and a pair of discrete (probably R2R) DACs. The brick wall filters were no doubt analog, probably made up of lots of little coils and capacitors. They were unlikely to have been minimum-phase or very accurate. The notch in the recording of low level signals suggests what were called Eliptical Filters. But it performed so much better than analog. For example it passed the keys-jangling test, and it took 30 ips half-track to do that in days when 15 ips hafl-track was the usual practice. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
You could also add the fact that some analog tapes did not age well . The digital copy from 1989 may be as good as it ever gets. Also some early CDs was simply cut from the LP master tape . A good engineer knows that an LP is not transparent and have some well known issues to workaround so they tweaked it to get a good LP experience. The tonal balance etc may sound a bit wrong directly on a transparent media as a CD how about a tad flat and thin :) These two can ofcourse be combined so that the only viable source for the remaster is the CD then you may fix some stuff but your limited . Best case they went back to well preserved multitrack sources and redid the whole mixing process from scratch , thats better if we get that treat on in a while. But even then the intrinsic sq off every track is still limited but you can use a modern DAW software and have no further detoriation from there . Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
To drop more into the fire, a lot of new artists - those who self record and produce at home, especially their first works - usually deliver 320k MP3s to their labels for digital distribution. Certainly the common case for electronic / dance music. Peter Galbavy's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32718 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
I agree hdtracks is a minefield, and their own sampler tracks are a spectacular own-goal. DOYR. I buy a lot of newer music. Often that's originally recorded at 24/44, 24/88, 24/96. Occasionally these original numbers are available for download and I buy them (usually from Qobuz or 7digital). In these cases I see down-sampling to 16/44 as an additional step that I don't need. It might not be audibly better but hey, it's measurably better. (On a similar note, why should I insert an extra line stage when I don't need it, no matter how transparent it is? That would be bloody-minded IMO. If I need it, fine, but if I don't?) IMV it depends. - Some DACs have sub-par up-sampling (can be fixed with source up-sampling). But some DACs have good digital filtering and can up-sample well themselves. So 16/44 could sound worse than hi-rez when the playback system is not up-sampling well. - Some 16/44 had dodgy anti-aliasing filter applied, in these cases the equivalent hi-rez could sound better. All that said, I believe if you have access to good up-sampling and a well-made 16/44 recording then there's probably nothing audible. So, I'm relaxed generally about 16/44 which, please note, is the majority of what I have. Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
pablolie wrote: > ...I had no idea that digital recording pollution had started as early! > > I present the following little experiment I have gone for over the years > with one of my favorite recordings ever. > > 24411 > > One version is a 320k CBR rip from the original CD, the second the > HDtracks download, supposedly from the "previously undiscovered, > cryogentically-frozen and kept-in-a-vacuum master tape". F__k me if I > can ever hear a difference. And I've listened to it on $4k headphones > (not mine), spending an utterly unenjoyable hour trying to convince > myself I *had* to hear a difference. I've done the same experiment, only > comparing a 16/44 and a 24/192 of very well recorded, 2000-ish albums, > much to the same result. Maybe *there* I'd be able to detect a > difference between the 320 and 16/44 version, but it's not one I'd > particularly care for other than for archiving purposes. And I > supposedly can still hear up to 17kHz, so it's not like I have deafened > myself over the years. > > And now that it's easy to score $2 CDs in the used market, I've > rediscovered the joy of roaming around in a music store on a weekend. > Vintage CD stores, who would've thought! :-D Oh no... -Say it ain't so!!!- Yet another "audiophile" who can't hear the difference between MP3 and lossless! Even though your audiophile membership has been revoked, it's good to hear your honesty :rolleyes:. I guess as long as the public still pays money for the so-called "hi-res version", it'll be made available no matter the provenance; including all those ancient recordings with no real hope of achieving any benefit from a high-res transfer. Despite the brave face and ongoing showing at CES 2018 from the "High Resolution Audio" supporters, clearly the mainstream isn't biting this year with essentially no coverage except for the special interest groups (those places that still think MQA is somehow a good idea!). The Industry seriously needs to wake up. Even if ultimately 99.7564% of listeners would not be able to tell a difference, at least if they're going to sell hi-res recordings, let it be genuine product... Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
