We can argue forever about this. It's not easy to know how the SACD and
CD layers of a dual layer disc were created. Ditto for the comparative
quality of the SACD or CD DACs in a single player!
The valid way to test the worth of the formats, and formats alone, is
by using an SACD player playing
JezA;401410 Wrote:
What Clive actually said, and what I reacted to, was that all the
hi-res formats are just a cynical way of separating punters from their
dosh.
I think that is wrong, and incredibly disrespectful of people like
Linn, Gimmell, the LSO and Chesky who release
JezA;401410 Wrote:
What Clive actually said, and what I reacted to, was that all the
hi-res formats are just a cynical way of separating punters from their
dosh.
I think that is wrong, and incredibly disrespectful of people like
Linn, Gimmell, the LSO and Chesky who release
Phil Leigh;400984 Wrote:
It's Linn - and they wouldn't do that!
This is a fantastic mastering/engineering job - as are pretty much all
Linn records. All Carol Kidd/Claire Martin/Barb Jungr releases (all
jazz btw) are great.
By the way, if you stick the Linn 24/96 masters through a
ralphpnj;401621 Wrote:
Just a quick note:
Carol Kidd/Claire Martin/Barb Jungr are not jazz singers regardless of
what Linn may want you think. They are all -cabaret singers- and they
are very good at cabaret style singing but, nonetheless, cabaret
singing is not jazz singing. As a matter
Phil Leigh;401644 Wrote:
What is the definition of jazz anyway?
Anything my wife hates.
--
cliveb
Transporter - ATC SCM100A
cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348
View this thread:
Phil Leigh;401644 Wrote:
I don't have a cabaret genre...
What's Peggy Lee then?
I'm not sure quite how the distinction works? What is the definition of
jazz anyway?
Regardless of what genre it is, I like it.
Sorry about going off topic (but the thread was beginning to veer into
navel
cliveb;401672 Wrote:
Anything my wife hates.
For me that's limited to most of the free or avant-garde jazz that so
dearly love, as in the wife always says What's that noise you're
listening now?
--
ralphpnj
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Snatch - The Transporter -
Transporter 2
opaqueice;401599 Wrote:
It may be disrespectful, but that's not the same thing as untrue.
See here: http://www.aes.org/journal/online/comment/?ID=14195
Have you tried a blind comparison between the hi-res recording and a
downsampled version of the hi-res recording? Dual layer doesn't
JezA;401677 Wrote:
That's a pretty poor experiment; they fail or refuse to specify the
equipment used, which would be sufficient to disqualify them from
publication in a more rigorous journal.
Whatever you think of the study, do you agree still that using an 16/44
ADC/DAC after the output
darrenyeats;401689 Wrote:
Whatever you think of the study, do you agree still that using an 16/44
ADC/DAC after the output of an SACD player playing an SACD layer is the
most valid way to test the formats against each other?
Darren
No.
But it is a reasonably valid way of testing a 16/44
JezA;401677 Wrote:
That's a pretty poor experiment; they fail or refuse to specify the
equipment used, which would be sufficient to disqualify them from
publication in a more rigorous journal.
In the third comment, there is a link to where they explain the the
equipment used.
Hi again JezA!
JezA;401691 Wrote:
No.
Why not?
JezA;401691 Wrote:
But it is a reasonably valid way of testing a 16/44 ADC/DAC processing
chain, presuming there is sufficient complexity in the signal you start
out with.
You saying that makes me twice as curious as to why you said no. :)
JezA;401677 Wrote:
That's a pretty poor experiment; they fail or refuse to specify the
equipment used, which would be sufficient to disqualify them from
publication in a more rigorous journal.
AFAIK the JAES is the best there is in that field, so I'm afraid you're
out of luck - there is no
Grahame;401695 Wrote:
In the third comment, there is a link to where they explain the the
equipment used.
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm
Does this re-qualify them in your eyes?
Nope. I don't know all of the recordings listed, but the two Murray
Perahia ones and Dark
Archimago;401139 Wrote:
Here's something to try - take that 24/192 file and downconvert it
(using a good program like Adobe Audition or SSRC dbPowerAmp) to
16/44.
Guy, what he said. Whatever your personal tastes, you're listening to
different masters but doing what Archimago said will solve
Mnyb;401146 Wrote:
Ok I have an outlier opinion here, i think the linn masters I sampled
sound not so good at all ? they (imho) are nothing special.
One item Barb Jungr - Walking In The Sun is rubbish, the sound is bad
I see some flat tops in audacity ? But the production and artistic
Phil Leigh;400984 Wrote:
It's Linn - and they wouldn't do that!
Sorry - I should have figured that out.
For some reason I misread Carol Kidd as Carol King, and from there
it was downhill - I assumed she had to be on some big mainstream label,
hence my shock that the CD layer wasn't mangled.
cliveb;401191 Wrote:
Sorry - I should have figured that out.
