Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
drmatt wrote: > So bipolar Arny is back. It's just not allowed to hold a view that > disagrees with yours, is it? > > Do you have any successful interpersonal relationships in your life? > Seems likely the only one is with your shrink. > > The "dr" is not an affectation, it is my title. So grow up a bit old > man. Life is so much calmer with that bitter, sad little man on ignore. If only folks would stop quoting him... Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk doctor_big's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=15196 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
drmatt wrote: > > > All along. > > They appear to be on the verge of a new series of chips rumored to be > called "Zen FX". > > The pitch is that they will be 1-chip low powered solutions that can > offer dedicated game console graphics and games on a laptop. > > > > > > > Intel's next biggest foe is ARM, a market they are nowhere near having > > even a serious contender in.> > > > Agreed. > > Where this gets a little On Topic is the fact that even the fastest > current ARM processors (A15 level) are very slow compared to even a > low end I3 or Celeron. This would only be acceptable for multimedia > and audio (where ARM processors are making big inroads) if the CPU > usage were truly modest and not demanding of mainstream home/laptop > technology. This is true. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
I didnt even care what your background was, I didn't even care if you were actually the pope or indeed someone nice in real life, I just think it's pretty plain to see which direction the willfully insulting language is flowing in this thread, as with so many others in the past. I stand by my opinion and never told anyone it was anything but. You may not be a moderator but every time a sane person would have left a thread as "we disagree then, move on", you turn it into an opportunity to practice your insults. This is very boring for everyone else so PLEASE drop it today. -- Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with Debian+LMS 7.9.0 Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x 24/44k albums.. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Could we please focus on facts instead of engaging in silly personal attacks? "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
drmatt wrote: > So bipolar Arny is back. It's just not allowed to hold a view that > disagrees with yours, is it? > You must be delusional, "DrMatt". How can I keep you from holding or expression a view that I disagree with? Am I a moderator? Do I have malware planted on your computer? If you can't answer this question factually "DrMatt"., then you are again proven to be either delusional or just plain a habitual prevaricator. > > Do you have any successful interpersonal relationships in your life? > Does a 50 year marriage count? How many times have you been married? > > Seems likely the only one is with your shrink. > Since no such person exists, more evidence of delusion or habitual lying. > > The "dr" is not an affectation, it is my title. So grow up a bit old > man. It's part of an alias "DrMatt", as anybody can see. One sign of you finally growing up would be you being accountable for your reprehensible activities on the web as indicated by you posting under your legal name. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
arnyk wrote: > Good, congratulations on avoiding that common illusion/delusion. > > > > > In a way I agree with that. The real problem is that so many of the > original masters were made with just tons of wasted bits in the name of > fashion and style. > > > > Statements like this make it so obvious that you and the lessons and > considerations of real world technology are strangers. Efficiency and > practicality seem to mean nothing at all to you. Let me guess, you took > your last hard science course in high school, right? So bipolar Arny is back. It's just not allowed to hold a view that disagrees with yours, is it? -- Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with Debian+LMS 7.9.0 Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x 24/44k albums.. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
pablolie wrote: > And while I don't subscribe to the theory that resources stand in the > way of wider 24/192 acceptance... > > I agree with those that say that hearing a difference between 16/44 and > 24/192 with the exact identical original master source is a futile > exercise. And yet, I do own some 24/192 and other hirez recordings. Why? > Oh well - why not, if I like the music? :-) It's only a few additional > bucks, and it kinda guarantees I shall never have to buy the same music > again, in the highly unlikely case some fundamental breakthrough allows > me to suddenly discern a clear difference between 16/44 and 24/192. But > then again at that point in time the studio will probably magically find > a 96/768 master that sounds even better... :-D I think its true that the reason why 24/192 doesn't have wider acceptance is that unlike the advancement from consumer and pro analog to 16/44. 24/192 offers no sound quality advantages at all. However, most rational people who are actually making the decisions (unlike internet trolls who are in reality nobodies and have no power or influence) ask the question "Why waste resources with formats like 24/192 that offer no reliably audible benefit?" and then the resources waste issue seals the deal. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
drmatt wrote: > That makes two of us then.. and I never heard any difference between > redbook and "hi-res" either, > Good, congratulations on avoiding that common illusion/delusion. > > I just don't see any point in down-sampling for consumer delivery. > In a way I agree with that. The real problem is that so many of the original masters were made with just tons of wasted bits in the name of fashion and style. > > I just don't see any point in down-sampling for consumer delivery. > Statements like this make it so obvious that you and the lessons and considerations of real world technology are strangers. Efficiency and practicality seem to mean nothing at all to you. Let me guess, you took your last hard science course in high school, right? arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
pablolie wrote: > And while I don't subscribe to the theory that resources stand in the > way of wider 24/192 acceptance... That makes two of us then.. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
pablolie wrote: > When even Intel declares Moore's Law in hiatus, you know semiconductor > advances have slowed a fair amount when it comes to some design > parameters - but not all of them. Note that we don't talk about CPU speed anymore. Intel nixed that years ago. pablolie wrote: > I *will* build a new machine in the next year or so, but it will not be > for performance reasons - multimedia works perfectly well with that I > have. I ran LMS on an Atom with 2GB for years with no issues. I only upgraded to an i3 when I decided to run video over my server. My newest desktop is a Core2 Duo E8400 and it's as fast as I need. pablolie wrote: > As to networking and bandwidth... I haven't been in an environment where > music challenges stuff in a long time. Even though my wired network is gigabit-rated, I never see anything near that speed when moving files around. There are other bottlenecks. 24/96 (the highest res I play) needs less than 5 MB/sec. pablolie wrote: > I especially think today is an amazing time to put together budget > systems, or systems up to $10k or so. When we moved last year I put together an NAD D3020 and NHT 2.1 system for the living room for around $1500 that is just as enjoyable a listen as my system in the "listening room" that costs over 10x as much. pablolie wrote: > *Arguably the biggest advance, and one that still hasn't sunk into the > old fashioned brains of most audio enthusiasts, is software controlled > and DSP based room optimization. Raise your hand if you have one! I do! Apesbrain's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=738 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Again 2 posts of reason from you pablolie :) With that you show that one can be lucky with his music and mix in some recent hardware to play with when you want to have some new toys. I doubt you fool yourself in hearing differences in about every update you do and declare others for deaf if they don't. Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
And while I don't subscribe to the theory that resources stand in the way of wider 24/192 acceptance... I agree with those that say that hearing a difference between 16/44 and 24/192 with the exact identical original master source is a futile exercise. And yet, I do own some 24/192 and other hirez recordings. Why? Oh well - why not, if I like the music? :-) It's only a few additional bucks, and it kinda guarantees I shall never have to buy the same music again, in the highly unlikely case some fundamental breakthrough allows me to suddenly discern a clear difference between 16/44 and 24/192. But then again at that point in time the studio will probably magically find a 96/768 master that sounds even better... :-D ...pablo Server: Virtual Machine (on VMware Workstation 12) running Ubuntu 16.04 + LMS 7.9 System: SB Touch --optical->- Benchmark DAC2HGC --AnalysisPlus Oval Copper XLR->- NAD M22 Power Amp --AnalysisPlus Black Mesh Oval->- Totem Element Fire Other Rooms: 2x SB Boom; 1x SB Radio; 1x SB Classic-> NAD D7050 -> Totem DreamCatcher + Velodyne Minivee Sub Computer audio: workstation --USB->- audioengine D1 -> Grado PS500e/Shure 1540 pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Other than unnecessary personal vitriol, I wonder about the discussion in performance improvements, and how it impacts music reproduction technology. Here are a few personal opinions: * When even Intel declares Moore's Law as in hiatus, you know semiconductor advances have slowed a fair amount when it comes to some design parameters - but not all of them. I think the major trend there has been the focus on mobility and low power requirements. Hence the race to make personal computers twice as fast by throwing in extra GHz has slowed down a lot. That said - the *huge* benefit of that has been that now we have highly mobile personal devices that allow us to enjoy a degree of music quality anytime-anywhere that was only attainable with very esoteric and highly static gear not that long ago. I recall listening to music on a very good Sony Walkman back in the 80s, and damn, compared to what we have today it was probably garbage. Let's not over-romanticize the audio past. * My own home desktop computer-server is based on 2010 technology. Top of the line Intel stuff back then. I think from 1992 to 2010 I probably upgraded my home PC every 2-3 years or so. I liked to build my own machines. Still do, but truly the reasons to do so these days are not as clear. My 2010 desptop still performs very well. I have changed most peripheral devices (bigger SSD, bigger HD, more RAM, faster graphics) but the core system is the same, and performs very well even with current benchmarks. I *will* build a new machine in the next year or so, but it will not be for performance reasons - multimedia works perfectly well with that I have. And I am not a gamer. 