...I had no idea that digital recording pollution had started as early! I present the following little experiment I have gone for over the years with one of my favorite recordings ever. 24411 One version is a 320k CBR rip from the original CD, the second the HDtracks download, supposedly from the "previously undiscovered, cryogentically-frozen and kept-in-a-vacuum master tape". F__k me if I can ever hear a difference. And I've listened to it on $4k headphones (not mine), spending an utterly unenjoyable hour trying to convince myself I *had* to hear a difference. I've done the same experiment, only comparing a 16/44 and a 24/192 of very well recorded, 2000-ish albums, much to the same result. Maybe *there* I'd be able to detect a difference between the 320 and 16/44 version, but it's not one I'd particularly care for other than for archiving purposes. And I supposedly can still hear up to 17kHz, so it's not like I have deafened myself over the years. And now that it's easy to score $2 CDs in the used market, I've rediscovered the joy of roaming around in a music store on a weekend. Vintage CD stores, who would've thought! :-D +---+ |Filename: bevans.jpg | |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=24411| +---+ ...pablo Server: Virtual Machine (on VMware Workstation 14 Pro) running Ubuntu 16.04 + LMS 7.9 System: SB Touch --optical->- Benchmark DAC2HGC --AnalysisPlus Oval Copper XLR->- NAD M22 Power Amp --AnalysisPlus Black Mesh Oval->- Totem Element Fire Other Rooms: 2x SB Boom; 1x SB Radio; 1x SB Classic-> NAD D7050 -> Totem DreamCatcher + Velodyne Minivee Sub Computer audio: workstation --USB->- audioengine D1 -> Grado PS500e/Shure 1540 pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
ralphpnj wrote: > CD quality but with a much larger file. Awesome summary. :-) ...pablo Server: Virtual Machine (on VMware Workstation 14 Pro) running Ubuntu 16.04 + LMS 7.9 System: SB Touch --optical->- Benchmark DAC2HGC --AnalysisPlus Oval Copper XLR->- NAD M22 Power Amp --AnalysisPlus Black Mesh Oval->- Totem Element Fire Other Rooms: 2x SB Boom; 1x SB Radio; 1x SB Classic-> NAD D7050 -> Totem DreamCatcher + Velodyne Minivee Sub Computer audio: workstation --USB->- audioengine D1 -> Grado PS500e/Shure 1540 pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
My experience is it depends on the original master recording and the competency of the remastering engineer. I've suffered through some 'high-res' releases that sounded worse than the 25 year old Redbook pressing of it. This can be even more pronounced with older masters where no care is taken. I think there is a rush to fleece sometimes with the 24-bit lure. I still favor a top vinyl copy over even a fair 24-bit transfer. sgmlaw's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13995 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
arnyk wrote: > Listening tests of this device were among our early adventures with ABX: > > > > http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_digi.htm > > "The Ampex 16 Bit Digital Delay Line vs. wire comparison was made in a > professional recording studio control room on time aligned UREI 813 > speakers with McIntosh MC-2100 amplifiers. The audio source was local > country artist P. J. Coombes who had been recorded on a 24-track Ampex > MM-1000. That tape had been mixed to a 2-track tape at 15 IPS on a > Scully 280. The mixdown and playback was through an API console. Thus > the master tape played for these ABX trials was of quality not available > to the record buyer of the era. > > The listeners included professional recording engineers with years of > experience on major label projects, professional maintenance engineers, > and recording engineering students. > > > For those not familiar with studio equipment, these are some of the most > revered pieces of equipment of that day. API consoles are still prized > today for their high quality. The studio microphone locker included > Neumann U-67,Neumann, U-87, and Neumann KM-86 along with various > microphones that might be selected for specific applications such as > inside the drums. > " > > > > > For sure. It was said to be a proper 16 bit device. Its clock rate may > have been adjustable in the 40-50 KHz range. The dB article that I > referenced seems to be the sole surviving piece of doc that is stored in > public. > > It was tested quite exhaustively, and found to be sonically transparent. > Those tests is the origin of my interest in testing gear with a set of > keys, jangling. This is quite demanding, and just about everything in a > good studio in those days would fail to be transparent enough to pass > ABX tests. > > http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_tapg.htm > > > > I don't have a sample to test, but from analysis of LPs that appear to > be cut using it, I would speculate somewhat informedly that it used > analog filters, and R2R conversion. The analog filters were relatively > gentle by modern standards. The transistion band appears to be huge. A > fair amount of loss in the 17-22 KHz range. > > > > :-) > > I'd