Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
Themis;350875 Wrote: > But I strongly disagree about your distortion level example : If a lot > of people can hear differences between -say- different speaker cables > or even between microphones, although CCIR/ITU-R ABX tests prove that > no-one hears any differences of that level anyway, then, probably, the > famous ABX tests methodology is broken and/or there's a factor that we > forgot to consider. Eh? jeffmeh;350956 Wrote: > At the risk of opening up the classic objectivist/subjectivist black > hole, I have never understood this argument. > > With all due respect, if: > 1) A specific individual claims he can hear the difference between A > and B when he knows which one he is hearing, and > 2) That individual cannot differentiate A from B in an double-blind > test, and > 3) This scenario is repeated every time, for many tests, with many > individuals, and > 4) Countless studies across disciplines have demonstrated that the > placebo effect is real > > Then why is it reasonable to conclude that there is something wrong > with the tests, rather than that none of these individuals can really > hear the difference? Seconded. You seem like a reasonable person, Themis - can you elaborate? -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
Themis;350875 Wrote: > I happen to know some high-end amplifier designers, and I can tell you > that when they go as far as 100kHz and 0,001% and 0dB frequency > responce deviation (although the... tests say that no-one hears > differences of 0,1dB), it is not for marketing purposes. > It is because the sound of their product is better with than without. > Go figure. Ok, maybe I was generalizing a bit Sometimes it's marketing, and sometimes there's something else going on. Some designers just push the 0.001% distortion for marketing reasons, but others get there for the right reasons. If you get there by designing amps with huge open loop gains, so that you can apply a ton of feedback, you're designing for marketing reasons. If you work hard at designing a circuit that has very low open loop distortion, and apply a small amount of feedback for stability, then you're designing for sonic reasons. And I agree that the second amp design will sound better. My point is that the numbers alone give you an incomplete picture, and are often misleading. -- DCtoDaylight Audiophile wish list: Zero Distortion, Infinite Signal to Noise Ratio, and a Bandwidth from DC to Daylight DCtoDaylight's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7284 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
Themis;350875 Wrote: > I get your point and Pat's one. But I strongly disagree about your > distortion level example : If a lot of people can hear differences > between -say- different speaker cables or even between microphones, > although CCIR/ITU-R ABX tests prove that no-one hears any differences > of that level anyway, then, probably, the famous ABX tests methodology > is broken and/or there's a factor that we forgot to consider. > Also, I happen to know some high-end amplifier designers, and I can > tell you that when they go as far as 100kHz and 0,001% and 0dB > frequency responce deviation (although the... tests say that no-one > hears differences of 0,1dB), it is not for marketing purposes. > It is because the sound of their product is better with than without. > Go figure. At the risk of opening up the classic objectivist/subjectivist black hole, I have never understood this argument. With all due respect, if: 1) A specific individual claims he can hear the difference between A and B when he knows which one he is hearing, and 2) That individual cannot differentiate A from B in an double-blind test, and 3) This scenario is repeated every time, for many tests, with many individuals, and 4) Countless studies across disciplines have demonstrated that the placebo effect is real Then why is it reasonable to conclude that there is something wrong with the tests, rather than that none of these individuals can really hear the difference? -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
pfarrell;350879 Wrote: > > Yeah, its really sad. Its true that CD sales have been crushed. > Whether that is due to piracy or crappy acts is hard to tell. But the > revenue drain is terrible. > > The record labels have always been a bit of a ponzi scheme, or if you > prefer, a VC fund. They invest in a bunch of groups, most do nothing, > and a few are Led Zepplin. But without the money from the big groups, > there is no money to support the little ones. > > The RIAA does not represent the recording industry. They represent the > big five labels. Period. > > But when there is a big squeeze, everyone from artists, session > musicians, recording engineers, studio owners, etc. get crushed. > > Except for a handful of studios (Apple Records, etc.) the only way > studios are paying for the lights is voice overs, books on tape, and a > few cats and dogs. > > The only part of the business that has any current upside is vinyl. > Most > of that is yet another re-issue of ancient stuff. And its mostly sold > to > wacky audiophiles who think $10K is a decent price for a cartridge. > > The current The Absolute Sound has a cover story on a turntable that > weighs 600 pounds. > Perhaps I'm a bit hi-jacking this thread, I apologize, but there MUST be a solution, isn't it ? I mean, this is not a -production- model problem, groups and musicians are as talented today as they were -say- 30 years ago, studios are at least as good (at least I think) so... what is left ? The commercial business model and the customers. Is there a severe inadequation between them ? Looking around me, people who like music still continue buying records. The others don't, but they never did anyway. Perhaps the RIAA model, the way you describe it, is dead ? Is the industry prepared to survive without it, according to you ? -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