But it just goes to show that properly mastered 44.1/16 can sound
fabulous. I've always felt that way, and that all the hi-res formats
are just a cynical way of separating punters from their dosh.
How cynical! For me, it is
Im wondering about these 24/96 studio masters at Linn also. People tell
there are better sounding 16/44.1 out there of different labels, not
worth these 24/96 downloads.
One thing that comes to my mind. I see on most Linn offers the dsd logo
somewhere. May it be they record most of their stuff on
darrenyeats;401177 Wrote:
Guy, what he said. Whatever your personal tastes, you're listening to
different masters but doing what Archimago said will solve that.
Phil, you may be right about Audacity and 24-bit rendering (I haven't
checked). But if I zoom into ANY waveform, even horribly
JezA;401242 Wrote:
How cynical! For me, it is the low-resolution formats that are cynical
ways of separating punters from their dosh - I'm pretty sure that apple
make vastly more money selling lo-bit crap to the millions than Linn
will ever do selling hi-res recordings. In any case, if you
Wombat;401257 Wrote:
Im wondering about these 24/96 studio masters at Linn also. People tell
there are better sounding 16/44.1 out there of different labels, not
worth these 24/96 downloads.
One thing that comes to my mind. I see on most Linn offers the dsd logo
somewhere. May it be they
I'm not suggesting that lower resolution sources can't sound great;
indeed, I'm sure that Louis Armstrong sounded fantastic on a shellac
disc going at 78rpm, and in some ways current popular music has adapted
itself to the limitations of the rubbish media and devices through which
is is
JezA;401304 Wrote:
I'm not suggesting that lower resolution sources can't sound great;
indeed, I'm sure that Louis Armstrong sounded fantastic on a shellac
disc going at 78rpm, and in some ways current popular music has adapted
itself to the limitations of the rubbish media and devices
Phil Leigh wrote:
They HAVE to convert to PCM so we can actually use them
since Sony in its infinite wisdom decided that ripping to DSD is
prohibited.
It was part of their infinite wisdom from the start. A major rationale
for DSD was to have something that could not be ripped. They had enough
Phil Leigh;401317 Wrote:
Maybe one day Sony will wake up and smell the coffee - and then again,
maybe pigs will fly.
Pigs already are flying, and with a lot of money.
I will try to do the conversion suggested, first I must get a spidf
cable... Im very curious, and as usual skeptical,
Phil Leigh;401317 Wrote:
Linn DO use DSD to record for some titles (probably all recent/new ones
are in DSD). They HAVE to convert to PCM so we can actually use
I read the statement on their site as implying the opposite; that they
record in PCM and convert to DSD for the dual layer
I think what Clive, Phil and myself are saying is that we'd much rather
listen to well recorded music at 16/44 than poorly recorded music at
hi-rez.
The original recording - what they do to it in the studio in terms of
compression, effects, processing etc - is what makes the biggest
difference
darrenyeats;401347 Wrote:
I think what Clive, Phil and myself are saying is that we'd much rather
listen to well recorded music at 16/44 than poorly recorded music at
hi-rez.
Darren
What Clive actually said, and what I reacted to, was that all the
hi-res formats are just a cynical way
JezA;401410 Wrote:
As it happens, I've the same speakers as Clive and I hear a huge
difference between the hi-res and the red-book layers of the dual layer
cds from Linn or the LSO, and find it wonderful to have such great
experiences available for so little money.
With this Dual-Layer
Wombat;401420 Wrote:
With this Dual-Layer CDs you mean SACDs? And how do you play them? If
so, there we go again: How they convert the dsd to PCM?
There often comes up the question how they treat that process and if
they mangle it by design.
.
Yes, I mean (hybrid) SACDs. I play them on a
JezA;401432 Wrote:
Yes, I mean (hybrid) SACDs. I play them on a CD/SACD player that can
play both layers.
What evidence do you have for your accusation that either the cd layer
or the cd player is deliberately mangled by design? Give me an
example of a single recording or machine of
JezA;401432 Wrote:
Yes, I mean (hybrid) SACDs. I play them on a CD/SACD player that can
play both layers.
What evidence do you have for your accusation that either the cd layer
or the cd player is deliberately mangled by design? Give me an
example of a single recording or machine of
Can you tell the difference between 44.1/16 and 96/24?
I did an experiment tonight:
Music:
When I Dream from Carol Kidd's latest Dreamsville
44.1/16 ripped from CD layer of Hybrid SACD
96/24 downloaded from Linn Website studio master
System:
Source: Transporter
Pre: NAC202, HiCap, NAPSC
Do an ABX test and post the results, should be an interesting listening
test :)
There's recently been a big discussion around this on hydrogenaudio I
think.
--
probedb
Paul.
'last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/probedb)
probedb;400937 Wrote:
Do an ABX test and post the results, should be an interesting listening
test :)
There's recently been a big discussion around this on hydrogenaudio I
think.
