ralphpnj wrote:
Also don't expect any help to come from the audiophile press since
HDTracks is smart enough to advertise in all the high end audio
magazines and to make sure that they carefully wine and dine the editors
and reviewers of these publications.
Except for '\Hi-Fi News ( Record
ralphpnj wrote:
What?!?!? You mean to say that there is a hi-fi magazine actually worth
reading. Good to know.
It's the only one I still subscribe to...
Julf's Profile:
TheOctavist wrote:
sums up the view of the people i cant stand...
Also adds to my current view that Hi-Fi News and Record Review is the
only Hi-Fi mag worth reading...
Julf's Profile:
DaveWr wrote:
Not since Ken Kessler went there!
Fortunately they don't seem to allow him much space beyond his monthly
opinion piece :)
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this
Mnyb wrote:
Did they not put some emphasis on thier record reviews :) may be worth
buying sometimes ?
More focus on the actual music .
Yes - they even publish spectrum plots of the hi-res downloads they
review (and highlight upsampling and other funny stuff going on).
bhaagensen wrote:
Also close-mic vocals surely isn't a new feature of the pop and rock
genre. I agree that processed sound is common, but I think its a
feature/trend and I don't see unaturalness being a huge problem in terms
of audiophile enjoyment (unless its in direct conflict with an
mlsstl wrote:
The general intent of my comment was directed toward the apparently
large number of audiophiles who think there is something superior about
the CD format itself.
CD is better than computer audio
Vinyl is better than CD
Tubes/valves are better than solid state
Mono is better
Mnyb wrote:
in fact all the reasoning you cited (cant find that post ) is clearly
the usual spiel from someone who actually don't understand the sample
theorem and is influnced by audiophile beliefs .
Yes - the next thing he will be claiming is that you get a clearer and
shinier sound by
Mnyb wrote:
And this used to be a nice hobby and past time, something really bad
happened a couple of decades ago.
You might be right. The National Science Foundation stated that
pseudoscientific beliefs in the U.S. became more widespread during the
1990s, peaked near 2001, and declined
Mnyb wrote:
Well, funny enough, I downloaded a bunch of 24-bit hi-res downloads
Bowers Wilkins Society of Sound site after a bunch of audiophiles
described them in superlative terms and wrote about how much better they
were than the normal 16-bit material. I guess you are not surprised
bhaagensen wrote:
Maybe, but you can't argue that by referring to (only) Nyquist - the
main point of my first post.
I think you can. Remember Nyquist (or, more formally, the
NyquistShannon sampling theorem) states that If a function x(t)
contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, it is
Mnyb wrote:
in reality no clock does 1/(2B) perfectly so the actual nyqkvist
frequency may fluctuate slightly so in practical implementation you
leave a little slush margin.
Sure - engineering is applying the science in real world situations. But
that doesn't make the science invalid or
bhaagensen wrote:
But I guess this is the point. There is some wiggly room in the
interface where science meets the real world. And I know, in the
sciences its usually controlled and abstracted using some kind of
error-model, but such error models can't be denied of being extremely
michael123 wrote:
And after 3 years, this sounds just as funny as 640K ought to be enough
for anybody.
:)
Not really. Software keeps getting increasingly big and bloated (and RAM
price keeps dropping), but human hearing hasn't changed much in the last
couple of thousands of years - and if it
michael123 wrote:
Not really - what?
Funny.
Did you read the original statement?
Yes.
Now, about every album coming from HDTracks or Linn is in 192/24.
Any numbers to support that statement? Most of what I see coming from
both places is 48/24 at best.
And some of it is unfortunately
Mnyb wrote:
Progress will come with a mass market lossles standard ,we begin there
,no need for hirez just lossles that would be excellent .
Not to mention CD/Redbook material that isn't compressed and
remastered to death...
jh901 wrote:
It would be nice if there was a universal DSD output for transports
There is. 'DSD over USB' (http://dsd-guide.com/dop-open-standard). Not
sure I would bother - the usual arguments I hear for DSD are mostly of
the it is technically closer to analog, so it must be better ilk...
ralphpnj wrote:
I'm not sure what is happening but there seems to be the beginning of
movement in the audiophile world regarding DSD being better than high
resolution PCM (24or 32 bit/88.2, 96, etc. kHz). Why this is happening I
do not know but this is not the first time I've heard this.
SBGK wrote:
there is no such thing as a clean digital audio stream
There definitely is no such thing as a dirty digital audio stream.
there are just chips talking to each other and transferring chunks of
data very quickly.
