ralphpnj wrote:
> Remember that in the case of audio, "source" is almost the same as
> "music" (I say almost because there other types of audio besides music)
> and the best sounding source may or not be the best music, i.e. think of
> those horrible "Super Discs" lists published in The Absolute
ralphpnj wrote:
> So does that mean that Pink Floyd's "The Wall" is double brick walled?
Yes, well maybe the re-master is, he-he!
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thre
ralphpnj wrote:
> and spending time and money hunting down a slightly improved versions of
> recordings I already own seems fairly pointless.
Hmm, I would say it's not pointless for recordings you listen to often.
The problem is identifying the best versions ... I am always worried
about shellin
Well, I am all for finding better masters, whatever they are. Obviously
not everyone always agrees what the best ones are, but it is a fruitful
pursuit if you're after better SQ ... In fact, it probably doesn't make
sense to buy expensive equipment without trying to feed it the best
source.
Darren
ralphpnj wrote:
> Wow it looks like the lossy version is slightly better :)
I've seen brick-wall waveforms in 16/44 turn into slightly less bricky
brick-wall waveforms when transcoded to MP3 ... I think it's an artifact
of the MP3 conversion, I'm not sure it's a "good" artifact but I'm
pretty su
Julf wrote:
> Well, yes, the Tact would indicate that, but it only looks at the file
> format, not the actual sound contents of the file. The reason to believe
> it is not is that there have been so many examples of
> "standard-resolution" material upsampled (and zero-padded from 16 bits
> to 24
I've had some pretty eye-opening (humbling) experiences with
back-to-back sighted versus blind listening for digital sources. I'm now
convinced the differences are so subtle, it is better to rely on
measurements than sighted listening as a guide to line level equipment.
Also feature set is a key f
jh901 wrote:
> I'd recommend the Beatles mono box set. The original '87 CDs are stereo
> mixes (which are not definitive) and were poorly mastered. I'm not sure
> why you would listen to The Beatles only for "nostalgia" though!? We
> don't pop on Beethoven or Mozart for nostalgia do we?
>
I r
It's more than just distortion measurements. Some types of crossover are
only possible done actively e.g. time delay, all-pass phase correction
etc. Also it is about driver transient control which might not be
obvious from steady state distortion measurements. And also dynamic
range is better too
I agree, Elvis and other 50s stuff can sound really good, actually a lot
better than modern stuff. A case of less is more ... SOTA sound
processing can't replace correct acoustics, mic positioning and skill
... and huge dynamic range doesn't help modern recordings if it's passed
through a compress
ralphpnj wrote:
> Tesco is wasting their money since American Idol already fills that
> roll.
Fills that roll? With cheese?
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/mem
garym wrote:
> correct. So none of these mp3 vs FLAC tests are valid if the comparison
> is to spotify (not to mention the evident extra compression folks have
> found in spotify files)
Please see my previous post re: dynamic compression.
---
I'm not sure I understand this conversation ... Spotify is Ogg Vorbis?
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98374
___
Julf wrote:
> Didn't someone show that spotify was using dynamic compression?
As far as I can tell they don't.
However, there are PLENTY of examples where the master they have ripped
is different to the master for my particular CD rip (and as always this
can manifest in dynamic compression, EQ
ralphpnj wrote:
> Doesn't have to be a single manufacturer, it could just as well be a
> partnership between a speaker manufacturer and a power amp manufacturer.
>
Ralph, good idea. I think PMC partner with Bryston, now you mention it.
Darren
--
ralphpnj wrote:
> True but in the case of pro audio equipment the tool is a much more
> important part of the task. For example an audio clown could just as
> well produce drivel using a quill pen whereas a recording engineer could
> not use a 2" full range speaker with no enclosure and expect to
Julf wrote:
> But to see if you got it right, you had to look? Or did you write down
> your opinions, and cross-check them afterwards against the list of
> tracks actually played?
Interesting results but, yes, I would like to know the details of how it
was done too.
Darren
SBGK wrote:
>
> I would be worried if I couldn't tell the difference between wav of any
> resolution and 320 mp3, that's like saying you can't tell the difference
> between medium wave radio/internet stream and FM radio.
SBGK,
That is, at the least, an exaggeration isn't it?!
