opaqueice;331646 Wrote:
There's a device you might of heard of that uses that second trick.
It's called a squeezebox.
And yet the jitter present on the digital outputs of the Squeezebox is
still higher than several traditional transports and is quite audible
when feeding an external DAC.
spoon;331506 Wrote:
I think the majority of modern CDROM drives will interpolate on error,
which is bad for secure rippers as it makes the job of detecting the
errors more difficult (an interpolation is an error).
Obviously the author of dbPowerAmp has probably forgotten more about
CDROM
Or put another way, an error could easily be on a MSB bit of a sample,
which would result in a loud click. Errors during ripping are quite
common, even on scratch free discs, 1:4 discs could have an error (even
perfect discs). If the majority of CD drives did not interpolate then
many people
CatBus;331638 Wrote:
In that case, it's best for you to avoid ABX testing ;)
My point is that the reason I don't take audiophiles seriously when
they say they can distinguish an MP3 from a FLAc in an A/B test is that
they have admitted in that very statement that they have not even
ralphpnj;331666 Wrote:
I'm really glad that this discussion is proceeding along without any
flaming and I'll do my best to keep the nasty stuff down to a minimum
since I may not be able to eliminate it entirely. :)
Okay, so let's try this approach.
First, I think we can all agree that
Themis;331555 Wrote:
C'mon nonreality, you're exaggerating : my wife, children and friends
who are not interested in high-fidelity (that is 95% or more, the rest
of the world as someone said) NEVER read Audiophile forums. Never. And
they find all these discussions about high fidelity
Nonreality;331680 Wrote:
I'm sorry but I really don't see your point. Just because they don't
record to mp3 doesn't prove your point. I'd rather have a lossless for
future proofing but not for sound. The whole point is not that lossless
sounds bad but that the improvements to lame have
Nonreality;331683 Wrote:
Sorry I should have made it more clear. I'm talking about people on the
SB forums. Not your wife or kids or the people that don't read forums
here. I'm talking about the captive audience here. They are
interested in high quality and would like to know more about
bigfool1956;331536 Wrote:
I once had a demonstration from a manufacturer of his three CDPs into
his lowest price point amps. What was odd was that the 'best' (and most
expensive) CDP was significantly worse musically than the middle level
player.
It wasn't until we moved up a level in his
ralphpnj;331685 Wrote:
And again I agree and I apologize once again if I came off as one of
those elitist audiophiles. I like to think of myself as more of the
true open-minded, non elitist type of audiophile - just no Bose,
please as even I have my limits. ;)No I wasn't talking about you at
ralphpnj;331666 Wrote:
1) Yes, there are differences between the files but these differences
can not be heard, at least during the course of a properly conducted
ABX test.
2) Since the files are different and the ABX does not reliably reveal
these differences, the ABX test is flawed or,
ralphpnj;331666 Wrote:
1) Yes, there are differences between the files but these differences
can not be heard, at least during the course of a properly conducted
ABX test.
2) Since the files are different and the ABX does not reliably reveal
these differences, the ABX test is flawed or,
darrenyeats;331714 Wrote:
As it happens we have already one person saying they can ABX 320 mp3 and
FLAC so this supports your conclusion. Personally the conclusion is
irrelevant to me (as explained in previous posts). If it turns out
you're right then great. :)
It is your logic that's
spoon;331661 Wrote:
Errors during ripping are quite common, even on scratch free discs, 1:4
discs could have an error (even perfect discs). If the majority of CD
drives did not interpolate then many people would be complaining about
clicks from rips with WMP or iTunes which are insecure
harmonic;331718 Wrote:
No the problem is ABX testing dont work with sound, your brain cant
reliably remember sound .
How do you account for all the positive results people get with it,
then?
Have you ever even tried a blind test?
Music is also a very bad measurment tool because it
harmonic;331718 Wrote:
No the problem is ABX testing dont work with sound, your brain cant
reliably remember sound .
Music is also a very bad measurment tool because it evolves around
emotions.
If you can propose a method to test whether people can hear a
difference between A and B
SatoriGFX;331654 Wrote:
And yet the jitter present on the digital outputs of the Squeezebox is
still higher than several traditional transports and is quite audible
when feeding an external DAC.
You didn't understand the point.
I wasn't claiming there is anything inherently superior about
opaqueice;331723 Wrote:
You didn't understand the point.
I wasn't claiming there is anything inherently superior about the SB
architecture as a -transport-. You want the lowest possible jitter at
the dac (because that's the only place it makes any difference at all).
It's useless to
SatoriGFX;331728 Wrote:
I see your point. I guess I misunderstood where you were coming from.
I assumed you were claiming the SB3 had inaudible jitter on it's
digital outputs. How I wish it were so. I love my SB3 but it's
digital outs sound inferior to those on my CEC transport, I assume
SatoriGFX;331728 Wrote:
I see your point. I guess I misunderstood where you were coming from.
I assumed you were claiming the SB3 had inaudible jitter on it's
digital outputs. How I wish it were so. I love my SB3 but it's
digital outs sound inferior to those on my CEC transport, I assume
opaqueice;331731 Wrote:
What dac are you using?
Benchmark's are claimed to be immune to input jitter. Also, the Lavry
dacs were supposed to use a technique similar to the one I described
above (a buffer plus a clock with an adjustable frequency), but there
was some dispute over whether
Phil Leigh;331732 Wrote:
Can you quantify this difference in audible terms? - how does it
manifest itself?
