So. If you'll stop assuming you know what I mean when you clearly don't
you'll read the bit about what I'd like to see (the thx-y bit) and less
about MQA. I don't give too shakes of a monkey's dong about MQA itself
to be honest, just would like to see the industry get behind /something/
or
Archimago wrote:
> drmatt: "Actually I'd rather see a "thx like" mastering standard ..."
>
> Yeah, I think something like this applied as a "standard" for which
> high-resolution recordings can be certified as such might be
> beneficial... Hard t
cdmackay wrote:
> I dunno. It sounds like you are saying: "there's a desire to sort things
> out, and create useful standards, and that's good. The result was MQA,
> which isn't good, but still, the intention was good". Is that what
> you're saying?
>
> I fear that the intention was nothing of
arnyk wrote:
> Who cares since we know that so-called high resolution audio has no
> audible benefits?
Me, because I'd rather have a single disc with four or twelve hours of
audio than yet another box set that costs fifty quid.
As for flac compression ratio, let me Google that for you..
Wombat wrote:
> It uses maybe around 20 scripts to check for art.
Re: https://sourceforge.net/projects/album-art/
Just realised this is a Windows only project. No use for me, sorry. I
will however take a look at some of the back end downloader scripts as
it may be possible to use some of the
All fair points about capability of humans. But the capability of the
machines is much higher, so in my view why not master at 24 bit anyway?
The "massive" increase in data storage is utterly trivial actually and
if it helps one engineer avoid clipping or pull a badly levelled track
out of
Wombat wrote:
> imho best cover art finder https://sourceforge.net/projects/album-art/
> At least for front covers.
Looks like a GUI. Is it scriptable?
drmatt's Profile:
RonM wrote:
> In general, I can find the cover in acceptable resolution online in a
> fraction of the time it takes to scan and process the cover. But yeah,
> to everything else.
There's an API for getting covers from Amazon.. you just need a aws key
and a bit of Perl.. I have unattended
Wombat wrote:
> It uses maybe around 20 scripts to check for art. You can easily compare
> in a preview the quality and size it finds on all these places with
> defined minimum size for example. You will see relying on one source
> only seldom gives best quality. On new releases the itunes or
arnyk wrote:
> A lossless compression technique was desired because the DVD format
> lacked the data capacity required to put uncompressed hi rez
> multichannel PCM on a DVD disc. The methodology chose by the DVD forum
> was called MLP and is the piece that Meridian owned.
So I see, a pity
arnyk wrote:
> How would you know?
>
"A simple internet search will reveal"
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread:
arnyk wrote:
> Prove it.
I think just flipping back through this thread is proof enough, let
alone searching the rest of the internet.
What are you even doing here anyway? Why do you even care what people on
the squeezebox forum think? Seems like a bit of a comedown to me given
your apparent
They'd definitely tell me it was off topic in a /video/ forum...
Anyway, yes I know how long it takes to copy 81 or 162 GB files around,
it's pretty tedious. Still a hell of a lot quicker than duplication of
master tapes I would imagine and getting quicker year on year.
You have real world
Julf wrote:
> Could we please keep the discussion factual instead of descending into
> silly ad hominems?
If only I'd been the first, or worst, I'd agree with you on that.
But really, it's a media streamer from a company that makes mice and
keyboards. It's hardly an important part of the HiFi
arnyk wrote:
> You're not the first, but the other point seems to be one of your
> personal goals.
>
> This begs the question of why do you Dr Matt bother with this place,
> given your apparent disrespect for their company, and their products.
>
> In contrast to you, I admire Logitech, and
Yup
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105717
___
audiophiles mailing
docbob wrote:
> 81 GB is the size of what file? 32 channels for 8 hours? Is that
> realistic?
Yes this is correct. Uncompressed.
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread:
arnyk wrote:
> Incorrect. You might want to get up to speed with a thread (especially
> one this short) before making mistakes like that. Please see post 8.
Sarcasm doesn't make you right.
drmatt's Profile:
I didn't say 24/96 just 24 for the extra latitude. 81GB for a master
file from a recording studio doesn't really sound very scary to me. I
have more capacity than that in my pocket.
Are we defining a defacto standard here or discussing possibilities?
