mlsstl;585061 Wrote:
> In other words, you're the biggest variable in your system!
>
> ...QUOTE]
>
> Hurrah! - wisdom.
>
> Human psychology is such that we find it incredibly hard to admit this
> simple truth and always want to lay the blame elsewhere. Far too often
> we need look inwards for
magiccarpetride;585702 Wrote:
> There is a difference between me listening to the recording in a sort of
> a 'gestalt' way (where I'm listening with my entire body and soul and
> mind open to bask in the music), vs listening to it in a 'lab rat'
> mode. I detest and resent being put into the 'lab
earwaxer9;585730 Wrote:
> ... Vinyl is superior to digital in some areas due to the non step like
> nature of analog vs. digital...
I trust you realise this is simply not true?
Information Theory explains the maths.
The fact that a good needle-drop is possible proves it. Nothing
essential is lo
The fact that there is so much discussion here shows how much individual
interpretation plays a role.
I get into these discussions with those that are set on the
"superiority" of vinyl over digital. Vinyl is superior to digital in
some areas due to the non step like nature of analog vs. digital.
Robin Bowes;585704 Wrote:
> On 28/10/10 23:27, magiccarpetride wrote:
>
> > There is a difference between me listening to the recording in a
> sort
> > of a 'gestalt' way (where I'm listening with my entire body and soul
> > and mind open to bask in the music), vs listening to it in a 'lab
> rat
magiccarpetride;585706 Wrote:
> Good riddance.
MCR, you ought to post your experiences over on hydrogen audio. I think
you would really benefit from that experience.
--
tomjtx
tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices
Robin Bowes;585704 Wrote:
> I care not.
Good riddance.
--
magiccarpetride
magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=
On 28/10/10 23:27, magiccarpetride wrote:
> There is a difference between me listening to the recording in a sort
> of a 'gestalt' way (where I'm listening with my entire body and soul
> and mind open to bask in the music), vs listening to it in a 'lab rat'
> mode. I detest and resent being put in
On 28/10/10 21:54, magiccarpetride wrote:
>
> Robin Bowes;585602 Wrote:
>> Why don't you try doing that and see if you hear the same
>> (obvious) differences between file B & file C that you heard
>> between file A & file B?
>
> I've tried it and I hear the hi rez sounding different.
Great!
> O
bluegaspode;585691 Wrote:
> Why didn't you feel the same pressure, when you listened to Phils
> example ?
> I guess you started both streams as well so where is the difference ?
>
> The nice thing is that with Foobar you can do it all alone (no
> spotlights involved).
> No need to ask a friend
mlsstl;585679 Wrote:
> That's the first introduction of a 56Kbps mp3 into the discussion.
>
> Does that mean I should just toss my 1938 recording of Rachmaninoff
> playing Rachmaninoff because it came from a '78?
I would venture out to say that the 1938 recording at 78 rpm sounds
wy superi
magiccarpetride;585676 Wrote:
>
> I'm the same in the ABX situation. My ears suddenly go all wooden, and
> I start panicking. Can't cope with that kind of a pressure. Useless
Why didn't you feel the same pressure, when you listened to Phils
example ?
I guess you started both streams as wel
mlsstl;585679 Wrote:
> That's the first introduction of a 56Kbps mp3 into the discussion.
>
> Does that mean I should just toss my 1938 recording of Rachmaninoff
> playing Rachmaninoff because it came from a '78?
>
> I don't recall anyone in this discussion claiming a low bit rate mp3 is
> th
magiccarpetride;585665 Wrote:
> Baloney. Medium IS the message. Don't matter how brilliant your master
> may be, if you're delivering it on a 56 Kbps mp3 medium, it's gonna
> suck ass!
That's the first introduction of a 56Kbps mp3 into the discussion.
Does that mean I should just toss my 1938
magiccarpetride;585665 Wrote:
> Baloney. Medium IS the message. Don't matter how brilliant your master
> may be, if you're delivering it on a 56 Kbps mp3 medium, it's gonna
> suck ass!
Total and utter nonsense - sorry. a crap song at 24/96 is still as crap
a song as it is at 16/44.1. Please don'
bluegaspode;585673 Wrote:
> I did understand in your other post, that this was because ABX couldn't
> take care of magic moments. Fair enough.
