Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Outstanding Transporter issues?
mswlogo;567570 Wrote: > I think there was an issue with highly compressed FLACs at one point I think there are actually a number of minor issues all stemming from decoder speed issues, such as this one: http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=16242 michael123 Wrote: > Ahh, and sometimes Transporter just freezes (very rarely). I need to > disconnect power cable and reconnect it back, since it does not react > to buttons on its front panel.. You can also use an easier trick from the PC world: hold down the power button on the panel for 5 seconds. That seems to work just as well for me. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=81018 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Touch: Upsampling with sox?
soundcheck;566592 Wrote: > I am a bit confused. Are you saying your line works? Yes, but not in SqueezeCenter. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=80903 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Touch: Upsampling with sox?
Not at all, it's copy-and-pasted from a completely unrelated script...the hyphen in that case would go last, not in the middle. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=80903 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Touch: Upsampling with sox?
This *should* work. I think you had an extra hyphen in there, and you're missing some sox resampling options goodness ;) [sox] -q -V0 -D -t wav $FILE$ -t raw -b 24 -c 2 -e signed-integer -L rate -v -s -I 88.2k -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=80903 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The Blind Testing Controversy
cdmackay;412056 Wrote: > Looks like I misunderstood; I got the wrong impression that there were > claims that some people could routinely tell the difference between > 320k > MP3, and lossless, for a random selection of tracks. The most genteel way I can put it is that, to my knowledge, the world is still waiting for this to be demonstrated in a reputable test. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=61877 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The Blind Testing Controversy
cdmackay;411917 Wrote: > I've seen this mentioned a number of times. > > To me, it's extremely hard to understand how it can be true; but that's > > probably because of my ears. > > Does anyone have a pointer to these experiments, so we can read about > them first-hand? > > cheers, > calum. Better than that--I can point you to the samples themselves. But first--you weren't clear which you wanted...do you want the 320k MP3 that's indistinguishable from RedBook or the 320k MP3 that's easily distinguished from RedBook. It's a kinda important difference. The first one's easy: silence.mp3. Sounds just like the source. Yes, it's a bit of a cop-out too but I'm trying not to fan flames here and I may get grudging agreement from a few subjectivists on this one. The next one is harder--there's a sample called "eig" that's a pretty good general-purpose MP3-wrecker. Google will help you here. IMO it's a great example of a track that just cannot be fixed by throwing more bits at it. It's not that hard to understand. MP3 uses algorithms to figure out which data can be discarded without causing an audible difference (and IMO the LAME project has done a fantastic job with those algorithms, keeping yestertech like MP3 competitive with other lossy formats). Careful enough study of those algorithms and their assumptions would allow you to custom-create a track that wouldn't compress without audible artifacts. Also, given the enormous amount of music in the world, there will always be several tracks that naturally won't compress right. There's no question that these tracks exist. The question is always: what's the likelihood that one of those tracks is in my collection? -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=61877 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The Blind Testing Controversy
darrenyeats;411499 Wrote: > Is that true? I thought I'd read about some blind tests where people > could distinguish between MP3 320 and red book? It depends on the sample. There really are tracks have not yet been distinguished with any certainty from RedBook at 320k, and there really are tracks that are easily distinguished with high confidence. The question is: if this is the case, would you trust that your collection fits entirely into the former category without testing each track? The most important point is that people tend to misread DBT results. If someone claims a DBT proves people can't tell the difference between X and Y, they are simply wrong. Flat wrong. It doesn't work like that. The most lossy-friendly results possible will say only that X and Y could not be confidently distinguished within the limits of the test. That last clause--"within the limits of the test" is what makes most PC-ABX testing worthless, because those tests are more constrained by their listening setup than the media they're testing. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=61877 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The Blind Testing Controversy
ralphpnj;411475 Wrote: > I'm a bit confused here. > > Those in favor of DBT use it as a reason for deriding the subjectivists Yep, you're confused. As a rule, we don't. > However when the subjectivists point out that DBTs also show that an mp3 > file sounds the same as an uncompressed or losslessly compressed file > the objectivists resort to snide remarks and silly comments. Live by > the sword, die by the sword. It was asserted that DBT was used to show that 128kbps MP3's are "CD Quality". I've seen this claim a lot on the Internet, but there's never much in the way of facts behind it, then or now. For example, while I'm sure you could hand-pick some tracks that produce these results, that's hardly the way any objectivist would test. You could also alter the definition of "CD Quality" such that it doesn't mean "sounds indistinguishable from a CD", but then if you go that far you don't even need to bother testing--just ratchet down your definitions until they meet your needs. I've seen quite a lot of DBT's of 128k MP3's. The results are that they don't sound like lossless. I summarized this as: No. > Basically there are problems with both belief systems and as is often > the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. That depends on how you define "truth". -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=61877 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The Blind Testing Controversy
john4456;411418 Wrote: > Isn't the great triumph of blind testing that it enables advertisers to > claim that 128kbs mp3 is "cd quality" ? No. Any other questions? -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=61877 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The Blind Testing Controversy
