Ok then what is pure audio quality :)
A blind test would count , the listener don't see or know anything about
the product under test .
Or a measurement .
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2
jimmypowder wrote:
Then why does my Transporter sound better then my SBT fed into the same
dac,playing the same speakers ?
The player seems to matter here .
Does it really , have you tried that assumptions under blind conditions
?
Any reasonably good transport will sound the same in to
darrenyeats wrote:
Yes Ralph, it's fair to describe these as my perceptions and experience
and not as a statement of fact to be taken as gospel. Also, when it
comes to power-related stuff, I know there are many different opinions,
experiences - and even technical views. The good thing is,
darrenyeats wrote:
Mynb, agreed, I didn't mean to imply it was universally true, it's just
my modus operandi.
Ok :) no problem .
Meridian and Linn uses them for example .
I have a feeling that they might actually be defacto standard very soon
( if not already )
Also analog does not have endless resolution vinyl is equvavilent of
11bit dithered digital or 13bit undithered aproximately.
If one wants to argue the virtues of analog use reel to reel tape as an
example ,vinyl has compromises it simply does not sound as the master
tapes and the master
foxx wrote:
I'd like to add the whole of the NAIM forum:
'http://http://forums.naimaudio.com/forums'
(http://forums.naimaudio.com/forums)
Julf wrote:
In that case, I nominate all of Computer Audiophool.
The may be quantum entangled ! all kinds off pseudo knowledge is
propagated
darrenyeats wrote:
Darren: correcting a display aspect ratio in a town near you! Why does
no-one else see it?!
Looking at the hotel TV where you can't get to the settings :( huh ;)
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J
Julf wrote:
Where's the your system is not resolving enough crowd? ;)
jhonsber...@msn.com wrote:
Exactly !
My equipment specs just aren't that good.
Ok , now have you seen the specs on some of the real high end audiophile
stuff that is supposed to be resolving enough :)
In the more
w3wilkes wrote:
I presume this is done by having LAME installed in LMS and then for each
player in Settings - Player tab - Audio in dropdown - Bitrate Limiting
to No limit and LAME Quality Level to 0 (Highest Quality, very
slow)?
Edit: What about software players like Squeezeslave and
Sorry for not sesrch out the links and bugs , im writing on my phone
while traveling , im out in the sticks on a work project
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200
foxx wrote:
Something I came across when I subscibed to WiMP:
The difference between their 256 kB MP3 files and their lossless FLAC
files is VERY evident.
This is quite contrary to my my previous experiences, when I converted a
96/24 Flac file down to 44.1/16 FLAC, 320 kB MP3 and 128 kB
Archimago wrote:
Interesting comment about the MP3 decoding on the SB units. I assume the
ARM-based Touch/Radio should have better decoding algorithm than the
earlier SB3/Boom/Transporter IP3k-based devices?
Indeed. Not all MP3 encoders were created equal so one can't say modern
LAME is
I'll modified my behaviur a couple of years back to buy 24/96 if avaible
call it slush margin but i'll never go for 24/192 or DSD if it's not
the only option .
Theoretically my fully digital system should benefit from 24/96 material
it does some eq room compensation and volume in the digital
jimbobvfr400 wrote:
If they accept they are getting a better master as a result of buying
the HD format then that's potentially a valid reason to buy them.
In a similar way I still use flac even though I couldn't tell flac and
good mp3 apart in the last test because there are other
P Nelson wrote:
LMS will convert the source to a format that your sb3, touch, radio etc
will be able to play. How do I verify that LMS is not converting the
Flac file for my Touch? I have never fully understood the settings on
that advanced options screen.
This issue could throw off
There is Squeezelite and Locally player plugin .
Also try to lever match when listsening a digital vs an analog input on
your preamps may not result in the same volume.
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621
He he , yea the straming part of the code has probably gone without
changes for years on end .
And the fact that squeezebox streaming is designed to be server/network
agnostic .
There is no mechanism present that actualy could change the sound :) but
thats logic it doee not apply here.
Julf wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what would it take?
