I have two Raspberry Pi 3+ boards. One has a HiFiBerry standard DAC on
it which is very good -- much better in fact than it has a right to be.
I could easily live with it as my only player. I find it better than the
analog outputs of my Touch.
The other RPi has a Digi+ Pro HAT on it that
"Placebophiles" -- I like it... ;-)
mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=107118
Mnyb wrote:
> So selling rock records from the 70's as hirez yeah :D
Great point. Pretending that stuff needs 96/24+ digital resolution is
either stupid or duplicitous. Doubly so after they do a "loudness wars"
conversion to bring it up to "modern standards".
This falls in the "heavy sigh" category for me. The vast majority of
recordings, even classical, get nowhere near to using the full dynamic
range of the 16/44.1 format as it is, which is already a good 30 dB
better than what the highly vaunted vinyl LP is capable of.
Well recorded CDs are
Interesting discussion about Roon. I've thought about getting that at
times for the simple reason of the expanded database and info. It would
be interesting to know more about the recording and artists, but I'm
so-so about the trivia aspect of music info, as in the drummer on this
album played on
Interesting topic. Hard to see the future, but I don't see things
changing much for me.
1. I've tried digital room correction and it didn't really change things
much or really seem worth the effort. Maybe I'm like you and am fairly
lucky to already have decent acoustics.
2. Music library -- I
Just curious, is there a way to confirm that the CD player is sending a
signal through its digital out socket?
mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598
View this thread:
I didn't get a Digi+ Pro, but just got HiFiBerry's DAC+ standard up and
running this afternoon. Added it to the Raspberry Pi 3 I got for
Christmas.
Made myself a little basement system with my aged LS3/5a clones and was
very impressed with the improved sound quality of this DAC. Much better
arnyk wrote:
> Many different music instruments create acoustical signals > 20 KHz.
> Cymbals are actually not the best sources of ultrasonic sound, their
> energy is typically concentrated in the 6=16 KHz range. Many tambourines
> will vastly outproduce cymbals when it comes to ultrasonic sound
OK, no hydrogen audio for him.
But there are other possibilities. I understand there are a couple of
sports bars in Chicago that are looking for someone to educate the
regulars on the issue of why any number of other baseball teams were so
much better than the Cubs this past season.
edwardthern wrote:
> No IDIOT, I never said my perception = a scientific FACT.
>
> I said my perception is my perception PERIOD.
>
> I said repeatedly that science can not prove my perception yet it is
> real to me
>
> Dark Energy.Matter can not be measured either, only we can measure
>
edwardthern wrote:
> You are are all sick F***KS and not to mention STUPID FU**KS to hold,
> and cling to the belief that you have the right to ridicule and badger
> someone for sensing ANYTHING with their own senses.
>
> In the year 2016 we still have such primitive and stupid mindsetsits
A nice, but wasted comment, Ron.
Edward fails to see the irony in claiming to be a subjectivist who's
judgment is not influenced by subjective factors.
mlsstl's Profile:
edwardthern wrote:
> The vast majority of people share the same subjective opinion. Anyone
> can read reviews from various products, in this case I will stick with
> the Audiogd Dacs. General consensus among most everyone that I have read
> are the same relating to the sound signature of the
edwardthern wrote:
> What these people are saying is subjective opinions are not valid.
>
> Objective test results are there only valid conclusion because they are
> supported by data.
>
You've got a straw man argument.
Subjective opinions are perfectly valid -- but ONLY for the one person
edwardthern wrote:
> Wrong!
>
> 1) Good cooks don't need to measure 2) Measuring to obtain "DATA" to
> justify food A tasting different than food B is not the same as
> measuring for a recipe...LOL
>
> The scenario you mention ie different amounts of ingredients is more
> equal to comparing
edwardthern wrote:
> Talking about perception is never a problem with normal people.