24/192 audio is something that can be served by very, very old CPU and memory tech. You could build a well -performing LMS with pretty much any computer you find in an old box. Performance hasn't been a gatekeeper to audio performance in many, many years. Fact is it is pretty low CPU cycle stuff. * As to networking and bandwidth... I haven't been in an environment where music challenges stuff in a long time. My tablet gets 200M download and 12M upload speeds over wireless in my home. In a few years, your smartphone will support 1G download speeds, call it LTE or 5G. Not that it matters for music, even if Tidal decides to stream everything at 24/192 at that point in time. :-) As to right now, the fact our beloved SB boxen and LMS servers can deal with 24/192 in our homes, with technology that is pretty dated at this point in time, indicates music is not a resource intensive app in this day and age. * And, when it comes to audio nerd gear (I am talking about us here with an old fashioned audio shrine), I think there have been some very significant advances over the years. Fundamentally, a speaker is still put together the same way. I especially think today is an amazing time to put together budget systems, or systems up to $10k or so. The quality you get from those was unattainable 20 years ago unless you threw far more $ at things. Then again, I could probably live with my 1999 vintage Accuphase E306v amplifier for life, Ncore modules be damned. :-) If it wasn't so damn bulky. :-) *Arguably the biggest advance, and one that still hasn't sunk into the old fashioned brains of most audio enthusiasts, is software controlled and DSP based room optimization. Raise your hand if you have one! (Looking around and sees one or two hands). See... we're an old fashioned-bunch. In summary, I think the audio world has changed by leaps and bounds. Some of the early changes were indeed driven by CPU power and storage capacity (my current 475GB music library would have been very daunting in the mid 90s :-)). But I think these days it's been all driven by the capabilities of mobile devices more than anything else. Our audio shrines are pretty old tech, both in what's inside and what's required from the periphery... ...pablo Server: Virtual Machine (on VMware Workstation 12) running Ubuntu 16.04 + LMS 7.9 System: SB Touch --optical->- Benchmark DAC2HGC --AnalysisPlus Oval Copper XLR->- NAD M22 Power Amp --AnalysisPlus Black Mesh Oval->- Totem Element Fire Other Rooms: 2x SB Boom; 1x SB Radio; 1x SB Classic-> NAD D7050 -> Totem DreamCatcher + Velodyne Minivee Sub Computer audio: workstation --USB->- audioengine D1 -> Grado PS500e/Shure 1540 pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
drmatt wrote: > So you accept there have been dramatic performance improvements, but you > state the overall performance is still very slow. > Is your reading comprehension that bad or is impossible for you to be honest about what you read? Let's see if the basic ideas can be restated to deal with your difficulties with the turth. (1) There have been isolated performance improvements. Examples: CPU processor quantities and speed, and the seek time of SSD's. (2) But overall the time it takes to do common tasks has not changed that much from 5 years ago. I provided no value judgement on how fast things are now or then, but things were pretty darn fast 5 years ago, and the operator is often the primary source of delays. > > That's about as woolly a statement as I've seen here, > That's because you made it up. > > and yet you accuse me of being vague and childish. > and that's yet another statement that you made up. > > Waste of time talking to you, as usual. Yes, being held accountable for your errors and mistakes like happens with you so often, could get old pretty fast. Friendly advice: Stop trying to pass yourself as an infallible authority on all things audio and IT until your education in those matters is far more complete. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
arnyk wrote: > You're like a little boy who blithely wanders from train wreck to train > wreck that you caused, ignoring all of the damage that you do by making > false claim after false claim and trying to make the corrections seem to > be what you meant all along. Not that this is a surprise but you really are a piece of work, MrK. There's evidence all over the internet of this going back decades and yet here you are still making baseless hugely personal insults about someone you never met and know less than nothing about. Even worse I'm *trying* to not be drawn into the insults game, but perhaps that's what annoys you the most? Is it more fun with an edwardtherm character who you can wind up for a massive sweary flame war? Perhaps 4chan is more your thing. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
arnyk wrote: > If that was what you were saying then you're wrong. [] the overall > system performance remains very slow in many critical areas despite > dramatic performance improvements in many other areas. So you accept there have been dramatic performance improvements, but you state the overall performance is still very slow. That's about as woolly a statement as I've seen here, and yet you accuse me of being vague and childish. Waste of time talking to you, as usual. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Suspect the former... 21704 Please Read Arny. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html -(They even back up what they are saying scientifically...)- +---+ |Filename: troll+6.jpg | |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21704| +---+ Gazjam's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18604 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
drmatt wrote: > I can't decide whether you actually just enjoy arguments, or just don't > understand how you sound to the reader. > I enjoy people who are totally un self conscious and don't see how childish and desperate their personal attacks like theone above make them look. > > I was simply saying that computer systems have improved in performance > drastically while the data movement requirements of audio processing > have not. That was only a side show to the main discussion too and we're > drifting further and further off topic here.. > If that was what you were saying then you're wrong. What has really happened is that many aspects of computer system performance for real world work haven't improved that much even though selected individual components have. > > > You should get faster broadband, though I am impressed by your 500,000KB > per second upload. That's either a typo or you actually have a backbone > internet link. ;) > Typo. > > > > ADSL sucks. I've stuck to fibre or cable over the years (fortunate to > have the choice) and right now uplink speed is consistently around > 18Mbit/s. Even so uploading to cloud backup solutions is slow. > Off topic. I think everybody knows that ADSL sucks and the A stands for asymmetrical (as in far slower uploads thna downloads) , but as my measurements show, cable modems are highly asymmetrical in their actual upload/download speeds, too. Its not any limitations of the core technology but how they set their router speed limiters. They really don't want you to set up a web server at your location on their nickle. Your comments about the slowness of could backups supports my point - the overall system performance remains very slow in many critical areas despite dramatic performance improvements in many other areas. > > Uploading a hi res album would take a matter of a minute or two though, > and download is more like 70Mbit/s so that's much quicker. Speculation without any evidence. Heaven forbid you should get your hands dirty and soil them with the real world. For another good example of your hypocrisy "DR Matt', consider your accusation that another poster should do some experiments with FLAC, when it is clear that you've never done any relevant experiments of your own. When the experiments were done, they falsified your claims. Never explain, never complain seems to be your rule. You're like a little boy who blithely wanders from train wreck to train wreck that you caused, ignoring all of the damage that you do by making false claim after false claim and trying to make the corrections seem to be what you meant all along. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
I can't decide whether you actually just enjoy arguments, or just don't understand how you sound to the reader. I was simply saying that computer systems have improved in performance drastically while the data movement requirements of audio processing have not. That was only a side show to the main discussion too and we're drifting further and further off topic here.. You should get faster broadband, though I am impressed by your 500,000KB per second upload. That's either a typo or you actually have a backbone internet link. ;) ADSL sucks. I've stuck to fibre or cable over the years (fortunate to have the choice) and right now uplink speed is consistently around 18Mbit/s. Even so uploading to cloud backup solutions is slow. Uploading a hi res album would take a matter of a minute or two. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
drmatt wrote: > Not many 10mb modems around any more. As usual "Dr Matt" you try to deceptively focus sole attention on a controversial point and skip over the facts that falsify your basic claim that many areas of PC technology is much faster then it was 5 years ago. Improvements in isolated areas of hardware performance do not necessarily an over-all faster system make. 100BT (the standards that most equipment uses today) is in practice no faster than it was over 20 years ago when it was rolled out. I know, I was there, and I was an early adopter. More to the point, standard benchmarks say that my Internet download speed is about 4 megabytes per second but upload speed is only 500,000 KB per second. This Upload speed was theoretically possible and slower what I actually observed when I first obtained @Home cable internet service back in the 90s. I was such an early adopter than they apparently hadn't set the throttles on their routers, yet. So even though this computer boots much faster working off of its fancy RAID/SSD disk subsystem, when it comes to actually doing the bulk of my real world work, its about the same speed as it was 5, even ten, sometimes 20 years ago. And, the speed of the nut behind the wheel as it were (me), sets the speed of overall operations, which is to say about the same or even worse. The same is true of audio. Outside of the electoacoustic parts of the system, actual audible performance is not appreciably better than it was after I hooked up my first CD player in 1983. This, despite the fact that some sources find about 400 different makes and models of DACs on the market - for the most part they all sound alike. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Not many 10mb modems around any more. Even bog standard ADSL quotes "up to 16mbit" these days so has to ship with 100mbit or higher on its outgoing ports. In fact they have Gb now. My BT fibre modem has a 100Mbit link, the cable modem I had before it had a 1Gb port (though restricted by contract). Inside my LAN I'm fully Gb for everything that matters. The one and only 10mb device I had in recent memory was the modem inside my set top cable box. It used it to download program guides. Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