You can do repeated tests at home with varius material . In my case the
tenth time you see the pattern .
Besides the physics off it . You are the limit for Frequncy response .
And equipment background noise and again you limits the
Peter Galbavy wrote:
Never seen this before, it's wonderful.
In a similar vein, for those who claim analogue FM radio is superior
to nasty digital DAB and online streaming, point them at the story of
the BBC and PCM/NICAM from the 60s
Do you use your sb classics ir remote in the vincinity of the
transporter ? or do you have the mini remote to the radio ?
They all responds to the same ir commands ( transporter ir remote would
work on classic and radio to )
RonM wrote:
I don't think the issue is really a self-administered blind test.
Anyone can cheat when no one is watching. So a 24/96 vs 16/44 test
would be for those who can genuinely get something from it on their own.
Or, alternately, as a mechanism through which a blind test can be
Maybe its time to restore the old TT to function . But you dont need
your own you canndl a lot of vinyl rips.
There ate also playback issues the pickup have like -20 -25 dB of
channel separation in the midrange ? And tracking the inner groove ?
Julf wrote:
The value itself is correct, as the attenuation you need is not very
much (and so little that I wouldn't bother with it) *if* you want to be
able to get full volume out of your system. That is a big if. If you
find that you normally listen at much lower volumes, you might want to
garym wrote:
Can't point to any other than the IB program julf mentioned. But your
comment made me think that we should probably require taking (and
passing) a class in the scientific method as a minimum criteria for
allowing one to vote here in the US. :p
+1 and everywhere else , but U.S
Gandhi wrote:
Silly me. Why would anyone want to trust the principle that makes it
possible to evaluate medical drugs and build functioning rockets and
nuclear powerplants. Granted these systems are not failproof - none are
- but if audiophools with their magical thinking were responsible
Not dead yet ?
could we be enligthened about if any part off the code that involves
actual streaming of Audio have been changed in any significant way the
last five years :) a lot of bugfixes yes but i bet that the part of
actually getting audio to he buffer has been the same for a very long
Julf wrote:
Interesting - that will test how good your masking is - if one of them
figures out a way to tell the samples apart, they will all use that
instead of actually listening (this based on a similar listening test I
did over at CA at one point, that had to be stopped prematurely
Its actually hard to do passsive atenuators with such low atenuation .
Not that they will sound wrong but getting a matched pair !
You probably have o go with -10dB or nothing . I used rothwell
atenuators when i had analog stuff i think they offer xlr too
Julf wrote:
Ah, yes. Could also be my ears aren't refined enough, or that the
negative vibrations from my scepticism blocks any differences. Do you
think sticking a price tag with a really big number on my system would
help?
Deadushka is some kind of troll dont respond to it see the other
Should the results for goldberg be discarded if there is some kind
bias aviable on some fora ?
It can go either way ? but can it be relied on ?
To counter this effect don't search to much on the net on this but
simply take the test under natural listening konditions and contribute
to the
Wombat wrote:
Files do not not to the expected level? What does this mean? I you mean
they don't perfectly null take it as done by purpose. Also telling
what program was used would only lead to more dubious discussion.
Seems like on pinkfishmedia they did some analysis but up to page 4 no
Julf wrote:
Even then they probably won't hear a difference - I guess that's why
they are resorting to null tests and other technotrickery...
But whats the point :) i don#8217;t get their mindset .
Archimagos initial question was can *YOU* -HEAR- the difference .Point
is to get a real
Yeah dont be the gringe :) this fora alone has 10 ex audiphooles so
its not a totally lost cause it never is.
Remember couple of years ago when the audiophile forum got almost
completely swamped by cracpots and many interesting and good forum
members simply left the forum .
Very impressive work as usual :)
Is it anouced here and on your blog ? Do you write on any other forum ?
Is fun do the test and fill in the form more people means better result
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J
That would have been nice .
But it would be easy to spot which files is what , with a simple
spectrum analysis .
And then we get some bias into the test. Even if people are honest
knowing beforehand would ruin it .
I dont think there is good method to fake 20k content for the other
testfile.