>
> People talk about food at restaurants, movies, books, vacation spots
> etc. all the time.no measurement data needed, only perceptional
> views.
>
> The moment you people bring up measurements you sound
cliveb wrote:
> Sorry, but what you have just said doesn't make sense.
>
> The fact that a faithful digital recording of an LP sounds exactly the
> same as the LP is no surprise.
>
> But comparing a digital recording of an LP to the LP is not the same as
> comparing a commercial CD release to
Unfortunately, today's business model of audiophilia consists of selling
"new and improved" gadgets to an ever-dwindling base of aging boomers.
That pretty much guarantees a constant flow of gimmicks, variations on
already threadbare themes, and gear based on un-thawed theories (forget
Over a 10 year period I transferred about 2,000 LPs to CD/44.1K digital
format (which I finished 2 or 3 years ago -- now just doing the odd
album here and there). Back-to-back and level-matched, I never could
tell the difference between direct playback of the LP and the unedited
digital copy. To
arnyk wrote:
> Truth be told just about everything you do will change the sound if you
> do audiophile-type listening tests - IOW don't match levels, don't time
> synch the music, don't quick switch and by all means don't keep people
> from knowing which of the alternatives they are listening to
Part of your post makes it sound like you bought from a company ("the
manufacturer") and the other part refers to "this person". Is this just
a one-person company selling a boutique product? One has to be very
careful with those outfits as its real easy for them to talk big while
they are really
The choice between mono v. stereo is almost wholly dependent on the
intent and quality of the original recording.
As a widely available commercial product on LP, stereo dates back to the
late 1950s and early 60s. However, being brand new at the time, many of
those recordings were overly
I'd agree that the article, in its effort to snidely relish its
"discovery", jumps to conclusions a bit too fast.
As others have noted, being "alone" does not equal "lonely". The first
word simply means you are not with anyone. Like many, I am very
comfortable and happy when I'm alone, whether
arnyk wrote:
> It has been repeated and explained on this and other threads in many
> ways that finding a live performance whose dynamic range exceeds the
> capabilities of the CD format is difficult.
And, it wouldn't hurt to note (again) that many of the "we desperately
need high-res -- CD
arnyk wrote:
> This number was apparently observed at musical performances that
> included "Electronic Augmentation"...
>
> The fallacy of these observations is that as many of us who have been
> subjected to loud concerts with "Electronic Augmentation" IOW electric
> guitars and PA systems
drmatt wrote:
> I can't deny that talented folks don't need any help to get things
> sounding good, but the talented folks who actually provide the music I
> listen to have thus far provided a mixed bag of quality and poor 16/44
> recordings. Perhaps some of them could have been better with a
Seems like a bad case of thread drift is underway
mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105572
cliveb wrote:
> In the context of using digital volume control, the purpose of passive
> attenuation in the analogue domain is so you can avoid applying a lot of
> digital attenuation - which results in loss of resolution.
>
> As far as achieving passive attenuation, using a preamp's volume
You say you are not too technical, but see if this helps your
understanding.
It is generally better to have a good match between the output of a
source device (your Touch player) and the amplifier being used to power
the speakers. While there is a general range of output voltage one can
expect
You're right, -65 dB in virtually any analog format is going to be
nothing but noise and distortion. 40% distortion would be dang good
looking in comparison.
mlsstl's Profile:
Thanks for the insight, mdconnelly. I've got over 5,500 albums in my
collection with 57,000 some-odd tracks and rarely have a problem finding
what I want.
I suspect Roon is certainly a boon when one is exploring connections one
didn't know about or wandering idly around. And, I appreciate that
I've looked at Roon and am not sure I'm interested. Its two strong
points seem to be an attractive graphic interface and the ability to
bring its own, additional metadata (tags) to the party.