I can't deny that talented folks don't need
I don't think it can be a bad thing to qualify individual ADCs and DACs
such as this process entails in an end-to-end manner. This format may
well be a faltering "step one" towards a very much required audio
standard that will stop the "fat sausage" mastering of digital audio and
improve quality
You have no clue which codec is being used. Bluetooth either works or it
doesn't.
The actual codec chosen will generally be the "best" that both devices
are compatible with, but you don't know and don't care because it's out
of your control.
Everything is digital now. But Bluetooth audio reencodes the audio from
the decoded PCM at the output stage, it does not transmit either the raw
pcm itself or the original flac/mp3 data.
drmatt's Profile:
I didn't ever look up what the bitrate or encoding type is on Bluetooth
tbh, but yeah it's more than adequate for typical in car use or drunken
parties..
drmatt's Profile:
ralphpnj wrote:
> That sounds right since when I stream audio via bluetooth in my car all
> the information from the file shows up on the in dash display - cover
> art, song name, artist, album and timing. All simple jpg or text.
This information is all explicitly encapsulated in the Bluetooth
arnyk wrote:
> I apologize for the representatives of the DBT thought police that I
> have stationed near your house to make sure that you don't try to do any
> proper experiments. They are obviously acting in a too heavy handed way
> if you can detect them.;-)
Hah, it's the neural damping
arnyk wrote:
> Yeah, yeah someone gets caught repeatedly making up false claims about
> what someone else writes, and poof! it is just a misunderstanding, much
> of it not even his fault.
>
> Friendly advice, people who can't comprehend other people's posts should
> save themselves a lot of
ralphpnj wrote:
> The MQA process starts off by making an invalid assumption and then
> builds up from that falsehood. An analog audio signal (which is simply a
> type of electrical signal) is converted to a digital audio signal by an
> ADC (analog to digital converter) and then the resulting
arnyk wrote:
> The claim has been made that MQA covers the reproduction system
> end-to-end, but that claim breaks down in reality.
I haven't seen it in action, just read a few online reports. It implies
that this is the goal.
> For example how can a Steely Dan recording recorded and mixed
Yeah I remember those. Yes, that would work but support for them was
patchy.
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105070
ralphpnj wrote:
> Squeezebox Touch I realize that your point about fantasy audio rings
> quite true with respect to the high end audio world's flat out rejection
> of streaming audio.
I did enjoy that recent article about how different hard drives in a NAS
altered the sound of the streamer..
arnyk wrote:
> Ignores the fact that an even more powerful salesperson is present in
> the room - you, yourself.
>
> Ignores the warning that you have already received that this is at best
> a highly misleading procedure, and you've been given the scientific
> reasons why.
No, doesn't ignore
Fizbin wrote:
> Yeah, I figured the DAC's -alone- wouldn't be make or break. It would
> still be interesting to compare the two. I mean, if the Transporter
> sounded better, I'd have to give the ex-guys at Slim Devices some major
> credit.
Ignore the other comments... If you're interested in
arnyk wrote:
> Did I say that the analog parts of digital music players cause them to
> sound different? No memory of ever making that mistake!
You're right I interpolated from what you /did/ say..
drmatt's Profile:
arnyk wrote:
> False claim- we can conclusively prove to reasonable persons which
> so-called audible effects are self-deception, and which are not.
>
> Just thinking about all the anti-scientific claims that have been been
> shown to be false here lately. Then the source of them says "Ignore
StephenPG wrote:
> You could prove it easily by using, and I quote, "Level-matched,
> time-synched, bias controlled listening tests".
>
> But that's not going to happen any time soon, is it?
Just like lots of things can be proven with infinite time and patience.
In the meantime I'd like to
StephenPG wrote:
> So, self deception ftw then?
Well I know some people think that's what it is. I don't, but none of us
can conclusively prove it either way so who gives a c**p? Just have fun
with it.
drmatt's
arnyk wrote:
> I'm not sure your previous comments agree with this.
>
> You said:
>
> "Even if you're kidding yourself that it sounds better but you enjoyed
> the process, what does it matter? This is an entertainment system after
> all not a system of record."
>
> If it is indeed an
arnyk wrote:
> As usual wew have a post that makes false claim and then assumes that
> everybody agrees with it.
>
> You've invented a highly narrow criteria which is impossible, namely:
> "You can't prove that holds true for all people at all times and under
> all circumstances." , and then
arnyk wrote:
> What I see is a recitation of many of the false claims and pseudoscience
> that are commonly used by high end audio journalists and salesman. When
> disemboweled by scientific arguments, there is generally no attempt to
> overcome the arguments and facts that falsify them.
