Yrs tve advertksers usually pays more per magazine than you ( forany
magzine noy judt audio ) so it not hard to figure out.
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200
Peiter wrote:
4givme but ur spelling seems a bit weird ;)
;) ;) yes multiple languages on an iPhone does that to you !
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200
Good demo of data dropouts I can even hear this on my iPad speakers :)
Bad digital cabling can be more sensitive to external sources of
electrical disturbance too. I've had cases of some coax cables
introducing clicks and pops when flicking ligth switches and others
don't .
I do agree with you
I tend to think the debate is over when for example our friend archimago
( he is no alone in this ) can measure that the output from a DAC is
electrically identical :)
The question then becomes more of applied psycology and antropology ?
People are people and will hear difference when there
ralphpnj wrote:
This an old complaint and made some sense back when CPUs were much
slower and much less powerful. Today's computers and computers made
within the last 5 years are all quite capable of handling flac to wav
on-the-fly decompression without any loss in sound quality. Besides if
riffer wrote:
Interesting take. Could TAS be printing this nonsense only because that
is what their readership demands?
Actually i think it a circular argument, its a feedback loop started in
the 70's :)
But i think some got cynical and see trough it all but still prints this
nonsense and
About 3 cone area*linear travel is physics you don't get away from that
! so reasonable cone area ( can absolutely be more than one driver ,
that could be even better , more motors ) is worth something . Of course
in the boxes that the acoustics of the system require :) not what's
fashionable .
bonze wrote:
Odd, all the useful advice above and the only post you reply to is the
one crayoned by the forum troll
+1
Also avoiding Archimagos very definitive experiment where he can show
that typically a -DAC has has identical analog output- regardless of OS
feeding it and not even the
Archimago wrote:
Yeah... As per this post back in April:
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/04/measurements-laptop-audio-survey-apple.html
Using a decent DAC with an asynchronous USB interface device (CM6631A -
same interface as the newer Schiit DAC's) , I was unable to measure a
Peiter wrote:
It is easy to hear the difference in bass (my example), not as easy to
tell in the mids/Highs ... maybe less here also.
No replay-gain.
I'm running a 3 days old version (7.8) of LMS.
Default adjustment for remote streams is -5. I'll set it to 0 (maybe
this is it).
I'll be
Peiter wrote:
The track Let It Rain. After 2:37 minutes and the next 5 seconds, it's
easy to hear a difference in SPL in the bass. (To hear that, your gear
must be able to deliver enough SPL from ~ 30 Hz). WiMP delivers *less*
SPL compared to my own FLAC version of that track.
So what
An interesting test would be to test a record known to be hdcd if you
have a hdcd capable DAC .
( but these are getting a bit old fashioned ) .
Re suggestions of volume adjustment or compression , does everything
sound at the same level when building a wimp hifi playlist ? Or are the
level
Yes i Will probably at some piont in the near future try wimp . Don't
get me wrong i do like the idea .
Spotify is far from perfect so maybe the completion offers a better
overall experience .
But HIFI branded streaming it would take more then just flac files to
get it rigth .
But let's here
garym wrote:
So true. Double blind tests could solve a lot of issues and answer a lot
of questions regarding differences (as they do every day in the worlds
of medicine, science, and engineering). But they'd be out of business if
they did this. To paraphrase P.T. Barnum (??), There's a
garym wrote:
But this is not how the feeding of a SB player from a server actually
works. The suggestion that reducing the workload of a PC running as LMS
server can affect the SB player is equivalent to saying the following:
If I can increase the efficiency of a fueling station on the
Dont bother , one of the main reasons for having a squeezebox is (as
abuti explained ) that it is completely server agnostic , whatever audio
goes on on the server does not matter .
It does not use it no soundcard drivers are in use kernel streaming etc
would only concern sound-cards connected
Archimago wrote:
Hello mnyb.
Glad to see you guys enjoying Keaton's kontribution. The man's old but
crafty :cool:.