The first item is kind of a "meh" for me -- I play my stereo in order to
listen to music and the
They can also hear everything you've never said...
mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105254
I think the fundamental irony is that subjectivists refuse to admit the
psychological influence of their own subjectivity!
mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598
View this thread:
Thought this was an interesting tidbit:
http://www.strata-gee.com/former-specialist-darling-mcintosh-opens-up-internet-sales/
Amazon and some other internet sellers are only supposed to be able to
carry a limited number of models, but as you can imagine, the long-time
brick & mortar dealers are
ralphpnj wrote:
> Look at this way, if the audiophile press flatly declared that anything
> other than properly functioning USB cable which meets specifications was
> not only not necessary but a just a waste of one's hard earned money
> would there be any audiophile USB cables? I don't think
Long ago I realized I was the weakest link in the reproduction chain.
That's true of all humans but some of us just refuse to admit it.
My mood, physical state, expectations and subconscious biases all
dramatically influence my listening perception. If I find fat purple
wires with magic
Archimago wrote:
> :-)As you said many time... It's about the money, and they need a new
> revenue stream. Pronto!
Very true. It is disappointing that so much corporate effort is put into
making meaningless changes for the sole purpose of protecting patents.
As many have noted before, from a
Some years back I ran a Squeezebox 3 (Classic) with a Lavry DAC. When
the Touch arrived, I did a synced, back-to-back, level-matched
comparison of the Touch's analog outputs to the SB3/Lavry combo,
I found I could not tell the difference between the two without checking
the position of the
Good article. I took a long sabbatical from all of the audio forums I've
frequented over the years and on my return have not been surprised that
nothing has changed in the audiophile world.
It was quite some time ago when the hobby lost me over the widespread
obsession of fiercely debating the
ralphpnj wrote:
My audiophile card was revoked the first time I heard Jazz at the Pawn
Shop and promptly declared that it was pure dreck and that I much
prefer to listen to Louie Armstrong's Hot Five and Sevens recordings.
I second the motion. The music comes first -- a wonderful recording of
netchord wrote:
i'm really hearing it; just don't have an explanation for it. to be
sure, i don't really need an explanation, but it is interesting.
I don't know -- the subliminal impact of change can be very dramatic.
Over many years I've had any number of experiences where I've been
Audiophiles could generate more than their fair share of eligible
entries for the annual Bulwer-Lytton bad prose contest. (In 1830, Edward
George Bulwer-Lytton opened his book with the infamous phrase It was a
dark and stormy night)
However, they seem to be sending their manuscripts to
Audiotic wrote:
Both were set to max. I know typically a louder one may sound better.
But here they were *close enough* in level. Same music, same server for
both... (Emphasis added)
Close enough isn't really good enough for true blind testing. Cranking
the output knob of two different
Glad we agree. I have zero problem with people choosing their stereo kit
(or car, kitchen gear, golf equipment or whatever) based on whatever
criteria they wish to use. I use a tube amp in my system. I make no
claims that it sounds or measures better than other amps, but I just
happen to like
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
susceptible all
Mnyb wrote:
Enjoy your vacuum tube gear for what it is :) is it some kind of classic
design ?
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
darrenyeats wrote:
The DAC in the Touch isn't bad IMO ...
I agree. When I got my Touch, I had a Lavry DAC and compared the Touch's
DAC to the Lavry for two weeks -- back-to-back, synced and
level-matched. The difference was extremely subtle, so much so that I
ended up selling the Lavry.