Darren
--
Jh901,
To be fair, I would expect 12000 pounds worth of power amp and passive
speaker to beat a 850 pounds active monitor. For me the point of going
active is to improve performance in several important ways but without
compromising other aspects like the overall design such as roll off and
crosso
darrenyeats wrote:
> Just checked--it seems I've broken my own rules with one of my favourite
> albums! Slapped wrist for me.
>
> I own the "Rudy Van Geller" remaster which, if we put aside the SACD for
> a moment, is not the best CD to own. Indeed both the RVG
He-he!
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98334
__
ralphpnj wrote:
>
> Perhaps Darren is one of those audiophiles who listens only to
> "audiophile" recordings, in which case he would need lots of "flavor"
> added to the music in order to make it even remotely listenable :)
Ouch! Nah I know you're kidding, don't worry!
I own active ATCs, 'nuff
Mnyb wrote:
> But does it sound as the artist and producers intended ? that's another
> question, and I think not .
> That's why I think that introducing "flavour" is never the rigth thing
> it can realy not be the rigth one .
>
But music (and hi-fi) should bring us pleasure, otherwise why both
I would agree with that summary. But that could mean that most of your
favourite music sounds better and more real, right? It's a valid choice
I think.
The problem comes when people chose that route whilst thinking it's
objectively better. It leads to the classic arguments.
Darren
Sent from my H
Hold on chaps!
If you subscribe to "high fidelity is fidelity to the recording" then I
agree with your valve skepticism.
If you subscribe to "high fidelity is getting as many of my favourite
recordings to sound reminiscent of real life" then valves have their
place! I have experienced them doing
Having auditioned the Linkwitz Orion, which I thought was truly special,
I would love to hear the latest LX521. Both are active open-baffle
designs.
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/
Darren
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.
Anyone spending a lot of money on audio would do well to read up on
placebo effect, audibility, acoustics and principles of pro audio
loudspeaker design.
If someone wants to drop 300k on a system all power to them. But I
suggest a room construction from the ground up, bespoke acoustic
treatment a
Guess what I'm listening to now thanks to this conversation!
Darren
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://fo
ralphpnj wrote:
> Isn't trying to get good sound from the seminal grunge rock band a
> little like trying to make a silk purse from sow's ear? Mind you I'm not
> speaking of the quality of the music but only the quality and intention
> of the -sound- of the recording. Grunge is grunge, is it not?
Clive,
Thanks for the clarification.
I'm hardly pro-vinyl but I read now and then about a vinyl master being
less "hot" than the CD e.g. Nirvana's Nevermind (I have the Mofi CD and
it's definitely less compressed than the standard CD, but I've never
heard the vinyl myself).
Darren
Sent from my H
ralphpnj wrote:
> So by that measure CDs are also a crock :)
Ralph,
Oh! No, what I mean is the "perceived superiority as a format of SACD
and vinyl" is a crock. It's all about the mastering etc.
Darren
darrenyeats's Profi
ralphpnj wrote:
>
> That happens to be one of the records I was referring to. I also saw the
> NYC show from Van's 1973 tour. One of the best concerts I've ever seen.
Yep, and only one out of the three (!) CD releases that I own sound any
good!
Darren
-
Re: Van Morrison live on CD see my post
http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1941893
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=
Yes, vinyl masters can be better despite vinyl itself being a crock.
That was the point I was trying to make anyway!
Darren
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices
Personally I believe all high rez DELIVERY formats and vinyl are a
crock.
However, if the best masters are going onto SACD then on a practical
level one has to accept this fact. (I don't own an SACD player but this
would be the reason for me to buy one. Maybe I will buy a PS3 for
ripping instead.
jh901 wrote:
>
> As for Idle Moments, I recommend the Analogue Productions Hybrid SACD
> mastered by Kevin Gray. No SACD player? Well, the redbook layer will
> do it for ya!
Just checked--it seems I've broken my own rules with one of my favourite
albums! Slapped wrist for me.
I own the "Rudy
Mnyb wrote:
> There are dac measuring better than that so a bit over enthusiastic ,
> but the performance is such that it's very likely that you cant tell a
> much better or slightly worse dac from it during a real test where for
> example the price and brands are unknown to the testers .
> And
Ralph, thanks, which sites do you recommend?
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/sh
jh901 wrote:
>
> As for Idle Moments, I recommend the Analogue Productions Hybrid SACD
> mastered by Kevin Gray. No SACD player? Well, the redbook layer will
> do it for ya!