Listener;411146 Wrote: > An image of a pigeon in your back yard would be evidence. A dead pigeon > you collected in your back yard would be evidence. Even pigeon > droppings from your back yard would be evidence. Exactly my point. Evidence that proves the existence of the pigeon is easy. You didn't list any examples that would prove the lack of a pigeon to someone who was sure there was one hiding back there somewhere. > We don't even see the equivalent of pigeon drooppings in most audio > discussions. Again, exactly my point. It's fairly easy to prove that you CAN hear a difference, but people who claim to hear a difference choose not to, throwing the responsibility on others to prove they can't--which as we both demonstrated above, is a much harder task. > In fact science produced the theory of Quantum Mechanics in response to > experiments and theoretical issues. So what great advances has > subjectivist thinking produced? Bad example, you're right. String theory. Many Freudian/Jungian theories. Both at least started out as "making up stuff that works out the way we like, and can't be tested". I understand string theory is on the cusp of being testable so I may retract that half. Admittedly I'm no big fan of either. But in their favor, they sure inspired some good science by others, even if they were suspect in their own right. Honestly I think that's the best thing about subjectivists in my opinion. They ask the crazy off-the-wall questions that get things moving in a whole new direction. When it comes to providing answers, they're not so good, unfortunately. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=61877 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The Blind Testing Controversy
cliveb;410994 Wrote: > Not sure I understand exactly what you're saying here. Are you pointing > out that a double-blind test can only give a statistical confidence > level, and that 100% proof is never possible? Or are you saying that, > having failed to detect a difference in a blind test, a difference > might be perceived by some other comparison method? A little of both. Mostly I'm saying all tests results are, at best, limited by the conditions under which the test was administered. And then, my pedantry added that people need to be careful about saying they've proved the negative. It's simply more professional and correct to talk about confidence. > Perhaps in mathematics "proof" has this rigorous meaning, but in all > other areas, nothing can ever be "proved". I can hear a 1KHz tone. I can prove that, even to people who swear up and down that I can't. There is a pigeon in my back yard. I can prove that, even to hardcore pigeon deniers. However, I cannot convince hardcore pigeon believers that there ISN'T a pigeon in my yard. It's a different thing entirely. Sure, you can apply the "reasonable doubt" standard if you like, but that's a legal term. Applying "reasonable doubt" to science would have killed Quantum Mechanics, among other things. It's a terminology/responsibility thing. When someone says they can hear a 30KHz tone, it's not really anybody else's job to prove they can't. It's THEIR job to prove they can. And that's easily doable, assuming they really can. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=61877 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The Blind Testing Controversy
Quad;410902 Wrote: > I just have to point at this paper: > > http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/short/83/6/3548 > > What do 'objectivists' (I think I am one) say to these results? Bad > design? > > Sorry if this is old stuff. I find it rather interesting. My experience with PET scans is nil, so I may be missing some obvious issues. The first thing is I'm not seeing anything about detecting or preventing the audible interference patterns that can be generated from ultrasonic sounds. Maybe that's not the point of this study, but if it's not then they're not breaking any new ground. Also, the link between detectable brain activity and perceptible sounds doesn't sound solid (again, I'm not sure this was a goal of their test so I can't fault them for it). Certainly they went through some trouble making subjects sit still and avoid visual stimulation during the test, but more things stimulate the brain that just that. Did subjects have caffeine in their systems? Stomach discomfort? Did they get bored in the scanner and start thinking about Hawaii? Would any of that have shown up on the scans? The PET scans showed that the brain was doing stuff, but is that "stuff" hearing? Or is the subject just going over their shopping list? If they are certain that the parts of the brain they're scanning are exclusively responsible for hearing, then why did they bother making the room dark? That sort of thing. Could be a good test or a bad test. I'm just not sure it's an applicable test. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=61877 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The Blind Testing Controversy
I'm going to do my best. Forgive me if it's not good enough. cliveb;410749 Wrote: > The Objectivist seems to take the view that since there is no difference > in the detectable soundfield (as evidenced by a blind comparison) Usually I'm not this pedantic, but it seems to make a difference here. Failing to demonstrate a perceptible difference in a double-blind test does NOT mean that the difference can't be perceived! Failing to prove the existence of something is not the same as proving the lack of something. Also, a badly-designed test will give bad results, double-blind or not. Just because A/B audio tests cannot give good results does not mean that ABX (or other double-blind) audio tests always do. Designing a good test is hard, and bad tests of any sort are generally worthless. > The Objectivist typically considers that to allow oneself to be > influenced by these other factors is some kind of character flaw. Not at all. We just prefer to measure one thing at a time. If we wanted to, we could do a double-blind test of identical audio to show exactly how much influence the brand of the amp had on the perceived sound quality. It's not a character flaw, it's just a variable which could be tested. Most people are interested in sound quality, so we tend to control for that. If you do a test that allows multiple factors to influence perception, then it's difficult-to-impossible to sort out how much each factor contributed. Again, it all boils down to designing a good test. > They therefore draw the conclusion that the difference heard is not down > to any such external factors, but must be due to some problem with the > blind comparison methodology that prevents the differences being > detected. And I absolutely agree. Any tester should thoroughly document their methodology so that others can pick it apart and even re-test with any identified flaws removed. This is NOT the same thing as "your test didn't give the results I though it should have, therefore there must be something wrong with it". You have to actually identify the flaw and how to fix it. > Why not just accept the fact that external factors do modify what we > hear, and it is human nature that it does so? It's only reasonable that > the satisfaction in operating an exquisitely finished CD player will > enhance the listening experience. There's no shame in it. I'm with you there. I'm an objectivist and I like