Yes, I did test the Onkyo relatively fully back in this post:
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/10/measurements-onkyo-tx-nr1009-as-hdmi.html
The HDMI jitter actually
ralphpnj wrote:
Not all HT receivers have inferior power amp sections. Marantz HTRs all
seem to have very decent power amp sections as do the top models from
most manufacturers. It's the el cheapo receivers that have not so good
power amp sections.
Can you drive your Vandersteens with the
Thanks again for the measurement part .
Hdmi has been accused of horrible jitter in it's implementation ?
And there are probably some not so fantastic implementations out there
especially older ht amps .
Can you see any of that in this Onkyo amp ?
What's the spectrum using spdif or toslink at
heisenberg wrote:
I'm going to offer a belated reply for sure, but the topic interests me,
for some reason. Assuming that by 'our gear' you are open to including
the music carriers (i.e. LPs, CDs, FLACs, etc.), I'd say that my
philosophy boils down to chasing after the best version of music
heisenberg wrote:
I was very saddened when I discovered that I can't reliably tell whether
the music playing is from a 320 kbps mp3 or from a lossless source.
Hence, I'm not into chasing after 24/192 -- like you've said, a complete
overkill.
Dont be that , it's just the limit of the ear
bennyboyph wrote:
My squeezebox touch detects up to 384kHz as a supported sample rate by
my USB DAC.
Therefore, I don't see any reason why the EDO app won't support 384 via
USB.
John Swenson is doing exactly the same thing with the wandboard for the
communitysqueeze project. He is
Maybe ,with some editing of the custom-covert.conf file etc . I don't
know the details of it some people have done constant uppsampling to 96k
. I have not heard of anyone manage doing it at even integers ?
So a forum search may turn up something ?
But what kind of squeezebox player do you have
dont feed the Tr shhs
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
darrenyeats wrote:
Jez, Ikabob,
Did you try the DAC1 with attenuators set to 0db? I've recently
discovered this absolutely transforms the sound. (I find it both amazing
and disillusioning because Benchmark say the attenuators are transparent
... they are flipping well not!)
Darren
Sent
I have to disagree slightly .
The SET sound can in it's totality all be explained within the amps
distortion pattern and output impedance and nonlinear behaviour . This
may sound better to some but this is not transparent treatment of the
signal . It's a sound effect IMO .
I could accept the
foxx wrote:
Yes and no. We would at least need som sort of digital switch in order
to rout the various incoming signals to the active speakers. Otherwise
we'd be left with tons on cables running into the speaker, which would
ba definitive killer for me.
There are solutions for that ,
foxx wrote:
Yes and no. We would at least need som sort of digital switch in order
to rout the various incoming signals to the active speakers. Otherwise
we'd be left with tons on cables running into the speaker, which would
ba definitive killer for me.
There are solutions for that ,
The logical endpiont is digital active speakers (actually has been since
the early 90's but audiophiles are to darned conservative ) .
:) but sadly still to few brands and price classes to make viable
options for everyone :/
garym wrote:
I suspect he wasn't talking about USB or ethernet cables in this
discussion. For *analog* distribution (e.g., speaker wires), cable
*can* make a difference.
Albeit a small one for speaker wires thats goes away when the cross
section is large enough esential parameters are R,L
garym wrote:
Agree! And I like the fact that Hoffman notes that different could be
worse sound, even with more expensive cables. Probably a high
correlation between price and lack of sane design.
yeah how else to make it different much like NOS dac's with no or
unorthodox filter design etc
As it is said, the fish stinks from head down . I would put dual
distrust in thief capacity to correctly evaluate analog gear.
Example : the tube cult .
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
Jeff52 wrote:
You have to love this comment (below) appearing after the Stereophile
article about P.W.B. Cream Electret. The inventor of the Cream
discussed Chemical A and Chemical B as examples of certain chemicals
having a negative and positive effect on listeners.