I
The recommended Mahler recording was actually a very enjoyable
experience to listen to thank you :)
Very dynamic in some parts , that's refreshing ( but not for my
neighbours ).
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J
mlsstl wrote:
I'm a firm believer that blind testing is an excellent way to separate
out the subjective non-audio influences that often affect what people
hear. (An excellent general book on the subject is Cordelia Fine's A
Mind Of Its Own, it's an entertaining read that clearly shows how
mlsstl wrote:
I've got an Image Audio 65i with KT88s that I picked up used a few years
back. Pretty standard circuits, but very well built and good
transformers. I like the visual design and it works well with my Spendor
SP1/2Es. I had a Bel Canto S300 prior to this which sounded excellent,
Yeah theoretically you may loose something when changin modalation
format in practice not soo i think ?
I'm actually going to try one of their recordings ,just for kicks . The
recording quality I just bluntly assumes will be retained in whatever
format :)
I'm a firm believer in good
firedog wrote:
Channel Classics has some great sounding native DSD recordings. They do
minimal processing, I think there is only a PCM conversion at a few very
small edit points. Other than that, the original native DSD remains. If
you like Mahler, try their Mahler 1st I linked to earlier.
wait channel classics actually have 24/96 and 24/192 of thier stuff no
need to convert I go for the 24/96 then .
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2
darrenyeats wrote:
I remember JA of Stereophile writing that a big problem is that we
measure what is easy to measure, rather than necessarily what's
important.
I think measurements of sine waves (or two sine waves for IM distortion)
is a pretty limited measurement. It is what it is, a
Trying the channel classics shopping experience .
Some observations , a bit geared towards audiophiles , the are using
van den hul cables for example and they shills some jplay and other
myth driven software ,which pretty much does away with any technical
cred they might had .
So i wont buy into
Archimago wrote:
Mnyb:
Yes, Channel Classics is deep into the audiophile hardware kool-aid.
However, the recordings are still good and I can enjoy both the DSD and
PCM conversions.
Funny thing was about a month ago I E-mailed them that the 24/192
version provided no benefit due to use
Archimago wrote:
Interesting comment Firedog. I have not heard the Sony but will
certainly give it a try when I'm next at the dealer.
As one who has been buying SACDs since about 2001, ripping my SACDs
since 2012, having played with PCM -- DSD conversions like with JRiver
upsampling, and
Dsd is piontless sans sacd discs .
Ergo every product/service relying on dsd nowdays is fluff .
All hirez formats are equally good so whts the piont with special
hardware for a special format ?
When you can convert the files in minutes to for example 24/88.2 flac .
The sony unit itself may
ralphpnj wrote:
The claim is not that the converted files sound different rather the
claim is that the converted files sound BETTER, whatever that is
supposed to mean (possibly some veil gets lifted or some window gets
opened or the blacks get blacker or the silence gets quieter or the
Given that your going to use the digital out to the equipment you
describe .
There is no more reasonably priced squeezebox on eBay ? Do you already
have a squeezebox ?
I know their going scarce and some used units is going for rather
obnoxious prices .
Check with the DIY crowd for a more fun
dhallag wrote:
Well, I am actually sort of kind of disappointed that the QNAP processor
was the problem. I was really hoping to NOT have to use LMS on a
computer. Yea it worked great for the touch 192/24 only. However, when
I added the Receiver to the mix, all hell broke loose. The only
Fahzz wrote:
Thanks to everyone that replied to my question. I knew I could count on
the illustrious members of this group for information. It appears that I
have run into the folder limitation problem. I understand that I have to
reduce the number of folders under some magic number, but I
jimbobvfr400 wrote:
I'd say it depends on the head unit. In my experience most of them I've
had have had some sort or weird limit or idiosyncratic behaviour.
I've had a few USB capable aftermarket ones in various motors. A
surprisingly large proportion have read the tags OK, but playback
You are aware of that reciever is limited to 24/48 the server is
transcoding anything else .
Touch is limited to 24/96 natively ,can be extended to 24/192 with the
EDO app if you wish .