What
arnyk wrote:
>
>
> Good science is based on gathering evidence and forming hypothesis that
> are based on it.
>
> Everything is at least a little doubtful. Ever hear of skepticism?
>
> As usual you have made up yet another false claim, and attributed it to
> me. I never said that everybody
arnyk wrote:
> For the record, I think that every thing I post should be compared to
> the relevant findings of science, and if it does not conform, it should
> be pointed out and let's find a better answer. Believe it at your own
> risk!
Glad to hear it. Note that not everyone takes this hobby
StephenPG wrote:
> As I can see from your reply to arnyk, always looking for a loophole to
> avoid actually testing your hypothesis...
Not "avoid", just don't have contacts who could help me achieve that
locally. Where do you start? Have you done a proper ABX test to see if
you can tell the
Fizbin wrote:
> Slightly OT but has anyone ever compared the Oppo 105 vs the
> Transporter? I'm curious how the older DAC of the transporter holds up.
No, but I'd agree with Arnyk that any differences will most likely be in
the analogue components of the two devices. How does the sound from the
arnyk wrote:
> I bet! Its an illusion based on wortheless anti scientific experiments,
> unfortunately right down some people's alley.
So glad I didn't use those dull sounding SSDs when I was modelling the
forces on a satellite. I need my bits to be nice and sparkly.
arnyk wrote:
> Its always a struggle to...
Apparently you couldn't read it when I said it the first time so I had
to help you out. I'll write in a larger font next time.
> Perceiving audible differences among good electronics and cables is all
> due to choosing bias and illusion over reliable
arnyk wrote:
> I thought you clearly said that you accept it as an acceptable tradeoff
> for yourself.
Yes. And?
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread:
arnyk wrote:
> Obviously, "Drmatt" you are not aware of these options since you keep
> talking about cables being stuck and not removable without damaging the
> equipment.
Actually it's you who keeps talking about it "AK", I only mentioned it
in passing to demon
Unfortunately the world doesn't make ultra cheap cables that meet the
"does the job" criteria. I think as others have said, aim to spend
around £30 or so and you will get something decent that will give you
99.9% of possible "performance". Anything more is up to you but you
likely won't get
arnyk wrote:
> Please cite your qualifications for being credible while contradicting
> me. ;-)
Easy to contradict fantasies you made up. Don't need qualifications for
that...
drmatt's Profile:
arnyk wrote:
> Why pay almost 100 pounds for a new audio cable?
Apparently some people's internet connection translates the characters
"30" into the characters "100". I would talk to my ISP in this scenario
about the strange audiophile-grade filtering they are applying to my
bits.
arnyk wrote:
> Looks like it is so easy that you failed to even try.
I refer your honour to my previous post.
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread:
arnyk wrote:
> Sure they do, especially if your benchmark price for a 1 meter
> interconnect is £30.
Well, I would say £30 is a decent value, depending on construction
quality. I would call your $6 cables ultra cheap. I never found any in
the price range that were that good. Mainly
arnyk wrote:
> It is possible that the RCA jacks in question are poorly made, or are
> being abused during set up.
>
No, in the case I'm referring to they ripped RCA jacks apart on several
different items from lots of manufacturers no matter how carefully you
rock, wiggle, or prise the plugs
arnyk wrote:
> If this actually happened, it seems reasonable to question the
> competence of the person ruining all of that valuable equipment. Do you
> think that it might be possible that there are ways to remove RCA plugs
> from equipment, even if they are excessively tight?
Nothing wrong
cliveb wrote:
> You want decent quality sensibly priced cables in the UK? Try here:
> http://www.kenable.co.uk/
Thanks, will take a look. I have been mostly buying used branded stuff
off eBay in the past few years whenever I needed something. (Which
wasn't often to be fair.)
Have used Tandy
arnyk wrote:
> I mostly use professional interconnects with TRS or XLR connectors that
> run about $6 each.
Just gonna leave this here...
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View
Julf wrote:
> Yes, you are in the minority, as the rest of us pointed out that as long
> as the cables don't have any obvious defects, they don't actually change
> the sound in a physical sense. Whatever happens in your head is a
> different story.