bling. > Objectivists should stop telling people they are deluding themselves > when they hear a difference, and Subjectivists should stop insisting > that the difference they hear can't be down to these external factors. I think the schism will remain, despite your best efforts. People like certainty (especially when spending lots of money), you can't have certainty without people making definitive statements, and you can't have definitive statements without testing. There are fundamental differences about what qualifies as a valid test. For example, I've seen some exquisitely designed nonblind audio tests. But they're nonblind, and therefore worthless, but subjectivists love them anyway. Then there's PC ABX tests, which make double-blind testing so easy you can get results without having any idea how to do a perception test. Also, typically worthless, but pseudo-objectivists love them anyway. That's the tension. People want answers. Tests give answers. Most tests are bad tests and give wrong answers, but people don't care about that so much, because what they really want is justification. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=61877 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Luddites, er I mean audiophiles
Hey, I'm a DBT-loving Luddite and I'm offended! Just kidding. I am actually a DBT-loving Luddite, but I'm not actually offended. "Luddite" is frequently a label that gets thrown at people who just have different priorities than much of society. We don't fear or hate technology, we just don't see what the big deal is. We actually like technology that fits our personal priorities. Take me. I'm a well-paid professional (in the tech industry no less) male in my thirties and have never had a cell phone. That fact alone brings conversations to screeching halts and starts people wondering if I ride a donkey to work. But here's the thing: I don't hate cell phones. I don't fear them. I simply have never NEEDED one. I already have a phone--it's at my house. If you need to get ahold of me while I'm out, I've got voicemail. If I need to get ahold of you, I'll go home and call you. All of my communication bases are covered as far as I'm concerned--no need for an upgrade. Also, FWIW my phone at home has a cord that attaches the handset to the base. I like it that way because it sounds better. No, really, no donkey. Now take your "Luddite" audiophile. They will buy a bag of magic rocks to make their amp sound better. They will buy green markers by the truckload. But they won't buy a networked music player. It's not as crazy as it sounds. Bags of magic rocks and green markers have a placebo effect (that's my DBT-loving side talking), don't actually make anything sound worse, and most importantly of all, they do not screw with any part of the tactile/emotional/nostalgic side of the listening experience. Networked music players do. An audiophile will tell you it's all about the sound, but they can identify their favorite albums by smell or touch. A networked music player makes music incorporeal. It does in fact get rid of part of their overall music experience, so they do not want it. Many, however, cannot square this with their belief that Hearing is the One True Sense, and they end up manufacturing fairly feeble attacks on the sound quality of networked players. It's not fear or hate so much as lack of understanding combined with the lack of any desire to learn more. Like iPhones for me. I wouldn't even recognize one if I saw it, and although a quick visit to apple.com could clear that up for me, I really don't care enough to even do that much. I like SqueezeBoxes myself. I've bought several. But I understand the joy of pulling an old cherished album out of its sleeve, and I know that I'm giving that up. There IS a downside. For me, the advantages simply outweigh that. Hell, dust allergies alone... -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=61715 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Apple ends DRM and improves quality
Anyone want to place their bets on when Macrovision-style watermarking is applied to iTunes music? If a watermark it to survive lossy transcoding, it will most likely be audible... -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57806 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Served music sounds better?
I hate to mention the obvious, but try the following... 1) Disconnect all cables from the CD player except the power cable. 2) Make the room nice and quiet 3) Play a CD Do you hear anything? Just because your CD player used to be dead silent doesn't mean it still is--and if the CD player is competing with its own mechanical noises, there's no wonder the Duet sounds better. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57173 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audible vs inaudible
ar-t;374020 Wrote: > Do you think that high-end manufacturers would waste all the time and > money on this sort of nonsense if it did not affect the final product? Yes, absolutely, no question about it. And the reason is that perception is everything in the market. If everyone THINKS Product A is better than Product B, people will buy Product A--and depending on how important that difference is perceived to be, people will even pay more for Product A. Potentially a lot more. Which product is actually better, or if they are actually pretty much identical, is irrelevant. I'm NOT saying they create demand by trumpeting some irrelevant difference as if it were an advantage (although Monster cables certainly does plenty of that), but by knowing the customer base and their biases, and creating what they want. Even if what they want is silly. Your customers want insanely low jitter because they read trade magazines. Is it even the least bit relevant to a company if they can actually hear the difference? -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=56712 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audible vs inaudible
ar-t;372401 Wrote: > But, please, don't tell me what I can or can not hear. I really don't want to add to a thread that's based on such a fundamentally flawed assumption, but I do want to address this because I never want to give anyone the impression that I am personally attacking them, telling them what they can or cannot hear, etc. When someone says "I can perceive the difference between X and Y" (that's any sort of perception--visible, audible, olfactory, etc), and I have never hear of anyone showing any evidence that they can perceive that difference before, I ask if they can show any such evidence. At this point there are three possibilities: 1) I am shown evidence that they can truly perceive the difference, and I saw "Wow I am impressed" even if it's not actually that impressive because at least they made the effort. 2) I am shown evidence that fails to show that they can truly perceive the difference. The person is often humbled by their failure to prove their point, but I point out that failure to prove something doesn't necessarily mean it's not true. It just means they're going to have a hard time convincing people until they can. 3) I am not shown any evidence at all, either because the person is unable or unwilling to attempt to prove anything. Again, I point out that they're going to have a hard time convincing people until they can. What we're dealing with is a clear case of #3. There is a world of difference between telling someone that they cannot hear something, and telling them that they have failed to prove that they can hear it. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=56712 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] jitter