guess that a very high proportion of LPs that were cut from 1979 to > 1989 were cut using it. IOW, during production they were digitized @ 16 > bits, and were brick wall filtered at 24 Khz or thereabout. I don't > beieve that he has complained about even one instance of this. > > For example, every legacy copy of the DSOTM LP probably received this > treatment. > > During loud passages, the brick wall and rejection band is covered up by > the nonlinear distortion that is inherent in the LP format: > > 24324 > > This is an interesting finding to me, because it turns all of those LPs > into potential test records for evaluating the nonlinear distortion > inherent in the LP. If analysis of a quiet passage or leadin groove > shows the indicated digial artifacts or something like them, then > anything above the observed transistion band has to be generated by the > LP format itself, as no such signal was ever sent to the cutter head. > LPs cut in Y2K and later seem to be free of this issue - the delay may > not have been used, or it was running at a higher sample rate such as > 24/96. > > To clairfy, the needle drop shown is of a contemporateous Supertramp LP. Wow Arny! Appreciate your comments and demonstration. Great stuff and a wonderful reminder of the transparency from digital even from the old days before all the iterations and focus on home digital audio after the release of CD. Beyond all the angst these days about using digital to cut vinyl, this is a reminder of just how far back digital has impacted vinyl production... Something the analogue purists need to keep in mind especially if they cite albums like Supertramp and DSOTM :-). I'll have to remember to point to this post in the blog sometime! Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
I wouldn't buy anything from HDTracks without researching it first. I buy a lot more downloads from eClassical or Presto, at least 16/44 FLAC. I do like to get the "studio master" versions if it's not too much more expensive than 16/44, what the hell, but I don't bother with 44/24 or 48/24 versions. Daverz's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32335 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
Archimago wrote: > Interesting history there Arny... I assume the effect must have been > transparent. > Listening tests of this device were among our early adventures with ABX: http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_digi.htm > > Also I presume there's an AD/DA in the device. > For sure. It was said to be a proper 16 bit device. Its clock rate may have been adjustable in the 40-50 KHz range. The dB article that I referenced seems to be the sole surviving piece of doc that is stored in public. It was tested quite exhanstively, and found to be sonically transparent. Those tests is the origin of my interest in testing gear with a set of keys, jangling. This is quite demanding, and just about everything in a good studio in those days would fail to be transparent enough to pass ABX tests. > > What kind of conversion quality are we looking at with the ADD-1 back > in the day for these LP's!? > I don't have a sample to test, but from analysis of LPs that appear to be cut using it, I would speculate somewhat informedly that it used analog filters, R2R conversion, and the analog filters were very gentle by modern standards. The transistion band appears to be huge by modern standards. > > I'm sure Michael Fremer would have no trouble identifying these > digitally compro> mised LPs :rolleyes:.[/QUOTE wrote: > > > > > > I'd guess that a very high proportion of LPs that were cut from 1979 to > > 1989 were cut using it. IOW, during production they were digitized @ 16 > > bits, and were brick wall filtered at 24 Khz or thereabout. I don't > > beieve that he has complained about even one instance of this. > > > > For example, every legacy copy of the DSOTM LP probably received this > > treatment. During loud passages, the brick wall and rejection band is > > covered up by the nonlinear distortion that is inherent in the LP > > format: arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
Interesting history there Arny... I assume the effect must have been transparent. Also I presume there's an AD/DA in the device. What kind of conversion quality are we looking at with the ADD-1 back in the day for these LP's!? I'm sure Michael Fremer would have no trouble identifying these digitally compromised LPs :rolleyes:. Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
Mnyb wrote: > Yes this is a quite common case the existing master is 44,1kHz or > sometimes 24/48 which seems to be the popular music standard some niche > audiophile or some classical labels may use higher resolution but they > are the exception . > An interesting instance of 20-ish kHz band limiting can be found in LP needle drops. For example take a look at this one which shows clear evidnce of digital processing:24311 How might this come to be? Starting in the late 1960s digital delay devices such as the Ampex ADD-1 were used to provide a look-ahead facility for automating disk cutting by increasing groove pitch for loud passages: 24312 This device was placed in line with the electronics that drove the cutter:24312 +---+ |Filename: ampex add-1 figure 1 dB magazine 1979-11.jpg | |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=24312| +---+ arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