My two cents is that multichannel sound suffers from the same problem
that plagues the CD vs high-res debate. That is the fact that many
recordings don't even come close to taking full advantage of the formats
that are already widely available. Audiophiles often see 24/96 or 24/192
as some magic
aubuti wrote:
It is a pity indeed, but it depends on what you mean by that being the
state of affairs for music-only players. Logitech didn't know how to
sell Squeezeboxes. On the other hand, Sonos appears to be doing rather
well. I'm not saying that Sonos is as good as Squeezebox, because
I use a Vortexbox server (in the basement) to provide music to my two
Touch players, a SB3 and a SB Radio. One music source for multiple
players -- it is simply the best combo for doing things IMO. (I'll
confess I don't use the built-in ripping capability. I rip music on the
PC in my office,
I recently cancelled my account at Audio Asylum. Over the past months I
found that virtually none of the threads were of interest to me. The
sniping, arrogance and extremely odd (to me) insistence that their
subjective opinions couldn't possibly be due to subjective factors
finally got to me. I
satkinsn wrote:
Finally, if I'm going to the trouble of using a Win box to rip and tag
in the first place, is it really then sensible to move everything over
to V'box instead of leaving it on the Windows system and playing out
from there?
s.
I use a Vortexbox and am quite pleased with
SBGK wrote:
based on your measurements, you seem happy for Mynb to draw the
conclusion that
..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 .
which is
SBGK wrote:
how do you calibrate your measurements ? I can quite clearly hear that
different JPlay engines sound different, but your measurements can't
differentiate between them. What differences can your measurements
identify ?
how about testing win 7 vs win 8, they sound different,
yokou wrote:
Hi
I have been using a SBT for a while. I have recently bought a MDAC. I
connected it to the SBT with a spdif cable.
I have not heard any difference when I switched from A to B.
A FLAC - SBT (preamp section desactivated) - MDAC (preamp section
desactivated) - amplifier
Julf wrote:
And this all would of course not be an issue at all if people would have
kept following the original Philips/Sony recommendations of how much
amplitude margin to leave in a digital recording (as specified in the
original CD standards)
That is a not uncommon issue in all
A couple of thoughts.
First, the article points out that one's perspective on the loudness
wars issue is somewhat dependent on the type of music involved. Those
who are fans of an urban rap genre may well have an opinion on this
subject that is considerably at variance from the fellow who finds
Figured for $5 I'd try the 24/96 version. Haven't had time to listen on
my main system, but I converted a copy to CD and listened in the car
today. The recording was certainly full-range and dynamic, but have to
say I used the next-track button on the CD player much more heavily
than normal.
Quad wrote:
I have a question for you guys: ralphpnj, Julf, Mnyb, Archimago, mlsstl
(order is not important)
Do you think you are able to discern Diet Coke and Coke?
Almost everyone claims to be able to identify them but the majority
can't. Many tests have proven this.
But I can
netchord wrote:
i don't understand this demand for proof. it's my system, my ears, my
music- all i said was i can hear a difference, and it would not surprise
me that others can as well (the dude referenced in the OP). your
position seems to be it can't be so. that's fine too.
and as
netchord wrote:
perhaps you'd have a point if the results were random, meaning i
randomly preferred one format over the other. but that's not the case;
I routinely prefer AIF over ALAC. there are times when the differences
are small, if any, but where there's an audible difference, the
netchord wrote:
i have no bias either way
A classic misconception. We all have biases and a good portion of them
are subconscious. We are simply not aware of the latter type. It is a
mistake to claim it is rather simple to spot such influences in
ourselves.
That's why blind testing is
Stratmangler wrote:
I've had a quick listen to the album on Spotify, and the recording is
fine.
The performances on the other hand leave a lot to be desired.
The actual playing of instruments is beyond reproach, it's just that
nobody seems to be injecting much of themselves at all.
+1.
ralphpnj wrote:
Standard audiophile defense: I hear what I hear and I know what I hear,
no double blind listening tests required.
I've decided it is the rest of humanity that is affected by subconscious
factors. I'm immune because I say so. ;-)
heisenberg wrote:
But the bottom-line question is, who asked them to act on our behalf and
for our own benefit? The answer is simple: no one ever asked them to do
so, nor will anyone ever ask them to perform such idiotic duty.
Nevertheless, they feel compelled to keep charging with their
heisenberg wrote:
True. But even the best digital master can be outdone by the best analog
master. For that to happen, you'd need to get lucky and nail a really
good pressing. Which is like searching for a needle in a haystack.