Thank you sir!
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
-
ralphpnj wrote:
> Darren, does mean that I should change my previous post to read:
>
> And speaking of comparisons, until someone conducts a valid double blind
> test which proves otherwise, I will continue believe, based solely on
> the very clear scientific facts, that the very lowly, as in $3
I recommend you read Ken Rockwell's review of the Cambridge Audio DAC
Magic Plus:
http://kenrockwell.com/audio/cambridge/dacmagic-plus.htm
A surprising performer.
Darren
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.co
Definitely I agree about the room...end sound quality is defined as much
by the room as by the equipment. I've done what I can in my own
home...but like you, I can dream.
Also, as you have mentioned before, probably the best bang for buck is
to find better masters of your favourite recordings, wh
jh901 wrote:
> Skeptical, sure, but certain? And of course there are many incredible
> 3-ways out there at under $15,000. You must listen and decide which
> compromise works best for you. If you believe that the best of all
> worlds is possible at this price point, then I'd like to know the ma
A 3 way approach in general has several advantages and disadvantages but
many of those disadvantages don't apply to actives. If you are talking
passive, a 2 way approach has more merit.
Darren
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
--
At that price for speakers and accompanying amp, I would seek an active
design instead.
Darren
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/sho
Archimago wrote:
> Hey, I remember those "super tweeters" about 15 years ago :-) I rigged
> up a couple for 25kHz+ playback... Didn't go anywhere of course, but
> that was another interesting chapter in this audiophile disease...
Agreed, it's a bit silly to focus on 30kHz when there's room for
i
I suspect it's like asking if a 100 metre Olympic final is cancelled
when one of the runners takes more than a minute to cross the line.
No, it isn't cancelled completely but it never happens with Olympic
runners.
Today's hardware is more than up to the task of dealing with piddly
audio streams.
This is a matter of taste, I think.
Those who value accuracy, get a kick out of hearing the heterogeneity in
recordings and perhaps have less of a problem ignoring bad sound quality
in their favourite music. More left brain types.
Those who value subjectively good sound, get a kick out of hearin
garym wrote:
> this does exclude the possible interpretation that you simply *think*
> you hear a difference versus your ability to hear a difference under a
> more controlled environment.
I know you know this! But to make it clear to all, when people hear
differences due to psychological factor
Mnyb wrote:
>
> But given identical files i would not be surprised if one letter A or B
> is preferred over another people work that way .
>
As individuals yes. But as a group, if a statistically significant
number of people chose one or the other then that is interesting.
Mnyb wrote:
>
> Th
I didn't respond to the survey because I could not establish a
preference.
However, I randomised "Keine Zeit" through playlists and listened a
total of 10 times (i.e. no "cherry picking" a sequence). I picked out
one that sounded "whiter" as A, 9 times out of the 10 tries. So I'm
pretty sure I co
ralphpnj wrote:
> Check your email.
Hi Ralph, can you PM me too, please?
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=97944
Mnyb wrote:
>
> But some are converting DSD to PCM which in itself is ok and possibly
> transparent ,but you should implement some kind of filter when doing
> this the easiest way is apparently to use 24/88.2 then it is brick
> walled at 44.1 kHz or use some other algorithm to mimic the filter i
ralphpnj wrote:
> Of course you are correct, however I wrote that statement in my best
> audiophile voice.
>
> To continue in character: not only will the (exact) copy sound vastly
> inferior to the original SACD but just how much different and bad it
> sounds depends on the disc used, the softw
Interesting for me, in that I decided a while ago that 192 VBR was my
line in the sand for mobile use.
Darren
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slim
Mnyb wrote:
>
> There simply is no reason for passive speakers :)
That's my view too.
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthrea
ATC preach the following benefits of active over passive:
- Correction for phase is possible, which improves group delay and
imaging.
- Passive crossovers are designed for a response at a given input power
but their response changes as input power changes, active crossovers
have a stable response
jh901 wrote:
> This is an audiophile forum, right? It would be nice if the
> non-audiophiles could simply lurk rather than attempting to shout down
> the conversation.