Otherwise the server would transcode 24/192 files to 24/96 .
If you sync both player ps transcoding will be
dhallag wrote:
Yes I do know about the receiver. And I see that both the receiver and
touch are converting it down to match the lowest common denominator of
the receiver. Another reason to get it replaced. And I would imagine
that the additional processing it's doing to do that conversion
jimbobvfr400 wrote:
Well my Sony unit displays the number on the filename but ignores them
for play order, even windows doesn't necessarily copy in the right
order, I ended up using a small piece of software called copy in order,
which was specifically made with that in mind.
Sent from my
On topic another Touch could fit your needs if you get one to a decent
price it's more future proof than a transporter and you could just a
outbord DAC if need something better .
Triode has an EDO app that also adds 24/192 and USB support to the Touch
, making it more versatile in some
jfo wrote:
I have been checking out the AIX site. How are you playing the 5.1's?
Downloading and burning to DVD?
Old school I have the DVDA discs of most of it :)
You can author and burn discs as Archimago suggested .
I suppose a HTPC could do it over hdmi .
There is actually no streamer
I don't have your car ,but if i venture a guess it would be limitations
in the car/stereo software .
They are usually daft and show their age quickly . Nothing to do with
the USB format .
Does it ( the car ) have Bluetooth audio ? You may have a better app on
your phone for music ?
That's the
Mike Sargent wrote:
I have a Panasonic DMP-BDT230 Blu-Ray player and use Asset UPnP (from
the dbPoweramp folks) to stream any FLACs to my Denon receiver over
HDMI. Since it's HDMI it should work with any receiver.
The DBT230 is about $130 retail and is a very good BD player. It can
play
Archimago wrote:
I'd love to add another track with some more instruments - an orchestral
piece would be lovely... Again, I prefer something free. I'll see
about contacting Mark W. about something from AIX. Ideally music similar
to that Open Goldberg would be amazing as a piece of music
JonWill wrote:
This thread made me download the Open Goldberg Variations ... is there
any reason why LMS will not scan the Flac 24b / 96K version? It's not
showing as new music at all... (and I'm sure I have other music at that
bitrate)
Thanks!
Jon
Did you tag the files , I
Archimago wrote:
:-)
Boring or not, I just want audiophiles to test if they can really tell
the difference between 24-bit and 16-bit. (As many claim they can!)
Well should not audiophiles be used to boring :) see all this audiophile
music .
just this track or do you plan to have more
Julf wrote:
Mark Waldrep seems like a good, clued-up guy. I did get a 1-minute
sample from Robert von Bahr of BIS for a test a couple of years ago, but
it was only vocal music with almost no energy above 15 kHz, so not the
best test sample, and after the attempt at an objective test caused a
Julf wrote:
Definitely not a recording pro, just some experience with pro gear and
installations.
While absorbtion definitely goes up pretty steeply with frequency, it is
still less than 1-2 dB/m even at ultrasonic frequencies, so not an issue
in a studio but somewhat of an issue in a
Nice little thing , wonder how it would fare with squeezelite on one of
those plug computer cubie boxes or RasPI or wandboard and whatnot , you
may have to get an 3,5mm headphone to RCA cable buts that's trivial .
That there is no need for extra drivers makes it promising for Linux
support .
Itrax ( AIX records ) ? Write what you plan to do with the track , the
guy running AIX is a reasonable person .
He shares many of our objective views on hifi , maybe he can be
persuaded to lend out a track ?
I think the manipulating and redistribution is the no no part even if it
is free
Mark Waldrep is his name .
Free files http://itrax.com/Pages/ArticleDetails.php?aID=44
You probably have to ask if he would be cool with you resampling and
redistribute .
What can be sure of with AIX records is that the music is recorded in
hirez at the source ie AD conversion and all editing
What the inventors of all the high end streamers never gets is the
integration of whole networked system like LMS/Squeezebox or to some
part Sonos and Solos .