Themis wrote: > These are awful news, Pat. I didn't realize the situation was so > desperate... :( Yeah, its really sad. Its true that CD sales have been crushed. Whether that is due to piracy or crappy acts is hard to tell. But the revenue drain is terrible. The record labels have always been a bit of a ponzi scheme, or if you prefer, a VC fund. They invest in a bunch of groups, most do nothing, and a few are Led Zepplin. But without the money from the big groups, there is no money to support the little ones. The RIAA does not represent the recording industry. They represent the big five labels. Period. But when there is a big squeeze, everyone from artists, session musicians, recording engineers, studio owners, etc. get crushed. Except for a handful of studios (Apple Records, etc.) the only way studios are paying for the lights is voice overs, books on tape, and a few cats and dogs. The only part of the business that has any current upside is vinyl. Most of that is yet another re-issue of ancient stuff. And its mostly sold to wacky audiophiles who think $10K is a decent price for a cartridge. The current The Absolute Sound has a cover story on a turntable that weighs 600 pounds. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
pfarrell;350845 Wrote: > > And why would you buy a decent mic with their ADC? What if you don't > want PCM, and rather want DSD? You'd be locked in. > > In more general terms, it makes zero sense to buy a new Neumann mic, > period. The music industry is a disaster, and the recording studio > business is nearly dead. Commercial recording studios are selling for > less than the value of their recording lockers (mics alone) with no > value at all being placed on the studios, mixers, and value of the > ongoing business. > > If you want a Neumann mic, there are tons of barely used ones > available > for fire sale prices. > These are awful news, Pat. I didn't realize the situation was so desperate... :( -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
DCtoDaylight;350839 Wrote: > And if no one can hear distortion levels of less than 0.1%, why does > gear go down to 0.001%? In a word, marketing! > I think that what Pat is saying, is that many highly respected, great > sounding mic's are actually quite limited by audiophile standards, and > that the ability to reproduce ultra high frequency harmonics is not, by > itself, a good indicator of sound quality. > The extra headroom a higher sampling rate brings is more useful for > simplifying the anti aliasing filters, than it is for reproducing those > high frequencies.I get your point and Pat's one. But I strongly disagree > about your distortion level example : If a lot of people can hear differences between -say- different speaker cables or even between microphones, although CCIV/ITU-R ABX tests prove that no-one hears any differences of that level anyway, then, probably, the famous ABX tests methodology is broken and/or there's a factor that we forgot to consider. Also, I happen to know some amplifier designers, and I can tell you that when they go as far as 100kHz and 0,001% and 0dB frequency responce deviation (although the... tests say that no-one hears differences of 0,1dB), it is not for marketing purposes. It is because the sound of their product is better with than without. Go figure. -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
Themis wrote: > Although I'm not an expert in > microphones (so I can't really discuss with you) recent Neumanns DO > record over 20kHz. Nobody buys them ? Actually, nobody buys them, but that is not causal. Neumann has a bunch of "digital" microphones, based on the TLM 103 series, and the KM18* series. They make zero sense. If you want to plug a mic into your computer, say to record a podcast, you don't need a Neumann. And why would you buy a decent mic with their ADC? What if you don't want PCM, and rather want DSD? You'd be locked in. In more general terms, it makes zero sense to buy a new Neumann mic, period. The music industry is a disaster, and the recording studio business is nearly dead. Commercial recording studios are selling for less than the value of their recording lockers (mics alone) with no value at all being placed on the studios, mixers, and value of the ongoing business. If you want a Neumann mic, there are tons of barely used ones available for fire sale prices. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
Themis;350743 Wrote: > And, if there's no material over 20kHz, why do monitors go up to 30kHz ? > And why amplifiers go well over 50kHz ? And if no one can hear distortion levels of less than 0.1%, why does gear go down to 0.001%? In a word, marketing! I think that what Pat is saying, is that many highly respected, great sounding mic's are actually quite limited by audiophile standards, and that the ability to reproduce ultra high frequency harmonics is not, by itself, a good indicator of sound quality. The extra headroom a higher sampling rate brings is more useful for simplifying the anti aliasing filters, than it is for reproducing those high frequencies. -- DCtoDaylight Audiophile wish list: Zero Distortion, Infinite Signal to Noise Ratio, and a Bandwidth from DC to Daylight DCtoDaylight's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7284 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
