Dean Blackketter asked:
> Another proposal moved the 8 to 16 bit threshold from -35db to -30dB.
What's the right value for this?
The reason why I suggested to stop the modified gain calculations at
-30dB is that below this value repeated values start to appear.
In the list below, the patch is use
Would appreciate any and all assistance on the below questions. I'm a
bit swamped, but definitely want to upgrade.
thanks much
jp
Which format is best to import in? Lossless or WAV? (FLAC vs. Itunes
lossless, vs Windows Media lossless or uncompressed WAV?) From what
Ive heard FLAC is best, but i
Firstly, I'm not having connectivity problems on the order of dropped
connections. Sometimes, however, the connection does seem to freeze up
or an annoying thing happens where I might press one or more buttons on
the remote, the machine freezes, and then quickly cycles through them.
In other wor
Off-Topic:
Your mention of "wall of sound" and references to noise makes me think
of the band My Bloody Valentine. www.allmusic.com has this to say about
them:
"My Bloody Valentine redefined what noise meant within the context of
pop songwriting...Though My Bloody Valentine rejected rock & roll
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 20:02 -0800, Mike Anderson wrote:
> Noise is also a lot harder to compress than pure tones. My time series
> professor used to argue that if you look at the frequency spectrum of
> rock and roll, it looks a lot more like noise than classical music
> does!
Wise guy.
Actually
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 19:35 -0800, ob_kook wrote:
> I use EAC + FLAC and was getting averages aroung 60%, so I think you are
> definitely in the ballpark.
I think mine are a tad better, but I have a lot of jazz and classical
which are rumoured to compress better than pop.
> You can set the lev
tass Wrote:
> The style of music can definately affect how well files compress. I've
> noticed on the highest compression of FLAC that pop/rock/normal(?)
> music compresses high 60s to mid 70% ratio. Things like classical music
> that have a lot of low-volume, silent or single instrument sections
I use EAC + FLAC and was getting averages aroung 60%, so I think you are
definitely in the ballpark.
You can set the level of compression in the command line of EAC if you
use FLAC as the external compressor. The tradeoff is that the higher
the compression, the longer it takes. I have read sever
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 18:37 -0800, jplatner wrote:
> can you specify what storage you recommend for say...700-1000 CDs in
> either FLAC lossless or WAV?
I'm not sure I understand what you are asking, I can't see the start of
this thread. The sound quality between FLAC and wav/PCM should be
identic
can you specify what storage you recommend for say...700-1000 CDs in
either FLAC lossless or WAV?
thx
--
jplatner
jplatner's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2320
View this thread: http://forums.sli
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 14:05 -0800, bgrounds wrote:
> I just ordered a Squeezbox version 3. What
> sound card to you recommend? Or are you saying that the sound card will
> not affect the sound of the Squeezebox?
Right,
A Squeezebox is a computer, display and soundcard and NIC.
It replaces the wh
On Nov 14, 2005, at 1:34 PM, Patrick Dixon wrote:
Given that the Squeezebox has a 24 bit output, the rounding error
should be down at around at 138-144dB, not 90-96dB and I have a hard
time believing that the effect would be as obvious as you state at
that level.
This is simply incorrect -
Thanks for the quick reply. I just ordered a Squeezbox version 3. What
sound card to you recommend? Or are you saying that the sound card will
not affect the sound of the Squeezebox?
--
bgrounds
bgrounds's Profile: http://
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 13:51 -0800, bgrounds wrote:
> Will it make a difference what sound card I have in my system as far as
> ripping and listening quality?
For ripping? none at all.
For playing, since this is a Slim list/forum, I assume you have one.
They are tons better than any consumer sound
Will it make a difference what sound card I have in my system as far as
ripping and listening quality?
--
bgrounds
bgrounds's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2314
View this thread: http://forums.sl
> Given that the Squeezebox has a 24 bit output, the rounding error
> should be down at around at 138-144dB, not 90-96dB and I have a hard
> time believing that the effect would be as obvious as you state at
> that level.This is simply incorrect - the rounding error is at the 16th bit
> of a
16-b
dean Wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure I understand the problem well enough to say
> that this patch is correct.
>
> (I realize that there has been some listening tests done and you like
>
> it better, but I want to also make sure it's correct.)
>
> Given that the Squeezebox has a 24 bit outpu
Patrick Dixon Wrote:
> It's worth holding for this!
Is the patch in any nightlies yet? if so, which version and which
firmware version? I agree that if it affects audio quality, it's
important. To be clear, I assume that at 100% volume the problem does
nto exist...correct?
-Joe
--
skyrush
I'm not entirely sure I understand the problem well enough to say
that this patch is correct.
(I realize that there has been some listening tests done and you like
it better, but I want to also make sure it's correct.)
Given that the Squeezebox has a 24 bit output, the rounding error
shou
It's worth holding for this!
--
Patrick Dixon
www.at-tunes.co.uk
Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=17269
I'd certainly like to see this patch incorporated.
--
netim3
netim3's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=219
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=17269
___
6.2.1 is likely to go out today, sorry it didn't make it.
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
I have filed this as bug 2557
http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2557
As things stand, the patch above (which I have tested and works well)
is not considered important enough to make it into 6.2.1 So if you
think different, you'd better vote for it and/or add you comments fast!
--
Pa
Actually, while the Benchmark does trumpet (and performs) exceptional
performance in terms of jitter management...my understanding is that it
does not buffer the incoming stream. IE, it manages internal jitter.
The new lavry unit (due out in a couple of weeks) buffers the incoming
stream and eff
I use Harbeth Monitor 40s -- which are also huge studio monitors (most
common in BBC studios, actually, and the technology was developed in
concert with the BBC) and feature just about the flatest frequency
response on the planet. ATC is also of this calibre.
--
highdudgeon
---
tass Wrote:
> The style of music can definately affect how well files compress. I've
> noticed on the highest compression of FLAC that pop/rock/normal(?)
> music compresses high 60s to mid 70% ratio. Things like classical music
> that have a lot of low-volume, silent or single instrument sections
The style of music can definately affect how well files compress. I've
noticed on the highest compression of FLAC that pop/rock/normal(?)
music compresses high 60s to mid 70% ratio. Things like classical music
that have a lot of low-volume, silent or single instrument sections can
compress much be
Your compression ratio (45.5/64.74 = 70%) seems a but high - that said most
of my FLAC compressed files have a compression ratio around 55% so you're
not too far off.
I use FLAC.exe to compress my files with the maximum compression setting.
Malcolm
PS I do know that the type of music can affect
I've just created my first .flac files to see what difference (if any) I
can hear through my Slim v2 and Arcam AVR300, via a digital connection.
What shocked me, was that after running Exact Audio Copy (EAC) which
called WACK, configured to compress using FLAC, I found that a CD image
of 64.74Mb
29 matches
Mail list logo