Right. And if the chips transfer the same data, without corrupting
ralphpnj wrote:
Maybe not dirty but what about jittery?
Sure, but jitter only matters where the data doesn't get
resynchronized/rebuffered - and in the DAC itself, where the clock
jitter on the *output* clock can matter - but that is on the side where
the data enters the analog domain.
It's
jh901 wrote:
I'd expect the Linn to have provided quite an upgrade on sound quality.
I think that is called expectation bias :)
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread:
jh901 wrote:
Sure, in the same way that I'd expect a Porsche 911 to outperform a
Camry.
Clearly we are not talking about reliability, maintenance cost or
carrying capacity... :)
Julf's Profile:
Unfortunately there is still the possibility that people will look at
the spectrum analysis of the files (that very clearly shows which one is
the mp3), but claim they could hear the difference.
Julf's Profile:
toby10 wrote:
Oppo BDP-83 = $499 MSRP
Lexicon BD-30 = $3500 MSRP
The Lexicon will have a better power supply, better analog circuitry,
better DAC chip implementation, better jitter handling, etc. It comes
with a bigger price tag which can ONLY be justified by improvements in
all areas of
Mnyb wrote:
Yeah, but being positive most will not cheat?
Hopefully not. I was forced to pull a similar test over at Computer
Audiophile when it become clear that it was possible to cheat.
1. This will feel uncomfortable for the cheater as he (it is sadly
mostly he in audio ) have to cheat
golfingrodders wrote:
Thanks I have just tried a factory reset with no joy. What was
interesting however was That I
set up an Ethernet connection and then tried to update the firmware. It
tried to upload very slowly and then gave up so it looks as though it is
not buffering correctly
Archimago wrote:
Notice the amplitude of frequencies 50kHz up to -48dB! Just pure noise.
Not so pure at all - probably DSD noise shaping from a bad resampling
from SACD.
A lot of the hi-res stuff is pure fraud - upsampled 16/44.1 (CD/Red
book) material. Some is genuine 24/96 or 24/192, but
darrenyeats wrote:
I'm going to talk science now.
Excellent. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based
on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of
reasoning.
One must distinguish between scientists and engineers. Scientists
conduct experiments to
Darren,
darrenyeats wrote:
I mean some people like to see things black and white and do this under
the banner of science.
Know what you mean - but I am afraid they are outnumbered by the
pseudoscientists. As we all know, quantum physics makes *anything*
possible...
That's different to
Darren,
darrenyeats wrote:
I mean some people like to see things black and white and do this under
the banner of science.
Know what you mean - but I am afraid they are outnumbered by the
pseudoscientists. As we all know, quantum physics makes *anything*
possible...
That's different to
Mnyb wrote:
There is nothing inherently wrong with selling SACD resamples per se
this could in fact be a very good master and well worth having ,but HD
tracks could be more upfront and honest with what they are doing
SBGK wrote:
certainly anyone using a Touch as a streamer will not hear any
improvement in sound between 16/44.1 and 24/192, infact the extra
electrical noise produced by handling the extra data makes the 24/192
worse than 16/44.1 for Touch users.
interesting. Do you have any objective facts
ralphpnj wrote:
While audio may be one of the least important issues effected by the
anti-science bias, it is nonetheless suffering the same fate.
Unfortunately I have to agree with you. Truthiness and faith seems to be
taking over from science and rational thinking.
Mnyb wrote:
Why are those earthmoving and spectacular differences not showing up
elsewhere...
In the world of fantasy, it is a largely accepted fact that the power
of any given deity is proportional to the amount of belief in them or
the amount of worship they are currently receiving.
garym wrote:
SBGK and facts? Oh my, you gave me a great laugh. ;-)
Well, I can dream, can't I? :)
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread:
Mnyb wrote:
To all newb or absent friends that havent been on the forum for a while
check out this trolls tread about tuning win 7 to sound better as a LMS
server ;)
Well, it definitely classifies him as a True Audiophile, but I am not
sure that makes him a troll - he probably sincerely
Mnyb wrote:
Schuman resonce is popular in medical humbug to :) wonder if
dream-catchers will improve my sound ?
Only if they are expensive enough...
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
Archimago wrote:
Noticed that the admin closed my thread on Steve Hoffman Forum down...
Apparently one or a few of the comments touched too closely their ABX
policy!
Shooting the messenger is a popular solution to a lot of problems...
Happy new year everyone!
Likewise!
garym wrote:
If by head in the sand you mean demanding evidence based on facts,
science, engineering, and properly designed and executed research
methods, then I'm guilty as charged.