Jeff07971 wrote: > No they just have bat ears ! ;) 24310 +---+ |Filename: Stereophile_high_resolution_secrets_cover.jpg| |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=24310| +---+ arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
Archimago wrote: > Happy New Year everyone! > > Yup. No surprise about the paicity of actual hi-res music. For years > HDtracks has been releasing upsampled music. And few of the recordings > of course achieve anything close to needing beyond 16-bits if even that. > Years ago, I wrote the article on "'Hi-Res Expectations' > (http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/03/musings-high-resolution-audio.html)" > and I see absolutely nothing has changed over the years. > > I wondered back then and still today just how much of this stuff they're > actually selling... Hard to imagine a big market. A bit bigger than imagined . Its them and some other similar outfit or lossy ? You buy so called hirez or MP3 wonderful :D so I sometimes get 24/96 from them well aware what i get . When I fail to find any other lossles source or does not want to import a CD ( why send polycarbonate discs around the world ). Or wants something rigth now . Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
Happy New Year everyone! Yup. No surprise about the paicity of actual hi-res music. For years HDtracks has been releasing upsampled music. And few of the recordings of course achieve anything close to needing beyond 16-bits if even that. Years ago, I wrote the article on "'Hi-Res Expectations' (http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/03/musings-high-resolution-audio.html)" and I see absolutely nothing has changed over the years. I wondered back then and still today just how much of this stuff they're actually selling... Hard to imagine a big market. Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
Yes this is a quite common case the existing master is 44,1kHz or sometimes 24/48 which seems to be the popular music standard some niche audiophile or some classical labels may use higher resolution but they are the exception . But it does not really help with much of thier content which is much baby boomers rock from the 70s even captured in glorious 384kHz or DSD that analog tape still has less resolution than reedbook 16/44.1 kHz . Now I make my piont :) the actual technical spec is completely uninteresting as soon as it is 16/44.1 or better . What would matter is which master they source . If you truly wanted to sell HD or Hi Fi versions of anything you would select the masters with great care ,curated by humans . Not just making sure the dowloadfiles have big impressive numbers. That would include asking labels to actually not send their latest remaster effort in some cases , these are sometimes plagued low dynamic range and accompanying loudness war problems . But something else that the aficionados of a certain work/artist preferrers . It could in some cases actually be the latest carefully made remaster so I dont dismiss all remasters. ( some goes for so called hifi streaming services, who just lets the labels upload whatever they fancy without any QC ) . I would truly be an imidiate custommer if some service or shop provided definitive versions of the music or choices if they are several well liked versions Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
stereoptic wrote: > Nice analysis, but I am confused as to the relationship between how the > people at HDTracks look, and the quality of the downloads? Is there a > particular high resolution facial structure? ;) No they just have bat ears ! ;) *Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3,Receiver,SqueezeLiteX,PiCorePlayer x3,Wandboard *Server:* LMS Version: Latest Nightly on Centos 7 VM on ESXi 6.5.0U1 on Dell T320 *Plugins:* AutoRescan/BBCiPlayer/PowerSave/PowerSwitchIII/Squeezecloud/Spotty/Player Groups *Remotes:* iPeng9/Orangesqueeze/PC/Jivelite/SqueezeLiteX *Music:* 522GB,1660 albums with 23087 songs by 5204 artists mostly FLACs *Want a webapp ?* See http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?104305-Webapp-for-LMS Jeff07971's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=49290 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
Nice analysis, but I am confused as to the relationship between how the people at HDTracks look, and the quality of the downloads? Is there a particular high resolution facial structure? ;) stereoptic's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=53162 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
arnyk wrote: > What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez" > CD quality but with a much larger file. Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0 Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar Garage: SB3-JVC compact system Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso Server: LMS 7.9 on dedicated windows 10 computer w/2 Drobos 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