Some of the acoustic materials seems leggit but . the the Qx4
scalar field generator :)
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel
Your windows desktop/laptop may not be the most stable LMS environment ,
but a dedicated Linux server is and it's probably Ethernet to not wifi
as an laptop usually are . Beside you could be doing other demanding
task with your pc that would break streaming .
cdmackay wrote:
[apologies for late reply]
I've whimpered about this before, but I still hold out hope of a
resource, listing recordings available in hi-res, with notes on the
various versions, and how they relate to original mastering, etc.
e.g. just as you say, this recording was
ralphpnj wrote:
With the on going high end audio price spiral quickly reaching insane
levels, e.g. state of the speakers are now $200K/pair, power amps at
$50K, pre-amps at $50K, CD/SACD players at $100K, etc., I think in that
context a mere $700 should be considered not expensive. Just
Good article :)
..and thats why I think the unmodded Touch is a sufficiently good
transport for any and all systems and listeners , It's limitation to
only 24/96 is of no particular concern either .
If you have ultra expensive high-end the design may be a bit off , but
it actually match pretty
I do understand JRiver'ssstand as JPlay leaches of them with a similar
name of thier product ? probably intentional .
And by that also implying that JRiver dont work 100% without thier
product :)
Mnyb's Profile:
It is what it is hoax is that not a to good natured word ? People
could pull a good hoax for fun too .
What to call a product where you extract money out of people for
nothing, con , scam ,grift ,swindle, fraud ?
Or sadly , some of the crank's actually run companies and believe in
this kind
Excellent ! is not the emperors wardrobe quite empty soon :)
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98933
:-) good old foobar what I used on pc playback just bypass the windows
kmixer by some means and you are bit perfect !
I never been a fan of iTunes I think the whole experience is frustrating
and not supporting FLAC is just stupid
... And your diff is very likely limitation in the test method and
some random noise.
You forgot to mention one cause of confusion in the blog , replay gain
tags ! WAV does not have but other formats can have it .
Mnyb's
Archimago wrote:
Yes. There will always be a bit of noise measuring the analogue signal.
I'll update with ReplayGain as well...
But it is great that you actually try , and this with playback
environments that sometimes seriusly are considered sub optimal :) not
like a squeezebox that is
mlsstl wrote:
Can't comment on the MDAC, but I had been using a SB3 with a Lavry DAC
when I got my Touch 3 years ago. I ran them side-by-side, synced and
level-matched for a couple of weeks. I found that I generally could not
tell a difference, and when I could, it was so subtle as to not be
Archimago wrote:
Who knows... Certainly the measurements for the old TDA1543x4 DAC was a
lot grungier, more jittery, and less resolving with 24-bit upsampling
(it's a 16-bit part). But objectively, in terms of the waveform itself
and the frequency roll-off, it looks like the TEAC does the
Hmm :)
The filter is a part of the reconstruction of the signal ? if that works
all is well acording the sample theorem .
So audiophiles with NOS dacs want a technologie that breaks the sample
theorem ? and fullfils the myth that higher sample rates are needed ?
:confused:
The uatenuated grunge fs may aliase or fold down to the audiable range
?
Affect downstream equipment ?
Maybe the old multibit converters usually used in NOS design has some
properties that the TEAC can't emulate in its faux NOS mode
Won't this only really be a problem with loudness war recordings that
sound so good anyway :)
Would a more natural signal that just touches 0dB for one sample be
a problem to ?
Is this really limited to asrc ? could not any digital filter used have
this problem .
Yea *real* problems will aggregate over the whole chain beginning with
the recording studio .
not everything , especially not things that usually concerns audiophiles
.
For example THD ,I read quotes that we can in best case perceive 0,1% if
every ananlog amp stage had this it would not be good
Yeah experimental errors
Actually I missed the point where we learned that he used server side
decoding . Then everything is not just the same hen entering the DAC by
actually from the point where it leaves the computer ?
And it is a good example of perceptual bias to for example consistently
Wombat wrote:
The legendary pre-ringing is something that should be a non-issue with
DACs that work correctly.
