[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] More victims in the loudness war .
This may be very old news to the mastering engineers at this forum . More about intersample peaks . The company TC electronics have some of their AES papers freely aviable . I'm not affiliated with them similar research may be aviable elsewhere . Please provide me with more reading in the tread if you have some god reading to suggest . http://www.tcelectronic.com/tech-library/mastering/ You get four different papers describing some consequences of brick wall audio at 0dFs especially with very artificial limits . Yes this is about intersample peaks or intersample overs as they are called . The one where they run borked signals trough consumer CD players are really interesting . A perverse consequence can be that really old school DAC can behave more benign when overloaded , such are the times we are living in . Benchmark audio has taken it into their design of their latest DAC . This has been discussed before on this forum http://benchmarkmedia.com/products/benchmark-dac2-hgc-digital-to-analog-audio-converter It's sales blurb ,but they actually added some headroom for this phenomena -3.5 dB Hydrogen audio forum have an ongoing discussion . I've read treads in this forum where members have had good results by actually lower the digital gain before the DAC or transporter with SoX . I was just surfing the web for good reading about this problem , hence sharing with you . Appreciate even better reading about it if you help out . Reflections so far , my thoughts . This is an understood and we'll known problem for at least a decade ( if not more )yet it s consequences has not changed much in mastering or consumer audio . Master engineers still use outdated methods to evaluate peak levels ( not considering the true signal level after reconstruction ). Equipment manufacturers and chipmakers does not seem to care much . Happily making a bad problem worse . Modern productions methods can easilly produce signals inside the "system" that violates the nyquist requirements . Perceptual coders are also suspectible in their filters mp3 and AAC OGG and all are not at all happy with this . (There is a reason for why Apples mastered for iTunes program suggest -1 dB and delivery as 24/96 before their conversion to 256kbs AAC .) This would not be a problem if all where as carefull as some old school sound engineers regarding levels . And finally a Squeezebox thought , if you are using a DAC or in my case a HT processor hence you untilise the digital output. Would it be a good idea to just pull down the digital volume a little bit prior to your DAC when listening to music with these "production values" . I think this is sufficient ? Or is it not . Or are more elaborate measures using SoX and custom-convert.conf really needed ? Configuring SoX in this case can have some potential problems done wrong you can run into the same problems as discussed in these papers ! The simple undithered 24 bit volume in a squeezebox simply move the bits down the "ladder" and they fall off at the end ( truncated ) harmless with 16 bit , a theoretical issue with 24 bit sources where maybe you should have used dither . The Pro people usually always suggest dither when changing bit depth , but a small volume change in a squeezebox does not really reduce the bits . Any suggestions . I will ofcourse I'll try at home in the weekend , the first thing a 16/44.1 input sees in my system is a sample rate converter to 24/96 then probably conversion to float before entering the DSP processes . 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 PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102378 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
ralphpnj wrote: > ... FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) by industry insiders, which > includes manufacturers and the high end audio press, to drum up new > business. What private individuals care to believe is of no interest > since, it has been stated over and over, everyone is entitled to their > own opinion. > well we'd all be guessing about the future. but i believe when companies don't open-mindedly acknowledge disruption, they get obsolete and replaced by new companies that do. with that in mind, i think anyone that ignores the trend towards affordable, high quality audio is a fool. i think what's remained constant is the amount of $ most consumers pay to satisfy their audio needs. i'd say that is a few hundred bucks a year. and, even us long term audiophile aficionados must acknowledge that buys you great audio these days. my computer, an Aduioquest Dragonfly and Shure SE530 provide mindblowing sound. to beat that in my home audio shrine, and notice the difference, i must cough up 10X the cost. for diminishing returns that are, however, very rewarding. i think there is a sweet spot there in the middle that remains unexploited. the audio industry doesn't educate about the amazing quality that can be had these days with systems costing between 5k to 10k. with honest education, great products -which high end brands as of now refuse to produce in that price bracket- there could be a thriving market in the making. how can anyone explain Beats success? there is a need there. when teenagers are willing to spend $400 on crappy headphones... why did the established players allow that market to go to someone else? it amazes me. the unapproachable crap many high ends sprout opens the door for newcomers. in fact, i'd say SlimDevices was a classic example, even though the outcome was not it could have been. clearly the people buying Beats (and sorry to bash them) don't read the audiophile press, in fact they don't listen to a single review from someone with a somewhat trained ear... but they are willing to plonk down cash on the product, which ultimately means there is genuine passion for music and sound there, misguided as we think it is. i am pretty happy with my system and shall watch developments with amusement and without product religion. what i am sure about is someone will get it right, and consumers will vote with what matters in market economy - their money. if i was a hyper high end audio manufacturer that sniffs at the "luxury" consumer sweet spot, look at the true high end car brands - *none* of them survived independently. they are part of larger conglomerates - the BMW 1 and 3 series bankrolls the existence and viability of Rolls. or the watch industry. or watches... people buy Swatches and hence, Blancpains and Breguets and Glashuettes still make commercial sense. not by themselves, though. it has started to happen of course in audio, too. but *far* more and probably quite brutal consolidation is required. i wonder how many audio brands literally live of recruiting one or two customers a year. many of them -and i know this for a fact- barely recruit a few hundred new customers a year. that was my 2c. ...pablo Server: Virtual Machine running Ubuntu 12.04 + LMS 7.7.3 on VMware Player System: SB Touch --optical->- Benchmark DAC2HGC --AnalysisPlus Oval Copper XLR->- Creek Destiny Power Amp --AnalysisPlus Black Mesh Oval->- KEF LS50 Other Rooms: 2x SB Boom; 1x SB Radio; 1x SB Classic-> MusicalFidelity M1PWR -> Totem DreamCatcher Computer audio: workstation --USB->- audioengine D1 -> Grado PS500e pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