ar-t;372236 Wrote: > they prove it all sounds alike They do no such thing. As I indicated, A/B testing can also use repeated trials, and yet their subjects' remarkable abilities are consistent right to the end. Perhaps DBT trials more exhausting than A/B trials, even over the same length of time, due to the subject actually needing to pay attention... As for your 4+ hour trial, seriously, like Pat said, just find a less sadistic test designer and you'll be much happier with DBT. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=56425 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] jitter
ar-t;372180 Wrote: > Have any of you ever been part of a DBT panel? Yes. ar-t;372180 Wrote: > you would realise that they eventually reduce down to everything sounded > exactly alike. Repeated trials are required to improve statistical certainty--they are actually totally unrelated to whether the test is blind or not. You'll see repeated trials in both A/B testing and DBT. And I've seen no evidence that subjects' ability to distinguish samples has been correlated with the trial iteration--something that would be easy enough to show with any dataset from any DBT. ar-t;372180 Wrote: > Don't try to compare DBTs of drug trials and other scientific studies to > audio DBTs. The analogy does not hold up. How does telling the listener in advance which sample is different cause the test to become MORE reliable than not telling them? Is there an answer to this question that passes the laugh test? -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=56425 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] jitter
Pete Fowler;372123 Wrote: > By implication one could also conclude that since no scientific proof of > jitter audibility has been presented to Pat his position is > supported/proven? Supported yes, proven no. Pat's position is that you should doubt until you see evidence. Credible evidence may very well exist, but he hasn't seen it. Pete Fowler;372123 Wrote: > To hold scientific research up as the only acceptable standard for right > or wrong is...debatable. I'll assume the best from this comment. It's possible to reach the correct conclusion via a nonscientific method, and nobody disputes that. For example, I'll say that you're 6 feet tall. Absolutely unscientific, but I might just be right. Science is a yardstick. I can't convince anyone else that I'm right without it. Science isn't about always being right, it's about being independently verifiable so that you can know when you're wrong. Scientists use the scientific method so that others can show exactly how they are wrong. In this day and age, when someone does not use the scientific method, it is often precisely because they do not wish to be shown how wrong they are. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=56425 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 320kbps Mp3's on a hi-fi system....
has made an attempt to demonstrate that it's true, and if I accept his statement at face value, fine. If I doubt his results, I ask for his data and methodology and look for a problem. I think the audiophile world thinks person B is imagining things, person A proved something, and person C is some kind of masochist. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=51021 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 320kbps Mp3's on a hi-fi system....
ralphpnj;331571 Wrote: > I just don't like being told what I can and cannot hear In that case, it's best for you to avoid ABX testing ;) My point is that the reason I don't take audiophiles seriously when they say they can distinguish an MP3 from a FLAc in an A/B test is that they have admitted in that very statement that they have not even bothered to find out if they can hear a difference or not. You asked, I answered. Please read my statement carefully to understand I'm not saying they CAN'T hear the difference. I'm just saying they've failed to even attempt to demonstrate it. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=51021 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 320kbps Mp3's on a hi-fi system....
ralphpnj;331435 Wrote: > Without trying to pick a fight I would like to pose a question: > > Why is it that you, along with many others, except the results of these > "tests" but don't except the word of the people who claim that they hear > a difference? Simple. ABX is a valid test and A/B isn't. Yes, hobbyists can and frequently do ABX testing on low-end systems, but audiophiles can also do them on high-end systems any time they want to disappoint themselves. A/B testing on the other hand produces garbage results no matter what kind of system you're doing it on. Hope that helps. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=51021 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 320kbps Mp3's on a hi-fi system....
i'm your bass creator;331202 Wrote: > What would you have to listen out for to be able to determine the > difference between a lossy version and a lossless version of electronic > tracks? It doesn't really matter about the type of music because that instrument positioning argument is pretty much pants. It's based on a misunderstanding of how joint stereo works, which is a bandwidth-saving technique employed primarily by lossy encoders, but also by some lossless encoders such as APE (this last bit is a clue to how much it impacts sound). These are some of the REAL artifacts of lossy encoding, in descending order of easiness to hear/obnoxiousness: - Warbling. Let's say you have a long sequence of rapid-fire percussive noises. Typically faster than drums, like applause and sometimes castanets. Each sound may be imperceptibly time-shifted, but collectively, it'll sound like the audience is clapping underwater. - Ringing. You'll hear this on brass instruments and piano, maybe others. It will just sound more metallic than it should. - Pre-echo. Another form of time-shifting. It basically makes percussive sounds softer. Like the drums have been stuffed with pillows. - Hissing, etc. There are lots of lesser artifacts that actually sound pretty natural, and you very likely won't spot them just listening to the compressed version. The only way you can really spot them is the carefully compare against the source, preferably in a double-blind test. Be warned that if you just do A/B testing, your brain WILL imagine differences between tracks, and your knowledge of which track is lossy will lead you to erroneously believe you've spotted a difference. Hope that helps. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=51021 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 320kbps Mp3's on a hi-fi system....