Once there were some false implemented hardware that caused
intermodulation of the pre-ringing into the audible band. This is no
problem anymore.
Unfortunately it is easy to show
There are also artistic choices done by the mixing engineer and
producer.
A modern recording may be beyond reproach technically , but the actual
sounds put on to it may sound as you discribe .
Some one else on this forum made the remark that some 50's microphones
had a bit of a hot shouty sound
darrenyeats wrote:
I've had some contact lately with people in the business and often the
mastering for vinyl and digital is done by different people. The people
doing the digital mastering are very conscious of the sound for airplay.
This simple fact is probably doing the most damage. It
Sound different too hmm we are still in the domain of perceptual
errors . Is reality completely uninteresting ?
If you think it's sound different it is not necessarily so.
Foobar 2000 has an abx plugin that is useful .
Otherwise I suggests a random playlist with mixed aiff FLAC versions
heisenberg wrote:
Is it possible to then convert the LP to digital without losing the
clarity of the signal? If yes, the above would actually be good news.
Instead of buying the crapy digital master, we could buy the LP and
convert it at home, no?
Or am I daydreaming here?
Absolutely ,
It's very easy to discount the possibility It has been done many times
with correctly setup stuff.
Did not archimago actually measured this ? WAV and FLAC actually
produces exactly the same output.
If you hear differences between lossless formats the overwhelmingly
likely explanations are .
1.
Archimago wrote:
A good example of this was in the TT3 mod measurements:
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/measurements-logitech-touch-tt3-mod.html
Stock Touch was with FLAC decoding on the hardware, TT3 measurements
with server-side decoding. No difference in measurements in either
In this actual case there is facts , no needs to use poor analogies.
Fact . There is no difference in sound between FLAC and WAV .
There is not even a plausible mechanism for it .
Other forum members likearchimago have even measure the the transporter
in this regard.
The electrical signal that
netchord wrote:
i don't use WAV or FLAC, my comments were about the audibility of
compressed vs. non-compressed audio generally. in the case of ALAC and
AIF, and using the transporter, I can hear the difference. I might
speculate this is becasue the transporter will decode AIF natively,
Archimago wrote:
:-)
It's going to be busy for me the next week but hopefully I'll finish off
the digital cable series with some TosLink selections in a couple of
weeks.
I think the measurements are clearly pointing to an important but
inconvenient (for some) yet absolutely logical
Archimago wrote:
When I get around to it to check out the dealers in town, will ask about
borrowing something cherished!
Over the years I have never seen any audiophile magazine publish the
graphs I've shown - ie. exactly identical graphs for various digital
cables - has anyone? Maybe an
Yea , but they don't measure cables specifically when doing a cable test
. Or like Archimago done in situ to see their impact :)
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread:
Julf wrote:
Or you could just use loudness or tone controls.
Yes the loudness contour is avery good idea .
.. On relatively naturally recorded stuff when the instruments makes
sense .
..And if people actually understood what it was , not thinking it was an
instant disco button hence why we
mlsstl wrote:
This is NOT what was being discussed just a few posts back.
Rather it was about taking the same recording and playing it back at two
ever so slightly different playback levels. Most people prefer the one
that is slightly louder even if they can't perceive the volume
Please can some AA ( anynomous audiophiles ) member donate a silly
expensive digital coax cable to Archimago :)
Or an super expensive USB .
When I was riddled by this disorder , I never really subscribed to super
expensive digital cables , so the ones I had was not that spectacular
just
cliveb wrote:
That isn't how placebos work. You don't get to consciously choose
whether you're going to give them a chance. They operate at a deep,
subconscious level in the mind. And to suggest that the placebo effect
works everywhere *except* audio is just silly.
+1 that is exactly why we
darrenyeats wrote:
In real life we have natural ultrasonic frequencies ... they do no
harm; we can't hear them.
In audio life (!) we have equipment like power amps and transducers that
distort in various ways that are not natural at all, one being
intermodulation distortion. However, IM
You just described part of the inherit problems with vinyl it comes with
the territory .