They can fill it with all the high end gizmos they want the experience
of actually using the product will be at best unimaginitave but
foxx wrote:
I've yet to see a solution that doesn't require a PC in the end. There
is no machine that will tag your track 100% properly. Therefore I I have
never really understood the concept of an all-in-one
ripper/storage/player device.
+1
... and server ?
aditionally i dont get why some
darrenyeats wrote:
I also perceive a small difference between coax and TOSLINK S/PDIF from
Touch into my Benchmark.
Interfaces may be very product/implementation specific it can be that
one is better .
There is no reason to rank interfaces from best to worse as the
hardware and combinations
Re mp3 the decoder and encoder actually matters and the source file !
Some olde decoders are rubbish .
Actually crappy loudness war music can provoke more artefacts ! so it
may not be obvious which track it shows on .
Encoders . On the computer you can have the very best , but in embedded
ralphpnj wrote:
I always find it amusing how audiophiles tend to have a this giant
double standard with respect to measurements, e.g. tubes measure poorly
but sound wonderful whereas non-asynchronous USB has slightly more
(inaudible) jitter than asynchronous USB so non-asynchronous USB
darrenyeats wrote:
There's probably a lot of truth to that. But sometimes you do get
something measurable for your money. The dCS Vivaldi for example (yours
for £80k), see figures 16 and 17 especially.
http://www.stereophile.com/content/dcs-vivaldi-digital-playback-system-measurements
Julf wrote:
And your auditory memory is long enough to be able to make a reliable
comparision?
What aspect of the audio data that the computer sends out to the network
do you think can be affected by any OS tuning as long as you don't get
dropouts from buffer underflow?
He using
Apesbrain wrote:
Yes, the Densen DeMagic. Haven't used it since I moved to Squeezebox
but I think I still have it in my CD drawer:
[image: http://www.mwaudio.de/assets/big/g_densen_demagic.jpg]
'Website' (http://densen.dk/index.php?page=densen-cd-magic)
Have you ripped it to flac yet ,
Daverz wrote:
People with decent speakers. ;)
You also need some good recordings of acoustic music.
;) ok -difference- in said spatial cues under real conditions.
Btw do sugest more specici test tracks .
Main
Daverz wrote:
Well, nearly anything on Lyrita. Ken Wilkinson was the engineer on many
of these. I use Moeran's -Sinfonietta- for auditioning gear. Boult's
Bax disc is also very good. These are analog recordings, so they are up
to technical standards of modern recordings, but it's the
Daverz wrote:
My hi-rez collection is still pretty small. I'll see if I can find
something that's a good demo.
Ditto that's symptomatic for the whole venture , I do have close to 255
albums a large portion AIX + some more .
I'll see if I can do a better pick in that pile , I did use
Daverz wrote:
I have to say, I don't trust results with headphones, because of the way
they tend to collapse spatial information. But then all that matters is
the results on the equipment that you'll use for your own listening.
So how does one do a proper ABX on a squeezebox? What I've
Apesbrain wrote:
^ This and demagnetizing CDs. I had this device:
[image: http://livedoor.4.blogimg.jp/jazzaudiofan/imgs/0/f/0fe19e82.gif]
And Peter w Belt products :)
There where two takes , a device that actually damaged the cd and a CD
with funny noises you should play in order demag
A good idea is to try to source some material that is fully 24/192 or
some such to begin with .
A modern as good as it gets digital recording .
A do think headphones are very good at this especially closed ones SN
ratio and distortion is very low .
Speakers distort a lot and the room
Yea get the CD version , I'm listening to it I do like beck ,but I have
not come to any conclusion to if/how good it is yet.
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200
Biwiring or even triwiring ?
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3
sub.
Bedroom/Office: Boom
Kitchen: Touch + powered
ralphpnj wrote:
Bi-wiring is okay if one is bi-amping. Bi-amping at least makes some
sense from a scientific and engineering standpoint, that is if one is
using two different amps, with one amp optimized for low frequencies and
the other optimized for mid and high frequencies. Which is
Daverz wrote:
I'd be more impressed if Sony (now Sony/BMG) opened up their archive of
DSD recordings. There are currently only 240 DSD downloads on Acoustic
Sounds, and the majority are the usual Jazz classics. I might even pay
the $25 for yet another version of -Time Out- just to satisfy
ralphpnj wrote:
And what about one of your favorites: nos versus oversampling DACs
That's a subset of the tech nostalgia trend , if a part or technology
gets old enough it's better .
