Sorry guys, stupid thing to post this thread as I should have understood
how it would come through.
Can only blame it on a slight drunkeness yesterday.
On the otherhand I can assure you that I really can hear the difference
in the posted statements. May it be my brain that play tricks on me or
itz;377908 Wrote:
On the otherhand I can assure you that I really can hear the difference
in the posted statements. May it be my brain that play tricks on me or
not.
Hi itz, it's -very- easy to find out.
Have a friend flip a coin - heads is flac as wav, tails is native
streaming for
I've noticed a recent trend of repeated claims for FLAC vs WAV
streaming. I think it really is about time we nailed this once and for
all. Streaming WAV is not an option for me since the high-res
transcoding breaks (at least I think it does - not sure with the recent
changes in this space).
If
mswlogo;377886 Wrote:
Feeding the transporter directly into Meridian's Active 24/96 DSP-6000's
speakers I beg to differ.
Interesting... could you describe the difference? Also, do you think
you could tell the difference between raw 24/96 and the same stream
correctly downsampled to 24/48 in a
Phil Leigh;377941 Wrote:
do you think you could tell the difference between raw 24/96 and the
same stream correctly downsampled to 24/48 in a controlled DBT? .. I
know I couldn't!
Regards
Phil
Since there is twice the amount of information in a 24/96 stream than
in a 24/48 stream I'm
JezA;377946 Wrote:
Since there is twice the amount of information in a 24/96 stream than in
a 24/48 stream I'm somewhat surprised that you can't hear any
difference.
I don't follow your reasoning there.
Darren
--
darrenyeats
SB3 / Inguz - Krell KAV-300i (pre bypass) - PMC AB-1
Dell laptop
My opinion is that talk of consumer formats (high rate MP3 vs red book
vs SACD vs hi-rez PCM) is rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. The
real story is the Loudness War and the dumbing down of production
values.
Almost ever remaster I've come across sounds worse than the original
and is
JezA;377946 Wrote:
Since there is twice the amount of information in a 24/96 stream than in
a 24/48 stream I'm somewhat surprised that you can't hear any
difference. Might there not be something wrong with your system that it
cannot resolve such a huge difference between streams?!
You need
Phil Leigh;377971 Wrote:
You need to read up on Nyquist theorum and Information Theory and then
think about that question again. Twice the number of bits might not be
twice the amount of information :o)
My whole point is that in informational terms the difference is really
quite small...
radish;377873 Wrote:
As of 7.3 the server will transcode files which have too high a bitrate
down to whatever the player can handle. As of 7.3.1 (IIRC) it will do
it without switching to mp3 :)
Must be another bug with 7.3.1 , 'cos it won't transcode a 24/88.2 flac
file down to 24/48 in my
Phil Leigh;377937 Wrote:
I've noticed a recent trend of repeated claims for FLAC vs WAV
streaming. I think it really is about time we nailed this once and for
all. Streaming WAV is not an option for me since the high-res
transcoding breaks (at least I think it does - not sure with the recent
dlhamby;377847 Wrote:
Sample jitter is interesting. From my introduction to digital signal
processing in college, jitter (non-uniform sampling in geek speak)
introduces noise in the reconstructed audio. A classmate did his
masters thesis on the subject deriving the effects of nonuniform
pfarrell;377862 Wrote:
ralphpnj wrote:[color=blue]
No, you miss the point, TAS thinks more expensive sounds better.
They love cables that cost five figures and speakers that cost six.
They do sometimes review reasonably-priced gear. They liked the Duet
and recently gave rave reviews to
Pale Blue Ego wrote:
The main problem with TAS' coverage of music servers is they tend to
fall in love with the interface while brushing aside issues like
support for key formats, price, DRM, sound quality, etc.
Not just for music servers, they care too much about build quality and
weight.
itz;377810 Wrote:
At the risk of being declared the fool on the hill, I have some
questions/statements.
To my ears in my rigg (with external dac):
1. Squeezecenter on Nas (Synology 107+128) sounds a lot better than on
puter with XP.
2. Flac's streamed as wav sounds better then native
Hi there,
I recently bought a Squeezebox Duet (one controller, two receivers) and
am looking for decent and affordable (active) speakers. I am aware that
the price range of 150 - 250 US$ won't qualify for audiophile - still
I think it is the most adequate sub-forum, since the others tend to
kphinney;377861 Wrote:
I'd rate Skunk's posts as some of the most helpful in this forum. He
can explain hi-fi fi-tech to a dolt like me, so if he's got the time
I'd take advantage of him. Heck, I may even buy the book.
Thanks, but there are a lot of people here with a much better
Skunk;378124 Wrote:
Thanks, but there are a lot of people here with a much better
understanding of digital hiFi, and a better way with words too.
I vote that Opaqueice and Patrick Dixon team up to write it. That I
would buy.