ralphpnj wrote: > Wow my head is spinning with all these detailed and well reasoned posts. > However everyone fails to address the core issue and the one that really > gets me upset with the world of high end audio. The issue being the use > of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) by industry insiders, which > includes manufacturers and the high end audio press, to drum up new > business. > > [...] > > The latest audiophile craze of DSD is a fine example of the use of FUD > since to date there is no clear evidence that a DSD offers any sonic > advantage over high resolution PCM (which is also guilty of the same, > since there is no clear evidence that high resolution PCM offers any > sonic advantage over standard resolution (16bit/44.1khz) PCM). And as > I've stated more than once - many DSD recordings currently available > were at one time or another converted to PCM -> edited -> converted back > DSD - which makes them basically PCM recordings. Given the questionable sonic benefit of DSD audio and the fact that the SACD (which still might be the most common transport medium for DSD) seems to have quite an effective 'copy protection' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD#Copy_protection) the goal of promoting DSD seems pretty obvious to me: The 'audio content industry' wants to re-establish their former status quo that stood out by ridiculously high margins (for only little 'added value'). If you can sell expensive players (necessary for enforcing the copy protection) it's also interesting for 'high end audio' device manufacturers (and consequentially mandatory for the 'high end audio' press to rave about DSD). superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
Wow my head is spinning with all these detailed and well reasoned posts. However everyone fails to address the core issue and the one that really gets me upset with the world of high end audio. The issue being the use of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) by industry insiders, which includes manufacturers and the high end audio press, to drum up new business. What private individuals care to believe is of no interest since, it has been stated over and over, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The latest audiophile craze of DSD is a fine example of the use of FUD since to date there is no clear evidence that a DSD offers any sonic advantage over high resolution PCM (which is also guilty of the same, since there is no clear evidence that high resolution PCM offers any sonic advantage over standard resolution (16bit/44.1khz) PCM). And as I've stated more than once - many DSD recordings currently available were at one time or another converted to PCM -> edited -> converted back DSD - which makes them basically PCM recordings. Just sayin'. Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0 Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar Garage: SB3-JVC compact system Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso Server: SBS on dedicated windows 7 computer w/2 Drobos 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
darrenyeats wrote: > Let's agree to disagree on that one. I am willing to disagree but I still would be happy about a reason to do so ;) darrenyeats wrote: > IIRC Fermat claimed he had a really simple proof, that would be a > cracker if true. Yes, he purportedly did have a proof and yes, it would be a cracker if it was true. Based on the enormous mathematical 'treasure chest' of methods (from various mathematical disciplines) - of which some have been fully developed only lately - it is quite common understanding that he was wrong (even though he might not have been aware of this fact). superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
superbonham wrote: > IMO they were refinements based on revolutionary but somewhat inevitable > concepts. > Let's agree to disagree on that one. IIRC Fermat claimed he had a really simple proof, that would be a cracker if true. Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
Julf wrote:
> But the "audiophile" segment is a tiny fragment of the "consumer"
> category.
You are of course right.
Julf wrote:
> Yes, it is a very cash-loaded segment, but it is very irrational and
> fickle. Ask any luxury good company.
This is unfortunately also true. Still I think the 'cash-loaded' segment
could contribute to progress in audio engineering if ('Modus Irealus'?)
it was more fact-based.
superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
ralphpnj wrote: > What does a unicorn fart smell like and would one be able to tell it > apart of a fairy fart in a double blind test? I have no idea. But I know what they sound like, so a double blind test is a breeze. The fairy has DR11 and the unicorn DR18. More oomph, so to speak. OK, I'll be quiet now. Best Regards, Gandhi not often enough well recorded and mastered cds *|* dbpoweramp with accuraterip *|* flac *|* fanless asrock z77e-itx intel i5-3570t *|* ubuntu 12.04.1 lts 32-bit *|* lms 7.8.0 *|* brutefirdrc 3.0 (rewv5) *|* transporter (balanced out) *|* thule ia252b *|* audio physic scorpio *|* no fancy cables. *+* also some booms. *+* harmony 525s for them all, including waking the server from s3. Gandhi's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=58909 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
darrenyeats wrote: > Very good. Science being very mathematical, his argument is > unsurprisingly maths-based and he quantifies how successive theories get > less wrong. Also he picked really simple things like the shape of the > earth, and indeed this has been refined over time. Sadly, Relativity and > QM marked a complete and utter throwing out of prior classical > -concepts-. But because mathematically their equations give similar > (just slightly more accurate) answers than classical physics in most > normal situations, would the author want us to think they were merely > refinements? I can't see it. IMO they were refinements based on revolutionary but somewhat inevitable concepts. darrenyeats wrote: > But Relativity and QM are extremely rare events in science. I can't > think of any revolutions that compare since. I'm not quite sure. Of course it's very hard to decide what constitutes a (scientific) revolution. Even though the entries of the following list might not have the same momentousness as (general) relativity theory or QM, they are amongst my 'personal favourites': - Watson's an Crick's work on the structure of the DNA molecule (might be practically even more important than QM) - Andrew Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (even though the conjecture is not very notable the proof is) - The invention of Public Key Cryptography (Ellis, Cocks, Diffie & Hellman and [potentially many] others) darrenyeats wrote: > > If there were no future revolutions I'd be disappointed! Me too! superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
superbonham wrote: > If we only had a more fact-based discussion within the so-called > 'audiophile' segment, progress would be even better than it is already > today, because effort spent on developing improved designs need the > consumer's acceptance (and money) in the end. But the "audiophile" segment is a tiny fragment of the "consumer" category. Yes, it is a very cash-loaded segment, but it is very irrational and fickle. Ask any luxury good company. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
darrenyeats wrote: > If there were no future revolutions I'd be disappointed though! But who will be the first ones up against the wall? "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
alfista wrote: > > It's been posted here before, but it's still enjoyable reading, 'The > Relativity of Wrong' > (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm) Very good. Science being very mathematical, his argument is unsurprisingly maths-based and he quantifies how successive theories get less wrong. Also he picked really simple things like the shape of the earth, and indeed this has been refined over time. Sadly, Relativity and QM marked a complete and utter throwing out of prior classical -concepts-. But because mathematically their equations give similar (just slightly more accurate) answers than classical physics in most normal situations, would the author want us to think they were merely refinements? I can't see it. But Relativity and QM are extremely rare events in science. I can't think of any revolutions that compare since. So the author's point is well made in general. If there were no revolutions to come I'd be disappointed though! Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