Back in the days people could not wait to get rid of tubes/vinyl/16bit
multi bit DAC's/ insert something .
O I forgot the really hardcore audiophiles despise for digital ! In
favor of vinyl .
The best digital always sounded very close to to good vinyl ,but never
really as good ;) for ages .
If the debate had been between digital vs analog it may had some merit
in the early days .
But it was really
ralphpnj wrote:
Let's not reopen that old digital versus analog debate. Early digital
recordings did not sound as good as analog but that ship sailed many
years ago. Present day digital sounds at least as good as present day
analog. Besides which, digital is a much better storage medium than
Just wishing they could document the pedigree of thier recordings a
little better .
Especially the analog side if doing an old recording tape does not
always age well .
So given a good 15 year old digital transfer of a cherished analog gem .
Vs a new as good as it gets Digitla transfer , its no
Apesbrain wrote:
...and soon DSD128, DSD256 and DSD512 (which is practically
indistinguishable from vinyl, I'm told).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital#Double-rate_DSD
..and 20 dB channel separation a a dose of thd and IM to emulator the
pickup phase anomaliens innerörat
ralphpnj wrote:
Let's take them one by one.
Converting all inputs into DSD - isn't the audiophile mantra supposed to
be the less processing the better? Seems like encoding everything to DSD
for playback adds lots of processing to the signal. But, hey, it is DSD
and DSD is the latest and
ralphpnj wrote:
Correct - I don't use music services very much and have no interest in
using them until they offer lossless quality streaming otherwise I can
just listen to them using a laptop - the laptop's built in speakers are
perfect for listening to low bit rate streaming services.
jimmypowder wrote:
Point 1 :I have one location
that the Mac mini can stay and play music throughout the house , inside
and outside .in every room .,using
different amps and speaker wiring throughout the house . Two
distribution amps to that feed a couple of
dozen speakers . I can play
cliveb wrote:
IME extreme dynamic compression does indeed render some music
unlistenable on good quality systems. It seems to me that revealing
systems do exactly that: they *reveal* how bad the mastering is.
Examples: Some years ago I noticed that Coldplay's XY sounded pretty
ropey on
garym wrote:
I plan on purchasing a couple of the csp2 boards myself!
Me too , maybe even a CSP1 if they be available , I've not followed
exactly what will be aviable to who :)
Just hoping they freeze the design phase and start refining/debugging it
to something you can buy , think I go for
Yes it does .
Any of them in practice .
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3
sub.
Bedroom/Office: Boom
Kitchen: Touch +
I do recomend trying the resample experiment for yourself its very
revealing :)
Another reason for this effect ( that only compounds it ) is that very
few recordings if any has intrisinic sq that even reaches 16/44.1 level
.
You don't need a 10 liter bucket to carry 1 liter of water
Peiter wrote:
Archimago, keep on your good work. I'll refer to your pages when
possible ...
The other day, I read on a forum about the importance of the Network
switch when streaming digital audio. Some was convinced that Switch A
was a lot better sounding than Switch B
Yes :) and
I insist that the tea pot is there I just know , it's obvious !
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3
sub.
Bedroom/Office:
Julf wrote:
Indeed - it is the problem of proving that unicorns don't exist. All we
can say is that it is extremely unlikely that they exist.
Yes indeed aka Russels teapot (that is in orbit somewhere between earth
and Mars disprove that if you can ) .
Archimagos measurements are imho below
The point is that it still does not cost more than a small fraction of
those high end $$$ to make a properly functioning cable so they are
still shilling bunk :)
cables are an interesting case as for analog signal cables where can
measure small differences but not hear them ( because the diff is
601 - 700 of 1831 matches
Mail list logo