I would agree that the viewpoint discussed is
Re: soldering. The only reason this can help is that the contact is less
likely to corrode between the terminals and the cable itself in the long
term, but if the cables are clean when crimped/clamped, kept in a
non-humid atmosphere and very tightly clamped it's unlikely they will
corrode
Most of these things can be left charging while you draw power off them
too. More UPS than battery. Also means you don't have to turn off to
charge.
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
Wow, prickly.
Electronics do not sound the same. There, I said it. Now stop telling me
I'm deluded and show me why you aren't.
Re EQ. Fair enough. I can't be arsed, because I know that I accommodate
different tonal balances after a short while listening as I said. More
annoyed with bad mixes on
arnyk wrote:
> I never said that all electronics sounds the same.
>
> Asserting that something is correct only because one likes it and with
> no other supporting evidence can be called solipsism which is generally
> thought to be characteristic of poor logic.
I didn't assert it was correct,
And I just realised I'm being heckled by THE Arny Krueger of rec.audio.*
fame. Awesome! This hasn't happened since 1993!
I thought you were banned from like all Internet forums everywhere...?
drmatt's Profile:
arnyk wrote:
>
> I never said that you were deluded.
>
I know, you only implied it.
>
> Provide reliable proof for that, please.
>
You know that it's possible to measure the difference between two
amplifiers in terms of s/n ratio and distortion levels and type of
distortion. Maybe I can
arnyk wrote:
> This and the many other examples of insults, distortion of posts, and
> dismissal of relevant technical comments show me a lack of good faith.
> IMO not worth the trouble to reply to.
Funny I feel exactly the same way about your posts in response to mine.
At the end of the day I
I had a lot of those too.. but wouldn't go back.. they were pretty bad.
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105572
sckramer wrote:
> Hmmm, maybe the single chip version has a very specific sound that
> sounds "vintage" -- so a nostalgia thing for people, dunno :D
I think there's a great deal of nostalgia in HiFi. And I wonder if there
will be another vinyl revival when the pre-CD-buying generation finally
arnyk wrote:
> *Only* 50 dB down from - 60 dB?
> Until digital recording that kind of performance from a recording was
> long-frustrated dream! That's better than most amplifiers and preamps
> that were in use in the day. It's better than most professional
> recording microphones and mic
arnyk wrote:
> I
> Finally here's a signal recorded via a Grado Black cartridge mounted in
> a Rega turntable...
> Please notice that the nonlinear distortion artifacts of this device
> includes several that are only about 50 dB down.
>
The CD distortion artifacts are only 50db down from the
arnyk wrote:
> Please try to compare apples to apples. The LP signal was at maximum
> recorded level, The corresponding CD signal recorded at maximum recorded
> level has all artifacts > 100 dB down.
>
> The LP signal is what it is, and can't be improved by dither. The CD
> signal when
A phrase I once heard springs to mind: "never ascribe to malice that
which can be adequately described as incompetence"
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread:
arnyk wrote:
> In fact dither is quite effective with no filtering at all. It does what
> it does due to some subtlties assocated with nonlinear processing.
>
> The dither does not reduce the errors caused by interactions between
> the digital data and the word clock. Instead, it randomizes
Or marketing. Could also be marketing.
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105507
arnyk wrote:
> Sample here:
> http://thetomtomclub.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-flat-response-magazine
>
That guy likes to talk about himself.
Seems somewhat disingenuous to attempt to ascribe the "distortion" of
the whole A-D-A digital recording and playback chain of a signal at
-90db to the
"Directed against?" Hardly. Just a comment of recognition from the old
days...
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread:
Archimago wrote:
> Yeah, the only 16-bit DACs you're likely going to find "new" these days
> are based on old NOS DACs like the old Philips TDA154x designs.
>
> Some audiophiles seem to like them... Certainly "different" rather than
> "better"!
"Audiophiles" are people too... ;)
I had a couple
The -90db signal, with a dithered source, would look more like a PWM
square wave until you put it through the high frequency bandpass filters
necessary for the given DAC's sample rate.
No idea why they print these graphs, they are pretty irrelevant.
They stopped advising this ages ago and now don't care what speaker
cables you use or how long they are. I still think they produce kit that
sounds great though. Not sure what PRAT is in relation to an audio
system.. , but I know that whatever it may be that they do to produce
that sound, I like
Yes, I have heard the term plenty of times, but mean I have no idea what
it really means wrt to frequency response, linearity, or anything else
of the system..
drmatt's Profile:
I think they do know, now. They have DSPs in various products that they
probably had to write code so that mimics the "house sound".