pablolie wrote: > I like faithful reproduction, never quite got into the whole tube thing, > and i was glad when i got rid of my turntable. :-) > > i also think one can indeed measure many things quite well and that they > provide a reliable indication of the design intent of the engineers, > which for me ideally is quite a linear response across frequencies and > loads... but we also all know that the *ideal* response can not be > achieved yet, even though several designs come quite close. > > i thoroughly agree a bit is a bit, and jitter discussions over USB or > Toslink focus on the wrong side of the issue. > > when it comes to the analogue side, even within the DAC, more so in > amplification, and especially with loudspeakers, wow, there are quite a > bit of elements at work. one of the reasons i think one day active > loudspeakers will rule the world is because it eliminates a lot of > guesswork with matching stuff up. sometimes components don't mix well > even when they are all well designed and on paper look like they should > sound awesome. analogue is treacherous, and manufacturing tolerances can > add up to the point where something is audible even when it comes to 2 > amplifiers of the same kind (i did so with MusicalFidelity M1PWR, one > clearly noisier than the other, but i would have never known if i'd only > received the "bad" one, because it still sounded very good). Many thanks for this post - I couldn't agree more. As a 'rudimentary informed layman' I also expect active speaker designs (with crossovers before amplification) to be the most promising speaker concept. If we only had a more fact-based discussion within the so-called 'audiophile' segment, progress would be even better than it is already today, because effort spent on developing improved designs need the consumer's acceptance (any money) in the end. (This - by the way - also holds true for other areas of potential progress slowed-down by false beliefs like in medical care [e.g. homeopathy], or an up-to-date continuation of Darwin's evolution theory [e.g. creationism]). pablolie wrote: > and speakers... wow. when someone said that models are flawed they were > RIGHT. we engineers work with models, and they are quite awesome, but > they never reflect a TRUTH. witness speakers. when we measure them, we > ultimately measure them by modeling the human ear. does anyone think we > have a perfectly accurate model for that? that's why it's important to > involve some trained ears in the design of good analog audio equipment. > i could download a circuit design for an amp on the internet, go buy the > best batch of everything parts, put it together, and still come up with > something underwhelming. i have actually done it, albeit many years ago > in University. :-) it is not as simple. it is not just a formula. > > and the reason for that is that there is stuff we don't know about how > our hearing works. it is most certainly NOT linear at all. it is hard to > model. hence, it is hard to cater to that "perfect sound production" > model that is being advanced here, at least as far as the analog part of > the design goes, that is, where the soundwave leaves the membrane. and > btw try to model the latter perfectly... and you'll prolly win a Nobel. > :-) I still think engineering and the audio equipment industry should strive for the most transaparent music reproduction öpossible. 'Shortcuts' based on (assumed) imperfections of human audio perception should be the 'last resort'. Practically I think we all cannot live without them for mere practical reasons, though. Cheers Ben superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
You have all the rigths to prefer anything that's not really the audiophile "problem" . There are confusion"good sound" is not alway equvavilent to " faithfull reproduction " ok are we in agreement you have your preference , you migth even want tube amps with less than ideal output impedance because it makes an othervise lean speaker sound more full ( I would not do that but anyway ) you can mix all kinds of coulorfull non transparent equipment all day , enjoy :) But most irritating the audiophile press and some audiophiles runs some pretend game where they actually claim that obviusly coloured and substandard equipment designed with no healty science involved "sounds better" and is more faithfull to the input signal ,the music they want to listen to ? That's not ok IMO . If they where honest they would admitt that the output of thier little SET amp for example does not have that much in common with the input signal but they like it very much I would have nothing against that . But instead they make completely bogus claims that such equipment reproduce details that is "obscured" by more conventional equipment and that there are hidden unmeasurable kinds of distortion etc . This is very easy to disprove with a null test btw . And many not so technical audiophiles fall for this kind of argumentation everyone is not an engineer . That's basically fraud . This lack of science has gone full circle several times in audiophiledom so now it's quite possible to buy equipment just as bad as it was in the sixties but at eye watering prices . Much of the top tier stuff produces "nice" colourations that the reviewers then can describe with thier usual wine taster vocabulary . You migth also add the grooving arena for all kinds of DAC's with very unorthodox design principles that are not so transparent but make thier own sound , but are marketed as the new best thing ever . Also equipment with faithfull reproduction ie transparency have no sound if it's own . So "good sound" is a misnomer maybe that's a basic confusion we have to get over the music and artist should sound good and the recording of them likewise . But the things we use to hear them with ,not so much . unless you actually like something else like more bass or more warmth . I'm quite ok with a subset of audio equipment that's deliberately not transparent , if it's honestly marketed as such . Then the buyer can make informed decisions . Do I want to hear the recording as it is or do I have a preference for something else . People listening to club or DJ music has no problems with these concepts ,they are fully aware of that their sound system is a part of the act . Not a conduit for faithfully hear what's on the records . 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 PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
I like faithful reproduction, never quite got into the whole tube thing, and i was glad when i got rid of my turntable. :-) i also think one can indeed measure many things quite well and that they provide a reliable indication of the design intent of the engineers, which for me ideally is quite a linear response across frequencies and loads... but we also all know that the *ideal* response can not be achieved yet, even though several designs come quite close. i thoroughly agree a bit is a bit, and jitter discussions over USB or Toslink focus on the wrong side of the issue. when it comes to the analogue side, even within the DAC, more so in amplification, and especially with loudspeakers, wow, there are quite a bit of elements at work. one of the reasons i think one day active loudspeakers will rule the world is because it eliminates a lot of guesswork with matching stuff up. sometimes components don't mix well even when they are all well designed and on paper look like they should sound awesome. analogue is treacherous, and manufacturing tolerances can add up to the point where something is audible even when it comes to 2 amplifiers of the same kind (i did so with MusicalFidelity M1PWR, one clearly noisier than the other, but i would have never known if i'd only received the "bad" one, because it still sounded very