tyler_durden wrote:
Which begs the question, why convert 1 track at a time in EAC when you
can simply extract the entire CD in EAC them start flac and compress
all the tracks?
I'm not sure if you're suggesting ripping a disc to a single file, or
simple ripping tracks to wav files then encoding
Triggaaar;165125 Wrote:
Ignoring SNR, what is confusing me particularly, is how according to the
statements I've quoted, reducing the volume to a certain point will not
result in losing original information if using a 24 bit DAC, but it
will if using an external 20 bit DAC.
The volume
Hiya,
Just to say Thank you for posting what bits you used, and how you put
your linear psu together :)
Had a little time over Christmas, and had a bash, somewhat supprised at
how large the bits were, but hay, it looked a good bit of kit. I know
my stereo stuff is pretty basic to some, but it
jmourik;165358 Wrote:
Should a dedicated line use 10awg or 12awg? I think electricians kinda
want to use 12awg by default, is there a benefit in using 10awg? When
reading some boards on the internet, people jump up and down raving
about blacker backgrounds, wider soundstages, bla bla bla I'm
Just a note on sound stage -- generally speaking, talk of wider sound
stages is pure nonsense. Optimally, the sound stage should be no wider
than the distance between the speakers, driver to driver. If you are
hearing something wider than that -- and this is not only possible but
often or
Not only that, but there are similar threads where our self-appointed
moderator hasn't jumped in at all. This leads me back, of course, to
the question of how much moderation there is on this forum -- if there
is any at all, which does not appear to be the case -- and how
seriously the
lafayette wrote:
This thread really needs to die. It does, however, point out one or
two of the sillier aspects of Internet forums.
...but it mainly serves to illustrate the character of those who
participate.
R.
___
audiophiles mailing list
lafayette wrote:
Just a note on sound stage -- generally speaking, talk of wider sound
stages is pure nonsense. Optimally, the sound stage should be no wider
than the distance between the speakers, driver to driver.
I'm sorry, but *this* is nonsense.
If you are
hearing something wider than
Ah, it had to come. A rude post from one of the rudest posters on this
forum (just to get back to the unmoderated bit). Rather than relying
on Web wisdom, I would refer you to the Gradient Web site, or to David
Wilson, the kind folks at Audio Physic, Dali, Quad, and any of a number
of other
jeffmeh;165279 Wrote:
Can you provide an explanation as to why the attenuation done by
replaygain is going to kill dynamics at one's preferred volume level
any more than turning down the volume to reach that level? I would
like to understand the factual basis on this one. Thanks.
Oh,
slimkid;165411 Wrote:
What various replaygains do is dynamycally equalize those tracks to
what is considered (by the programmer) reasonable dynamic range. So it
would silence pieces of the the first mevement and enhance some pieces
on the second one, just like you would do taking the
Hardly fire extinguisher material mr lafayette ;)
Anyway, I have heard convincing surround from a computer stereo setup,
in large rooms where it couldn't really be reflections. I think there
is a psycho-acoustic effect, but I don't pretend to understand it.
If the expansion of the image
So Patrick - to (try and) cut a long story short...
In the SB implementation, if you take a 16-bit file, the SB internally
upsamples to and outputs at 24 bits...if those 24 bits are sent to a
20-bit DAC do you lose any information (at full volume).
My guess is NO since the original 16 bits are
We've been over this before ( a lot!).
There are studio tricks (using well documented and understood phase
anomoly manipulations) to make sounds appear to come from well outside
of the conventional soundstage - ie between the speakers - however I
have to qualify this since most speakers radiate
ceejay;165415 Wrote:
I think you are being a bit harsh on all replaygain techniques here.
First, adding a replaygain tag to a file doesn't lose any information
at all, you can choose whether to apply it or not at play time. Second,
they don't twiddle the volume at all within a track (which
And it illustrates your character, both in the way you jumped in and in
this reply, quite well. It also illustrates the supposed certitude of
self-proclaimed experts, like yourself, who really haven't a clue as to
what they're talking about.
You know, an example came to mind. I love Quads and
There is a problem with ANY kind of digital normalisation, in that
unless it is a pretty dumb auto-gain control it may introduce
compression - otherwise a quiet track might be boosted so much that the
loudest parts clip. So, if it doesn't boost or cut the track by a simple
fixed amount of dB, it
lafayette;165439 Wrote:
But, alas, I looked you up. If there is a flame war, you're in it.
You have a clear history of attacking strangers, throwing out ad
hominem and very personal insults, and otherwise being a punk with few
social skills. You curse, too, openly and rudely, and that
slimkid;165438 Wrote:
And, BTW, replaygain will change the volume of the track (even
digitally, but that is being debated in different topic), so in my
prior example, dynamic difference between first and second movement
will be changed (decreased), which is messing with Karajan's
Good post, and good post Adamslim, too ( you can deduce my argument from
the article and read about it elsewhere). There is no question -- none
-- that if you're listening to broad dispersion sources or to off-axis
speakers you will, per force, hear stuff outside of the boundaries of
the
Phil Leigh;165440 Wrote:
...and if it is a dumb auto-gain shifter...how does it avoid clipping?