Give me more sand! :)
Julf's
rolski wrote:
A lot of Audiophiles, perhaps the majority, perhaps the minority, spout
self-serving (and uninformed) opinion. If a signal is not corrupted or
altered in any way when it travels down a cable - then it isn't
corrupted or altered. As simple as that. Electricity, signal
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
what bothers me is even Steve Nugent says higher end USB cables might
change the sound of his Off-Ramp.
Isn't appealing to a higher authority something from religion and belief
systems rather than science?
Archimago wrote:
BTW, Amir was clear in that he believes MP3 is never transparent.
Well, I think there is a fair bit of ABX testing showing that there
might be cases where high-bit-rate MP3 is not entirely transparent, but
they are rare.
Archimago wrote:
You might be right... Dunno. Have you come across any links or papers
to this effect? When you say fair bit, I take that as slightly more
than rare.
AES, EBU and all the usual suspects have done pretty extensive testing.
The problem I have is that it has become some kind
SBGK wrote:
Don't know why you don't believe the thousands of Touch owners that have
improved the sound via upgraded power sources, hardware mods (both diy
and professional), software mods and system tweaks both on server and
Touch
Uh... Thousands? Where?
If you can't measure the changes
Archimago wrote:
Not saying I like MP3 by any means, just that here's an example of a
technique which throws out tons of samples and creates quite a lot of
variance in the audio signal, yet human perception is mostly UNABLE to
detect the difference (not mostly right). If this is the case
jh901 wrote:
Do you guys hang out at wine forums to tell them they aren't tasting
right? Good grief.
No. Some of us, in addition to loving good music reproduction, actually
understand electronics, digital systems and audio, and resent the
voodoo, superstition and pseudoscience rampant in
ralphpnj wrote:
You are mistaking the designers of boutique high end audio equipment for
engineers and as an engineer I am deeply insulted.
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this
jh901 wrote:
Frankly, you have no reason to be posting here.
But this seems to be the no 'reason'
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason) part of the forum, so I guess
reason is not required...
Julf's Profile:
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
.Right, I guess, if your DAC is good, you cannot tell the sources apart.
But high-end reviewers insist on hearing differences between equipment.
Of course - saying all these DACs sound the same doesn't sell very
many issues of the magazine :)
You cannot hear the
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
No, I have no interest in convincing anybody of anything.
Fair enough - but it is still good to know if, when you state I can
hear a difference, you have made any attempt to objectively verify your
perception. Helps to put it in the right perspective.
jvanhambelgium wrote:
Together (3 of us) could hear a very subtile improvement
Was that in a double-blind ABX setting?
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread:
jvanhambelgium wrote:
So again, really, I find the Touch a damn good piece of equipment for
its pricetag even with the default psu !
+1 :)
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Anyways, this is what Stereophile has to say
whatever you measure, you are still wrong, because we say so? :)
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this
Mnyb wrote:
They have managed to convince their readership on so many
pseudo-scientific things that you have to backtrack 30 year to begin to
put it right again if even possible .
To some degree they are just riding the trend of people giving up even
trying to understand technology, and
It's been my experience that discussing religion concerns with
non-adherents-ofreligion is a non-starter. It is much too important
for most people to believe that there are no new experiences to be had.
A true shame. I can't understand why non-adherents-of-religion would
bother lurking and
jh901 wrote:
Frankly, you have little experience as an audiophile
I guess you are right.
I have a fair bit of experience with various cults and secret societies,
but I don't seem to belong to the one you belong to.
Instead I have merely enjoyed good music reproduction using electronic
and
Mnyb wrote:
If I charge my phone via the Shunyata research would my mp3's sound
better?
Of course. The electric field compensation circuit ensures the bits
settle in an unbiased state inside your phone - very important
considering all the eddy currents within the phone.
I wonder if there is
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
In the case, of speaker cables and power cables, if you measure the
electrical properties of stock vs say, Shunyata, there will surely be
some difference.
Right. Measureable electrical differences are one thing, and I would not
have anything against cable suppliers if
jvanhambelgium wrote:
The Touch is using a ultra-lineair 5V PSU (Sigma11 design from AMB
Laboratories)
Just curious - have you done any double-blind ABX to see if the PSU
actually makes any audible difference?