good). and speakers... wow. when someone said that models are flawed they were RIGHT. we engineers work with models, and they are quite awesome, but they never reflect a TRUTH. witness speakers. when we measure them, we ultimately measure them by modeling the human ear. does anyone think we have a perfectly accurate model for that? that's why it's important to involve some trained ears in the design of good analog audio equipment. i could download a circuit design for an amp on the internet, go buy the best batch of everything parts, put it together, and still come up with something underwhelming. i have actually done it, albeit many years ago in University. :-) it is not as simple. it is not just a formula. and the reason for that is that there is stuff we don't know about how our hearing works. it is most certainly NOT linear at all. it is hard to model. hence, it is hard to cater to that "perfect sound production" model that is being advanced here, at least as far as the analog part of the design goes, that is, where the soundwave leaves the membrane. and btw try to model the latter perfectly... and you'll prolly win a Nobel. :-) ...pablo Server: Virtual Machine running Ubuntu 12.04 + LMS 7.7.3 on VMware Player System: SB Touch --optical->- Benchmark DAC2HGC --AnalysisPlus Oval Copper XLR->- Creek Destiny Power Amp --AnalysisPlus Black Mesh Oval->- KEF LS50 Other Rooms: 2x SB Boom; 1x SB Radio; 1x SB Classic-> MusicalFidelity M1PWR -> Totem DreamCatcher Computer audio: workstation --USB->- audioengine D1 -> Grado PS500e pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
darrenyeats wrote: > It might be the "wrong question" if we're writing a scientific paper. > But it's the right question for many people in practice. Yes, agreed; but then the question rather refers to a) (side) constrains like available budget, practicability of the solution and the like b) personal preference/taste again darrenyeats wrote: > This brings us back here. > > superbonham wrote: > > 'High fidelity' music reproduction ... is purely an engineering > > discipline where science and measurements apply - there is simply no > > room for opinions ...> > > There is plenty of room for opinions in hi-fi music reproduction. Many > would say there's room for opinion in most things audio - but even the > most hardened skeptics would acknowledge there is room for opinion > when it comes to things like loudspeakers. So your statement > over-steps the mark. This time *you* didn't take my intended meaning and not even the literal meaning of my posts; from the way you are citing them it even looks a bit like on purpose ;) darrenyeats wrote: > If there is no room for opinion, then please tell me which loudspeaker > science says is the best. The question of the 'best' loudspeaker for a given set-up/environment is a difficult 'optimization problem' that has to take various (scientific and non-scientific) constrains into account. As such there might not be a simple 'scientific' answer to it. Again this still does *not* mean that there wasn't (in principle) a proven scientific methodology to assess a component's (say loudspeaker's) ability *to reproduce sound faithfully*. This is because *faithful reproduction* (i.e. reproduction without distortion, colorization and the like) can be very well measured and compared (unlike reproduction that someone personally prefers). Still the result might not be simple to rate, since one would expect that given two components (say again loudspeakers) of a similar quality, each one might outperform the other with respect to a certain aspect (e.g. overall linearity, faithful and powerful reproduction of very low frequencies, ...) - so one would again have to choose based on personal preferences. But there is a difference between 'I chose this pair of speakers because they (measurably) provide more faithful reproduction of frequencies between 40 and 100 Hz than the other pair [in the same price segment]' or 'I prefer this pair of speakers because they (subjectvely) sound better to me and they also look nicer' and 'these cable lifters improve the sound of every sound system, believe my - I tried it and it worked for me' ... superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
superbonham wrote: > > They do exclude one another in the sense that they address different > questions. There is no scientific way to address 'human opinion' > [preference, taste, mood], because it's just not a scientific category. > There is simply no scientific way to tell whether some audio equipment > or tweak sounds better [right, more intense, ...] to someone - it's just > not the right question asked.* > It might be the "wrong question" if we're writing a scientific paper. But it's the right question for many people in practice. This brings us back here.superbonham wrote: > 'High fidelity' music reproduction ... is purely an engineering > discipline where science and measurements apply - there is simply no > room for opinions ... There is plenty of room for opinions in hi-fi music reproduction. Many would say there's room for opinion in most things audio - but even the most hardened skeptics would acknowledge there is room for opinion when it comes to things like loudspeakers. So your statement over-steps the mark. If is correct, and there is no room for opinion, then please tell me which loudspeaker science says is the best. Darren Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
probedb wrote: > Really? Do you want to tell that to every manufacturer of audio > equipment? Every developer who has created or involved in development of > audio codecs? Experts, professors etc around the world that study this > that they're all wrong? > > People don't seem to be able to differentiate between the psychology of > what we're discussing and building audio equipment and what happens to > the sound. The latter is very well understood. However since you think > you know better I guess you'd best get onto the entire audio community > and tell them they're wrong. I think you didn't take my intended meaning - I was referring to what George E. P. Box famously wrote "Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful". Mynb and alfista explain it in their posts. Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
Mnyb wrote: > All models are aproximations "wrong" in some sense but they are darn > close, close enogh for all practical engineering if you adopt the rigth > modell . Exactly. They're not "wrong", just degrees of imperfect and through scientific advances they will forever approach perfection. It's been posted here before, but it's still enjoyable reading, 'The Relativity of Wrong' (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm) alfista's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32396 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
SBGK wrote: > and yet the hifi world goes on and people outside of this forum continue > to improve the sound of their systems. And yet the industry goes on and continues to produce better sound for lower price, completely outside internet forums or "hi-end" hifi... "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sound quality between wav and flac
Julf wrote: > I still think it would be fair for us to try to see if there is a > rational explanation for why there might be an actual difference in this > particular case. Fizbin, could you post your convert.conf file > (preferably both versions)? Aha missed that fizzbin has an edited version ? 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 PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