pfarrell;350733 Wrote: > While there are measurement mics that go well up to 30kHz, the lust for, > "musical mics" typically start rolling off as low as 15kHz.Well, rolling off > is not cutting, is it ? They are below normal level but still there, am I mistaken ? Although I'm not an expert in microphones (so I can't really discuss with you) recent Neumanns DO record over 20kHz. Nobody buys them ? And, if there's no material over 20kHz, why do monitors go up to 30kHz ? And why amplifiers go well over 50kHz ? -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
This is a screen capture of the specs page for the Telefunken ELA 251 microphone. http://www.telefunkenusa.com/products/Ela%20M%2025x%20Manual.pdf Notice: 1) it has no attempt to describe the frequency response over 15kHz. 2) the slope of the response from about 11kHz to 15Khz is clearly negative 3) the slope shows a huge and rapid fall off of response above 13kHz +---+ |Filename: telefunken_ela_251.jpg | |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6056| +---+ -- pfarrell Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html pfarrell's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=200 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
Themis wrote: >How's that: "nothing there" ? There're plenty of harmonics "there"... Recorded by what microphone? feeding which preamp? Into which compressor? While there are measurement mics that go well up to 30kHz, the lust for, "musical mics" typically start rolling off as low as 15kHz. See Neumann M50, Telefunken 251, RCA R44 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
pfarrell;350717 Wrote: > Recording at 88.2 kHz means you don't need > filters until 40kHz, and since there is nothing there, the filters can > be nice first or second order networks.How's that: "nothing there" ? There're > plenty of harmonics "there"... -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
Themis wrote: > BTW, if you look back in CD history, 25 years ago, almost everybody was > saying (and proving it with various useless ABX tests) that it was > impossible to hear any difference above 44.1kHz. And now, the same > people are "serving" us 192kHz oversampling dacs saying (with the same > aplomb) that the sound is much better. Go figure. Pretty easy. Early CDs (and digital mastering gear) had wicked low pass filters to eliminate anything over 22kHz. They screwed up too many things to list. With a 44.1kHz sample rate, there is nothing above 22.05 kHz. Period. No wonder ABX tests failed. Too many folks confuse this. Recording at 88.2 kHz means you don't need filters until 40kHz, and since there is nothing there, the filters can be nice first or second order networks. I've never hear any serious reasons to justify quad rate sampling. Bob Katz, a very serious mastering engineer, says that 18 bit samples at 55kHz would actually be enough, but with the way computers work, the next logical step is 24 bits @ 88.2 -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
mvalera;350470 Wrote: > I think he's saying that the difference between the oversampled 48 and > the true 96 is nigh impossible for most people to hear... because > modern DACs are very good. Not that the difference is useless. > > He does say that true 96 files "would typically have superior sonic > characteristics". > > MikeI had understood. Well, you're probably right, but... my "audiophile" tendency pushes me to minimize compromise whenever I can. If I can. BTW, if you look back in CD history, 25 years ago, almost everybody was saying (and proving it with various useless ABX tests) that it was impossible to hear any difference above 44.1kHz. And now, the same people are "serving" us 192kHz oversampling dacs saying (with the same aplomb) that the sound is much better. Go figure. -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
Timothy Stockman;335301 Wrote: > Good luck finding something with a dynamic range of greater that 144 dB. > Even if you had it, you couldn't use it. The volume necessary to make the -144 parts audible would destroy your hearing on the loud parts. Human ears simply can't handle that much dynamic range. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
I think he's saying that the difference between the oversampled 48 and the true 96 is nigh impossible for most people to hear... because modern DACs are very good. Not that the difference is useless. He does say that true 96 files "would typically have superior sonic characteristics". Mike -- mvalera Michael Valera Online Communities Manager Logitech Streaming Media Business Unit slimdevices.com mvalera's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11086 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
Timothy Stockman;335301 Wrote: > The main useful difference between 48 KHz and 96 KHz is that 96 KHz can > use a reconstruction filter with a much gentler slope, which would > typically have superior sonic characteristics. Modern DACs achieve most > of the benefits of higher sampling rates by using oversampling digital > reconstruction filters. You seem to say that half of the _real_ samples are useless in 96kHz, and that they could as well be calculated. That's really strange, don't you find ? Perhaps we should downgrade to 24kHz ? or -still better- 12kHz ? :) -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