With the CEC I get more transparency, more detail, more air around
instruments/singers, more flesh/body to instruments/singers, more
natural tone to instruments, more extension at the
SatoriGFX;331734 Wrote:
I am using a CIAudio VDA-2 NOS DAC. No jitter reduction scheme.
Hmm. You might want to try out a more hi-tech dac and see if it
helps.
The Benchmarks jitter reduction claims are apparently somewhat
overstated. The Lavry is apparently better at it.
Really? Why
opaqueice;331720 Wrote:
How do you account for all the positive results people get with it,
then?
Have you ever even tried a blind test?
This isn't about music. If it was, everyone would be perfectly happy
with 192 kbps MP3 (and the vast majority of people are, by the way).
harmonic;331718 Wrote:
No the problem is ABX testing dont work with sound, your brain cant
reliably remember sound .
Music is also a very bad measurment tool because it evolves around
emotions.
Finally someone comes to my aid.
opaqueice;331720 Wrote:
How do you account for all the
ralphpnj;331738 Wrote:
Who says the results are positive? I think the results clearly show how
flawed ABX testing is since ABX tests can't reliably reveal the
differences between a lossy and a lossless file!
That would make sense *except that it's not true*! How many times do I
have to
darrenyeats;331721 Wrote:
If you can propose a method to test whether people can hear a difference
between A and B without listening to them...please go ahead.
Darren
Still waiting.
--
darrenyeats
SB3 / Inguz - Krell KAV-300i (pre bypass) - PMC AB-1
Dell laptop - JVC UX-C30 mini system
opaqueice;331740 Wrote:
Translation: I can't defend my nonsense, so I'll just hit and run.
Why do you keep repeating something that's obviously false? No matter
how many times you say it, it's not going to change the facts. If ABX
testing didn't work it wouldn't ever consistently
opaqueice;331740 Wrote:
Translation: I can't defend my nonsense, so I'll just hit and run.
darrenyeats;331743 Wrote:
Still waiting.
harmonic;331745 Wrote:
Enyway i stated my point do with it whatever you want im done.
All the best
Same here. Good luck with your studies.
--
using EAC and checked with accuraterip
And did you have secure mode on? if so re-rip those 1000 discs in burst
mode and see how many failed against AccurateRip. You can also not take
the whole of CD drives as determined by 2. If you had 50 drives and
ripped 10,000 discs (on each drive) I would
spoon;331747 Wrote:
And did you have secure mode on? if so re-rip those 1000 discs in burst
mode and see how many failed against AccurateRip. You can also not take
the whole of CD drives as determined by 2. If you had 50 drives and
ripped 10,000 discs (on each drive) I would listen to your
opaqueice;331742 Wrote:
That would make sense *except that it's not true*! How many times do I
have to tell you that I ABXed 320 MP3s (and so have others, there's
nothing special about me)? And I hope you realize that a positive ABX
result means that the odds the results were chance are
harmonic;331737 Wrote:
Well I really dont want to get into somkind of pointless internet
argument espicialy knowing the nature of this forum .
But Yes i have atended abx tests several times .
Im studing A level psychology at the moment and one of the my studys
is the brains ability
ralphpnj;331761 Wrote:
I'd love to go on but you lost me right here. If ABX tests do reveal
differences between the highest bitrate MP3 and WAV then what, exactly,
are we arguing about? Enough said, case closed.
320 Kbps is the highest data rate for standard mp3s. Is that what's
confusing
i'm your bass creator;328594 Wrote:
I know there is a difference between lossless and 320 Mp3's when you
compare them on a Hi-Fi system with decent speakers.
But do 320 mp3s still sound good enough on a Hi-Fi system if you dont
have the lossless version to compare it too?
Just a
This has already been answered in bits and pieces, but I'll add my own
just for kicks.
ralphpnj;331666 Wrote:
First, I think we can all agree that mp3 files, even 320kps mp3 files,
are different from flac files and different from the original wav file.
So far so good.
ralphpnj;331666 Wrote:
It's not just the magnitude of the jitter that's important, it's also
the spectral content and its correlation with the audio signal.
I agree with opaqueice though, the re-clocker just seems like it's
adding extra complexity where you'd be better off tackling the
'problem' at source.
--
opaqueice;331736 Wrote:
Hmm. You might want to try out a more hi-tech dac and see if it
helps.
Really? Why do you say so? My impression was the opposite, but then
the only hard data I've seen is supplied by the manufacturers, a few
not very reliable reviewers, and some (possibly
opaqueice;331739 Wrote:
By the way, the SB3 jitter is -not- high, at least according to various
measurements I've seen. IIRC it's somewhere below the 100ps mark. I
think most digital transports have considerably higher jitter.
Sure, the SB3 has lower jitter than some/many more expensive
Themis;331597 Wrote:
Do you mean 128 WMA VBR sounds better than MP3 VBR of the same recording
?
wma 128cbr v mp3 128cbr. hence the title of the thread. ;)
--
i'm your bass creator
i'm your bass creator's Profile:
The reason behind professional recording engineers using lossless
audio, is for editing purposes.
If they use lossless, it means they can keep making changes and edits
to the tracks without ever losing any audio quality what so ever.
But, if they are daft enough to use lossy everytime they
41 matches
Mail list logo
