arnyk wrote:
> A theory that is easy to prove with sighted evaluations. Good luck
> finding audible evidence of it by proper scientific means.
>
> Back in the days of 286s, CPUs may have actually been that limited in
> terms of CPU power.
>
> In reality, there are many interruptions to the musi
ralphpnj wrote:
>
>
> The reason why tagged files sound worse than untagged files is because
> of the added load on the CPU that tagging presents. With an untagged wav
> or aiff file the musical data flows uninterrupted, whereas with a tagged
> wav or aiff file the CPU must interrupt the flow o
ralphpnj wrote:
> My guess would be Apple TV. That said it is rather sad that the whole
> LMS ecosystem is being basically ignored by high end manufacturers. On
> the plus side I did read in the latest Stereophile that the Antipodes DX
> Reference music server
> (http://www.antipodesaudio.com/ant
Julf wrote:
> I guess not - another difference is that I acknowledge and account for
> mine.
do you enjoy the music more, constantly checking your audio privilege?
--
4 TB Drobo-->FW 800-->mac mini-->Ethernet
Transporter--> Wireworld Eclipse 6 coax-->Meridian G61
G61--> Nordost Red Dawn-->Pri
netchord wrote:
> i don't suffer from yours.
I guess not - another difference is that I acknowledge and account for
mine.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many peop
Audiotic wrote:
> :-)
>
> I don't believe in differences between the lossless file formats. So
> we're on the same page. I just wasn't sure on your post either - hey, us
> "foreigners" might not always get the subtleties the english language
> allows... :-)
No problem! It's hard to convey the s
Julf wrote:
> Unfortunately we all suffer from cognitive bias.
i don't suffer from yours.
--
4 TB Drobo-->FW 800-->mac mini-->Ethernet
Transporter--> Wireworld Eclipse 6 coax-->Meridian G61
G61--> Nordost Red Dawn-->Primare 30.3
Primare-->Ocos--Vienna Acoustics Beethoven/Maestro
-
ralphpnj wrote:
> I don't know how to properly answer your question since I don't know
> just much of all the other audiophile nonsense out there that you
> believe, in other words, are you one of those kool-aid drinking
> audiophiles or are you somewhat more reasonable.
>
> I meant my prior pos
netchord wrote:
> i don't have synesthesia.
Unfortunately we all suffer from cognitive bias.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
--
Julf wrote:
> Did you listen with your ears or your eyes?
i don't have synesthesia.
--
4 TB Drobo-->FW 800-->mac mini-->Ethernet
Transporter--> Wireworld Eclipse 6 coax-->Meridian G61
G61--> Nordost Red Dawn-->Primare 30.3
Primare-->Ocos--Vienna Acoustics Beethoven/Maestro
---
Audiotic wrote:
> And how could tagging influence the sound?? The tags are not in the
> audiostream.
I don't know how to properly answer your question since I don't know
just much of all the other audiophile nonsense out there that you
believe, in other words, are you one of those kool-aid drink
netchord wrote:
> on my system, AIF sounds better.
Better than wav?
I must confess that tagged wav or aiff files sound much worse than
tagged flac or Apple lossless files. There is what sounds to me like a
typewriter in the background. Please note that it is very faint and only
someone with hig
And how could tagging influence the sound?? The tags are not in the
audiostream.
Marantz NA-11S1 PCM/DSD streamer with Squeezebox Touch front-end -
Marantz UD9004 / AV8801 / MM8003 & CI Audio D-200 MkII (front only) -
Nubert NuVero & R.E.L. R-528SE - Siltech & ProLine custom made Silver &
Gold,
netchord wrote:
> on my system, AIF sounds better.
Did you listen with your ears or your eyes?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
ralphpnj wrote:
> Then rip and tag to Apple Lossless
on my system, AIF sounds better.
--
4 TB Drobo-->FW 800-->mac mini-->Ethernet
Transporter--> Wireworld Eclipse 6 coax-->Meridian G61
G61--> Nordost Red Dawn-->Primare 30.3
Primare-->Ocos--Vienna Acoustics Beethoven/Maestro
-
Archimago wrote:
> Hey man, today's your lucky day then!
>
> Go compress some to FLAC and enjoy the same sound at 1/2 the space! No
> need to upgrade storage capacity for awhile, faster and easier to
> backup, and excellent tagging features of course...
>
> Everything to gain, nothing to lose.
netchord wrote:
> ripping/tagging FLAC on a Mac is challenging.
Then rip and tag to Apple Lossless
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. &
sub
Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub
Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energ
Archimago wrote:
> Sadly Ralph, I think DLNA is all we're gonna get in the forseeable
> future.
>
> Anyone know if there's actual development on anything else that could
> supplant this "universal" standard at some point?
My guess would be Apple TV. That said it is rather sad that the whole
LMS
ralphpnj wrote:
> In case you haven't being keeping up with the things in world of high
> end audio it now seems that for some reason (my guess is lack of
> advertising dollars) the Transporter is no longer a piece of high end
> audio equipment. In addition it also now seems that the only two
> "
netchord wrote:
> i'm indifferent, although i'd be marginally happier if it weren't the
> case, since my library would take up ~1/2 the space.
Hey man, today's your lucky day then!
Go compress some to FLAC and enjoy the same sound at 1/2 the space! No
need to upgrade storage capacity for awhile
netchord wrote:
> transporter doesn't support USB.
In case you haven't being keeping up with the things in world of high
end audio it now seems that for some reason (my guess is lack of
advertising dollars) the Transporter is no longer a piece of high end
audio equipment. In addition it also now
Julf wrote:
> If it makes you happy...
i'm indifferent, although i'd be marginally happier if it weren't the
case, since my library would take up ~1/2 the space.
--
4 TB Drobo-->FW 800-->mac mini-->Ethernet
Transporter--> Wireworld Eclipse 6 coax-->Meridian G61
G61--> Nordost Red Dawn-->Prima
philippe_44 wrote:
> Just for curiosity, for you, if I stream a file from Paris to New York,
> once in flac and once in wav and if that file is processed by LMS in New
> York before being sent in PCM (both cases) to a transporter on the New
> York kcal home network, will it sound different
i've
philippe_44 wrote:
> large part of my academic background is in correction codes theory ...
But that only means you think you understand the theory. Science can't
explain everything, the theory is only a theory anyway, you can't
measure art, and music behaves differently from data. :)
"To try
philippe_44 wrote:
> Some might have misunderstood my question :) I'm not seeking for a
> response to the technical question (large part of my academic background
> is in correction codes theory ...), but I'm trying to gauge the "belief
> mindset" of who said that wav and flac are different and t
Greg Erskine wrote:
> I have it on good authority that you need to zip the file before
> transmitting over the internet, but you must not compress the file,
> so just a zero compressed zip file. Apparently the zip header protects
> the file from damage that routers, switches and other network
26 matches
Mail list logo