Julf's
ralphpnj wrote:
for those who still use a either a laptop or desktop computer to control
their SB devices I highly recommend giving MUSO
(http://klarita.net/muso.html) a try
It does look interesting - too bad it only runs on Windows.
ralphpnj wrote:
No, not correct. MUSO does not have to be on the machine that is running
LMS since it just imports a copy of the music library database and works
with that. The best thing to do would be to go to the MUSO Support
Thread
ralphpnj wrote:
Nicely stated! I wish all Apple users were like you - NOT all up in your
face about bad Windows is and how great Apple is.
That's because I am not an Apple user either (but my wife is, so we are
not an entirely fruitless household).
1) Do you iTunes/LMS or just LMS?
Just
ralphpnj wrote:
Now I wonder why linux users never behave as badly as Apple fanboys so
often do?
Because a Linux user knows that their OS isn't perfect - and they also
know the only reason it isn't is that they (the users) themselves
haven't gotten around to fixing it... yet... :)
cdmackay wrote:
We know it shouldn't sound (much) worse, and these tests seem to support
that, but why might it sound better?
Mp3 is a perceptual coding. It uses parts that are important to the
ear, and discards stuff that isn't. In doing that, it probably enhances
the actual music
AlexM wrote:
I can also tell the difference between Toslink and SP/DIF
In double-blind ABX?
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread:
AlexM wrote:
I assume that the test subject must not know which is which
Correct, but that is only a blind test. In a double blind test the
person running the experiment should also not know which is which, in
order to ensure that there is no bias in interpreting the results, and
to ensure no
P Nelson wrote:
My only comment is that if you want to test if people can actually tell
the difference between two options is to give them three samples, of
which, two are identical. (I did not read the whole thread so I'd this
was already mentioned, my aplologies.). The problem with pick
Archimago wrote:
Note that I'm not saying anything about one viewpoint being superior;
rather just wanting to hear the viewpoints.
Well, I don't really have anything to add to what you wrote - I am 100%
in agreement. But then I started out when it was Hi-Fi and not
audiophoolery
Archimago wrote:
Did they use wax cylinders back then? ;-)
Worse. I remember all too well the failed 'Sony ELcaset'
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elcaset)...
Julf's Profile:
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
That is theoretically speaking.. You can do the research for yourself.
I don't think we are interested in the research - we are just interested
in why you think it matters. A bunch of us had it in school, and arrived
at different conclusions than you.
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
I don't have that many Hi-Rez recordings. What ever I have i bought it
mainly for those non-theoretical reasons (and continue to). There is
some theoretical benefits to 24bit. But as I mentioned earlier in some
other thread I have heard some RedBook recordings as good
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
I thought I was clear. 16bit-24bit is all about quantization. You should
read about this yourself.
You might have been clear, but somehow I must have missed it. I have
read about it, and studied it at university, and still wonder what you
base your statement on.
Archimago wrote:
Interesting. You're probably right. I had a look at the spectrum during
playback and it looks like the 22kHz+ spike is happening when the
keyboard part comes in with some songs.
I wonder if it is an electronic keyboard? Many of them actually use
surprisingly low sample
darrenyeats wrote:
Those who value accuracy, get a kick out of hearing the heterogeneity in
recordings and perhaps have less of a problem ignoring bad sound quality
in their favourite music. The truth shall set you free. More left
brain types.
That sounds like me :)
To me the question is
Archimago wrote:
Also check out the Computer Audiophile forum on Music Analysis:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f14-music-analysis-objective-and-subjective/
As long as you stay away from other parts of Church of Audiophile, and
ignore some of the more insistent regulars :)
SBGK wrote:
I was surprised when it resulted in option 3, I was led to believe by
the cognoscenti on here that it would be option 2 because bits are bits
and they either work or don't. According to this finding the dac plays
what it gets whether bit perfect or not and if a print statement
Archimago wrote:
At this point, I'm quite convinced through my own measuring experiments
and hearing tests (not to mention the data set around my MP3 test among
audiophiles) that factors like jitter (or even lossy compression!) play
a very minimal part in a good sounding system. Sure, like
Kaizen28 wrote:
I have tried to connect an Audio Engine D1 via TOSLink to my amplifier
and it works well for anything except streaming radio which results in
significant crackles and pops. Again, I do not understand why this is.
I assume what you have is the Audioengine connected to the SB3
garym wrote:
of possible interest. I haven't actually done more than skim the opening
comments:
http://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/1903bi/lossy_vs_lossless_results/
As several of the comments point out, the conclusions are statistically
flawed.
probedb wrote:
How do I listen using my eyes? I've not worked this out yet.
Some of us spent years and years at university just to learn to read
graphs like those, and we still keep learning new things. They don't
replace listening, but complement critical, controlled blind listening.