I think replaygain does have a use for casual listening, parties
etc...but I'd never use it when I really want to hear what the artist
intended.
I'm not sure I get that first part: it decodes
lafayette wrote:
Ah, it had to come. A rude post from one of the rudest posters on this
forum (just to get back to the unmoderated bit). Rather than relying
on Web wisdom, I would refer you to the Gradient Web site, or to David
Wilson, the kind folks at Audio Physic, Dali, Quad, and any of a
lafayette;165439 Wrote:
And it illustrates your character, both in the way you jumped in and in
this reply, quite well. It also illustrates the supposed certitude of
self-proclaimed experts, like yourself, who really haven't a clue as to
what they're talking about.
You know, an example
adamslim wrote:
Hardly fire extinguisher material mr lafayette ;)
Who do we know who also over-reacted to anyone criticising him and who
recently flounced off these forums
Anyway, I have heard convincing surround from a computer stereo setup,
in large rooms where it couldn't really be
ceejay;165444 Wrote:
Pot, meet Kettle
I´ll quote you ceejay for no real reason other than i feel like it and
you seem like you won't take it as a personal attack if I reply to
you.
The other aspect of Religious Wars is that there is as much perceived
persecution as there is real
Phil Leigh;165422 Wrote:
So Patrick - to (try and) cut a long story short... ... if only.
Phil Leigh;165422 Wrote:
In the SB implementation, if you take a 16-bit file, the SB internally
upsamples to and outputs at 24 bitsErr, that's not upsampling - upsampling is
something completely
The soundstage my Watts throw is usually between and behind the
speakers.
On some electronic and pop recordings the soundstage seems to go beyond
that width boundary. I dont remember hearing this on clasical
recordings.
I don't know why this happens, so I prefer the T.S. Elliot approach: a
poem
??
My name is Robert McGinley. I am an attorney living in Huntsville,
Alabama. I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about but I have
seen those threads. I thought everyone was out of line.
I have no idea why audio attracts this. My own hot-headedness, too,
has gotten in the way. But,
tomjtx;165457 Wrote:
On some electronic and pop recordings the soundstage seems to go beyond
that width boundary. I dont remember hearing this on clasical
recordings.
Probably due to the way most classical music is recorded: effectively
it is usually a live performance with two
Yes sorry I didn't (obviously!) mean upsample...what is the correct term
for altering the bit-depth of a sample? re-fathoming?
a-ha!...
I get it (at last) you can alter the extra bits as much as you like
until you happen to cause an effect on one of the original 16...and
once you do that you
OK - if that is how replaygain works it's just messing with the gain,
not the dynamics...that's OK I suppose...
--
Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread:
Phil Leigh;165463 Wrote:
OK - if that is how replaygain works it's just messing with the gain,
not the dynamics...that's OK I suppose...
Yeah, it is done on a track level. I am not sure what the iTunes gain
does: it shoves a whole bunch of numbers in comments, so maybe it is
doing something
I think SnarlyDwarf has this one right. Replaygain (specifically
Replaygain; different algorithms certainly approach it differently)
does not change the data, only inserts tags with the gain adjustments
to hit the reference level for each track (track gain), and for an
entire album (album gain).
jeffmeh;165466 Wrote:
I'm still curious as to whether there is any real difference between
this and making the adjustment myself with the volume knob. It seems
to me that if implemented correctly, there should be no difference, but
I remain open to enlightenment.
It should be exactly the
Robin Bowes;165454 Wrote:
If the expansion of the image outside the speakers is meaningful and
can be heard in different rooms, then I suggest it may be such an
effect, rather than just reflections. But I appreciate others'
viewpoints: this is nigh-on impossible to prove.[/color]
I am one of the persons that never had the luck to hear setups that
really make a stage aside the speakers. Even when i heard 150.000$
setups.
But i have one curious sample from Tom Waits, Black Rider.
In 'T'aint No Sin plays an instrument to the right that really seems to
come from aside the
lafayette wrote:
??
My name is Robert McGinley. I am an attorney living in Huntsville,
Alabama. I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about but I have
seen those threads. I thought everyone was out of line.
Apologies. Your response and tone sounded similar to someone else who
Wombat;165485 Wrote:
I am one of the persons that never had the luck to hear setups that
really make a stage aside the speakers. Even when i heard 150.000$
setups.
But i have one curious sample from Tom Waits, Black Rider.