for Linux users, the easiest method I've found is to: 1) de-flac the files using the flac command-line frontend (http://flac.sourceforge.net/documentation_tools_flac.html, Debian/Ubuntu package "flac"). 2) use the sndfile-resample frontend for the Secret Rabbit Code (aka samplerate) converter (http://www.mega-nerd.com/SRC/, Debian/Ubuntu packages "samplerate-programs" and "libsamplerate") both tools are batch-friendly. -- IceFusion IceFusion's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=15255 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
sarwaz;334668 Wrote: > As far as I can understand, in order to see any difference between 24/96 > and 24/48 you will need to use a original sound that has much more > dynamic range than 24 bits, so when quantizing to 24 bits, you will be > able to create much better dithering with 96Khz than 48Khz... > > regards. Good luck finding something with a dynamic range of greater that 144 dB. Typcially dither is not applied to 24-bit files, as the quantizing distortion on such a file is buried far beneath the noise floor. The main useful difference between 48 KHz and 96 KHz is that 96 KHz can use a reconstruction filter with a much gentler slope, which would typically have superior sonic characteristics. Modern DACs achieve most of the benefits of higher sampling rates by using oversampling digital reconstruction filters. -- Timothy Stockman Timothy Stockman's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8867 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
As far as I can understand, in order to see any difference between 24/96 and 24/48 you will need to use a original sound that has much more dynamic range than 24 bits, so when quantizing to 24 bits, you will be able to create much better dithering with 96Khz than 48Khz... regards. -- sarwaz sarwaz's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=19670 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
It's generally held (at least by me!) that 24/44.1 is not really that much different to 24/48 or 24/96. 24/44.1 is a bit better than 16/44.1 - even though we probably only actually get a usable 20/44.1 in practice. And yes...I've used all these formats extensively in the studio and I'm not deaf :o) -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal...SB3+Stontronics PSU - Altmann JISCO/UPCI - TACT RCS 2.2X with Good Vibrations S/W - MF X-DAC V3/X-PSU/X-10 buffer (Audiocomm full mods)- Linn 5103 - Linn Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Kimber & Chord cables Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
Redil seanadams;249720 Wrote: > 48 is the max, and the dac and s/pdif are driven together. Sean is saying that both the analog and digital outputs are limited to 48KHz -- Stoker --ian Stoker's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8264 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
lapis molari;268053 Wrote: > Since opening this thread, I have downsampled all 24/96 files to 24/48. > It works perfectly! I recommend it to all SB users as the solution. > This sounds much better than SB's interpretation of the 24/96. I went > with Voxengo's r8brain pro and am a very happy listener. With most > albums I actually can't hear a difference between the downsampled > tracks and the original (played on an Oppo 980h). I tested a few down > to 16/44.1 and that did bring a noticable loss. Regarding r8brain as SRC to 16/44.1 there are better things. r8brain doesn´t perform complex dither. You may try ssrc_hp with this frontend for example: http://www.holliesoft.de/software/ssrcgui_english.htm The proper ssrc compile is on http://www.rarewares.org/others.php Try ATH based dither or with less amplitude with at least triangular noise (1) Hope it works better for you. -- Wombat Transporter -> Avantgarde based monoblocks -> self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
lapis molari;268053 Wrote: > Since opening this thread, I have downsampled all 24/96 files to 24/48. > It works perfectly! I recommend it to all SB users as the solution. > This sounds much better than SB's interpretation of the 24/96. I went > with Voxengo's r8brain pro and am a very happy listener. With most > albums I actually can't hear a difference between the downsampled > tracks and the original (played on an Oppo 980h). I tested a few down > to 16/44.1 and that did bring a noticable loss. Nowhere in this thread I read which out of the SB3 is used. I assume that it is the analog. What happens if the SB3 is fed 24/96 and the TOSLINK output is fed into an external AV (as I do). Is there also a degradation? Sean will be able to answer this. greetings Redil -- redil redil's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14488 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
Since opening this thread, I have downsampled all 24/96 files to 24/48. It works perfectly! I recommend it to all SB users as the solution. This sounds much better than SB's interpretation of the 24/96. I went with Voxengo's r8brain pro and am a very happy listener. With most albums I actually can't hear a difference between the downsampled tracks and the original (played on an Oppo 980h). I tested a few down to 16/44.1 and that did bring a noticable loss. -- lapis molari lapis molari's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14462 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