>
> But in this case where it's just about whether someone can hear a
> difference in the file format or not ? Why not exclude the expectation
> bias her
magiccarpetride;585658 Wrote:
> I don't subscribe to the phony ABX methodology.
I did understand in your other post, that this was because ABX couldn't
take care of magic moments. Fair enough.
But in this case where it's just about whether someone can hear a
difference in the file format or no
Phil Leigh;585659 Wrote:
> Get hold of DBPoweramp... it's very good.
Thanks, so I will go for a) and down sample myself.
I realize now that DBPoweramp can also change sampling rate, I just
user it for rip and retagg until yet. A very good piece of SW.
--
your momo
magiccarpetride;585658 Wrote:
> I don't subscribe to the phony ABX methodology. It introduces its own
> expectation bias into the equation, increases the stress level on the
> subject, and these factors in the end skew up the final results.
> Nothing solid and conclusive could ever come out of th
michael123;585649 Wrote:
> ..and agree with you, good mastering is more important than format
Baloney. Medium IS the message. Don't matter how brilliant your master
may be, if you're delivering it on a 56 Kbps mp3 medium, it's gonna
suck ass!
--
magiccarpetride
---
michael123;585649 Wrote:
> because we discuss bits every Monday and Thursday :)
>
> ..and agree with you, good mastering is more important than format
> [ although I have maybe 500 high-res albums digitally in my library ]
me too :-)
Remind me - what do we discuss on Fridays? :-)
--
Phil Le
My piont was that 24/96 pcm probably is/was a better format than dsd
r.i.p dvd-a .
Hello 24/96 downloads :-) .
It works on computers and streaming music players, much more in line
what the audiophile needs 2010.
Sacd, you need a disc player ? dsd is made to tie you to a disc player,
it's copy pro
your momo;585648 Wrote:
> I'm looking for music tracks on Linn Records that I listen in a show,
> some where advertised to be new recorded in 24/192.
> Since I would like to take best possible quality but as Transporter
> only can 24/96, what is then best pick ?
> a) Original 24/192 and down samp
garym;585651 Wrote:
> magiccarpetride: Did you do an ABX of the two samples. How many trials
> and what were the results. Foobar2000 has a nice utility for doing ABX
> trials. One can easily avoid the expectation bias issue with a ABX test
> and enough trials. If you tell me that you could pick o
magiccarpetride;585646 Wrote:
> OK, I did that, and if I now tell people that I still hear the
> differences, I'd be flatly accused of suffering from the expectation
> bias. You, on the other hand, are for some weird reason exempt from
> such accusations. You claim that you can't hear the differe
Robin Bowes;585602 Wrote:
> Why don't you try doing that and see if you hear the same (obvious)
> differences between file B & file C that you heard between file A &
> file B?
I've tried it and I hear the hi rez sounding different. Of course, that
is completely irrelevant because I WANT to hear
magiccarpetride;585646 Wrote:
> OK, I did that, and if I now tell people that I still hear the
> differences, I'd be flatly accused of suffering from the expectation
> bias. You, on the other hand, are for some weird reason exempt from
> such accusations. You claim that you can't hear the differe
michael123;585635 Wrote:
> boring guys..
because we discuss bits every Monday and Thursday :)
..and agree with you, good mastering is more important than format
[ although I have maybe 500 high-res albums digitally in my library ]
--
michael123
---
I'm looking for music tracks on Linn Records that I listen in a show,
some where advertised to be new recorded in 24/192.
Since I would like to take best possible quality but as Transporter
only can 24/96, what is then best pic ?
a)Original 24/192 and down sample it myself to 96kHz once for all, b
Phil Leigh;585606 Wrote:
> This fellow Phil here... :-)
>
>
> You are so confused, I'm not sure where to begin!
>
> 1) The two recordings you uploaded are completely different masters.
> Yes the 24/96 file sounds great and better than the redbook one.
>
> 2) The reason the 24/96 file sounds g
michael123;585635 Wrote:
> boring guys..
because?
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
Touch(wired/XP) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF
Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 sy
boring guys..
--
michael123
michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82870
__
Mnyb;585620 Wrote:
> So analog to DSD then to 24/96 ?