drmatt wrote: > It's also true that a 2016 device is quicker than a 2011 device. . For LANs, the law of the weakest link, which was the 10BT or 100BTX link, was generally applicable in 2011. It still is. A small number of maximum speed file transfers (usually 1 on a home LAN) run LAN limited. On the web - the web was the limit. In general the web speed is limited by web site file server contention. Throttling web speed to keep resources from being overloaded is a standard feature of ISP and cable companry routers and used extensively. Cable modems were originally 10BT, and some may still be. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
arnyk wrote: > Not really. 10BT 100BTX and Gigibit ethernet were just as fast 5 years > ago as they are today. We had SSD's 5 years ago, and for sequential I/O > 7200 rpm high density drives are at least aas fast as SSD's get in real > world applications. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Ethernet > > "Fast Ethernet was introduced in 1995..." We had operational 100BTX > (still the high standard for most commercial and home systems) before > Y2K. It's also true that a 2016 device is quicker than a 2011 device. Certainly the advent of SSD was a big thing, but even amongst "capacity" spinning rust larger capacity drives push the throughput up as time goes on, PCs get ever faster memory buses, SATA buses slowly increase in speed, CPUs get better at offload. So, given that the home audio digital standard has been 16/44k for nearly 40 years I would say a modern PC absolutely destroys an 80s PC. That is the scope we are really talking about here. A current top end SSD will write a copy of a CD in a second or so. Even the most impatient engineer could *probably* wait another second or so... drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
http://www.blu-ray.com/ Be selective about what you buy.. I have seen blu rays that are nothing more than upsampled DVD material, which sucks. At least it's (hopefully) professionally de interlaced. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
drmatt wrote: > Agree completely. That's why I like to buy/watch blu rays given a choice > because as we all know for lossy compression the more bits the merrier.. Thing is, the program material on BD diskcs often doesn't exploit the media. Lots of it pales in comparison to a well-made DVD. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
arnyk wrote: > You may find this hard to believe, but a professional engineer waiting > for excessively large files to transfer, copy and back up makes him a > lot more impatient than it does a home hobbyist. > > Especially true for live recording, which is often done while enslaved > to a clock that is not on your schedule, it is on its own. Fair enough but today he can do this several times quicker than he could five years ago. High performance leads to high expectations, but the delays for these activities has been going down year on year despite any intervening file size increases. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
arnyk wrote: > Looks like another example of FLAC being unable to further compress real > world files in ways that capitalize on non-trivial interchannel > redundancy. Sounds about right. Binary audio data has extremely high entropy and always compresses poorly by traditional numerical methods. Flac seems so far to be the best stab at lossless compression, and the one and only trick it has to do that is too look for simple inter-channel correlation, I.e. the fact that most music has at least some "mono" content. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
drmatt wrote: > Yeah it takes about six hours or so to load the 40GB of > (compressed)music I carry on my phone. This is over WiFi. I guess I > could plug it in and do it more quickly, but frankly I almost never do > this - just updates when I add new stuff or remove stuff. > > This aspect is not trivial, but for the full res flac material inside my > network for playback on squeezeboxes it is trivial. Want a disk mirror? > 150MB/s, takes a few hours to seed the whole archive. Big deal, my > server has nothing else to do... You may find this hard to believe, but a professional engineer waiting for excessively large files to transfer, copy and back up makes him a lot more impatient than it does a home hobbyist. Especially true for live recording, which is often done while enslaved to a clock that is not on your schedule, it is on its own. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
arnyk wrote: > Whether the 4K UHD streaming have any additional real world resolution > when streamed is not a given, I don't think. I see a lot of so-called > enhnacment artifacts, but not a lot of better video. Agree completely. That's why I like to buy/watch blu rays given a choice because as we all know for lossy compression the more bits the merrier.. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Julf wrote: > So you agree that the reason 24-bit material doesn't compress as well as > 16 bit material is because the bottom 8 bits is basically random noise, > not correlated between left and right channel (and thus also not > correlated with the music)? No, I agree that random noise compresses poorly. The actual content of said files I do not speculate on.. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Julf wrote: > So you agree that the reason 24-bit material doesn't compress as well as > 16 bit material is because the bottom 8 bits is basically random noise, > not correlated between left and right channel (and thus also not > correlated with the music)? I took the 16/44 file from Fremer and converted it to 24/96 without adding dither. The FLAC file was 18.905 KB. Obviously the low order bits were digital black. I then added dither that was 96 dB down. The file size was 18,907 KB. Looks like another example of FLAC being unable to further compress real world files in ways that capitalize on non-trivial interchannel redundancy. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
drmatt wrote: > This is true because flac takes advantage of some of the correlation > between left and right channel in a stereo music scenario. So you agree that the reason 24-bit material doesn't compress as well as 16 bit material is because the bottom 8 bits is basically random noise, not correlated between left and right channel (and thus also not correlated with the music)? "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Yeah it takes about six hours or so to load the 40GB of (compressed)music I carry on my phone. This is over WiFi. I guess I could plug it in and do it more quickly, but frankly I almost never do this - just updates when I add new stuff or remove stuff. This aspect is not trivial, but for the full res flac material inside my network for playback on squeezeboxes it is trivial. Want a disk mirror? 150MB/s, takes a few hours to seed the whole archive. Big deal, my server has nothing else to do... drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
drmatt wrote: > Yes it's disk space and processing load, of course. But both are still > trivial in a world with 4k UHD streaming a regular occurrence it really > doesn't matter. Whether the 4K UHD streaming have any additional real world resolution when streamed is not a given, I don't think. I see a lot of so-called enhnacment artifacts, but not a lot of better video. Back in the real world, file compression still pays significant dividends for real world portable and mobile audio. For example there are still portable digital players including some tables on the market that are limited to 32 megs of removable storage and their removable storage is still far larger than their internal storage. A number of current production European cars can't go beyond this limit. The next such boundary is 64 GB. I have a modern player with this limit. Great audio quality, but only 64 GB. I believe that 200 GB is the current common limit for removable storage for high performance portable devices. My personal file collection of 256 Kbps MP3 music files (MP3 being a fairly universal format for all players) is > 64 GB. Obviously, if uncompressed or even FLAC compressed there would be far less songs. Loading large high performance SDHC cards USB 3 flash memory sticks from an 8 core computer with SSD storage takes well over an hour, and again, this is for relatively highly compressed music. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
drmatt wrote: > This is true because flac takes advantage of some of the correlation > between left and right channel in a stereo music scenario. Got a decent > pink noise generator? Run some tests. I tested it and found it to be at least partially *false.* It appears that not unexpectedly FLAC can only detect files that are very trivially mono-like and give them more compression. I generated five files of high density red noise: One was a plain old uncompressed 44/16 .wav files and was 1723 KB One FLAC had completely independent channels and produced a broad and diffused stereo spread and was 1288 KB One FLAC had had channels that were blended enough to sound quite a bit more mono like than the above and was 1287 KB One FLAC had had channels that were identical but one was displaced by 100 mSec and sounded fairly stereo like and was 740 KB One FLAC had had channels that were identical but one was displaced by 200 mSec and sounded fairly stereo like and was 740 KB For my next test I used the file preamptest_1 which I had downloaded from Michael Fremer's Analog Planet. As a uncompressed WAV file it was 41677 KB As a compressed FLAC file it was 18576 KB And as a FLAC with its channels downmixed for far less separation (each channel was 100% of itself and 50% of the other channel) it was 18674 KB I conclude that FLAC is very limited at providing additional compression with real world recordings where the channel separation is low but not vanishing or trivial arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
This is true because flac takes advantage of some of the correlation between left and right channel in a stereo music scenario. Got a decent pink noise generator? Run some tests. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
drmatt wrote: > Well, 24/48k would be less than twice the capacity. I'm interested to know what the typical FLAC file size is at 24/48k compared to 16/44.1k. I'd expect the 24/48k to be a lot larger than the ratio of the uncompressed bit-rates (1.6:1) might suggest. I only have 16/44.1k FLAC tracks (all CD rips), and these seem to be compressed to around 50% of the uncompressed size. The extra 8 bits in 24-bit audio data most probably look like noise to the FLAC prediction algorithm, so I'd expect the compression to be much less efficient than for 16-bit audio - perhaps only 80% of the uncompressed size? That would make 24/48k files around 2.5x the size of 16/44.1k ones. If the ratio is much better than that, I'd question if the 24-bit version really is 24-bit, and not just zero padded from the 16-bit! utgg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40900 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