iPhone;330973 Wrote: > why use a compromising ripping format (on a home system) when FLAC and > other lossless formats are readily available? A consumer is frequently in a bind when it comes to their audio: they often have no control over compromises someone else made (at the recording, mixing, mastering level), and they have some control over the playback environment but it comes at a very high cost. I was mostly pointing out that encoding is one of the few areas where the consumer has complete control, at a very low cost. For an audiophile, that's enough reason to go lossless right there. End of story. The rest of the world needs to weigh the benefits and costs, though. The cost is a few dollars worth of HD space and a small amount of time and effort. Everyone agrees about that part. There's some disagreement about the benefit, but I'm going to spell out what the non-audiophile world thinks, at great risk of grievous personal injury. The benefit is *cough* that some people (probably not you) may be able to perceive an audible (but not necessarily unpleasant) difference on some hi-fi systems (probably not yours) and only on some tracks anyway (probably not in your collection). For the rest of the world, it's pretty clear the costs outweigh the benefits, so they go lossy. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=51021 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 320kbps Mp3's on a hi-fi system....
Nonreality;330886 Wrote: > To me it seems that the mastering, the recording brings out these things > more than whether it is a 320mp3 or a Flac file. It's not just you. This is a very important point that's often lost in the noise of format arguments. The best any digital format, lossy or lossless, can hope to do is to sound exactly like the source material (typically the CD). There are a lot of things in the recording, mixing, and mastering processes which can and do alter the sound much more significantly than lossy encoding would. In that sense it's already lossy when it's on the CD. Lossy encoding just potentially shaves a little more sound quality off something that's typically been hacked at pretty significantly. The whole vinyl/SACD/DVD-A/HDCD argument is mostly about these other much more significant factors, seasoned with just a dash of snake oil for zip. But, since this is the audiophile forum, it's not a question of relative significance. Lossy encoding is a compromise that the listener simply doesn't have to make, so why do it? -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=51021 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The Future Is LAME: The Truth About MP3 ...LAME = Lame ain't an Mp3 Encoder
If we accept that a LAME-encoded MP3 can be proven to sound better than the source, then this means the MP3 sounds DIFFERENT than the source. And any case where an MP3 sounds different from the source would be considered a bug by the LAME developers, and they would attempt to fix it. So even if we accept that the current version of LAME sounds better than the source material to a certain subset of users, we can rest assured that this will be fixed in the next release. Phew, apocalypse averted! ;) -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=50937 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] WIfi or hard wire between server and squeezebox
Your questions have already been answered, but I noticed something: Willie B;319132 Wrote: > ...stick a server in the understairs cupboard... ...be careful with that idea. You can do it, but do it well. Computers do not like heat and they do not like dust, and sticking them in a cupboard may be a very good way to shorten your server's lifespan. So...is your server fanless? If so, good for you, but put a vent in the cupboard door anyway. Does it have a fan? Danger, danger! That means it both produces enough heat to require a fan, AND it produces its own airflow to collect dust over time. So vent the door, elevate the server, and stick a thermomenter in there for the first few days. And check in on it every so often. An unusual sound or smell may mean server failure is only seconds away. FWIW my server's in a closet too. Fanless, elevated, vented door, with other networking gear and a UPS. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=49777 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] digital is digital OR NOT
gsawdy;322154 Wrote: > Of course one has to doubt any of this would stand the test of a DBT, > but I am curious to know if there could be some basis in theory. I think you just answered your own question here. The only way it could have a basis in theory is if it could stand the test of DBT. If you doubt one, then you doubt the other. It's much more useful to verify the observed phenomena than to develop a theory to explain a set of phenomena that may not actually exist. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=50147 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Can't hear the difference between lossy and lossless!