>
> Master pedigree hmm .
>
> Is not DSD 20 bit something in resolution SACD except for in the
> highest treble where artifacts can creep in at higher level than 16/44,
> but thats SACD . Maybe studio DSD is better ?
>
> But I read somewher
Phil Leigh;585517 Wrote:
> Interesting point. The 24/96 does have frequencies up to 40K at
> potentially audible levels (-80dB) but I suspect these are artefacts of
> the DSD conversion process - .
So analog to DSD then to 24/96 ?
Master pedigree hmm .
Is not DSD 20 bit something in resolution
You can download the downsample here - It's only the first 30 seconds of
the track
http://rapidshare.com/files/427655085/getzdown.wav
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
Touch(wired/XP) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) +
adamdea;585139 Wrote:
> I am coming to terms with my disappointment at not receiving a reply
> from JA, although I know he's very busy.
My apologies for not responding sooner. I was indeed busy, as the
recent RMAF knocked a hole in my magazine work schedule that it takes a
while to fill.
> . I
By the way - I still have no bouquet of flowers, and I have spent 20 odd
years+ messing around with digital recording in the studio and I "know"
- to my own personal satisfaction - that recording, mixing and
mastering in 24/96 or 24/88.2 is a fine idea and releasing stuff in
16/44.1 preserves the
magiccarpetride;585595 Wrote:
> I'm beginning to actually like it how double standards get applied with
> such emotional intensity here. So here is how things have unfolded in
> this thread so far:
>
> 1. I submit it to the community of fellow audiophiles that, after
> prolonged skepticism, I fi
I see andynormancx has already replied, and I'm sure others will too.
You are totally missing a very important issue. Let's go over this again
and see if you can get it.
You made available two files, let's call them A & B.
File A is redbook - 16/44.1
File B is hi-res - 24/96
Both files appea
andynormancx;585597 Wrote:
> No, you did not.
>
> What you tested was a hi-res copy of one master against a red book copy
> of a different master. You weren't comparing hi-res to red book, you
> were comparing two different masters.
>
> Do you still not understand that ?
Magiccarpetride - that
Magiccarpetride:
The difference between you and Phil is:
Phil compare stuff being equal.
You compared two different things (and of course find differences). We
are not talking about expectation bias here. Even Phil did find
difference in your original recordings and we all believe you that for
th
magiccarpetride;585595 Wrote:
> I'm beginning to actually like it how double standards get applied with
> such emotional intensity here. So here is how things have unfolded in
> this thread so far:
>
> 1. I submit it to the community of fellow audiophiles that, after
> prolonged skepticism, I fi
magiccarpetride;585595 Wrote:
> I finally got to test, side-by-side, the qualitative differences between
> the red book and the hi-rez format.
No, you did not.
What you tested was a hi-res copy of one master against a red book copy
of a different master. You weren't comparing hi-res to red book
bluegaspode;585489 Wrote:
> The people are trying to tell you that:
>
> Chesky red book sounds exactly the same as Chesky hi-rez .
> If you reread your first post you came to the conclusion that hi-rez
> generally sounds better than red book. This assumption is wrong if
> Chesky red book sounds
Phil Leigh;585519 Wrote:
> On the contrary, the "science" of audio is very well understood. It is
> the psychology that remains a mystery...
>
> As with any human sensory input (except maybe touch?), we can measure
> and engineer the inputs to extremely high degrees of sophistication. We
> can't
On 28/10/10 14:53, earwaxer9 wrote:
>
> firmware and software have to work together - they have to change
> together to work.
Statement one: true
Statement two: false.
You can use firmware 84 with earlier versions of the SqueezeboxServer
software if you know how.
R.
--
"Feed that ego and you
earwaxer9;585575 Wrote:
> firmware and software have to work together - they have to change
> together to work.
Not always. depends if there has been a change that impacts the "API"
between them...
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what y
firmware and software have to work together - they have to change
together to work.
--
earwaxer9
System: modified Winsome Labs Mouse, modified Maggie MMG's, Transporter,
HSU sub 12, MSB DAC to 500 watt sub slave amp, JPS labs power cords,
Silver audio interconnect, Audioquest Granite speaker c
48 matches
Mail list logo