I agree, that would be sufficient. But, I do still like to buy media and don't see me changing that, *yet*. Digital downloads don't feel permanent enough for my money. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
drmatt wrote: > Well, 24/48k would be less than twice the capacity. But I just don't see > this mattering. For the home user buying media the cost of getting them > a 24/48 version on e.g. DVD-A is basically the same as doing a 16/44 > version for them. I was disappointed that DVD-A didn't get more headway > actually. The promise of more reliable rips, more choice of format, full > metadata and artwork shipped alongside the audio; all good in my book. > Anyway. A missed opportunity, but that ship has sailed. Shipping bits on physical media makes about as much sense as sending email using carrier pigeons. > I believe that for the streamers the quality matters less and lossy > compression is ok. To be fair I might change my mind if someone started > offering serious lossless streaming services. That might well become a > one stop shop for all my music needs.. depending on price.. Indeed - streaming quality starts to matter as it becomes the main/only means of listening to music for most people - but FLAC-compressed 44.1/16 or 48/16 covers that scenario. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Julf wrote: > Yes and no - three times the cost is still three times the cost, even if > that cost keeps getting lower. Well, 24/48k would be less than twice the capacity. But I just don't see this mattering. For the home user buying media the cost of getting them a 24/48 version on e.g. DVD-A is basically the same as doing a 16/44 version for them. I was disappointed that DVD-A didn't get more headway actually. The promise of more reliable rips, more choice of format, full metadata and artwork shipped alongside the audio; all good in my book. Anyway. I believe that for the streamers the quality matters less and lossy compression is ok. To be fair I might change my mind if someone started offering lossless streaming services. That might well become a one stop shop for all my music needs.. depending on price.. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
drmatt wrote: > Ultimately, there is no killer reason to increase, so I can see I'll > never convince you that it's worth it, but equally I don't think it's > worth NOT doing it. Storage and bandwidth are trivial, just wait six > months and the space increase will be accommodated at the same price. Yes and no - three times the cost is still three times the cost, even if that cost keeps getting lower. > The only thing that will make this happen is if it saves the record > company a mastering step (and, cost) - they will jump at it. Unfortunately there won't be any saving, as the main market is streaming/itunes etc., so the mastering has to happen in any case. > Plus, they get to sell you a new remaster of The Wall. ;) Indeed, that is the main driver for "hi-res". "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Ultimately, there is no killer reason to increase, so I can see I'll never convince you that it's worth it, but equally I don't think it's worth NOT doing it. Storage and bandwidth are trivial, just wait six months and the space increase will be accommodated at the same price. The only thing that will make this happen is if it saves the record company a mastering step (and, cost) - they will jump at it. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
drmatt wrote: > Music playback from so-called hi res (or better yet the mastering rate > 24/48k if that is the norm) within someone's house is trivial. I'm not > interested in streaming but even that is not exactly hard. If they > wanted to offer it, it would happen. Even if you don't stream, those unnecessary bits still have to be shipped to you somehow, and most people don't want to pay the extra cost. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Well, I don't stream music other than radio, and yes of course I'm aware measures were taken by the big TV streamers to provide infrastructure as locally as possible to each network segment. Music playback from so-called hi res (or better yet the mastering rate 24/48k if that is the norm) within someone's house is trivial. I'm not interested in streaming but even that is not exactly hard. If they wanted to offer it, it would happen. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
drmatt wrote: > Yes it's disk space and processing load, of course. But both are still > trivial in a world with 4k UHD streaming a regular occurrence it really > doesn't matter. Yes and no. Are you aware of all the special content network infrastructure that has been put in place specifically for that video streaming (and that doesn't help the downloading and streaming of your music)? "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
I'd be happy to play around... :) Some artists do actually do mix-your-own multi-track sources. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Yes it's disk space and processing load, of course. But both are still trivial in a world with 4k UHD streaming a regular occurrence it really doesn't matter. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
drmatt wrote: > Don't be silly. I just don't think I'd care if my music collection took > twice as much disk space and I would be confident that even an inept > mastering engineer or downsampling process probably couldn't mess up the > data I received. But isn't the logical next step then that they ship you the audio workstation work files for you to mix, so that even an inept mixing engineer and producer can't mess up the data? :) "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
drmatt wrote: > (see edit) see edit :) "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Julf wrote: > I am glad you have faith in evolution, and think human hearing range and > acuity will increase significantly in the future. Don't be silly. I just don't think I'd care if my music collection took twice as much disk space and I would be confident that even an inept mastering engineer or downsampling process probably couldn't mess up the data I received. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
drmatt wrote: > Surely 640KB is enough for anyone? ;) I am glad you have faith in evolution, and think human hearing range and acuity will increase significantly in the future. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Surely 640KB is enough for anyone? ;) drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
pablolie wrote: > Nyquist in theory requires you to get a *perfect* sample of a signal. > The quantification error is the issue with implementing the Nyquist > theorem in digital audio - not the kHz. Right. Nyquist works just fine even with finite resolution, but the finite resolution produces a quantification error in the form of noise. If we disregard dithering for the sake of this discussion, the SNR of a 16 bit signal would be 96 dB - definitely more than what you find in any recording (or listening room, for that matter). Compare that to the SNR of FM radio or vinyl... :) "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Julf wrote: > Have you seen actual scientific research showing we need more than 16 > bits for *storing* the music? We do need more than 16 for *recording* to > ensure sufficient headroom, but once the recording has been normalized, > that is not an issue. > > I would also love to see pointers to any commercial recordings with a > dynamic range exceeding 16 bits. I can't point to any specific quotes, and it is not particularly important to me to prove I am right in any way. Personally, I think well recorded 16/44.1 stuff is all I need. However I have read stuff that claims no platinum eared human can hear beyond 20/44, hence the DR limitation to them was more important than the bandwidth aspect of it (I have never heard ever of human ears exceeding 20kHz, I know mine don't hear beyond 17kHz, now or 15 years ago). ...pablo Server: Virtual Machine (on VMware Workstation 12) running Ubuntu 16.04 + LMS 7.9 System: SB Touch --optical->- Benchmark DAC2HGC --AnalysisPlus Oval Copper XLR->- NAD M22 Power Amp --AnalysisPlus Black Mesh Oval->- Totem Element Fire Other Rooms: 2x SB Boom; 1x SB Radio; 1x SB Classic-> NAD D7050 -> Totem DreamCatcher + Velodyne Minivee Sub Computer audio: workstation --USB->- audioengine D1 -> Grado PS500e/Shure 1540 pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
pablolie wrote: > I don't think there is anything problematic about 16/44.1, personally. > But the major objection with more scientific backing is that is should > be 20 rather than 16. DR stuff with far more valid arguments behind it. > I have read far more tests claiming we need 20 bits than we need 96kHz. > It seems even Platinum Ears can't pretend to hear beyond 20/48 stuff. Have you seen actual scientific research showing we need more than 16 bits for *storing* the music? We do need more than 16 for *recording* to ensure sufficient headroom, but once the recording has been normalized, that is not an issue. I would also love to see pointers to any commercial recordings with a dynamic range exceeding 16 bits. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Julf wrote: > And what do you feel is problematic about it? I don't think there is anything problematic about 16/44.1, personally. But the major objection with more scientific backing is that is should be 20 rather than 16. DR stuff with far more valid arguments behind it. I have read far more tests claiming we need 20 bits than we need 96kHz. It seems even Platinum Ears can't pretend to hear beyond 20/48 stuff. ...pablo Server: Virtual Machine (on VMware Workstation 12) running Ubuntu 16.04 + LMS 7.9 System: SB Touch --optical->- Benchmark DAC2HGC --AnalysisPlus Oval Copper XLR->- NAD M22 Power Amp --AnalysisPlus Black Mesh Oval->- Totem Element Fire Other Rooms: 2x SB Boom; 1x SB Radio; 1x SB Classic-> NAD D7050 -> Totem DreamCatcher + Velodyne Minivee Sub Computer audio: workstation --USB->- audioengine D1 -> Grado PS500e/Shure 1540 pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Some may argue it's not "music", but I have a large collection of Aphex Twin with a good complement of near- square waves in it (heavily clipped sub bass tones in some cases). Of course, since no-one knows what those synth notes are attempting to sound like, no-one can intuitively say that what a listener hears in their room is wrong, unlike say a guitar or singer. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