Mark Lanctot;233579 Wrote: > I've often wondered what would happen if you used the SAME model twice > though (say re-encoding an MP3 in MP3). I don't think I've seen > anything about that. Transcoding lossy->lossy degrades the quality, even with the same PAM. Layman's explanation--the orginal encoding takes waveform X and converts it into waveform Y (which should be very similar to X, but nevertheless different). Transcoding takes waveform Y and converts it into waveform Z. Z!=Y BECAUSE Y!=X. If you're starting with a different waveform, there's no way you'll end up at the same place after the transformation. Having a different PAM can definitely aggravate the differences though. I'm surprised the OP thinks there's something wrong with not hearing a difference at 320kbps though. Aside from a few killer tracks and artificial samples which are fairly unlikely to be in his collection, if he could hear the difference, he'd be the first. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39112 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 16/44 vs. 24/96 Format Comparison
amey01;232484 Wrote: > 2: It has also been shown that inaudible frequencies (although not > directly heard), can be perceived by humans. [We don't know how]. > > I'm not saying that I can scientifically prove this stuff - thats the > whole point! We don't know. No, I'm saying you CAN scientifically prove this stuff. That's the whole point--if there's something we don't know, we have a method that will tell us. > All I'm saying is to avoid making sweeping statements like "96kHz is > useless because we can't hear it" - judge with your ears and don't try > to scientifically prove sound quality. > That makes no sense to me. Proving it scientifically means using your ears--the part that's removed is the part your brain imagines. > Same with sampling frequencies - one day we'll be able to fill in the > blanks, but as yet, we don't know why. No, if we can't prove anyone can hear the difference now, there's no reason to believe we'll be able to prove it in the future. Now, if we COULD prove people can hear the difference, we may have to wait before we know WHY, but that's a different thing entirely. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38596 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 16/44 vs. 24/96 Format Comparison
amey01;232189 Wrote: > > But there is just so much that science and DBT tests (which have been > proven inaccurate) can't explain. > Money quote from this forum IMO. Science has been scientifically proven to be wrong. But if it was proven scientifically, then maybe it wasn't proven after all and science isn't wrong. But then... DBT has limitations, sure--the results are truly valid only for the tested environment and test subject. If the environment is wonky or the subject pool is nonrepresentative, then DBT results cannot be extrapolated to apply to the real world. But that's why information on methodology is included in the published results, so that people can pick it apart and point out problems, and the test can be re-run correctly. That's the science part of DBT--it's self-correcting. Or are you saying DBT doesn't work on dogs and bats because science stops working at 20KHz? -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38596 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Amps without tone controls
If you have some music that can be so improved by a simple tone adjustment, wouldn't the best solution be to rip the CD, use an audio editor to make those tone adjustments, and then either burn them back to CD or load them into SlimServer? In other words, if you've identified a disc that has problems that can be corrected in such a manner, why not just modify the disc so that it no longer sounds wrong--and why not simply throw out the disc that sounds wrong when you're done? Then you don't need tone controls, and you also don't have to reset everything back to normal when you play a different disc. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36887 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A photo of your Squeezebox setup (please)
A poll associated with this post was created, to vote and see the results, please visit http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19817 Question: Should there be a new forum for photos? - yes - no - maybe muski;26 Wrote: > I thought about it, but the mac mini has a case fan. Maybe worth trying > out to see how much noise it makes under the processing load of the > Inguz plugin. If you're not averse to spending a little money, look into Hush Technologies. They make some very good fanless systems. I have their B3 with a Core 2 Duo (x86-64 AND fanless, hooray!) and the only noise is from the hard disk, which I eventually plan to replace with a solid state drive once that option becomes more reasonable. Only one downside--the whole thing is a big heatsink, so it's much heavier than it looks. Buying it was...interesting... though as they're an overseas shop and you pretty much have to use a bank transfer if you're ordering from the states. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19817 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So what are the 'audiophile camps' anyway?
cliveb;194546 Wrote: > I respectfully disagree. If an LP master was used to cut a CD, it would > sound far too bright, because of the treble boost that is added. No need to be respectful, I was wrong. Just say it ;) Perhaps it would be more accurate to that that if CDs were mastered like DVD-Audio or SACDs, they may sound just as good (or at least we'd finally be able to prove one way or the other!) I think that regarding the general theme, however, we're in agreement. Someone who prefers vinyl may actually be preferring quality mastering. Nothing about vinyl is inherently better. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34379 ___ audiophiles mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So what are the 'audiophile camps' anyway?
Phil Leigh;194459 Wrote: > Hmmm...it may be time to challenge this. > > There is no way that vinyl sounds anything like what what was heard in > the control room as far as I am concerned. I'm not saying it isn't > fun/nice. All I am saying is that it ain't accurate/faithfull...and > before you ask - yes, I've been on both sides of the lathe! > > My LP12 (which I loved) was so NOT accurate in the conventional sense - > but it was a blast. For me personally I'm happier with the digital > version - it sounds more accurate to me. I'm not saying it is perfect - > what is? It's just that modern (NOT circa 1983!) digital technology is > capable of a fine rendition of all sorts of music IMHO. > > No doubt your M will V considerably :0) Never thought I'd be a vinyl defender, but here goes ;) Vinyl is a very unforgiving medium. You have to master the audio extremely well or it will run into vinyl's limitations and sound like crap. CDs on the other hand are very forgiving. You can compress and amplify the audio like crazy (and other stupid things) and it will sound much, much better than if you tried to master an LP in the same fashion--some people will even prefer the badly overcompressed sound (shrug). So whenever I hear vinyl and I think it sounds better than the CD, I recognize that either a) the vinyl is based on a totally different and better-sounding master, b) I'm enjoying the (inaccurate) coloration provided by the vinyl medium and playback, or c) I'm imagining things. Because I like to fancy myself an objectivist, I'd like to believe that if the vinyl master was used on the CD, the CD would sound much better than the vinyl. I feel the same way about HDCD and SACD--of course they sound better--they tend to be mastered much more competently than CDs, and I can't demonstrate that the advanced technology is responsible for the improved sound at all. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34379 ___ audiophiles mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A/B Testing method question