Archimago wrote:
In this day and age where instrumentation is part of our daily lives,
it's just mind boggling that audiophiles do not seem to appreciate that
audio gear these days are capable of achieving results BEYOND human
hearing in many/most parameters.
This one is a good primer (that
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Great..the jitter graph looks really nice. Thanks Archimago. So does
better measurements correlate with better sound subjectively ?
Otherwise, it might be just a waste of engineering effort. Maybe the
companies are building over-speced pieces just to justify the
Archimago wrote:
Thanks! Very nice... Looks like I should see an improvement switching
over from TosLink -- AES/EBU for the digital loop!
See, maybe, but hear? I doubt it :)
The big benefit of toslink is of course the galvanic isolation. Hard to
have ground loops over fibre :)
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
A friend of mine, recently, who was using high-end Marantz receivers
moved to PS Audio player/DAC, wyred4sound amps etc. He says, for sure
there is an improvement in the sound.
He would, wouldn't he? :)
I have moved from a pretty OK system (Creek amp etc.) to a
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
@Julf - is it the NCORE modules?
Yes. All I can say is that they are pretty darn impressive.
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http
Archimago wrote:
archimago.blogspot.com[/URL]
Excellent! Appreciated!
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=97950
'Rationalwiki: Audiophile' (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Audiophile)
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98249
jh901 wrote:
Julf- you are WAY off-topic. But hey, you feel superior to us. You
know how to spend my money better than I do. Congrats.
There is not a single over-priced or otherwise worthless piece of audio
gear in my possession. I can't speak for anyone else, but the last
thing I'd
At some point I was hoping to get Pen Teller to do a BS episode on
audiophoolery... Meanwhile we have 'Monty's xiph.org videos'
(http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml), 'Ethan Winer's workshops'
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ), and stuff like
'rationalwiki's piece on audiophiles'
Mnyb wrote:
I would for example have no problem using speakers designed 20 years ago
.
Neither would I - my primary system is still using Linn Isobariks,
designed in the 70's (but upgraded to active and digital crossover),
and while my computer monitors are 12-year-old Genelecs, the tertiary
jh901 wrote:
Isn't odd that some you treat the audiophile label with such hate.
Good grief. There are aficionados of wine, food, cigars and much else
which is ok somehow, but the hate you guys have for those passionate
about reproduced sound is staggering.
I don't think we have anything
'from Linux Audio Users' (https://lwn.net/Articles/542664/)
From: Ben Bell bjb-linux-audio-user-TyrVtz9mvJ4-AT-public.gmane.org
To: Jeremy Jongepier
jeremy-ZBSUaDdsfOGukZHgTAicrQ-AT-public.gmane.org
Subject:Re: [LAU] Alsa and 24-bit in Ubuntu Studio?
Date:
Archimago wrote:
Wow... If this dude is for real, he's either on serious drugs or in
need of serious drugs.
He is for real, but seems to have a pretty good sense for irony and
humour.. :)
Julf's Profile:
jh901 wrote:
I'll still take the 2 piece Cary (separate tube rectified power supply)
designed by Dennis Had if I had to go one on one against ya! LOL.
LOL indeed. Could someone explain what the perceived benefit of using a
tube rectifier is supposed to be?
cdmackay wrote:
Is there any MacOS or Linux equivalent to something like foobar2000,
would anyone know, please? e.g. to measure DR on my FLAC files?
http://kokkinizita.linuxaudio.org/linuxaudio/ebumeter-doc/quickguide.html
http://r128gain.sourceforge.net/
Wombat wrote:
Seems this place has some very experienced and valuable listeners and
members while they developed some mercy for the metaphysical arguying
people. They just let them speak and give them a place.
If you are talking about CA, I beg to differ. It is still dominated by
some very
jh901 wrote:
If push came to shove, then I'd give Dennis Had the benefit of the
doubt. The SLP-05 is world class. The design of the power supply was
not taken lightly.
I don't really care if a piece of electronics was designed by Albert
Einstein, Harry Nyquist, Bono or Pope Francis. Design
ralphpnj wrote:
Bono designs audio equipment? Who knew!
Well, if Dr Dre can do it, I am sure Bono can...
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread:
Mnyb wrote:
Can you really find any rationale for tubes in modern audio
I like watching their glow :)
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread:
Wombat wrote:
It often goes: How does it sound - spectral plot posted - that sounds
good!
The other variation is How does it sound - spectral plot posted
showing no HF energy or blatant upsample - that sounds good!
1 - 100 of 1245 matches
Mail list logo