probedb wrote: > Really? Do you want to tell that to every manufacturer of audio > equipment? Every developer who has created or involved in development of > audio codecs? Experts, professors etc around the world that study this > that they're all wrong? > > People don't seem to be able to differentiate between the psychology of > what we're discussing and building audio equipment and what happens to > the sound. The latter is very well understood. However since you think > you know better I guess you'd best get onto the entire audio community > and tell them they're wrong. All models are aproximations "wrong" in some sense but they are darn close, close enogh for all practical engineering if you adopt the rigth modell . I dont think "all models are wrong" is a usefull argument ofcourse they are , its not much beter than "we dont know verything" ofcourse we dont . The designer of your car are happy with newtonian mechanics and maxwells laws of electromagnetism . They are in some sense "wrong" as no adjustments for relativity and quantum mechanics or higgs bosons are applied ,but the errors are all somewhere in the noise far below the error margins . There are course rough models and more fine grained ones . Engineer knows which one to apply . You dont need to adjust oHms law for gravity for example... unless you plan to use your DAC very close to a neutron star (in which case the atom and molecule deforming magnetic fields would cause some trouble to ) 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 PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
You seem to have edited your post while I was typing ... darrenyeats wrote: > What about loudspeakers, venue acoustics. In terms of recording > technology, analogue tape? People's opinions about what sounds better or > worse are very important, but this doesn't diminish the science and > engineering aspect at all. Yes; I think I appreciated this context in my orginal post by saying that superbonham wrote: > It does make sense to argue that an audio component is better suited to > reproduce sound more faithfully than another one if it measures better > or if this improvement can be backed up by double blind testing, though. > Whether this component 'sounds better' to someone or not again is a > different story [...] It's just a matter superbonham wrote: > [...](of personal preference, opinion and taste). darrenyeats wrote: > > Why should proper engineering and human opinion automatically exclude > one another? They don't. They do exclude one another in the sense that they address different questions. There is no scientific way to address 'human opinion' [preference, taste, mood], because it's just not a scientific category. There is simply no scientific way to tell whether some audio equipment or tweak sounds better [right, more intensive, ...] to someone - it's just not he right question asked.* At the same time it's inadequate and useless to tackle the 'ability to reproduce audio faithfully' by opinion or (sighted) personal listening tests. Of course one can express his personal preference and suggest an (unproven) tweak to others, but what exactly is the point? On what basis should I trust him (especially if he sells this tweak for hundreds or thousands of dollars)? * Of course there are various methods (e.g. statistics or analysis of historic evidences) to address scientific aspects of personal opinion (e.g. distribution of a certain opinion in a group of people, development of opinions throughout human history) - but that's not meant above. superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
darrenyeats wrote: > I'm saying all models are wrong Really? Do you want to tell that to every manufacturer of audio equipment? Every developer who has created or involved in development of audio codecs? Experts, professors etc around the world that study this that they're all wrong? People don't seem to be able to differentiate between the psychology of what we're discussing and building audio equipment and what happens to the sound. The latter is very well understood. However since you think you know better I guess you'd best get onto the entire audio community and tell them they're wrong. 'last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/probedb) probedb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7825 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sound quality between wav and flac
Mnyb wrote: > Thats actually not contested , people in this tread claim that the > diffrences are for "other reasons" the streams are bit perfect Fair enough then. We're going into the realms of psychology so I'll duck out. 'last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/probedb) probedb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7825 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
Mnyb wrote: > Thats OK with me thats a fairly resonable idea, except as i have come to > understand it the models we have acomodate for any possible pattern or > wave form ,but in princible . > And it would be quite a leap a modern dac can surpase our own abilities > with say 30dB or something similar ,actually orders of magnitude . > > We can disguss these things it have merits OK. > > But very much of what audiophiles seriusly suggest is agiainst > "fundamental physical theories" ,there is simply no reasoanable > mechanism to explain the effect of many things . > The are on the other hand a lot off pshychological effects that can > account for the perception they experience . So here occams razor rules > . > > These things should be debunked there is no merit of further debate , > you can find such fruitless debate going on for decades... > > *As others said . Listening test is a good way to account for the > unknown ! * but they have to be reasonably controlled to be of any use . > Sighted test as done by most hifi rags provides no real data just noise > . > properly done listening test have most likely unearthed a lots off > issues previusly unknown . > > The transparancy of modern digital electronics is really only constested > by audiophiles much in a similar way as for example climate change or > evolution is only constended by a special subset of rigth wing american > cristians . > Its a special culture where all are of similar opinion , ideas from > outside these special subcultures can seem strange to the one living > rigth in the middle of it . and yet the hifi world goes on and people outside of this forum continue to improve the sound of their systems. Touch optimisations http://touchsgotrythm.blogspot.co.uk/ SBGK's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=52003 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
Mnyb wrote: > But very much of what audiophiles seriusly suggest is agiainst > "fundamental physical theories" ,there is simply no reasoanable > mechanism to explain the effect of many things. Indeed. And here I draw an analogy to, of all things, UFO's. Yes, there are serious UFO researchers out there. But they are very quick to help discredit ludicrous claims, as they realize that the nut cases and frauds undermine the credibility of their chosen field. Do we see the same among audiophiles? Do we see a lot of "serious but rational" audiophiles, who argue for effects that could be possible, but who strongly help discredit the ones that are clearly foo? Not really. The "open minded" audiophiles are open to pretty much anything, independent of if it makes scientific sense or not. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sound quality between wav and flac
Mnyb wrote: > I do believe that you percieve a difference . I dont beleive that there > -is- a diffrence . This is diffrent if you understand me ? I still think it would be fair for us to try to see if there is a rational explanation for why there might be an actual difference in this particular case. Fizbin, could you post your convert.conf file (preferably both versions)? "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