pablolie wrote: > But... how are "squarewaves of any frequency" relevant to music > reproduction? The aren't. There's an old saying among people who analyze dynamic systems which I learned from a grizzed old pH D back when I was a buck engineer. He said "The universe is well analyzed as if it were composed of interconnected second order differential equations." The point is that writing and solving second order differential equations is relatively easy if you stayed awake during your calculus and physics classes and did your homework, so if you know how to do that, the world is your oyster. We proved it by modeling the front end structure of an automobile, and comparing the movement and velocities produced by our model those measured in a real car crashing into a concrete barrier. The point is that acoustical musical instruments follow the same basic laws of physics. One of the properties of the kind of equations you generally end up writing is that their response always ends up falling off in a 12 dB/octave roll off. Thus, if you look at a recording of any real world musical instrument, its bandwidth always ends up rolling off at some frequency. In the case of cymbals, that frequency is usually on the order of 7-12 KHz, so their bandwidth is always concentrated in the audio range. If you think about it, one ot the things that makes a musical instrument more playable is putting out a fair amount of noise in the audio band whith a reasonable energy input, especially in the bands around 2-4 KHz where the ear is most sensitive. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
pablolie wrote: > BTW I find it interesting that so much discussion has focused on the > bandwidth needs of music. Arguably the more problematic aspect is the > digitization/quantizing of the sample itself. :-) And what do you feel is problematic about it? "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Julf wrote: > I am happy with that, thanks! :) But... how are "squarewaves of any frequency" relevant to music reproduction? And if you like square waves, why bother transform them to the analog domain? Digital is pretty good at square waves. :-) BTW I find it interesting that so much discussion has focused on the bandwidth needs of music. That's actually pretty straightforward. Arguably the more problematic aspect is the digitization of the sample itself. :-) ...pablo Server: Virtual Machine (on VMware Workstation 12) running Ubuntu 16.04 + LMS 7.9 System: SB Touch --optical->- Benchmark DAC2HGC --AnalysisPlus Oval Copper XLR->- NAD M22 Power Amp --AnalysisPlus Black Mesh Oval->- Totem Element Fire Other Rooms: 2x SB Boom; 1x SB Radio; 1x SB Classic-> NAD D7050 -> Totem DreamCatcher + Velodyne Minivee Sub Computer audio: workstation --USB->- audioengine D1 -> Grado PS500e/Shure 1540 pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Jeff07971 wrote: > Arnyk, Julf, Slarti > > OK I apologise, my reference to FFT was not very well though out. > > I should have said something like "To correctly pass a squarewave of any > frequency an infinite bandwidth is required" can we agree to that ? > > and Arnyk I apologise specifically to you for "Maybe you should learn to > read !" it was unnecessary Apology accepted. Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk slartibartfast's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35609 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Jeff07971 wrote: > I should have said something like "To correctly pass a squarewave of any > frequency an infinite bandwidth is required" can we agree to that ? I am happy with that, thanks! :) "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
arnyk wrote: > Many different music instruments create acoustical signals > 20 KHz. > Cymbals are actually not the best sources of ultrasonic sound, their > energy is typically concentrated in the 6=16 KHz range. Many tambourines > will vastly outproduce cymbals when it comes to ultrasonic sound waves. > Depending on their construction details, shakers are at least as > vigorous producers of ultrasonics - many aren't audibly that loud > because most of the energy they produce is ultrasonic. Certain brass > instriuments such as a trumpet with a Harmon Mute are vigorous producers > of sound up to 100 KHz and beyond. Interesting discussion, but I'd point out that even with respect to the instruments noted above, the loudness of the higher frequencies and harmonics is already quite low compared to the volume of the fundamental frequencies. Then, add on the issue of absorption of high frequencies with distance, and in most live acoustic concert situations, no one in audience could hear those high frequencies even if their hearing was capable -- between the reduced output of the instrument at high frequencies and the air absorption, any energy in that range will likely already be lost in the ambient noise floor. The above goes double for any amplified concert, as the microphones and PA system will add their own frequency limitations to the above. I suppose that if one were trying to create a recording in which the listener is sitting in the musician's chair or sitting across from them in a living room, then the ability to record above 20KHz might mean a bit more. But for me, I've never found the high frequency limitations of the CD format to be a source of concern with respect to my listening pleasure. mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Arnyk, Julf, Slarti OK I apologise, my reference to FFT was not very well though out. I should have said something like "To correctly pass a squarewave of any frequency an infinite bandwidth is required" can we agree to that ? and Arnyk I apologise specifically to you for "Maybe you should learn to read !" it was unnecessary *Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3,Receiver,SqueezePlayer,PiCorePlayer x3,Wandboard *Server:* LMS Version: 7.9.0 - 1475786002 on Centos 7 VM on ESXi 6 on Dell T320 *Plugins:* AutoRescan/BBCiPlayer/PowerSave/PowerSwitchIII/Squeezecloud *Remotes:* iPeng8/Orangesqueeze/PC/Jivelite *Music:* 383GB,1269 albums 17756 songs 4381 artists mostly FLACs *Want a webapp ?* See http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?104305-Webapp-for-LMS Jeff07971's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=49290 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Jeff07971 wrote: > DC is in inverted commas for a reason, means 0 frequecy > > Edit: I see where the confusion arises, FFT is frequency domain not time > domain > to simplify to pass a true squarewave an infinite bandwidth is required. Yet another error. FFT is a well known mathematical transformation between the time domain and frequency domain. Therefore the statement "...FFT is frequency domain not time domain..." is false. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Jeff07971 wrote: > Maybe you should learn to read ! > > From the link Yet another error - The quoted text is completely irrelevant to the comment of mine that it purports to correct. You should really stop with this nonsense while you are only a little bit behind! arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Jeff07971 wrote: > DC is in inverted commas for a reason, means 0 frequecy DC soes not need to be in inverted commas to mean zero frequency. The flat top is produced by adding the odd harmonics up to infinity. Infinite bandwidth does not have to start from zero. In this case it starts from the fundamental. Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk slartibartfast's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35609 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Jeff07971 wrote: > however the Nyquist limit is only true when the signal is purely > sinusoidal This has already been addressed by others, but just wanted to make very clear that this statement is somewhat misleading in being kind of the wrong way around. What Nyquist-Shannon states is that you can reproduce *any* signal, whatever the shape, as long as it bandwidth-limited to half the sample rate. The closer a signal gets to the bandwidth limit, the closer it resembles a sine wave. So it's not "the bandwidth limit only works for sine waves" but "any bandwidth-limited signal starts to resemble a sine wave as we approach the bandwidth limit". "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Julf wrote: > Wrong on both counts. DC is in inverted commas for a reason, means 0 frequecy *Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3,Receiver,SqueezePlayer,PiCorePlayer x3,Wandboard *Server:* LMS Version: 7.9.0 - 1475786002 on Centos 7 VM on ESXi 6 on Dell T320 *Plugins:* AutoRescan/BBCiPlayer/PowerSave/PowerSwitchIII/Squeezecloud *Remotes:* iPeng8/Orangesqueeze/PC/Jivelite *Music:* 383GB,1269 albums 17756 songs 4381 artists mostly FLACs *Want a webapp ?* See http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?104305-Webapp-for-LMS Jeff07971's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=49290 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Jeff07971 wrote: > The flat top of a square wave is in effect a "DC" it cannot be flat if > you cannot pass "DC" Wrong on both counts. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
arnyk wrote: > False claim. The commonly-seen tilt of a square wave's top is due to > phase shift. When you avoid having significant amounts of that phase > shift, perhaps by using a relatively high fundamental frequency, the > wave top is flat. > > BTW, I can also confirm the post that says that the statement: > > "...the FFT of a square wave would require sines of 1/ - > Hz" > > is false. All you need is sines going down to the fundamental. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave > > May I suggest that you brush up on these topics before you further > damage your credibility around here? ;-) Maybe you should learn to read ! >From the link > An ideal mathematical square wave changes between the high and the low > state instantaneously, and without under- or over-shooting. This is > impossible to achieve in physical systems, as it would require infinite > bandwidth. *Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3,Receiver,SqueezePlayer,PiCorePlayer x3,Wandboard *Server:* LMS Version: 7.9.0 - 1475786002 on Centos 7 VM on ESXi 6 on Dell T320 *Plugins:* AutoRescan/BBCiPlayer/PowerSave/PowerSwitchIII/Squeezecloud *Remotes:* iPeng8/Orangesqueeze/PC/Jivelite *Music:* 383GB,1269 albums 17756 songs 4381 artists mostly FLACs *Want a webapp ?* See http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?104305-Webapp-for-LMS Jeff07971's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=49290 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Jeff07971 wrote: > The flat top of a square wave is in effect a "DC" it cannot be flat if > you cannot pass "DC" > > The rising edge is effectively a very high freq nearly in > contrast to the fundemental > > 2169721698 > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave I'm not sure what you are showing with the diagrams but a 100Hz square wave for example can be reconstructed from a sine wave of 100Hz plus all the odd harmonics. No DC required. Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk slartibartfast's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35609 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Jeff07971 wrote: > The flat top of a square wave is in effect a "DC" it cannot be flat if > you cannot pass "DC" > False claim. The commonly-seen tilt of a square wave's top is due to phase shift. When you avoid having significant amounts of that phase shift, perhaps by using a relatively high fundamental frequency, the wave top is flat. BTW, I can also confirm the post that says that the statement: "...the FFT of a square wave would require sines of 1/ - Hz" is false. All you need is sines going down to the fundamental. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave May I suggest that you brush up on these topics before you further damage your credibility around here? ;-) arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