>
> Amazing. Truly discouraging and amazing to me that the top engineers in
> the field are dismissed here. I'm left to wonde
SBGK wrote:
> I nominate JPlay v5 as the top end player, can use it with squeezelite
> to interface with LMS or use JPlaymini for best sound quality
>
> http://jplay.eu/manual/
>
> of course some of you will need to suspend your belief systems to hear
> any differences, while you guys pontifica
jh901 wrote:
> All sound quality is the same. All of it. Boom box or Wilson Audio
> with all uber hi-end electronics. The power supply designs don't
> matter. The digital circuitry doesn't matter. The analog stage, fully
> balanced or not, has no impact on sound quality. Jitter doesn't exis
Julf wrote:
> Even with those, the quality of the mastering is much more significant
> than any possible difference in resolution that you can possibly hear.
Agreed.
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/me
Hi Julf,
Julf wrote:
>
> I think that is a rather simplistic (and somewhat offensive) view of
> engineers (in the sense of "a professional practitioner of engineering,
> concerned with applying scientific knowledge, mathematics and ingenuity
> to develop solutions for technical, social and econo
mlsstl wrote:
> Your post is a good example of conflating two separate issues.
>
I think it's a really bad example of that, actually! Pick one of a
million other posts on t'internet as a good example.
One must distinguish between scientists and engineers. Scientists
conduct experiments to break
I think the facts are with the majority's side. My experience of blind
listening was educational and humbling! However, there is a bit of
glibness going on I feel because I wager none of us listened blind when
choosing our loudspeakers.
Now, the traditional excuse is that the differences between
What is ludicrous is that 16/44 (much less PCM in general) is far from
the main problem these days. The problem is modern recording practises
like close mic, multi-mic, dynamic compression etc.
Recording music in a more live, natural way requires so much more time
and money. Modern processing is
PS: On top of the question of which radiation pattern is best (this
depends on room and application) current loudspeaker tech is full of
compromises. Open versus closed baffle, single versus multiple driver,
dynamic versus electrostatic. Each has pros and cons. There isn't one
technology that can
jh901 wrote:
> LOL. I wonder some of you guys have reached adulthood yet. Good
> grief.
>
> I don't care what anyone thinks about Focal, but if you believe it is a
> boutique outfit, then you are looney toons. It is among the largest
> hi-end speaker manufacturers in the world. I would not r
I need popcorn!
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk 2
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=96407
__
Cambridge Audio DAC Magic Plus measures very well.
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.
ralphpnj wrote:
> True Darren but also keep in mind that even the best mastering cannot
> rescue a bad recording. For example even the superbly remastered
> collection of the original Louis Armstrong Hot Five and Hot Seven, "The
> Complete Hot Five and Hot Seven Recordings" cannot manage to provi
The most important things are recording, room acoustics, loudspeakers.
The effective SQ of a good recording on my Roberts kitchen system far
exceeds that of a poor recording on my main system. You can't un-brick
wall a brick walled remaster etc. In this sense "source first" is
correct. It's just
jh901 wrote:
> Gotta get a hi-end DAC involved. You will forget about the Transporter
> analog outs in a heartbeat. If you live anywhere within a hundred miles
> of a Cary, dCS, Playback Designs, etc dealer, then I urge you to borrow
> a burned in unit for a few hours. It will be worth it simp
Yes, last night I realised I forgot to ask about inputs. My comment
assumes also you used the same input and connecting cable both for SB3
and SBT.
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk 2
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forum
Were there any server or firmware updates around the time the crackling
appeared?
If not, it seems to me like a hardware issue in the Touch.
Darren
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2
darrenyeats's Profile:
All, I have posted some screenshots you may find interesting:
http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=128831
"Live albums and dynamic compression: CD versus DVD"
Regards, Darren
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk 2
-
http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_big_squeeze/
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=97105
__
ralphpnj wrote:
> I guess the answer would be to buy the concert DVD when available and
> rip the audio from the DVD.
I do exactly that. I can confirm Portishead New York Roseland concert
has way better audio ripped off the DVD.
Darren
--
bhaagensen wrote:
> Yes dynamics is part of most music, though there are mainstream genres
> where its less pronounced such as some noise, shoegaze, or ambient.
>
> But its this apparent obsession, c.f. loudness-debate, among audiophiles
> that puzzles me. On one hand its portraied as having ru
You guys are nailing it IMO. Mastering is the key factor for SQ, not
format.
Darren
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this t
If you read my comments they are about voice SQ in terms of realism.
Yes, I realise artists go for that sound. It may even sound good. I
stand by comments though.
