probedb wrote:
> So you compared a lossy rip of a CD which maybe from a different
> release/master with a new lossless CD rip and you expected them to sound
> the same? Was this a proper ABX test? I'm guessing not.
>
> The comparison is completely invalid as a test of lossy vs lossless. The
> on
heisenberg wrote:
> An interesting thing happened to me yesterday. I've purchased Les
> Nubians "Princesses Nubiennes" CD and ripped it to AIFF and then sat
> down to listen in amazement. Why in amazement? Because I've previously
> had that CD ripped in 320 kbps mp3 format and was listening to it
heisenberg wrote:
> So my question is: are the perceived differences to be attributed to the
> differences in formats (lossy vs. lossless), or to the differences in
> ripping the contents of the CD? (fyi, I've used the regular iTunes
> ripping procedure).
Just like Wombat suggested, I would susp
mc heisenberg wrote:
> An interesting thing happened to me yesterday. I've purchased Les
> Nubians "Princesses Nubiennes" CD and ripped it to AIFF and then sat
> down to listen in amazement. Why in amazement? Because I've previously
> had that CD ripped in 320 kbps mp3 format and was listening to
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
> I think, you guys lost the OP. If at all OP is still reading, my
> suspects are 1) amp 2) SB Touch. Just swap out with a more high-powered
> amp and see if the speakers "open up". Currently, I know my magnepans on
> the wall are not being driven well by Panasonic receive
I think, you guys lost the OP. If at all OP is still reading, my
suspects are 1) amp 2) SB Touch. Just swap out with a more high-powered
amp and see the speakers "open up". Currently, I know my magnepans on
the wall are not being driven well by Panasonic receiver. The sound is
usually flat in this
darrenyeats wrote:
> In audio life (!) we have equipment like power amps and transducers that
> distort in various ways that are not "natural" at all, one being
> intermodulation distortion. However, IM distortion from ultrasonic
> frequencies can appear in the audible band. If the ultrasonic
> f
heisenberg wrote:
> Interesting (and shocking, to me at least).
>
> Would the same be true for ABX-ing red book vs. hi rez format of the
> same track?
yes, assuming that both the redbook and hi rez versions are from the
same mastering.
-
darrenyeats wrote:
> In real life we have "natural" ultrasonic frequencies ... they do no
> harm; we can't hear them.
>
> In audio life (!) we have equipment like power amps and transducers that
> distort in various ways that are not "natural" at all, one being
> intermodulation distortion. Howe
In real life we have "natural" ultrasonic frequencies ... they do no
harm; we can't hear them.
In audio life (!) we have equipment like power amps and transducers that
distort in various ways that are not "natural" at all, one being
intermodulation distortion. However, IM distortion from ultrason
A spanner in the works is that so many "hi res" tracks are not really
hirez either they have analog origin or are fakes ,upsampled 16/44.1 ,
or if the track has been mastered with typical modern " loudness war
methods " no subtleties will be audible .
So pick your best tracks if you ever try , so
heisenberg wrote:
> Interesting (and shocking, to me at least).
>
> Would the same be true for ABX-ing red book vs. hi rez format of the
> same track?
IMO yes , given given that it really is the same track ( the 16bit is
derived from the same source ) .
Given the hif in my sig , it has DRC ton
garym wrote:
> good perceptual codecs (lame mp3 and AAC for example) were designed to
> throw away the info you can't hear (that's why these are
> "perceptual"...throw out the content that human beings can't hear
> anyhow). Don't feel bad, this is the way it is supposed to be! Very few
> people c
garym wrote:
> good perceptual codecs (lame mp3 and AAC for example) were designed to
> throw away the info you can't hear (that's why these are
> "perceptual"...throw out the content that human beings can't hear
> anyhow). Don't feel bad, this is the way it is supposed to be! Very few
> people c
heisenberg wrote:
> I agree. But I remain flabbergasted at the discovery that I cannot
> (apparently) hear ANY differences between mp3 and lossless! All these
> years I was lead to believe that by crunching the source data down to
> mp3, we lose more than 50% - 60% of the content. If that were in
P Nelson wrote:
> I use flac instead of high bit rate lossy because it is adaptable to
> future formats without any loss in quality or having to re-rip.
> Storage is cheap these days so there is not really a reason to store
> your music in a lossy format.
>
> Paul
I agree. But I remain flabber
Mnyb wrote:
> There are however excellent reasons to use lossles files anyway .
I use flac instead of high bit rate lossy because it is adaptable to
future formats without any loss in quality or having to re-rip.