If you want consistency ,get a digital version .
I do assume that the new vinyl album will be done from a digital master
and any vinyl transfer does far more damage than any kind of reasonable
digital
Julf wrote:
I would love to hear how you can remove noise and distortion afterwards.
And I am pretty sure a lot of audio manufacturers would love to hear it
too...
That's why your water filter analogy is plain wrong. A better analogy
would be trying to justify using a tap (spigot /
Archimago wrote:
A look at some USB cables. Might as well... :-)
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/04/measurements-usb-cables-for-dacs.html
BTW: Since I'm in the Witness Protection Plan, I'm actually not going to
bother posting some of these results on the usual audiophile forums...
garym wrote:
good perceptual codecs (lame mp3 and AAC for example) were designed to
throw away the info you can't hear (that's why these are
perceptual...throw out the content that human beings can't hear
anyhow). Don't feel bad, this is the way it is supposed to be! Very few
people can
Jeff52 wrote:
Hi Ralph, I do have some basic electronics background, but I would never
claim to have qualifications in the audio arena. :) My comments were
just observations and not meant to imply I am qualified or an expert.
:) afaik , there is no special laws of physics for audio , I don't
heisenberg wrote:
Interesting (and shocking, to me at least).
Would the same be true for ABX-ing red book vs. hi rez format of the
same track?
IMO yes , given given that it really is the same track ( the 16bit is
derived from the same source ) .
Given the hif in my sig , it has DRC tone
A spanner in the works is that so many hi res tracks are not really
hirez either they have analog origin or are fakes ,upsampled 16/44.1 ,
or if the track has been mastered with typical modern loudness war
methods no subtleties will be audible .
So pick your best tracks if you ever try , some
Afaik there are different masters ,meaningntheynare produced to sound
different .
The way to compare these things is as Garym say to make you own 16bit
files from the 24bit files and also make your own 320k mp3 files from
that 16 bit file .
Ime , in other cases lets say an SACD or DVDA release
Or SoX , or r8brain .
Sox is commandline and has a plethora of filter settings , can take some
reading to find proper settings some of the recommended defaults are
good .
Off topic:
SOX is often used in a sub genre in audiophoolism , to up convert on
your computer before sending it to the DAC .
Archimago wrote:
Lots of good discussion here already.
2009 Beatles USB hi-res 24/44 was ~0.35dB or so louder in many tracks
compared to the equivalent 16/44 CD release.
High quality MP3 sounds very close if not identical to lossless 16/44...
If you missed it, there was the blind MP3
garym wrote:
Yes! My ability to buy my toys depends in part on people paying
university tuition! Focus on that part first. ;-)
Yea and preoccupation with pseudoscience like audiophilia is harmless
:/ run the decision to buy more 5000$ cables truogh your wife and kids
and see what they think .
Archimago wrote:
You might be right, I'll have to double check on this... Been awhile
since I read about it...
I'm not 100% sure either ? But your piont is still valid the 3M system
was a very primitive digital recordings system with performance
limitations but no audiophile complains if
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Mynb, you are the one who has spent so much cash on Meridian stuff,
which buffers the bits everywhere (and so the high price). No wonder you
are oblivious of all digital issues. I run digital straight into a TACT
amp which I sadly dont think has good buffering or even
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Good one. Asynchronous USB is a good development. But I doubt all asynch
DACs will sound the same. You or others might disagree.
Not quite like that the DAC's may offcourse be different but anything
goes as a transport to the DAC given its async USB2 ?
I think that's
Apesbrain wrote:
Sorry to further detour this thread, but you're thinking of his next
album, '-Bop Till You Drop-'
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bop_till_You_Drop) (1979).
See also: http://mixonline.com/TECnology-Hall-of-Fame/1978-EM-Mastering/
Actuall I think Jazz also was recorded this
Mnyb wrote:
Actuall I think Jazz also was recorded this way , bit you cleared up
the 16 bit issue , it used 12 + 8 bits in some way :) I misremembered
that one .