Can I add, it seems many artists are trying to stand out from the crowd
by having a stylistic sound. Ironically, quiet, natural recor
This is a difficult matter. 99% of modern music has the vocal recorded
with close-mic and compressors, probably in a vocal booth with effects
added. It's incredible if you think about it.
I can certainly understand people getting frustrated with accurate
equipment because how can this be reminisc
michael123 wrote:
> treated differently or not - does not matter, that's the message I am
> trying to explain.
> 24-bit version has more meaningful data that its CD version, that's the
> fact.
> Same goes with 192/24 vs 96/24, certain albums on HDTracks do sound
> different (better or worse is a
Common sense at last. Funny how red book keeps on getting better as you
add room treatments and better loudspeakers...16/44 is by far the
smallest problem, if problem it is, in even the very best installations.
Probably the biggest barrier to realism is the way music is recorded.
Five mics for a
About the Rothwells, they do custom orders so you can pick your level of
attenuation.
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.p
Although I use Benchmark DAC1 HDR this costs a bit. For me, it makes
sense because I want all its bells and whistles, not the least what I
think of as a "proper analogue volume control" with remote. The measured
performance is good.
If you are after just a DAC but with good performance at a reaso
I agree several posters have kept to theoretical matters. But myself and
TheOctavist have given you our listening experiences, which is what you
asked for. It's up to you whether you like them or not (apparently not).
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2
---
The Touch is a good digital transport, I have no complaints. When
listening via my Benchmark DAC1 HDR, I hear no difference between it and
my old Cambridge Audio CD player. In this sense, I'm not surprised you
hear no difference between your digital sources. Then again, mine is a
stock Touch runni
IMO Spotify Premium (320 Ogg Vorbis) sounds fine.
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94978
John,
With respect (as a person knowledgeable about IT to a person who appears
knowledeable about electronics) your time would be better spent trying
to insulate the DAC from the processing-related noise, rather than
trying to characterise system settings as good or bad for sound quality.
Does you
Given that SBT can be used as digital transport into your DAC of choice,
your comment seems non-sensical to me.
pandasharka wrote:
> Those people who proffer that all streamers dish out the same music are
> simply wrong.
>
---
Does taking the p*ss count? He-he.
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.
In my opinion certain people have a deep need for a framework explaining
everything in the world and the desire to educate others about it.
In the past these people ended up as religious types but these days a
lot of them are hard core reductionist scientific types. A lot of them
tend to be binar
On a slightly different note, I think discussion is about exaggeration
of differences. I do think DACs can and do sound different. The better
they get, supposing they have been designed to be transparent, the
harder it is to hear a difference. But audibly, I believe the difference
will be subtle i
What about the possibility that the listeners are stressed because it's
very hard to tell the difference when relying purely on their ears?
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2
darrenyeats's Profile: http://fo
Benchmark DAC1 HDR. Why?
1. One box DAC/pre solution with remote analogue volume control and
balanced out
2. Preamp inputs (used for XTZ Room Analyzer)
3. Many digital inputs (USB laptop, coax from old Cambridge Audio CD
player, optical from SB Touch)
4. Headphone amp
5. Internal jumpers for conf
erland wrote:
>
> If I feel my system sounds better if I've told the world about my
> improvements, why not always tell the world about my improvements before
> I listen to the system ?
>
Because it wastes other people's time.
erland wrote:
>
> If the imaginary reality is better and more fun
H8 Crap wrote:
> I have an old Macbook running OS 10.4. I need to upgrade the software
> to sync it to the new Ipad. I'm hoping I can use the Macbook to send
> downloads to the Vortexbox or rip CD's directly. Can I then use
> squeezepad to scroll through music in my collection once everything
There is also the official Logitech Squeezebox free app. I've seen this
work fine on iPad 2 at least. (The Android app has problems with Android
4.0 at the mo'.)
Darren
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2
dar
magiccarpetride wrote:
> Double blind listening tests are tricky at best because they tend to
> deliver a lot, and I mean a lot of false positives. There are well
> documented cases where sufficiently large population of double blind
> testers were reporting significant differences in the sound q
magiccarpetride wrote:
> just because someone discloses their impressions to other like-minded
> people doesn't automatically imply that the person who chooses to
> confess feels entitled to be respected or endorsed. Humans like to
> share, sharing is the spice of life, and people should not be a
301 - 400 of 1271 matches
Mail list logo