I would second the suggestion to create SB3-friendly 24/48 FLAC files from the 24/96 WAVs. Naturally, you would also keep the 24/96 files for when you get a Transporter (or SB4!). dbPowerAMP is what I use to convert the WAVs. When encoding to FLAC I would use the lowest compression setting, so the SB3's CPU has less work to do in decoding. -- Pale Blue Ego Pale Blue Ego's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=110 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
As a matter of fact I used the FLAC Frontend yesterday to encode the 24/192/2.0 from the Classic HDAD of Alan Parsons' "Eye in the Sky". It can't do the ReplayGain calculation above 48 KHz, so that option must be unchecked, but it encoded fine. Rather slowly, but fine. -- Timothy Stockman Timothy Stockman's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8867 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
ezkcdude;249745 Wrote: > Going back to the thread title, how do people actually create "true" > 24/96 FLAC? I've made some 24/96 WAV recordings (using a Zoom H4), but > I haven't been able to figure out how to get 24/96 FLAC files from the > source files. Any suggestions? It's been a while since I played with 24/96, but I believe the standard FLAC encoder or FLAC frontend will work just fine. I have played with encoding 24/48 recently, FLAC gives a warning about "legacy WAV file but bits per sample = 24" but encodes just fine. -- Mark Lanctot Sean Adams: "So you mean, aside from the fact that Squeezebox does not do 96KHz, why doesn't it do 96KHz?" Mark Lanctot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
r8brain from voxengo is also a highly regarded sample rate and bit depth converter for windows peeps. -- bigfool1956 David Ayers Music is what counts, hifi just helps us enjoy it more bigfool1956's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13782 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
I found foobar to be better than DBPowerAmp for converting to 48kHz. Just downsample but keep the original files for when/if you get a Transporter: HD space is free... The FLAC frontend will convert 24/96 WAVs to FLAC IIRC - I think this is what I used. I just have so little hi-res source material as we can't rip SACDs, bah humbug! -- adamslim Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others 'Last.fm group: people who don't listen to any of last.fm's top artists' (http://www.last.fm/group/People+who+don%27t+listen+to+any+of+last.fm%27s+top+artists) SB+, EAR V20, Heybrook Sextets plus some other stuff SB3, Shek d2, Ming-Da MC84-C, Harbeth HL-P3ES adamslim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7355 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
>Not sure what's a good tool for that< foobar2000 would be my choice for converting 24/96 WAV to FLAC, just set the bit-depth on the FLAC plug-in. foobar2000 with the Secret Rabbit DSP plug-in will also downsample 96khz FLAC to 48Khz while retaining 24bit depth. -- amcluesent amcluesent's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10286 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
lapis molari;249746 Wrote: > I will save more, to afford my TP faster. Then I can listen to these > files the way it should be done. :) heh... that's the spirit. :) In the mean time maybe consider batch-converting to 48 and keeping the originals? Not sure what's a good tool for that. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
I will save more, to afford my TP faster. Then I can listen to these files the way it should be done. :) -- lapis molari lapis molari's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14462 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
Going back to the thread title, how do people actually create "true" 24/96 FLAC? I've made some 24/96 WAV recordings (using a Zoom H4), but I haven't been able to figure out how to get 24/96 FLAC files from the source files. Any suggestions? -- ezkcdude There are 10 kind of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't. SHINYMETAL '*Site*' (http://www.ezdiyaudio.com)| '*RSS*' (http://www2.kumc.edu/students/ezamir/rss/ezdiyaudio.xml) |'*Forum*' (http://ezdiyaudio.informe.com) ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
lapis molari;249727 Wrote: > Yep, within the parameter that the SB isn't fully capable of supporting > this function, I want it to work as well as it can. I realize that, but what I'm saying it's never going to work well with the current mechanism. The only reasonable workaround would be to detect 96KHz files on the server and apply proper SRC before streaming to Squeezebox. > I'm confused why high-res flac's show different problems. Probably because FLAC's data rate will vary as a function of the type of music, the noise level of the recording, and the encoder settings. It will vary from one file to the next, and also from one instant to the next within a single file. > I also hope that other people will find it useful to read that certain > 24/96 flacs play just fine on my SB. They might think it's useful, but it is untrue except for a very bizarre definition of "just fine". Then they will repeat this incorrect information whenever the subject arises, and they will call tech support complaining about "problems" with 96KHz, they will think the product is defective, etc. That is why this "feature" was a mistake! What you are hearing is all of the content above 24KHz being aliased all the way across the audible band. The reason you hear noise with some files and not others is because some files may have nothing above 24KHz. But to say that it is playing just fine for those files is still wildly inaccurate! > Mr Adams, please don't remove this function. The 24/96 playback is one > of the reasons I'm saving up for a TP, but I will sync that with my SB. > I know several forum users have nagged you for the impossible. By all > means, take the request on-board for an SB4. Other than that, don't > give it too much thought. > Again my thanks for your SB. You have changed the way I enjoy my music. > I look forward to your next developments! I do appreciate the kind words but I am still exhausted with this issue. However, unfortunately I can not just ignore it because it is causing a real problem. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