We'll just have to disagree on the issue of the best analog
heisenberg wrote:
I am more concerned about listening to tracks where everything sounds at
the same or similar level of loudness. In other words, there are many
CDs where the music does not seem to 'breathe', and a flute that's
playing in the background is as loud as the bass guitar etc. I
heisenberg wrote:
All that notwithstanding, I still fondly recall some of my (admittedly
rare) experiences with vinyl that put any, even the highest audiophile
grade digital transfers to shame. I think it is devilishly hard to
achieve decent sounding digital reproduction. It can be done, but
trott3r wrote:
IIRC you can look at the dead wax and see the stamper run.
Ideally it would be A/1 stamped with the A or 1 being the first run
using the
stamper.
Yes, you can generally pick up a lot of info about a LP by looking at
the markings in the plastic just outside the label, but...
heisenberg wrote:
You paint a very bleak picture. Basically, buying an LP is the same as
buying a lottery ticket. You may hit the jackpot, but most likely you'll
hit a dud.
The situation isn't quite as bad as suggested. The LP pressing plants
do, in general, try to produce a quality product.
heisenberg wrote:
A fairly pervasive urban myth has been percolating among the community,
and this myth has to do with the unfounded assumption that louder always
gets perceived as better sounding. In my particular case, and in a few
other cases I know of, the exact opposite is true. When
heisenberg wrote:
Some slight differences in the way the LPs were pressed, or handled, or
packaged etc., contributed to the variation in the sound quality. I
guess the technology was immature back in the day, coupled with shoddy
quality assurance etc.
I wonder if the same consideration
Archimago wrote:
Modern mastering technique would have actually tried to push the peak up
to 0 so you would maximize the dynamic range of the 16-bit version.
I'd disagree. The modern fad of having the peaks at 0 dB has nothing to
do with maximizing dynamic range. It's simply to make the CD
Jeff52 wrote:
Apparently he is unwilling to consider that the majority of audiophiles
can hear a difference between the cables.
That's a two-edged sword you're swinging. After years and years of
reading audiophile forums, one almost never sees a subjective audiophile
make any allowance for
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
...I did not expect this change before going in.
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
Wombat wrote:
That must be this 'midddle-of-the-road' thing. Still i don´t get this
exatly. Is being the 'middle' of a clown and a subjectivist maybe a
jerk? I really don´t know.
Not sure what to make of your comment.
However, when it comes to my preferences, I hear what I hear and like
The irony in all of this is that it really isn't all that difficult to
get a good digital copy of an analog master. One simply plays the tape
and records it in digital format leaving adequate headroom for whatever
peaks are present. There is no extra processing required or applied.
It's no
The most interesting -- and frustrating -- thing about this mastering
discussion is that, unlike LP records, it is so incredibly simple for
CD.
1. Does the final studio mix sound like the artist producer want it
to? If so, go to step 2.
2. Using good equipment, transfer the final studio mix
darrenyeats wrote:
So sometimes it's a matter of undoing what shouldn't have been done to
the original CD mastering.
Unfortunately, that is rather like blithely declaring you're going to
unscramble an egg and put it back in the shell. Once the music has been
equalized, compressed, limited
darrenyeats wrote:
I think you need to re-read my post ... I don't think it's what you
think I wrote.
Darren
OK, but perhaps undoing was not the best word since that implies that
one is reversing a process that's been done. If you meant going back to
the original master and treating it with
I think the height of my appreciation of Yes's Close To The Edge was
1972 or 73
mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598
View this thread:
Nando1970 wrote:
in my book vinyl is interesting just because it is often the only source
of superior mastering.
I'll begin by confessing that I haven't joined the small wave of those
buying current vinyl releases, so the bulk of my LP experience is with
material released in the 1980s and
jh901 wrote:
The mastering engineering which was reponsible for the vast majority of
albums re-released on CD (after the original CD release in the 80s) in
the 90s is where the loudness wars impact was felt. Dynamics were lost
in an effort to maximize volume. Dynamics were destroyed.