I should find out how to do that. Would I need a mate to help cue the
music?
Have you done the comparison
Why did you expect to hear a difference?
--
Anne
Squeezebox 3 Stereovox XV2 Bryston B100-DA SST Martin Logan Aeon I
Anne's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10071
View this thread:
agentsmith;400932 Wrote:
Can you tell the difference between 44.1/16 and 96/24?
I did an experiment tonight:
Music:
When I Dream from Carol Kidd's latest Dreamsville
44.1/16 ripped from CD layer of Hybrid SACD
96/24 downloaded from Linn Website studio master
System:
Source:
agentsmith;400932 Wrote:
When I Dream from Carol Kidd's latest Dreamsville
44.1/16 ripped from CD layer of Hybrid SACD
96/24 downloaded from Linn Website studio master
I honestly cannot tell the difference.
I'm frankly amazed there is no audible difference.
Not because I believe that
cliveb;400977 Wrote:
I'm frankly amazed there is no audible difference.
Not because I believe that 96/24 is an audibly better delivery format
than 44.1/16 in a domestic environment (I don't), but because it would
appear that the record company hasn't deliberately trashed the CD layer
in
Phil Leigh wrote:
By the way, if you stick the Linn 24/96 masters through a spectrum
analyser you will find there is nothing over 25kHz - which IMO is to be
expected.
Do you mean literally nothing? or very little signal, and what's there
is down 50 dB?
Since none of the professional studio
My SB+ only supports upto 24/48, but I have compared that against a 16
bit version of the same file, having used Foobar to downsample(?) from
24 to 16 bit. IMO the 24 bit sounded a good deal better, at least on
my system.
--
Mr_Sukebe
SB+, Bel Canto Evo2i, Impulse Ta'us, Coherent system
Since I got the Lyngdorf DPA-1 I listen everyday from the transporter
(16/48 alacs) and from my vinyl source which gets converted to a
digital 24/192 signal, and boy is there a difference! Even my 5 year
old kid detects it and Im not kidding...
Last friday I was doing comparisons, before the
Anne;400954 Wrote:
Why did you expect to hear a difference?
Why? Let me think, I have inherited billions of dollars from a remote
relative, and am trying to find a way to spend an obscene amount of
money.
--
agentsmith
System 1: Transporter, Naim 202/200/Hicap/NAPSC, Harbeth Monitor 30
GuyDebord;401096 Wrote:
Since I got the Lyngdorf DPA-1 I listen everyday from the transporter
(16/48 alacs) and from my vinyl source which gets converted to a
digital 24/192 signal, and boy is there a difference! Even my 5 year
old kid detects it and Im not kidding...
Last friday I was
Ok I have an outlier opinion here, i think the linn masters I sampled
sound not so good at all ? they (imho) are nothing special.
One item Barb Jungr - Walking In The Sun is rubbish, the sound is bad
I see some flat tops in audacity ? But the production and artistic
values are even more horrible.
Mnyb;401146 Wrote:
Ok I have an outlier opinion here, i think the linn masters I sampled
sound not so good at all ? they (imho) are nothing special.
One item Barb Jungr - Walking In The Sun is rubbish, the sound is bad
I see some flat tops in audacity ? But the production and artistic
th00ht wrote:
Choral/orchestral works: only FLAC 24/96 is acceptable.
Rubbish.
R.
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
th00ht;284119 Wrote:
Eurotrash: no difference (actually 24kbit sounds the best) Jazz: 192VBR
or 320CBR are not enough. Listen to the decaying cymble with
headphone/good speakers. Choral/orchestral works: only FLAC 24/96 is
acceptable.
Interesting, for me I'd say the exact opposite. But of
Got it easily enough on my Aego speakers connected to the computer (at
low volume) but, to be honest, that's a pretty poor clip for showing
the difference. If I had to pick something that would sound OK at low
bit rates, it would be something like that clip. It's only the little
bit of high
Are A B switched randomly every time you play?
Edit: Well, I was too impatient, so I learned that indeed A and B are
always the same. In other words, don't take this test until you really
want to hear it on a good system. Otherwise, once you know the answer,
it's basically useless.
--
I'd say it depends on the music you are listening to. Eurotrash: no
difference (actually 24kbit sounds the best) Jazz: 192VBR or 320CBR are
not enough. Listen to the decaying cymble with headphone/good speakers.
Choral/orchestral works: only FLAC 24/96 is acceptable.
--
th00ht
SqueezeBox v3,
CardinalFang wrote:
http://mp3ornot.com/
128 vs 320kbs. I managed it OK, but it took some careful listening on
some decent headphones with a MacBook Pro and several repeats before I
felt confident.
Couldn't hear any difference on my monitor speakers (i.e. the crappy
speakers under my
54 matches
Mail list logo
