Apesbrain wrote:
Do a Google search on designing a good listening room and you'll find
many resources.
'Ethan Winer's book' (http://www.ethanwiner.com/book.htm) (and his
'forum' (http://forums.musicplayer.com/ubbthreads.php/forums/24/1)) are
a good resource too.
netchord wrote:
you're assuming that because two files are identical, they must sound
identical to different users. you're not accounting for the key
variable, the hearing of the listener. until you can measure that, you
can't say with authority they sound the same, no matter how the file
There are also artistic choices done by the mixing engineer and
producer.
A modern recording may be beyond reproach technically , but the actual
sounds put on to it may sound as you discribe .
Some one else on this forum made the remark that some 50's microphones
had a bit of a hot shouty sound
Does your amp have balance tone controls? That's the usual way to
tweak the sound according to room acoustics - something modern amp
designers often forget in the quest for a trendy minimalist design.
jezbo's Profile:
One of the best replies:
If you don't hear USB cable differences your system is not up to task.
probedb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7825
View this thread:
Mnyb wrote:
This is my pow that the media is almost unimportant , the actual playing
,recording ,producing makes the record.
Not if it happens to be a cd , lp , cassette , or hirez file .
Audiophiles often obsess over the carrier format, hence why HD tracks
seem to able to (re)sell any
jezbo wrote:
Does your amp have balance tone controls? That's the usual way to
tweak the sound according to room acoustics - something modern amp
designers often forget in the quest for a trendy minimalist design.
It's a Marantz home theater receiver so yes it does. It's got 3
different
probedb wrote:
One of the best replies:
If you don't hear USB cable differences your system is not up to task.
:-)
The best audiophile response as always... For digital cables, because
they really have nothing else to complain of it essentially comes down
to ONE thing:
If you don't hear
darrenyeats wrote:
I've had some contact lately with people in the business and often the
mastering for vinyl and digital is done by different people. The people
doing the digital mastering are very conscious of the sound for airplay.
This simple fact is probably doing the most damage. It
darrenyeats wrote:
I've had some contact lately with people in the business and often the
mastering for vinyl and digital is done by different people. The people
doing the digital mastering are very conscious of the sound for airplay.
This simple fact is probably doing the most damage. It
Mnyb wrote:
There are also artistic choices done by the mixing engineer and
producer.
A modern recording may be beyond reproach technically , but the actual
sounds put on to it may sound as you discribe .
Some one else on this forum made the remark that some 50's microphones
had a bit of
Julf wrote:
So what you are actually verifying is that non-blind, non-controlled
listening is actually totally useless for evaluating a system, because
two systems producing exactly the same sound wave will sound different
anyway?
no; that one system will sound different to two people.
netchord wrote:
no; that one system will sound different to two people.
True...
But that's such a broad generalization, doesn't this also mean that
there's no point doing any objective or subjective reviews at all if at
the end of the day, good sound is essentially idiosyncratic?
Sound different too hmm we are still in the domain of perceptual
errors . Is reality completely uninteresting ?
If you think it's sound different it is not necessarily so.
Foobar 2000 has an abx plugin that is useful .
Otherwise I suggests a random playlist with mixed aiff FLAC versions
heisenberg wrote:
Is it possible to then convert the LP to digital without losing the
clarity of the signal? If yes, the above would actually be good news.
Instead of buying the crapy digital master, we could buy the LP and
convert it at home, no?
Or am I daydreaming here?
Absolutely ,
Archimago wrote:
True...
But that's such a broad generalization that if taken to the extreme
conclusion, doesn't this also mean that there's no point doing any
objective or subjective reviews at all if at the end of the day, good
sound is essentially idiosyncratic?
of course not- I'm
netchord wrote:
of course not- I'm only trying to underscore that *in a given system*
differences in file type might be audible. the consensus from the rest
of you seems to be that ALAC, AIFF, WAVE, FLAC will always sound the
same, no matter the system.
i don't believe the latter
This guy has posted some good articles on the CA site. Had to post a
thank you personally!
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/520-fun-digital-audio-%96-bit-perfect-audibility-testing/
For him, audibility threshold from 10-12 bits and 1 dB volume. Sounds
very reasonable, unlike apparently
Particularly where computers are directly involved, don't discount the
possibility that two different applications are being used for two
different file types. Volume, tone adjustments, etc. could then be
involved, even though the same bits (after decompression in some cases)
are being used.
It's very easy to discount the possibility It has been done many times
with correctly setup stuff.
Did not archimago actually measured this ? WAV and FLAC actually
produces exactly the same output.
If you hear differences between lossless formats the overwhelmingly
likely explanations are .
1.
Mnyb wrote:
Did not archimago actually measured this ? WAV and FLAC actually
produces exactly the same output.
A good example of this was in the TT3 mod measurements:
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/measurements-logitech-touch-tt3-mod.html
Stock Touch was with FLAC decoding on the
Archimago wrote:
A good example of this was in the TT3 mod measurements:
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/measurements-logitech-touch-tt3-mod.html
Stock Touch was with FLAC decoding on the hardware, TT3 measurements
with server-side decoding. No difference in measurements in either
22 matches
Mail list logo