P Floding;178087 Wrote: > Yes, of course. > But there is a difference between being able to fathom that something > may be possible, even though not researched yet, and dismissing > outright anything "strange" as being impossible (what I call a > nay-sayer). It's all in tone. Unless there's any evidence backing something up, it's conjecture at best. That's the way it is. But some scientifically-minded people have a way of saying "conjecture at best" in a way that rhymes with "mule-sit". It's a lack of interpersonal skills, and I agree that that sort of tone discourages exploration and doesn't breed good discussion. There are also the sort of theories that, if true, would threaten the foundations of many other theories. See Einstein's "God doesn't play dice with the universe" dismissal of quantum mechanics. Getting personally invested in a particular way of looking at things happens, and clearly even to the best of us. And the only solution is evidence. Pile it on until they cry uncle. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32466 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A/B Testing method question
P Floding;178080 Wrote: > The exploring mind doesn't dismiss things because the evidence isn't > already placed on the table for him. The burden of evidence is always on the curious mind. There are plenty of incurious folks who can understand the evidence once it's there. There are also many curious folks with no interest in evidence whatsoever. The world's a big place. There are even curious people who could get all of the needed evidence but just have other priorities than proving someone else's theory. Big crazy new ideas often get "dismissed" for years before they're vindicated. Jitter, continental drift, that sort of thing. But there are also lots of big crazy new ideas that get "dismissed" for years and are still dismissed. Hollow earth theory and green magic markers come to mind. The difference is evidence. Sometimes some nice skeptic will go get your evidence for you. But usually it's up to you. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32466 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A/B Testing method question
P Floding;178069 Wrote: > BTW, isn't it funny how "objectivists" get worked up about differences > in specs down to -140 dB noise floor, and yet can dismiss external > influences from vibration, electrical fields, etc? Do these people have > any idea what sort of magnitudes these figures represent? If "dismiss" means "needs some sort of evidence" then it's not that funny ;) The "objectivist" label can get self-misapplied just like the "audiophile" label. It's not like there's a membership badge you have to earn. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32466 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A/B Testing method question
PhilNYC;178002 Wrote: > I wasn't looking to scientifically prove anything. I was looking to > provide enough evidence to go beyond a reasonable doubt. Same thing. Scientifically proven doesn't mean it's written in stone. It just means it passes the best intellectual rigor we can manage at the moment. Anything short of scientific proof, and all doubt is reasonable IMO. For the sake of the forum, I'll just accept this as a difference of opinion and move on. PhilNYC;178002 Wrote: > From what I understand, single-blind tests are not scientifically valid > to begin with (based on comments by proponents of double-blind > tests)...is this correct? Not all tests involve self-aware subjects. If you drop two stones from a tower, it doesn't really matter if you tell them what you're doing first. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32466 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A/B Testing method question
PhilNYC;177973 Wrote: > The tweak is almost silent, and with the music playing at 85-86db, I am > 99% sure no one heard the actual tweak being implemented. If you're looking to prove something, you need to prove it. Every assumption you make has to be independently tested, or you need to modify your original test to not include those assumptions. i.e. your initial test might very well be a fine single-blind test. But you'd need to perform a completely separate test simply to prove that subjects could not perceive that other subjects have raised their hands (because that has not been established). And another to show they couldn't hear you making the tweak. And yet another to show that they could not perceive you reacting to other subjects raising their hands (turning your head, turning to one side). And multiple tests and placebo tests to weed out dumb luck. And procedural error in any of these sub-tests would invalidate the main test, because your main test relies on them. Which is why it's easier, in the long run, not to use such assumptions at all. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32466 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A/B Testing method question
P Floding;177945 Wrote: > I agree with what you are saying, except that double-blind implies that > the one performing the experiment does not know what he/she is doing. > Not sure how a one-way mirror will help in acheiving this.. > > Example of double-blind is when the doctor handing out the medicine > doesn't know himself weather it is the real thing or sugar pills. Yeah, I didn't think before I wrote. I was mostly trying to get the tester out of the room with the subjects because I figured it'd be impossible for the tester to effectively hide the tweak from himself (and make it truly double-blind). -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32466 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A/B Testing method question
For what it's worth: Telling the subjects to raise their hand when they noticed a change wasn't necessarily "unblinding" the test, as long as there was a possibility that no change would happen during the course of the test. Having multiple subjects in the same room, even with their eyes closed, pretty much ruined the test, though. If you ever want to re-do this test, isolate your subjects (test one at a time), and perform multiple tests per subject (on the order of 12 or more), including tests where no change occurs. Come up with the criteria for a "positive" BEFORE the trial starts, such as raising a hand within 30 seconds of the tweak. Then consider any other hand-raising to be a false positive, even if it's at X+1 seconds. Otherwise you'll end up adjusting your criteria to fit your data, which makes the whole process suspect. Then at the end you'll have a nice big pile of data to work with. Then it will likely be a pretty good single-blind test. It will not be double-blind because you are in the room with the subjects, both to make the tweak and to observe the hand-raising (and ninja-like as you may believe yourself to be, your subjects may be able to sense you making the tweak). Invest in a one-way mirror if you want to try for double-blind. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32466 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What kind of Audiophile are you?
snarlydwarf;177071 Wrote: > And spend more money on equipment than security? Not what I was originally thinking...but yeah... ;) -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32378 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What kind of Audiophile are you?