Do
Just a heads-up in case anyone is interested. The St. Louis area is
going to have a classical FM station again starting Monday April 8. We
lost our last one when it became a Christian pop station after the
owners sold it three years ago. The new station is at 107.3 and will be
run by the Radio
As a somewhat different view, over the years I've noticed sometimes
people assign convoluted or interesting descriptions and explanations to
what they hear. For example, researchers have known for decades that a
slight difference in volume doesn't come off as one source being louder,
but rather
jh901 wrote:
Perhaps you are looking for a singular sound, but the goal is to hear
the artist's intent- that is, what's captured on the magnetic tape. For
Tull, both Aqualung and Thick As a Brick are best heard (for digital) on
the original US DADC pressings with the VK catalog prefix.
I'd forgotten that I'd recommended that CD previously. I've got a lot of
music that I think is well-recorded, but every now and then one just
jumps out at me. This is one of those.
mlsstl's Profile:
jh901 wrote:
You will have to provide some examples of recordings from the 50s-70s
which you find unclean (poor). I wonder if you actually believe that
you remember the quality of sound that you experienced 40 years ago?!
LOL. Even if you could, which doesn't seem realistic, then you'd
jh901 wrote:
...Fortunately, it's also no secret as to how to accumulate
well-mastered digital. Stock up on the Audio Fidelity titles (most,
anyhow) and, if you so choose, rip them to your hard drive for network
play. Also, the hybrid SACDs on the Analogue Productions label are
generally
jh901, I think you misunderstood my post. Your reply seems to indicate
you thought that I was suggesting one period's recoding fashion is
superior to another. That's not the case. I was only saying the decades
were different and generally recognizable. There are some excellent,
poor and a lot of
jh901 wrote:
But nevertheless, the difference will be shocking.
That sentence alone marks a big difference between us.
Yes, I prefer clean recordings more than poor ones. While I have been
irritated at finding I've purchased a CD suffering too much from the
loudness wars syndrome, that was
ralphpnj wrote:
The quote from Robert Harley read: Those who attempt to remove human
subjectivity from audio engineering forget that the listener isn't a
passive observer, but a fully active, engaged, and even creative
participant. From nothing but patterns of varying air pressure, we
darrenyeats wrote:
The only question under consideration is the source of the differences
heard...whether it is a change made to the playback system or the
placebo effect. Darren
The annoyance is the degree to which many subjectivists insist that the
only possible source of the perceived
Julf wrote:
I don't have much experience *as* an audiophile in the way that you
seem to be using the word.
I have merely enjoyed good music reproduction using electronic and
electro-mechanical systems
I've come to dislike the word audiophile and do not use it in
reference to myself.
dyohn wrote:
Unless you are in a lab performing a technical analysis, comparing any
two pieces of audio or video gear, or evaluating any audio tweak, is a
purely subjective process. It's all up to what you think. So compare in
as close to equal settings as possible if you are trying to
jh901 wrote:
This is an audiophile forum, right? It would be nice if the
non-audiophiles could simply lurk rather than attempting to shout down
the conversation.
It is quite ironic that it seems impossible for a subjective audiophile
to admit there is even a possibility of subjective
SBGK wrote:
ok, so you won't answer the question and use misdirection. Here is a
quote from an eminently respected member of the community in reference
to TT3.0
I did some testing on this a few months ago and found that with some
DACs parts of TT3.0 made a significant improvement and
SBGK wrote:
think you should qualify that by saying it's your opinion.
Then shouldn't you qualify your statement that it is your opinion? You
didn't. Does everyone really need to spend time explaining, in every
single post they write, that our opinions are our opinions?
Do you not have any
1 - 100 of 353 matches
Mail list logo