slartibartfast wrote: > I do not understand why an FFT of a square wave would require sines of > 1/ - Hz. The lowest frequency present in a square wave is > the fundamental. Square waves with a frequency of 1/ Hz are > definitely rare in music. > > Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk The flat top of a square wave is in effect a "DC" it cannot be flat if you cannot pass "DC" The rising edge is effectively a very high freq nearly in contrast to the fundemental 2169721698 +---+ |Filename: ziOsw.gif| |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21698| +---+ *Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3,Receiver,SqueezePlayer,PiCorePlayer x3,Wandboard *Server:* LMS Version: 7.9.0 - 1475786002 on Centos 7 VM on ESXi 6 on Dell T320 *Plugins:* AutoRescan/BBCiPlayer/PowerSave/PowerSwitchIII/Squeezecloud *Remotes:* iPeng8/Orangesqueeze/PC/Jivelite *Music:* 383GB,1269 albums 17756 songs 4381 artists mostly FLACs *Want a webapp ?* See http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?104305-Webapp-for-LMS Jeff07971's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=49290 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Jeff07971 wrote: > Getting really off topic now ! Yes , I drop out now , unless someone says something weird about cat5-8 cables regarding better separation between instruments :P or some other analog attribution ( fundamental miss understanding of how digital works ). Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Getting really off topic now ! *Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3,Receiver,SqueezePlayer,PiCorePlayer x3,Wandboard *Server:* LMS Version: 7.9.0 - 1475786002 on Centos 7 VM on ESXi 6 on Dell T320 *Plugins:* AutoRescan/BBCiPlayer/PowerSave/PowerSwitchIII/Squeezecloud *Remotes:* iPeng8/Orangesqueeze/PC/Jivelite *Music:* 383GB,1269 albums 17756 songs 4381 artists mostly FLACs *Want a webapp ?* See http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?104305-Webapp-for-LMS Jeff07971's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=49290 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
> Um been there done that, last time I used a $19.95 ultrasonic cleaner. > However, that OT in this discussion. Not sure how piezo actuators are relevant to Microphones and sensors ? I used these microphones to record sounds at 96Khz bandwidth. We captured 5 seconds per shot at 256Ksps 16 Bit. And I too design and build amplifiers, electronics and speakers *Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3,Receiver,SqueezePlayer,PiCorePlayer x3,Wandboard *Server:* LMS Version: 7.9.0 - 1475786002 on Centos 7 VM on ESXi 6 on Dell T320 *Plugins:* AutoRescan/BBCiPlayer/PowerSave/PowerSwitchIII/Squeezecloud *Remotes:* iPeng8/Orangesqueeze/PC/Jivelite *Music:* 383GB,1269 albums 17756 songs 4381 artists mostly FLACs *Want a webapp ?* See http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?104305-Webapp-for-LMS Jeff07971's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=49290 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Jeff07971 wrote: > I was trying to keep it simple so I'll rephrase > > "And mr fourier was also rigth any other wave form is made by sums of > sinus waves." Yes but an FFT of a square wave would require sines of > 1/ - Hz to properly represent. Thankfully squarewaves are > rare in music. I do not understand why an FFT of a square wave would require sines of 1/ - Hz. The lowest frequency present in a square wave is the fundamental. Square waves with a frequency of 1/ Hz are definitely rare in music. Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk slartibartfast's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35609 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Jeff07971 wrote: > Mnyb we agree entirely > > Arnyk you miss my point. > > I didn't miss it, I corrected it. You seem to have a lot of incorrect perhaps fanciful ideas about digital and audio. I also sense that you never "lose any arguments". > > If you limit the bandwidth to what you know the average person can hear > then you limit the bandwidth to what you know the average person can > hear. > That presumes that one is highly constrained or short-sighted and limits the bandwidth to what you know the average person can hear. Plan B, set the bandwidth so that it exceeds the capabilities of any known or knowable human. We know from decades of study of human biology that the human hearing apparatus has species-wide design limits, and we can observe them if we test enough people. The latter has been done many times starting long ago. > > If people can perceive a greater bandwidth than average then they cannot > because the bandwidth is limited to the average person. > Straw man argument for the reasons already given. > > The 16/44 standard was down to price and technology at the time (the > 80's !!, over 30 years ago) not being better than ANY human can > perceive. > False claim. The 44/16 sample rate was chosen because it gave a Nyquist frequency that was greater than 20 KHz which was already known at that time to be beyond even exceptional human hearing, and because it easily synched with consumer video gear. The latter pushed it a little higher than was needed for subjectively ideal reproduction of audio recordings. Higher sample rates were available at the time to test with, so we knew what they did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz Now, almost 40 years later the video rate argument only applies to old video standards, not the most recent ones. However, we know quite a bit more about human hearing, and have done a lot more testing, and know that as a practical matter, 20 KHz is well into overkill. > > All I'm saying is make it very certain that all the information is in > the signal. Its easier 30 years later ! > Only an infinite sample rate can guarantee that, and its a worthless goal anyway. > > FWIW I used to work with microphones and pressure sensors that were good > for over 100Khz Um been there done that, last time I used a $19.95 ultrasonic cleaner. However, that OT in this discussion. I know the facts about microphones because before I retired, I among other things was a professional recordist. I took advantage of that back around Y2K to find out if 24/96 which was already well-implemented at the time, did any audible good. And I know about speakers because I still design, build, repair and modify those. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Well I think we can let this drop now, I just think that the technical standard should not be so close to the average human limits. Any way if we did up the sample rates and bit depth we'd need CAT9 cables :) *Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3,Receiver,SqueezePlayer,PiCorePlayer x3,Wandboard *Server:* LMS Version: 7.9.0 - 1475786002 on Centos 7 VM on ESXi 6 on Dell T320 *Plugins:* AutoRescan/BBCiPlayer/PowerSave/PowerSwitchIII/Squeezecloud *Remotes:* iPeng8/Orangesqueeze/PC/Jivelite *Music:* 383GB,1269 albums 17756 songs 4381 artists mostly FLACs *Want a webapp ?* See http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?104305-Webapp-for-LMS Jeff07971's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=49290 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
For us old dudes 20kHz bandwidth is more than enough:) 16k for n most cases . Last time i checked an audiophiles whas not a teenage girl musical prodigy :) they may actually hear 20k. I think the 20-20kHz bw includes most humans it would be truly exceptional very rare . And only applicable to teenagers, the hf hearing drops fast in humans even if do have otherwise good hearing . I have dbt myself re hirez i cant hear any difference. I did take care to only use new digitally made masters that originated as a true hirez recording. The key is to downsample it yourself the CD master and the hidef master is often not the same . If someone buys a hirez file set and it sounds better its usually a better master :) Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
> hence 24/96 is the highest semi sensible rate to sell must at imo. Mnyb we agree entirely > (1) make a recording with say twice the bandpass of a regular CD - iOW > the 24/96 that you are trying to ram down my throat. The equipment to do > this is off the shelf and the techniques are simple enough. > > Downsample it to 44/16 and then back up to 24/96. > > Compare the two in a proper listening test (a level matched, time > synched, blind or DBT or some kind) > > What are the results? > > 100s of people have done this, and the results are "No audible > difference". Arnyk you miss my point. If you limit the bandwidth to what you know the average person can hear then you limit the bandwidth to what you know the average person can hear. If people can perceive a greater bandwidth than average then they cannot because the bandwidth is limited to the average person. The 16/44 standard was down to price and technology at the time (the 80's !!, over 30 years ago) not being better than ANY human can perceive. All I'm saying is make it very certain that all the information is in the signal. Its easier 30 years later ! *Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3,Receiver,SqueezePlayer,PiCorePlayer x3,Wandboard *Server:* LMS Version: 7.9.0 - 1475786002 on Centos 7 VM on ESXi 6 on Dell T320 *Plugins:* AutoRescan/BBCiPlayer/PowerSave/PowerSwitchIII/Squeezecloud *Remotes:* iPeng8/Orangesqueeze/PC/Jivelite *Music:* 383GB,1269 albums 17756 songs 4381 artists mostly FLACs *Want a webapp ?* See http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?104305-Webapp-for-LMS Jeff07971's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=49290 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Sorry i meant 20bit >50k sampling if inwas unclear . Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Jeff07971 wrote: > I was trying to keep it simple so I'll rephrase > > > So you agree that 20Khz is not enough to accurately REPRODUCE any of the > examples you make ! I.e. You cant REPRODUCE the 100Khz signal from a > trumpet (wether we can "Hear" it or not) with a 20Khz limited system. > What do you mean by accuracy? Are you talking about audio which is by definition limited to sounds that are audible to humans, or are you talking about collecting the most impressive numbers that you can? To be reasonable you have to define what you want to do. > > In data aquisition electronics theres a saying that you can't do > anything with data you do not have. All I'm saying is that 24/96 (say) > allows us to extract more data we can actually hear from a wide(r) BW > signal (Music). IE We are not limited by the BW of the system we should > be limited by our senses. There is a simple experiment. (1) make a recording with say twice the bandpass of a regular CD - iOW the 24/96 that you are trying to ram down my throat. The equipment to do this is off the shelf and the techniques are simple enough. Downsample it to 44/16 and then back up to 24/96. Compare the two in a proper listening test (a level matched, time synched, blind or DBT or some kind) What are the results? 100s of people have done this, and the results are "No audible difference". Why bother recording > 22 KHz anyway? Trying to impress small boys with big numbers? ;-) BTW almost all commercial recordings are made with microphones that are usually rolling off pretty fast @ 20 KHz, some as low as 12 KHz or less. So if you try to record up to say 48 KHz, you are just making lovely transcriptions of random noise > 20 KHz or so. Then there are the natural roll-offs in your speakers. For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, how many speakers are accurate >20 KHz? What about 15 KHz? Look at the polar patterns of most dome tweeters - what is the response > 20 KHz like if you go say 30 degrees off axis? If you were going to get serious about > 20 KHz then the iron law of the weakest link applies, but unfortunately for just about everybody that's not your audio gear, its your ears. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