darrenyeats wrote: > I'm saying all models are wrong, some models are useful. And models > develop over time as evidence is gathered. > > Here's a thought experiment. If it was shown that people could > distinguish distortion of certain types at X db lower than the currently > accepted levels, when that distortion modulates a newly invented sound > pattern, then the world of science would certainly *not* be in uproar. > That's because the result *would break no fundamental physical > theories*. It might break the stubbornness of some people on this forum, > though I doubt it, but there would be otherwise "nothing to see here". Thats OK with me thats a fairly resonable idea, except as i have come to understand it the models we have acomodate for any possible pattern or wave form ,but in princible . And it would be quite a leap a modern dac can surpase our own abilities with say 30dB or something similar ,actually orders of magnitude . We can disguss these things it have merits OK. But very much of what audiophiles seriusly suggest is agiainst "fundamental physical theories" ,there is simply no reasoanable mechanism to explain the effect of many things . The are on the other hand a lot off pshychological effects that can account for the perception they experience . So here occams razor rules . These things should be debunked there is no merit of further debate , you can find such fruitless debate going on for decades... *As others said . Listening test is a good way to account for the unknown ! * but they have to be reasonably controlled to be of any use . Sighted test as done by most hifi rags provides no real data just noise . properly done listening test have most likely unearthed a lots off issues previusly unknown . The transparancy of modern digital electronics is really only constested by audiophiles much in a similar way as for example climate change or evolution is only constended by a special subset of rigth wing american cristians . Its a special culture where all are of similar opinion , ideas from outside these special subcultures can seem strange to the one living rigth in the middle of it . 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 PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
darrenyeats wrote: > If it was shown that people could distinguish distortion of certain > types at X db lower than the currently accepted levels, when that > distortion modulates a newly invented sound pattern, then the world of > science would certainly *not* be in uproar. To show anything about the capabilities of human hearing would require scientific methodology. Provided the findings are published and made available for others to verify it will of course be a welcome addition to the body of knowledge. Of course the science world would not object to a piece of adequately performed piece of scientific work. alfista's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32396 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sound quality between wav and flac
pablolie wrote: > this topic made me go check my own settings in LMS, and has me wondering > about them. > > if a SB3 or Duet or Touch support FLACs natively (which it does), then > why the settings for "stream format" and "decoder"? why would i want to > "decode" at all? it seems -for example- the FLAC file format can be > streamed as AIFF/FLAC/MP3/PCM. MP3 i guess i get if someone has some > tragic bandwidth issues in their network, but i am not sure why i'd do > any other conversion...? i have it all set to "native" with the other > streaming formats disabled. i only have FLACs and MP3 with a very few > M4a thrown in... there are many corner cases , for most users this wast arrya of possibilities does not really make sense . So leave them at default dont disable to much stuff one of these days you tune in to a radio station and it wont transcode properly. AIFF streamed as FLAC makes more sense btw ,but as the transcoders are there (faad ,flac,SoX) the oposite is also very possible and its probably by default exposed in the UI even if makes little sense in your user case . Btw the old slimp3 or SB1 could not play flac ! Then there is all the possible softplayers both current and historical . Another example Touch can play Alac and AIFF but not always Hirez Alac or Aiff it bugs out , so if you only have native here and not allow the others it wont transcode . SB3 can not play AAC etc The whole thing is set up to use the best format in almost any case if native is enabled you dont have to disable the other choices. People disable tons of stuff here out off fear that the server by some mistake should send "inferior" formats to the players for example disable the dreaded mp3 format for flac files just in case ! It will use native as first choice only if that does not work LMS tries the other enabled choices . This does not make sense to fiddle to much with this you can create more problems than you solve. You now if its transcoded it says so in in the UI if not then you are listening to native formats . Only mess with this if you get unexpeted results . No Sound or transcodning when you dont expect it to happen . 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 PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
darrenyeats wrote: > Wait. Everyone accepts current loudspeakers have various audible > compromises. True. darrenyeats wrote: > Of course, designing and building speakers is a scientific and > engineering discipline [...] Correct. darrenyeats wrote: > [...] but human perception and opinion is at its very heart. No. I'd rather say that (assumed) imperfections of human audio perception might be played on to adjust compromises one has to make while designing audio equipment in a way that minimizes their audible consequences. This does not imply by any means that one could'nt tell (at least in principle) by well understood scientific criteria if some component is better at faithfully reproducing (recording, storing, transmitting) audio than another. darrenyeats wrote: > > Everyone would say the same about audio tape engineering before digital > came along. These spheres do NOT automatically exclude one another. If > people can hear a difference, then the kind of difference they do/don't > like is very relevant to audio gear, given that its purpose is human > enjoyment, and it will inform and direct the science and engineering. > > What you mean to say is, that audibility limits have been achieved with > certain types of audio equipment, or that you believe this to be the > case, or that current scientific evidence indicates this. That's a very > different matter IMO. Thanks for trying to interpret my post, but I was perfectly meaning what I was writing (quite literally). To extend my original post I'd like to point out that whenever someone claims that a component or tweak (e.g. 'magical cable lifters') provides an objective audible improvement (i.e. comprehensible and meaningful to others) he has 'the burden of proof ' by equally comprehensible and meaningful (i.e. scientific) means. If he can't or does not want to provide such proof he is of course free to state this claim as a belief or personal opinion, but it then just does not qualify as an objective, provable fact. You can exchange opinions and personal impressions (about whatever topic) endlessly with only little to no progress. We do have high quality (affordable) audio reproduction equipment today (that is better than years or decades ago) thanks to factual, i.e. comprehensible and measurable progress based on science and engineering. I do admit that there is a very interesting scientific discipline of human audio perception. While current science seems to have a quite good understanding on how humans (and other animals) hear, the different processes involved are complex. Also scientific analysis mostly relies - by very definition - on empirical research and as such isn't as 'seizable' as for example the sampling theorem. So I (as well as most of the other 'audophile sceptics' I assume) would be happy to discuss the _relevance_ of construction compromises (e.g. jitter) or deliberate (mostly well thought-trough) design decisions (e.g. red book sampling frequency of 44.1 kHz) for human audio perception. But even with these topics rational argumentation is necessary; if you cannot (yet and/or fully) explain an audible effect systematically, blind testing is an approved method to scrutinize/validate such a claimed effect. superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sound quality between wav and flac