Yep, within the parameter that the SB isn't fully capable of supporting this function, I want it to work as well as it can. The SB's hardware limitations are not confusing at all, I'm confused why high-res flac's show different problems. My reason for posting, is that I found a solution to Elvis' stutter (see previous post) and I wonder if anyone else has found small solutions to make playback better. I also hope that other people will find it useful to read that certain 24/96 flacs play just fine on my SB. If it's useful for anyone that I do any specific tests or provide more details of my setup, just ask. Mr Adams, please don't remove this function. The 24/96 playback is one of the reasons I'm saving up for a TP, but I will sync that with my SB. I know several forum users have nagged you for the impossible. By all means, take the request on-board for an SB4. Other than that, don't give it too much thought. Again my thanks for your SB. You have changed the way I enjoy my music. I look forward to your next developments! -- lapis molari lapis molari's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14462 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
48 is the max, and the dac and s/pdif are driven together. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
seanadams;249706 Wrote: > So you mean, aside from the fact that Squeezebox does not do 96KHz, why > doesn't it do 96KHz? :) > > 1) the audio outputs will not run faster than 48KHz > Does this include digital out? > > 2) the cpu is not fast enough to decode FLAC at 96KHz > What about if decoding was done on the server? I'm wondering if 96MHz is possible if the SB is used just for SPDIF output -- Jitterbug Jitterbug's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4955 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
BTW it might be worth investigating on-the-fly decoding, decimation to 48, and re-encoding to FLAC on the server for 96KHz content (would require flac of course, plus something like sox). If someone could provide a patch to do that it would be a much better solution. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
So you mean, aside from the fact that Squeezebox does not do 96KHz, why doesn't it do 96KHz? :) 1) the audio outputs will not run faster than 48KHz 2) the cpu is not fast enough to decode FLAC at 96KHz 3) we try to play anyway, and drop every other sample to make it seem like it's working. This WILL sound bad because it is not a proper decimation algorithm, and since there is not enough CPU to even decode at 96KHz, there is certainly not enough to decode 96Khz _and_ decimate to 48KHz. I regret that we made it pretend to play 96KHz. The rationale was that it would be better than playing nothing in the case where a Squeezebox is synched with a Transporter. Unfortunately, it has just resulted in ongoing (sigh) complaints that it doesn't "work right". I don't really want to remove this non-feature because I'm sure whoever asked for it is happy to have it, but if it continues to cause this level of customer confusion then it will have to go. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
I've read many posts covering the 24/96-flac problems for the SB3, but I have not found any that address the different symptoms of these files. - Classic Records DAD (extracted from dvd-v), several discs: play without problem, - Linn Records, Brahms violin crt & dances: has a much higher noise floor than normal files, - HDTT, Stravinksy's Firebird suite: no problem, - Chesky, Jon Faddis' Remembrances: no problem, - Elvis Presley, 30 #1 Hits (extracted the 2ch layer): SB doesn't keep up with datastream (flac lvl8: audiostream starts stuttering after 15-20 seconds, lvl5: after 1 -1 1/2 min, lvl3: slowdown is hardly audible, lvl1: I don't hear any delays). The Linn and HDTT were purchased in flac, the others I converted with flac 1.2 lvl5. When burned to a dvd-audio, the Linn noisefloor is not present. Converting the Linn flacs to wav and back to (lower compression lvl) flac does not make a difference. Stuttering Elvis also plays fine in wav, but that loses the tags. Everything is played from a wired Linkstation Live through a wired SB3. I appreciate Sean Adams' point that the SB was never designed for 24/96, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't see if we can minimise the shortcomings for this. Has anyone done rigorous research as to the cause of these problems? Is there a best version of flac to use for this? Optimal compression lvl? Faster NAS? I know the other two options: convert all my 96kHz to 48 kHz, or buy a Transporter. I'm saving up for the TP, but that's all the more reason not to want to downsample the music. P.S. Mr Adams, my compliments to a superb product-bundle (SB and ss) and the droolalicious bigger cousin (TP). -- lapis molari lapis molari's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14462 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