"Yes" recordings can be done at 96kHz for producing purposes . We are limited by our hearing usually below 20kHz so we reproduce what we can hear . Some argue that 44.1 kHz is a close shave hence 48kHz is/was used in recording studios the last decades . Thats a bit off the history i don't know why not 16/48 on CD especially as early resampling was not fantastic ? Some say that about 20bit 50k should include even the most extraordinary humans under the best of circumstances. ( Bob Stuart , Meridians pre MQA ) hence 24/96 is the highest semi sensible rate to sell must at imo. Then we have practicality in recordings only close miced recordings get >20 khz and many mics is not very good and linear at these rates and the recording engineer is not a bat so he wont know . And the actual tecordings that contains listenable music ( not audiophile labels ) these recordings fits well within 16/44.1 I think QUAD was rigth sensible bandwidth limiting is a good thing , tweeter resonances and amplifier problems at high frequencies May actually make hirez audible but not for a good reason. Yes i think unchecked ultrasounds in the signal can be a problem. We have all seen the curves for amp distortion they rise fast above 20kHz not many systems are designed for reproduction up to 50kHz . Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
> DC is a property of asymmetric waves, and by definition a square wave is > symmetrical around the zero line. I was trying to keep it simple so I'll rephrase "And mr fourier was also rigth any other wave form is made by sums of sinus waves." Yes but an FFT of a square wave would require sines of 1/ - Hz to properly represent. Thankfully squarewaves are rare in music ! > Music is by definition something that we hear. Anything that is > inaudible is by definition not part of music. The exact extent of human > hearing varies with SPL and the condition of the age of the listener. Actually its what we feel as a very low frequency won't be heard but it can well be felt. The same is true with high frequencies I used to "feel" old ultrasonic remotes > Many different music instruments create acoustical signals > 20 KHz. > Cymbals are actually not the best sources of ultrasonic sound, their > energy is typically concentrated in the 6=16 KHz range. Many tambourines > will vastly outproduce cymbals when it comes to ultrasonic sound waves. > Depending on their construction details, shakers are at least as > vigorous producers of ultrasonics - many aren't audibly that loud > because most of the energy they produce is ultrasonic. Certain brass > instriuments such as a trumpet with a Harmon Mute are vigorous producers > of sound up to 100 KHz and beyond. So you agree that 20Khz is not enough to accurately REPRODUCE any of the examples you make ! I.e. You cant REPRODUCE the 100Khz signal from a trumpet (wether we can "Hear" it or not) with a 20Khz limited system. In data aquisition electronics theres a saying that you can't do anything with data you do not have. All I'm saying is that 24/96 (say) allows us to extract more data we can actually hear from a wide(r) BW signal (Music). IE We are not limited by the BW of the system we should be limited by our senses. *Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3,Receiver,SqueezePlayer,PiCorePlayer x3,Wandboard *Server:* LMS Version: 7.9.0 - 1475786002 on Centos 7 VM on ESXi 6 on Dell T320 *Plugins:* AutoRescan/BBCiPlayer/PowerSave/PowerSwitchIII/Squeezecloud *Remotes:* iPeng8/Orangesqueeze/PC/Jivelite *Music:* 383GB,1269 albums 17756 songs 4381 artists mostly FLACs *Want a webapp ?* See http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?104305-Webapp-for-LMS Jeff07971's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=49290 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Mnyb wrote: > Nyqist is true for a properly bandwidth limited signal . No signal above > 1/2 fs . > It does not have to be sinus , you can argue that the 20kHz content > actualy is sinusoidal . > > And mr fourier was also rigth any other wave form is made by sums of > sinus waves. > > The nitpicking begins with how to bandwidth liimit and how good you > filters are . > > It usually ends with recording at 24/96 but consumer delivery format can > be 16/44.1 with correctly done downsample and dither. > > Sory for being boring but people always debate hirez like recording and > consumer delivery is the same issues. > > There are very good reason from r having healthy margins when recording > and processing the stuff. Yes you are correct, however "Nyqist is true for a properly bandwidth limited signal . No signal above 1/2 fs" means the filtering makes the siganl sinusoidal when in music they are not. "It does not have to be sinus" yes it does, if you decode an non bandwith limited square wave @ 20Khz you will ge a sinewave out of the DAC due to decoding and output filter. In most systems an input filter ensures "Nyqist is true for a properly bandwidth limited signal" The analogy is that if you put a red filter on a lamp a detector after the filter will only see red. "you can argue that the 20kHz content actualy is sinusoidal" I'm not sure you can. An FFT of say a cymbal suggests not. "And mr fourier was also rigth any other wave form is made by sums of sinus waves." Yes but an FFT of a square wave would require sines of DC - to properly represent. Thankfully squarewaves are rare in music ! I think we can both see that technically what you say is correct but that a true music siganl is not limited to 20Khz a cymbal can produce signals at well over 30Khz (wether we can hear them is another matter) However I think that we agree that a 48Khz bandwidth (24/96) would remove all realistic limitations of music reproduction. (Maybe we do not need the 24 bit depth though) and transmission media would still be irrelevant ! *Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3,Receiver,SqueezePlayer,PiCorePlayer x3,Wandboard *Server:* LMS Version: 7.9.0 - 1475786002 on Centos 7 VM on ESXi 6 on Dell T320 *Plugins:* AutoRescan/BBCiPlayer/PowerSave/PowerSwitchIII/Squeezecloud *Remotes:* iPeng8/Orangesqueeze/PC/Jivelite *Music:* 383GB,1269 albums 17756 songs 4381 artists mostly FLACs *Want a webapp ?* See http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?104305-Webapp-for-LMS Jeff07971's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=49290 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Nyqist is true for a properly bandwidth limited signal . No signal above 1/2 fs . It does not have to be sinus , you can argue that the 20kHz content actualy is sinusoidal . And mr fourier was also rigth any other wave form is made by sums of sinus waves. The nitpicking begins with how to bandwidth like mit and how good you filters are . It usually ends with recording at 24/96 but consumer delivery format can be 16/44.1 with correctly done downsample and dither. Sory for being boring but people always debate hirez like recording and consumer delivery is the same issues. There are very good reason from r having healthy margins when recording and processing the stuff. Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
pablolie wrote: > Indeed. The DAC is about the D in the first iteration... and any signal > is the same in D, and the initial conversion to A follows the > universally accepted Nyquist rule... so we have a perfect reproduction > of the original signal thanks to Nyquist. Q1: Does anyone dispute that? > OK. then we move on and send down the A(nalog) of the equation down the > chain. OK, here things get chancier. Digital is predictable, analog is > harder. Here we get into noise and signal separation and what not. Ugh. > Q2: Does anyone dispute the really relevant letter in DAC is the A? And > that there, it's not just about the DAC chip, but the entire A > subsystem? Answer to Q1, I do not dispute the Nyquist rule however the Nyquist limit is only true when the signal is purely sinusoidal which music isn't (if it were the same a note on two different instruments would sound identical). Whilst I believe 24/96 sampling would allow more "room" for music I still agree that the transmission medium make no difference. I also agree with mnyb that mechanical tranducers at either end of the chain have much more effect than the electronics in between (if done measurably right) *Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3,Receiver,SqueezePlayer,PiCorePlayer x3,Wandboard *Server:* LMS Version: 7.9.0 - 1475786002 on Centos 7 VM on ESXi 6 on Dell T320 *Plugins:* AutoRescan/BBCiPlayer/PowerSave/PowerSwitchIII/Squeezecloud *Remotes:* iPeng8/Orangesqueeze/PC/Jivelite *Music:* 383GB,1269 albums 17756 songs 4381 artists mostly FLACs *Want a webapp ?* See http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?104305-Webapp-for-LMS Jeff07971's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=49290 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
And even the analog part is relitively deterministic and one dimensional compared to the mechanical converters in the audio system ? Microphones and speakers and acoustics .( or pickups and turntables if one wants another mechanical thing in the audio chain ). With really skilled engineering you can defeat the analog problems to such low levels that it does not really influence much anymore . Take a good ADC and a good DAC you can most likely loop them 10 times trough each other without crossing the threshold of audibility . I think some sound engineer did , read a professional forum or blog years ago where someone cured his "gear anxiety" :) that must be the strain of audiophilia that can hit professionals. Yes even some people who should know better are of strange beliefs , you can probably find a lot these like in most professions. Professional only means you get paid to do it . It usually takes a skill and or training but you wonder sometimes . Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