Personal preference perhaps. Opaqueice and Pat Dixon may be
Vereina;378077 Wrote:
If I understand correctly, it is the 7.3.2 beta that does automatic
transcoding of FLAC down to a sampling rate that the SB3 (or SBR)
supports. So, I presume that 88.2 kHz would go to 44.1 (although I
believe that the 24 bit word length will be maintained).
I have
kphinney;378126 Wrote:
Personal preference perhaps. Opaqueice and Pat Dixon may be able to
instruct on a mid-to-upper level, but I tune in to your posts at my
lower level.
That was kind of a joke, as they are usually at odds. Though it *would*
be more of an interesting read to have two
What really gets me about both Stereophile's and TAS's approach to music
servers is how, even when they do try to focus on sound quality issues,
they always manage to give a pass to poor sounding music servers
from well known high end manufacturers and yet for some strange never
bother to take
opaqueice;378059 Wrote:
The main reason is not information per se - it's that people can't hear
sounds with frequencies much above 16kHz, making 96 kHz (with a 48kHz
Nyquist cutoff) total overkill.
So why do people bother recording at 24bit/192khz? And why do people
like Gimell sell versions
JezA wrote:
So why do people bother recording at 24bit/192khz? And why do people
like Gimell sell versions of their music at 24/48 and 24/96? Overkill?
Waste of money? Or have they got equipment and ears that can resolve
the difference?
Nearly all modern studio equipment can record at 24/96
JezA;378149 Wrote:
So why do people bother recording at 24bit/192khz?
There are many good reasons for recording at very high frequencies and
resolution. For end users many of those reasons do not apply.
--
bhaagensen
Phil Leigh;377971 Wrote:
You need to read up on Nyquist theorum and Information Theory and then
think about that question again. Twice the number of bits might not be
twice the amount of information :o)
My whole point is that in informational terms the difference is really
quite small...
Vincent;378117 Wrote:
...this might indicate that the two differs in the amount of input
jitter they generate.
This then would also be applicable to different cables? For example, at
MusicDirect they are selling this digital cable with their ipod dock
packages:
mswlogo wrote:
Phil Leigh;377971 Wrote:
You need to read up on Nyquist theorum and Information Theory and then
think about that question again.
It completely depends on what is using the digitized data.
Let's say I have a simple sine wave of amplitude 1.
No, your example is generated to be
Phil Leigh;377937 Wrote:
I've noticed a recent trend of repeated claims for FLAC vs WAV
streaming. I think it really is about time we nailed this once and for
all. Streaming WAV is not an option for me since the high-res
transcoding breaks (at least I think it does - not sure with the recent
Have a look at the M-Audio Studiophile AV40. They have lots of good
reviews on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/M-Audio-Studiophile-AV-Powered-Speakers/dp/B000MUXJCO/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8s=musical-instrumentsqid=1230866706sr=8-1
--
MrSlim
I know I need the Transporter to playback 24/96 at full bit rate, and I
only have a Duet, SB2 and SB3. however, I just downloaded a 24/88 flac
from Linn and it wont play at all? I thought the Duet's/SB's would
transcode these files to 24/48 even if they were 24/96 or 24/88? Any
suggestions?
--
Ok, I found the problem, just needed 7.3.2. 24/88 plays now, but I sure
would like to get a Transporter soon so I can play at full bit rates.
--
BigBirdy
SB3 (2), Yamaha DSP-A1, Denon 5900 DVD, Musical Fidelity Trivista
DAC-21, Rega Planet, Adcom GFA-555, Panamax 1500, Klipsch KLF-30 Mains,
I am anticipating getting a Transporter soon so had a question about hi
res files, specifically 24/88, 24/96 and 24/192 FLAC's. I run a Musical
Fidelity Tri-Vista DAC 21 so what would be the best way to use the
Transporter in my system? I truly love the warmth and transparency of
the 21, so would
Having heard both of the audioengine speaker models (A2 and A5) I highly
recommend either one. The A2 is a bit lacking in bass due to small
driver size. The A5 on the other hand is a perfect single room filling
speaker.
--
SuperQ
kphinney;377865 Wrote:
Oh, and for those who still don't trust downloaded music and want a copy
on vinyl or CD... well, I gave up my fax machine and filing cabinet in
leu of PDF's and a backup hard drive. My life is easier and much
cleaner and I can find what I'm looking for.
I totally
Genelecs are excellent but certainly not very pretty (or cheap).
I recommend that you also consider the Quad actives.
You can often find them on Audiogon as well.
--
NewBuyer
NewBuyer's Profile:
mswlogo;378171 Wrote:
It completely depends on what is using the digitized data.
Let's say I have a simple sine wave of amplitude 1.
And sample it at 0, Pi, and 2PI. Then I'll get 0, 0, 0.
Now let's increase the sampling rate to 5 samples.
0, pi/2, pi, 3pi/2, 2pi. Then I'll get 0,
36 matches
Mail list logo