Storage is cheap these days so there is not really a reason to store
your music in
Julf wrote:
> At that point contemporary popular music will anyway be reduced to the
> point where it can all be reduced to a few autotune and drum machine
> parameters, so it can be regenerated from a few hundred bytes... :)
Who's talking about contemporary anyway. I don't even listen to much
t
Julf wrote:
> At that point contemporary popular music will anyway be reduced to the
> point where it can all be reduced to a few autotune and drum machine
> parameters, so it can be regenerated from a few hundred bytes... :)
true, true. Which is why I'll need all my *old* stuff.
-
garym wrote:
> I'm hoping that eventually, perceptual codecs are good enough that I can
> create really tiny quality lossy versions of all my 10,000 CDs, and they
> all fit on a small chip that is implanted in my arm. This will work well
> when I'm in the old folks home. No DAC, no cables, no sp
garym wrote:
> of course. Among other reasons, I'm hoping that eventually, perceptual
> codecs are good enough that I can create really tiny quality lossy
> versions of all my 10,000 CDs, and they all fit on a small chip that is
> implanted in my arm. This will work well when I'm in the old folk
Mnyb wrote:
> There are however excellent reasons to use lossles files anyway .
of course. Among other reasons, I'm hoping that eventually, perceptual
codecs are good enough that I can create really tiny quality lossy
versions of all my 10,000 CDs, and they all fit on a small chip that is
impla
Mnyb wrote:
> There are however excellent reasons to use lossles files anyway .
Yes. Completely agree.
Let me be clear. Although I do not believe there is significant
perceivable difference between good MP3 and lossless (for the majority
of listeners), I'm an advocate of archiving in FLAC and o
Archimago wrote:
> Lots of good discussion here already.
>
> 2009 Beatles USB "hi-res" 24/44 was ~0.35dB or so louder in many tracks
> compared to the equivalent 16/44 CD release.
>
> High quality MP3 sounds very close if not identical to lossless 16/44...
> If you missed it, there was the blin
Lots of good discussion here already.
2009 Beatles USB "hi-res" 24/44 was ~0.35dB or so louder in many tracks
compared to the equivalent 16/44 CD release.
High quality MP3 sounds very close if not identical to lossless 16/44...
If you missed it, there was the blind MP3 vs. lossless test from
ear
Or SoX , or r8brain .
Sox is commandline and has a plethora of filter settings , can take some
reading to find proper settings some of the recommended defaults are
good .
Off topic:
SOX is often used in a sub genre in audiophoolism , to up convert on
your computer before sending it to the DAC .
Mnyb wrote:
> Afaik there are different masters ,meaning they are produced to sound
> different .
>
> The way to compare these things is as Garym say to make you own 16bit
> files from the 24bit files and also make your own 320k mp3 files from
> that 16 bit file .
>
> Ime , in other cases lets
Afaik there are different masters ,meaningntheynare produced to sound
different .
The way to compare these things is as Garym say to make you own 16bit
files from the 24bit files and also make your own 320k mp3 files from
that 16 bit file .
Ime , in other cases lets say an SACD or DVDA release y
heisenberg wrote:
> The high-rez Beatles tracks (the 24 bit/44.1 khz) were obtained from the
> 2009 Apple USB dongle (sold in the shape of an apple). So these are, I'm
> assuming, legit, no?
>
> The 16 bit/44.1 khz tracks where ripped from the 2009 stereo box set in
> the AIFF format. The 320 kb
garym wrote:
> A good high bitrate lossy file should be transparent to the listener
> (for most music...i.e., not "problem samples", etc.). Perhaps the 16 vs
> 24 files you are comparing are from different masters while the 16 bit
> vs 320kbs lossy are from the same master. The 24/44.1 tracks y
heisenberg wrote:
> I've been doing some comparative listening to the same tracks, only
> rendered in different digital formats. For example, I was comparing some
> Beatles tracks issued as 24 bit/44.1 khz to the same tracks issued as 16
> bit/44.1 khz. In addition to that, I've been comparing re
heisenberg wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> I've been doing some comparative listening to the same tracks, only
> rendered in different digital formats. For example, I was comparing some
> Beatles tracks issued as 24 bit/44.1 khz to the same tracks issued as 16
> bit/44.1 khz. In addition to that, I've
Hello there,
I've been doing some comparative listening to the same tracks, only
rendered in different digital formats. For example, I was comparing some
Beatles tracks issued as 24 bit/44.1 khz to the same tracks issued as 16
bit/44.1 khz. In addition to that, I've been comparing regular 16
bit/
33 matches
Mail list logo