Fizbin wrote: > My guess is there is a problem with the software/hardware somewhere. I suggest re-read the thread as there have been lots of testing and analysis work already done on this topic for example see http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?71321-Sound-quality-between-wav-and-flac&p=496081&viewfull=1#post496081 bpa's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1806 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sound quality between wav and flac
this topic made me go check my own settings in LMS, and has me wondering about them. if a SB3 or Duet or Touch support FLACs natively (which it does), then why the settings for "stream format" and "decoder"? why would i want to "decode" at all? it seems -for example- the FLAC file format can be streamed as AIFF/FLAC/MP3/PCM. MP3 i guess i get if someone has some tragic bandwidth issues in their network, but i am not sure why i'd do any other conversion...? i have it all set to "native" with the other streaming formats disabled. i only have FLACs and MP3 with a very few M4a thrown in... ...pablo Server: Virtual Machine running Ubuntu 12.04 + LMS 7.7.3 on VMware Player System: SB Touch --optical->- Benchmark DAC2HGC --AnalysisPlus Oval Copper XLR->- Creek Destiny Power Amp --AnalysisPlus Black Mesh Oval->- KEF LS50 Other Rooms: 2x SB Boom; 1x SB Radio; 1x SB Classic-> MusicalFidelity M1PWR -> Totem DreamCatcher Computer audio: workstation --USB->- audioengine D1 -> Grado PS500e pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
superbonham wrote: > > 'High fidelity' music reproduction, i.e. faithful recording, storage, > transmission and play back of audio is purely an egnineering discipline > where science and measurements apply - there is simply no room for > opinions and irrationality here. > This is patently not the case. For example, everyone accepts current loudspeakers have various audible compromises. Of course, designing and building speakers is a scientific and engineering discipline but human perception and opinion is at its very heart. What you mean to say is, that audibility limits have been achieved with certain types of audio equipment, or that you believe this to be the case, or that current scientific evidence indicates this. That's a very different assertion IMO. Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
probedb wrote: > So you're saying we'll be going backwards by deciding that science is > wrong? I'm saying all models are wrong, some models are useful. And models develop over time as evidence is gathered. Here's a thought experiment. If it was shown that people could distinguish distortion of certain types at X db lower than the currently accepted levels, when that distortion modulates a certain sound pattern yet to be discovered, then the world of science would certainly *not* be in uproar. That's because the result *would break no fundamental physical theories*. It might break the stubbornness of some people on this forum, though I doubt it, but very little else. Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
ralphpnj wrote: > What does a unicorn fart smell like and would one be able to tell it > apart of a fairy fart in a double blind test? Smell notwithstanding, by it's > mere force a unicorn fart will completely lift the veils. alfista's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32396 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
pablolie wrote: > > i do believe these days one can put together a very, very nice sounding > system with a few basic and quite cost efficient devices. I fully agree; we are living in good times ... pablolie wrote: > > but i also immensely enjoy the exercise of being a tad irrational here > and there. passion is always an irrational choice, but how tragic is a > life that only and exclusively sticks to rationality alone... :-) Of course there are siutations in life where irrationality, opinions, chance, mood etc. play an important role and listening to music clearly belongs here. As an example I cannot tell why I sometimes prefer say Tingvall Trio over Esbjörn Svensson Trio or Trombone Shorty over Nils Landgren; this is clearly a question of opinion, 'emotional state' and mood. To me it seems important to realize when to apply rationality and when to allow yourself to be a bit more irrational. 'High fidelity' music reproduction, i.e. faithful recording, storage, transmission and play back of audio is purely an egnineering discipline where science and measurements apply - there is simply no room for opinions and irrationality here. Of course everyone is free to decide that he likes the design or sound of a specific piece of equipment (and to pay whatever amount of money to get it); this is clearly the domain of personal preference, taste and opinion, though. And of course one can post his personal preference or expierence with this equipment and the personal sonic impression - but this will be no more than a personal 'testimonial'. This especially means that it is not 'transferable', i.e. does not translate to others. The beauty of the scientific approach (and actually one of its constituting features) is that results hold true anywhere, anytime and for anyone (to the same extent as they did initially). So just as it makes no sense to argue that Tingvall Trio is 'better' than Esbjörn Svensson Trio it is pointless to argue that a piece of equipment is better than another one based on one's personal sonic impression alone. It does make sense to argue that an audio component is better suited to reproduce sound more faithfully than another one if it measures better or if this improvement can be backed up by double blind testing, though. Whether this component 'sounds better' to someone or not again is a different story (of personal preference, opinion and taste). If I were to summarize the criticism of the 'audiophile sceptics' here (and on other fora) I'd say that they (rightly) question the habit of 'audiophile apologists' to argue in the vein outlined above. So instead of expressing their personal impression or preference they try to 'prove' that some component is objectively better (in a scientific or engineering sense) without applying the necessary scientific means to do so. Just my two cents. superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sound quality between wav and flac
Fizbin wrote: > My guess is there is a problem with the software/hardware somewhere. The > fact that FLAC's suddenly sounded "normal" to me when I switched Native > to Disabled is odd. Particularly when my mind wasn't expecting to be any > different. The funny thing is I've had WAV's set up all wrong the entire > time. I noticed today that they were converting to FLAC's. I thought to > myself, geezs when I disable the conversion, my wav files will sound WAY > better. But, nope. I could not hear a difference. > > As for why I can hear a difference between FLAC and WAV when FLAC is set > to default (Native), who knows. When I first noticed it last year it > took all but a few seconds to realize something wasn't right. That's > when I got my friend to test me a few times, which essentially confirmed > it's not in my head. > > My description of the difference is the same as a couple others here, in > earlier posts. Less air, VERY SLIGHTLY narrower sound-stage. Also to me > it's VERY SLIGHTLY MORE fatiguing. > > Anyway, I'm not complaining, I don't care if some or all of you don't > believe me. I'm just glad I have found a way to play FLAC's, because > filling up my HD with WAV's was silly. Yes tag support in WAV is not as robust and well suported as in FLAC either so you library experience migth bennefit too . The possible gotchas are you get sligtky more server load with transcoding and the network load almost doubles ,player load seems about the same . If the players are wired it wont matter much a Wifi conected Touch can struggle with 24/96 wav btw . Fyi , the basic setting for WAV is to transcode WAV files to Flac to conserve bandwith . If you still have wav files you migth have a look at that too. I do believe that you percieve a difference . I dont beleive that there -is- a diffrence . This is diffrent if you understand me ? 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 PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sound quality between wav and flac