..but I don't know where I got that from ? , hate LP sleeve or something
mlsstl wrote:
I've always been puzzled by statements like the one above which clearly
imply that, on those rare occasions when a subjectivist admits that
their perception might have been influenced by their own mind rather
than only outside technical factors, that said influence is limited
To someone else's place ? Totally unfamiliar acoustics , there is no
point trying to discern finer points .
I have moved a lot , it is quite surprising emotionally how different
the same hifi sounds in a new place it takes about 2 weeks to
acclimatise IMO . But logically it is no surprise it's
darrenyeats wrote:
I've had similar experiences.
Darren
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
I concur , but from the other end , in my audiophool days I could build
a common expectation bias with a friend :)
If you search this forum I have explained in detail hat I was on the
other
I tend ro agree wombat , how do you find the middle road with flat
earthers :) is concave a good compromise ?
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread:
Archimago wrote:
Yeah, I think the review is generally fair - no audiophile worship of
the awesome 1-bit technology :-). The DAC also looks very nice!
However, I would say that his choice of music would not lend to
demonstrate DSD's superiority at all (in fact, likely quite the
Archimago wrote:
On Page 7 where I measured the Touch, WiFi strength was around 70%.
Since I did all the Touch measurements at the same location in my home,
they'd all be around that value.
If the WiFi is unreliable, re-buffering can surely be an issue and would
lead to audible problems.
PS if you want to hear the buffer (or rather not ) it's easy with a
wired player just pull out the cable .
Then add the fact the data in the buffer would bee the same even if it
was filled via wifi .
the juggle the odds that such differences being a real electro acoustic
effect or something
Are there any good review of the Hegel with a complete set of
measurements ?
I find thier data a bit strange and atypical ?
Noise floor: Typically -145 dB
Distortion: Typical 0,0006%
This is not the typical signal to noise ratio figure used by other
manufacturers and it's usually thd+n vs
Off topic :
Waldrep is a nice guy . I must had the longest standing back order in
history for the AIX Nicci Gilbert record , some difficulties prevented
the release for years ( maybe 5 ) but AIX eventually delivered , if you
believe the gossip on the internet ms Gilbert herself seems to be a
Archimago wrote:
Went back to my friend's place to check out Oppo's beta DSD firmware:
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/04/measurements-oppo-bdp-105-does-dsd.html
Good to finally get some measurements from a pure DSD playback
system...
Cool , when I replace my blue ray player I know
+1 nice blog well thought out , it does not really add anything we dont
already have , good morning btw (07:20 here) time for - some music in
whatever format- to the coffee :)
Mnyb's Profile:
SuperQ wrote:
What do you expect from snakeoil sales people? Sorry, you got fleeced.
The unknown board is the Wifi board :) if dont want wlan you dont need
it .
Snake oil yes any one that sells a bybee (quantum purifier) is a
charlatan .
RonM wrote:
Pardon my ignorance, but I don't understand this. On vinyl there should
still be the same linear length of the groove for the same length of
song, regardless of levels; does keeping levels high mean that the
groove, in effect, must be wider, reducing the the total groove length
Nando1970 wrote:
in my book vinyl is interesting just because it is often the only source
of superior mastering.
This said I only listen to digitized vinyl rips done by others
(sometimes using LPs I buy on purpose), and I would love to get access
to equivalent pure digital masters with no
mlsstl wrote:
If vinyl has any superiority, it may well be due to the technical
limitations keeping the engineer/producers from doing what they'd
otherwise be inclined to do.
may it's absolutely the case you cant cut a loudness war master to
vinyl , so they funny enough have greater
ralphpnj wrote:
It may indeed be silly but apparently silly sells.
Yeah ,but why not release the better master as another CD or a download
? No instead they make a vinyl ?
Are we there again , you can not sell a lowly cd or download to the
intended audience , it must be vinyl or possibly
701 - 800 of 1831 matches
Mail list logo