philippe_44 wrote: > As a (very) occasional reader (and even less commenter) of such threads, > I'm afraid that it's hopeless to try to give the correct explanation. > Most people do not understand the fundamental difference between > analogue and digital. As said in another thread, you can chose to > represent your binary information using orange vs apple, black smoke vs > white smoke, any sort of modulated radiowave, light (which is the same) > or any support you want, as long as you use the proper error correction > code (and theory of information give you all the mathematical tools to > chose the right one), this does not change anything. The support/carrier > does not influence the information, where in analogue it does. Indeed. The DAC is about the D in the first iteration... and any signal is the same in D, and the initial conversion to A follows the universally accepted Nyquist rule... so we have a perfect reproduction of the original signal thanks to Nyquist. Q1: Does anyone dispute that? OK. then we move on and send down the A(nalog) of the equation down the chain. OK, here things get chancier. Digital is predictable, analog is harder. Here we get into noise and signal separation and what not. Ugh. Q2: Does anyone dispute the really relevant letter in DAC is the A? And that there, it's not just about the DAC chip, but the entire A subsystem? ...pablo Server: Virtual Machine (on VMware Workstation 12) running Ubuntu 16.04 + LMS 7.9 System: SB Touch --optical->- Benchmark DAC2HGC --AnalysisPlus Oval Copper XLR->- NAD M22 Power Amp --AnalysisPlus Black Mesh Oval->- Totem Element Fire Other Rooms: 2x SB Boom; 1x SB Radio; 1x SB Classic-> NAD D7050 -> Totem DreamCatcher + Velodyne Minivee Sub Computer audio: workstation --USB->- audioengine D1 -> Grado PS500e/Shure 1540 pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
pablolie wrote: > All totally correct. We should all be aware there are far more critical > applications out there, and bit loss would be unacceptable (which is why > one also has correction and error detection codes thrown in). The stuff > works, period. And there's absolutely no way the same identical digital > frame will sound better in analog because of any characteristic of the > digital signal. It just doesn't happen. > As a (very) occasional reader (and even less commenter) of such threads, I'm afraid that it's hopeless to try to give the correct explanation. Most people do not understand the fundamental difference between analogue and digital. As said in another thread, you can chose to represent your binary information using orange vs apple, black smoke vs white smoke, any sort of modulated radiowave, light (which is the same) or any support you want, as long as you use the proper error correction code (and theory of information give you all the mathematical tools to chose the right one), this does not change anything. The support/carrier does not influence the information, where in analogue it does. LMS 7.7.5 - 5xRadio, 3xBoom, 4xDuet, 1xTouch, 1 SB2. Sonos 2xPLAY:1, PLAY:3, PLAY:5, Marantz NR1603, JBL OnBeat, XBMC, Foobar2000, XBoxOne, JRiver 21, Chromecast Audio, Chromecast v1, Pi B2, Pi B+, 2xPi A+, Odroid-C1, Cubie2 philippe_44's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17261 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
arnyk wrote: > I see no evidence that Mnyb has said that he owns gear that uses a > transfer method that he doesn't believe in. > > As I understnd his older posts, the Meridian gear he owns was made and > sold long before MQA was put on the market - years if not decades. > > > > > Totally agreed. Yes 5-6 year before mqa . Meridians design are allost rational :) but its a luxury brand with posh design and eye watering prices . I got the dvda player and processor when i was still somewhat aflcted by audiophilia nervosa :/ the speakers later. Between 2004 and 2010 . Nowadays more and more brands do digital actives for home use . But not many do complete 7.1 with 24/96 tranfer to every speaker . Xover and volume is handled by the each speakers software. There seems to be no standard for this kind of setup ? The design concept makes a lot of sense . A pity that no normal priced brands got it yet ? Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
edwardthern wrote: > Yes I know what the topic is about. But I am asking YOU why did you > purchase gear that uses a transfer method that you don't believe in? > I see no evidence that Mnyb has said that he owns gear that uses a transfer method that he doesn't believe in. As I understnd his older posts, the Meridian gear he owns was made and sold long before MQA was put on the market - years if not decades. > > > MQA is nothing more than audiophile gimmick. Totally agreed. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Mnyb wrote: > Short version. > I believe in digital tranfer methods so much that i dont atribute " > analog characterists " to them ( ie sweeter treble ). > And they work perfectly and transparently with good spec normal cables > nothingfancy needed. > The asyncrounus tranfers merhods and mostly the ethernet protocoll is so > robust that it works fine even with out of spec cables as long as its > fast enogh the Data gets corrected and buffered anyway . > Spdiff with its 1979 origin is somewhat timing sensitive . > Another funny thing spdiff should really use bnc conectors but most > audibrands scrap that because the impedance mismatch you get with RCA > dont rock the boat on these very short distances . > You are aware of the test where someone used a straightened out steel > coat hanger instead of 1m spdiff . It worked just fine All totally correct. We should all be aware there are far more critical applications out there, bit would be unacceptable (which is why one also has correction and error detection codes thrown in). The stuff works, period. And there's absolutely no way the same identical digital frame will sound better in analog because of any characteristic of the digital signal. It just doesn't happen. That said, I still like better-than-basic Toslink cables in my system. I think it was about $100 and simply looks prettier. And no, I never spent a minute comparing it with the old basic Toslink cable. As to Ethernet, yes, I also pick better quality cables, but would never waste money on anything that makes esoteric audio claims. To me it's just about a quality connector so it doesn't break or introduce some weird effect (I have had bad Ethernet cables). I have also at times been told I wasted my money on my DAC (not that it's anything esoteric) because I wouldn't been able to tell the difference compared to a decent $300 DAC. The fact of the matter was that I didn't pick the Benchmark for sound quality - I picked it for future proof input-output choices, lots of them. :-) I replaced a big, hefty $7k CD player I was only using as a DAC with the Benchmark, and never worried for a second about a decrease in sound quality, either. ...pablo Server: Virtual Machine (on VMware Workstation 12) running Ubuntu 16.04 + LMS 7.9 System: SB Touch --optical->- Benchmark DAC2HGC --AnalysisPlus Oval Copper XLR->- NAD M22 Power Amp --AnalysisPlus Black Mesh Oval->- Totem Element Fire Other Rooms: 2x SB Boom; 1x SB Radio; 1x SB Classic-> NAD D7050 -> Totem DreamCatcher + Velodyne Minivee Sub Computer audio: workstation --USB->- audioengine D1 -> Grado PS500e/Shure 1540 pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
Short version. I believe in digital tranfer methods so much that i dont atribute " analog characterists " to them ( ie sweeter treble ). And they work perfectly and transparently with good spec normal cables nothingfancy needed. The asyncrounus tranfers merhods and mostly the ethernet protocoll is so robust that it works fine even with out of spec cables as long as its fast enogh the Data gets corrected and buffered anyway . Spdiff with its 1979 origin is somewhat timing sensitive . Another funny thing spdiff should really use bnc conectors but most audibrands scrap that because the impedance mismatch you get with RCA dont rock the boat on these very short distances . You are aware of the test where someone used a straightened out steel coat hanger instead of 1m spdiff . It worked just fine Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
edwardthern wrote: > Yes I know what the topic is about. But I am asking YOU why did you > purchase gear that uses a transfer method that you don't believe in? > > MQA is nothing more than audiophile gimmick. Then you missunderstod completely. ( sorry for the rubbish spelling, I used the phone and not a native English speaker ) Digital transfers methods is the preferred way for me , for the obvious reason that they are transparent and don't reduce SQ in any way . Well the system is 24/96 that's the rate speaker operates at and the processor . Some would cal that a limitation. ( hint it's not ) It's a lashup of the following digital transfer methods spdiff from the squeezebox . MHR from the G98 via 3 parallel spdiff to the 621 . My G98 DVDA player also use a MHR link with 3 parallel spdif to the g68 processor Meridian speakerlink to the speakers . Speakerlink comes in two flavours spdiff cable and separate control cable and integrated into a Ethernet cable ( data in one pair and control signals in the other ) . The protocol is not Ethernet even if Ethernet cables are used , it's basically twisted pair spdiff. Ethernet is twisted pair low impedance current transfer often via transformer couplers at each end . I.e. You can have very long cables ,that's suitable for speakers . This system works if the cable is up to some modern catX spec , it's basically the same cable design wise but the CAT spec is tighter . But in the speakerlink case the stress for sending spdiff audio in this way is much lower than network traffic frequency is much much lower and signal is not so dense . I use Cat5e patch cables as this is my 3 front speakers . Of course no name cables , as thier is no point in fancy digital cables , it's not how things work . Spdiff cables ar a mixed bag the frebies meridian sent and sometimes Marcus cable who is some coax probably belden with canare RCA connectors made for spdiff , similar to what blue jean cable builds . Again here it is coax spdiff cables at 75 ohm this actually reuses the coax video standard . Again with much lower demands than Video spdiff only uses a fraction of the bandwith a 75 ohm coax is capable of . Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
I have to say, you all showed your true colors too soon. Like a bunch of Vampires waiting for a real human to show up so you can pounce on himyou pose as Audiophiles, waiting in an otherwise dead forum for people to wonder in and post so you can attack. Why don't you Mud-Ears go and make your own forum? edwardthern's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66099 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
I laid down the facts. You people are all TROLLS. I proved it and you proved it. Here you are posing as Audiophiles, waiting for true Audiophiles to post so you can pounce on them with ridicule. You are all FAKE and at least one of you is a double posting liar. edwardthern's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66099 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?
edwardthern wrote: > I post here so that FINALLY there can be good content here, you should > thank me Promises, promises. So when are you going to make a 180 degree turn in what you are doing and start posting content that is worth the dynamite to blow it to ? I am willing to wait the necessary time it takes for you to learn a little something about real world audio. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