"Flat earthers"? You seem quite bitter about something.. Step up on the
couch and tell me what it is... ;)
Maybe this is why I never got involved in rec.audio and subgroups years
ago..
Never been particularly interested in the brands or the politics and
have generally found myself at dealers listening to stuff to make my own
mind up.
Was always interested in the technology though.
I didn't say I demo them in the dealer other than as a taster...
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105507
I also find that if I was going to do electronic/digital eq it would
have to be done per-album, given that they are all mastered so
differently. So I don't.
I actually think that minor tonal differences you just accommodate,
there's not a huge amount of need to correct them in software or
Saw this thread and was amazed at the outright fraud displayed in the
demos mentioned at the start. That is truly crazy and, no doubt,
illegal.
Was disappointed to learn that naim, whose gear I like the sound of
normally and who always used to offer a single decent value generic
cable citing no
I would agree with the previous posts.. I wouldn't worry about 24/192
you're really not missing anything there and if you're happy with the
sound of the (much) cheaper DAC then I'd go for that. Try them out if
you can, is all I can suggest.
ralphpnj wrote:
> Quack! Quack!
But as a sceptic it's your job to disprove fud... ;)
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread:
On the topic of broadband.. Well I can say that there are still plenty
of parts of the UK and US, supposed to be highly developed economies,
where broadband speeds are struggling to reach the 8mbit recommended for
Netflix..
I'm waiting for a refutation rather than name calling...
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105070
Fair enough, where do they say it's audible? They quote studies that
show that very short time frame temporal information CAN be discerned by
a listener but how does this relate to music?
drmatt's Profile:
Funny. It's a duck. So to disprove the value of this duck is very much
to show that the temporal information on the timescales talked about is
either irrelevant (I.e. physically incapable of being heard) or is
preserved in standard recording/playback techniques anyway without mqa
help.
There's a
Mnyb wrote:
> And on the other hand there is hardly no such quest for better records ?
> Well there is a handful of audiophile labels , but they hardly record
> anything anyone would listen to anyway ?
>
> Priority must be to make better sounding records as >99% of what's ever
> recorded would
ralphpnj wrote:
> I don't understand the fascination with THX. THX is simply a label that
> is available for purchase along with a set of loosely defined
> "standards". Pay the money (aka licensing fee) and the THX label is
> yours whether or not the "standards" have been met.
>
Yeah, I
cliveb wrote:
> And the crucial word here is *consistently*. If you run a trial with 20
> people, it is statisically very likely that one of them will "pass the
> test". What then needs to be done is to repeat the test and have *the
> same person* pass the test again. If they don't, it's just a
cliveb wrote:
> The first stereo amp I ever bought back in the early 1970s had that. It
> was an Alba (the model number was something like "UA700")
> so it was in effect a "variable loudness button".
Cunning.. From an old British name in TV, back when they were a real
name not just a
What's connected to it? In detail.
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105841
Yeah, and stick it on a power meter if you have one. If nothing else
it'll tell you the power leak rate.
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread:
In my experience when items start getting hot for no reason it's leaking
current to a faulty grounded device.
Unplug the cables and see if it still gets so hot. (Uhhh apart from the
power one of course!)
drmatt's
cliveb wrote:
> I don't see how that can work. Different people like to listen to their
> music at very different levels.
> One man's "too quiet" is another lady's "TURN IT DOWN!!" (well, in my
> house, anyway :-)
This is of course true but if the mix was done to cater for a particular
volume
pablolie wrote:
> As to the same recording in 16/44 vs 24/192... nah.
Given that many DACs can't really resolve much more than 16 bits and you
can't hear above 20khz this is not a surprise. Though maybe you have a
very good DAC?
I think the study defines CD quality as 16/44 uncompressed (or
..can't see your .sig on the Tapatalk client, so I didn't know that..
But I also don't care why you bought your DAC.. you appear to be a grown
adult and it's therefore none of my business..
drmatt's Profile:
It is quite normal for an unregulated power supply to drop output
voltage quite significantly when it's put under load. That may not be
your issue. It is a cheap test, however.
drmatt's Profile:
1 - 100 of 378 matches
Mail list logo