My guess is there is a problem with the software/hardware somewhere. The fact that FLAC's suddenly sounded "normal" to me when I switched Native to Disabled is odd. Particularly when my mind wasn't expecting to be any different. The funny thing is I've had WAV's set up all wrong the entire time. I noticed today that they were converting to FLAC's. I thought to myself, geezs when I disable the conversion, my wav files will sound WAY better. But, nope. I could not hear a difference. As for why I can hear a difference between FLAC and WAV when FLAC is set to default (Native), who knows. When I first noticed it last year it took all but a few seconds to realize something wasn't right. That's when I got my friend to test me a few times, which essentially confirmed it's not in my head. My description of the difference is the same as a couple others here, in earlier posts. Less air, VERY slightly narrower sound-stage. Also to me it's VERY SLIGHTLY MORE fatiguing. Anyway, I'm not complaining, I don't care if some or all of you don't believe me. I'm just glad I have found a way to play FLAC's, because filling up my HD with WAV's was silly. Fizbin's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=58734 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sound quality between wav and flac
probedb wrote: > Indeed and easy enough to check by recording the output on PC, making > sure they're aligned and then doing a bit compare. If they're not > identical then something is wrong. Thats actually not contested , people in this tread claim that the diffrences are for "other reasons" the streams are bit perfect Yes PCM is fallbacl unless you configure that away too :P you disable flac and leave the wav entry enabled in the settings fir file type flac . The enabled possibilities is used in quality order unless a player is bitrate limited then that has override Fyi these settings are not really thier for soundqulity but for compatibility with the bewildering range of possible servers and players out there and also folks who opt for alternative transcoder apps . If you have relitively normal server and habits you never need to Touch thoose 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 PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ready to fly
darrenyeats wrote: > Evidence-based reasoning isn't the same as turning out to be right in > the end. So you're saying we'll be going backwards by deciding that science is wrong? 'last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/probedb) probedb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7825 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sound quality between wav and flac
Mnyb wrote: > Either it s a high res file then you get the bogus presentation of > "bitrate" or hi is simply disabling native flac so that he gets pcm(wav) > to the player . Is PCM/WAV the fallback fromat? > Or some really wierd convert.conf fiddling or soem strange combinationof > file types settings hopefully no mystery fw on the player . > > I would log the behaviur then you now what its doing . Indeed. Finding out exactly what the effect of the convert.conf change is is definitely the first step. And yes, good to verify the version of the firmware. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sound quality between wav and flac
pablolie wrote: > as a rule, either format ought to result in bit-perfect PCM out of the > Touch. so just curious about what components and setup are around it. Indeed and easy enough to check by recording the output on PC, making sure they're aligned and then doing a bit compare. If they're not identical then something is wrong. 'last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/probedb) probedb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7825 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sound quality between wav and flac
Julf wrote: > That is indeed an interesting result. What I would do is to try to > reproduce the results under even stricter conditions - have your friend > put together a playlist with a random combination of the FLAC and WAV > versions, and preferably try with a file that has been compressed with > different FLAC compression settings. Then do the test, writing down your > guesses (without your friend seeing what you write down), and make sure > neither of you can see any displays or other things that might give you > hints - or even better, make sure you can't see your friend until after > the test, when he/she can verify the results. > > However, I have found something interesting and confusing at the same > time, which is why I'm posting. I changed one setting in the File Format > Conversion Setup and now FLAC's sound identical (to me) to WAVs. And I'm > not sure why that would be. I hope somebody who is better acquainted with the LMS/SBT transcoding process jumps in, but normally the FLAC file would be sent unprocessed, as a FLAC stream, to the SBT. Your change makes LMS transcode the file - but I am not sure what format LMS decides to use as the target format. Either it s a high res file then you get the bogus presentation of "bitrate" or hi is simply disabling native flac so that he gets pcm(wav) to the player . Or some really wierd convert.conf fiddling or soem strange combinationof file types settings hopefully no mystery fw on the player . I would log the behaviur then you now what its doing . 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 PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sound quality between wav and flac
Fizbin wrote: > I'm one of those 'weirdo's that can hear the difference between WAV and > FLAC on the SBT. I have two units and I have confirmed it on both. I've > had a friend come over a few times and randomly play a WAV file and the > FLAC counterpart. For the first half hour I could tell him which was > which...After that it got harder to tell, from fatigue. Sometimes he > would play the same file format twice, to try and trick me, to no avail. That is indeed an interesting result. What I would do is to try to reproduce the results under even stricter conditions - have your friend put together a playlist with a random combination of the FLAC and WAV versions, and preferably try with a file that has been compressed with different FLAC compression settings. Then do the test, writing down your guesses (without your friend seeing what you write down), and make sure neither of you can see any displays or other things that might give you hints - or even better, make sure you can't see your friend until after the test, when he/she can verify the results. However, I have found something interesting and confusing at the same time, which is why I'm posting. I changed one setting in the File Format Conversion Setup and now FLAC's sound identical (to me) to WAVs. And I'm not sure why that would be. I hope somebody who is better acquainted with the LMS/SBT transcoding process jumps in, but normally the FLAC file would be sent unprocessed, as a FLAC stream, to the SBT. Your change makes LMS transcode the file - but I am not sure what format LMS decides to use as the target format. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