In 'T'aint No Sin plays an instrument to the right that really seems
adamslim wrote:
Robin Bowes;165454 Wrote:
If the expansion of the image outside the speakers is meaningful
and can be heard in different rooms, then I suggest it may be
such an effect, rather than just reflections. But I appreciate
others' viewpoints: this is nigh-on impossible to
lafayette wrote:
Good post, and good post Adamslim, too ( you can deduce my argument from
the article and read about it elsewhere). There is no question -- none
-- that if you're listening to broad dispersion sources or to off-axis
speakers you will, per force, hear stuff outside of the
Fair enough. I appreciate the civil tone of your reply and am glad this
is behind us.
Well, the way things have been explained to me is like this:
The stereo image depends, ideally, upon a point source beamed directly
at each ear. Now, suppose your speakers are on-axis. That means that
you
So, do I get a broader soundstage with 10awg or 12awg ac wire?
just kidding :-)
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
lafayette wrote:
Fair enough. I appreciate the civil tone of your reply and am glad this
is behind us.
I am usually reasonable, if a little blunt sometimes. :)
Well, the way things have been explained to me is like this:
The stereo image depends, ideally, upon a point source beamed
Phil Leigh;165461 Wrote:
... all in all, it's probably best just to alter level in the analogue
domain - at least we all get to sleep nights! ...
You got that right Phil! I've been struggling over this issue for
awhile now with the new system I've been putting together.
I came to the same
jan van mourik;165502 Wrote:
So, do I get a broader soundstage with 10awg or 12awg ac wire?
Fatter wire, bigger soundstage.
With 000 wire, my sound comes from 3 or so blocks away, though that
tends to annoy the neighbors.
--
snarlydwarf
It seems like many of us are perhaps too blunt ; )
Anyway, I appreciate this brief and understandable explanation. So,
it's not a geometry problem, pure and simple, but a psycho-acoustic --
and an effect only apparent in certain recordings and, presumably, with
careful speaker arrangements.
I
Jeff, if you want to ruin your life (and wallet) check into
www.head-fi.org and read about all the options, tweaks, upgrades, and
other insanity you can get into if you find you are enjoying your
SR-80's. Believe me, your journey has just begun!
--
sc53
grasshead?
--
JJZolx
Jim
JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31050
___
pothead, i think he means
Though for fun stereo abuse, The Residents' High Horses (a simulation
of taking LSD in Golden Gate Park by the Carousel) takes the cake.
Though it isnt technically correct: they were trying to get the sound
of going -around- the carousel mechanism, but it is more
JJZolx;165525 Wrote:
Too funny.
I wasnt kidding. :P
http://residents.com/C1016472556/E20061214071458/index.html
http://residents.com/bh/HIGHH.htm
--
snarlydwarf
snarlydwarf's Profile:
JJZolx wrote:
grasshead?
Pot, hemp, weed, MJ, Acapulco Gold, etc.
Not that I'd know anything about that kinda stuff.
--
Pat Farrell PRC recording studio
http://www.pfarrell.com/PRC
___
audiophiles mailing list
slimkid;165269 Wrote:
And also begs an audiophile type question: Unless it's done for DJ
purposes, why mess with track/album gain at all. It kills dynamics. If
I was bitter, I'd add it's also OK for rap/techno/hip-hop :)
Replay gain does not kill dynamics. All it does is set attenuation so
Robin Bowes;165299 Wrote:
If you rip all tracks to wav first then encode separately, where do
the
tags come from?
R.
The tags are populated from the directory structure of the library. I
rip each CD to individual .wav files named with the track number and
song title only.
The
I am planning a two channel music system for the living room. It's
fairly large and will use an SB3 as the source. After that, either a
Nait/Totem or Spendor or Creek/Epos. A little more listening needs to
be done.
For those of you who prefer the flat earth approach, how have you
incorporated
I think Pink Floyd's A Momentary Lapse of Reason is recorded in Q
sound.
You can get a similar effect from nearly any stereo source by using a
speaker cross-talk canceller such as the Carver C-9 sonic hologram
generator, or any of a number of similar devices that you can build
yourself with a
USAudio;165508 Wrote:
the C-100 integrated seems to produce an improved sound over connecting
the SB3 directly to the A-100 amp.
Apples and Oranges IMHO. As we've learnt, relying on the digital volume
controls is a handicap to the Sb3's SNR. A proper comparison might be
the integrated amp or
I am a vinyl as well as digital kind of listener and have listened to my
system with both a Transporter and an SB3 which is kind of the same
thing as listening to an SB3 with a DAC and without a DAC. I think as
a primary source you are going to want to add a DAC. The SB3 is, for
me, a
snarlydwarf;165509 Wrote:
Fatter wire, bigger soundstage.
With 000 wire, my sound comes from 3 or so blocks away, though that
tends to annoy the neighbors.
Yes, but only if you properly burn it in. That means, attaching it to
your fridge, stove even better, and run it that way for a couple
Thanks Pat and Phil, this is really facinating! I always assumed the
artists wanted to be heard like they actually sound, it never occurred
to me that their subjective impressions of themselves (once they reach
the professional level) would be different from their actual sound.
This must make it
59 matches
Mail list logo