None of the above. I'm not an audiophile myself but I'm nevertheless fascinated by audiophile stuff. My outsider-looking-in definition of an audiophile would be someone who is so concerned about the sound quality of their music that they will go to extraordinary* lengths to prevent the theoretical possibility** of sound degradation***. (where "extraordinary" is defined as "seems unreasonable to most observers", "theoretical possibility" is defined as "anything that seems remotely plausible to the audiophile in question", and "degradation" means "doesn't sound like they believe it should"). People who spend considerable money or effort building their collections are just music fans to me. They are a set that partially overlaps audiophiles, not a different sort of audiophile. A different sort of OCD perhaps ;) I like to poke fun at audiophiles as much as the next guy, but let's face it. A few minutes listening to one of their systems and I want their system so bad my teeth hurt. The world's a better place with them. Especially if they live close-by. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32378 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Audiophile shops
We've all experienced the "snooty boutique attitude", and not necessarily with audiophilia. Go to a froo-froo restaurant and order some cheap Spanish red to go with your pricey oyster plate. The disdain may be palpable--but does your dinner choice then taste less good to you? Go to a car lot and tell them you want something that has wheels and gets over 40MPG. Oh, goodness--but don't you want a V8 engine, leather seats, and heated cupholders? In short, ignore them. If you know what you want, be very clear that this part of your plan is not negotiable. If they don't respect that, walk. I've found that some snooty boutique folk CAN actually know quite a lot about their subject matter, and can be very helpful in areas where you need their opinions. All you need to do is fence off those areas where their opinions are welcome. But if you find their opinions suspect, walk. No judge is as good as your own ears. You can't taste a meal at a restaurant before you order it, so the recommendations of others have a bit more weight there. Many audiophile shops let you schedule listening tests, though. Some even help you do single-blind tests, which is even better. I've not found a place that really even understands the concept of double-blind though. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32232 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Odd Transporter display problem
No need. It's actually already fixed in the nightlies. Just wait for 6.5.1, unless you're adventurous enough to try a nightly (I'm not). -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31384 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Odd Transporter display problem
I imagine you're seeing this: http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=4024 -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31384 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Portable hi-fi
No. ;) But we could help you find the best thing possible with that limitation. Please preface everything below with "my personal opinion/experience is..." - FLAC support limits you to iAudio and Rockbox'ed devices. - No device offers good enough sound quality to make FLAC support relevant (unless you want FLAC support to avoid the trouble of transcoding) - iAudio X5, some iRiver models, and (no, not kidding) the original iPod shuffle reputedly have very good sound quality compared to their peers. I cannot verify this because I only have an X5 - The iAudio X5 and iRiver models seem to be favorites of the Rockbox project - I would recommend using RockBox--it won't improve sound quality, but it does add things like wider format support and gapless playback (which is a must-have for classical fans) - Make sure that your studio-class headset really is all it claims to be Good luck! -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30642 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMPlayer / wma lossless - EAC / FLAC
EAC is definitely better. If your CDs are in pristine shape, you won't see the difference, but otherwise you will. EAC will protect you against the nasty and rather obvious pops and clicks that plague a lot of tracks ripped from CD. And sometimes the scratches are not terribly visible, so a visual inspection may not help you determine what condition your CDs are in. Go with EAC, because it's the only way to be sure. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29534 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Location of table of all supported formats and bitrates
Ah, with that I'm afraid I can't help you. You could always experiment yourself to find out, but that's certainly not as easy as a simple chart. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29354 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Location of table of all supported formats and bitrates
By "supported", do you mean "it works" or "SlimDevices will give me official technical support for this". That could be a significant distinction. Since server-side transcoding is very flexible, I'd say that any format that can be understood by the server platform can work on the client. Since SlimServer runs on any platform you are likely to have, you could safely say the clients work for every format you are likely to consider. So I guess you should specify what your exact needs are. If you're asking "What works?", well, everything works. I'm sure even MIDI files could be made to work. (Hey, that's a good idea...!) I'd follow the ripping guideline in the Wiki (http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?BeginnersGuideToFileFormats) FLAC is a good choice for the uncertain. Even if you decide at a later time that you want to use a different format, because it's lossless, you can safely convert to a new format without losing any data (unless you choose to convert to a lossy format). Also use EAC if it works on your platform--not all CD rippers are created equal. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29354 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
At the risk of making absolute statements on sensitive topics, double-blind tests are the only scientific way to gauge whether or not a subject can perceive the difference between two stimuli. This isn't limited to audio. There are plenty of perception tests around vision, smell, etc. that follow the same rules. Smell these test tubes--which one is different? And so on. This goes on in the very real scientific field of perception every day. That said, setting up a controlled laboratory in your own home is not as easy as some objectivists may lead you to believe. There's the playback hardware itself, the listening environment, and several biological factors (can tinnitus be amplified by blood pressure variations and caffeine? I don't know, but it's plausible. What about mental distractions/altered states? Et cetera) If a double-blind test shows that the subject cannot identify the different stimulus with certainty, that does prove that the subject can't tell the difference--but only within the parameters of the test. If one of those parameters was off (say, the subject was hung over but did not want to inform the tester), then the test isn't really valid in other circumstances. So I guess my point is: objectivists are correct that all differences can be measured (go ahead, call me autistic!). However, failure to measure a difference may be a failure of methodology rather than an indicator that the difference cannot be perceived by the subject. People who classify themselves as subjectivists have a lot to offer in terms of setting up the test environment correctly, but it's not meaningful without the double-blind test at the end. That's my two cents. Really not trying to troll, perhaps succeeding anyway. My first venture into this fray. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
