What version firmware are you running?
--
mmg_fan
mmg_fan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9157
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41824
DCtoDaylight;303552 Wrote:
Of course Sean is the right guy to answer this question, but I rather
suspect that the answer will be no. If the Transporters hardware was
able to handle 192K sampling rates, then I'm sure it would have been
advertised as such. The fact is, it handles 96K, and
amcluesent;254838 Wrote:
http://www.stereophile.com/news/010508ref/
Reference Recordings, the Bay Area-based audiophile label, is
releasing DVD-R with music content as .WAV files for music server
playback. The HRx format is a digit-for-digit copy of an original
Reference Recordings
Eric Seaberg;255374 Wrote:
Can I ask a question here... why do you want 176.4kHz playback? You are
QUADRUPLING your storage requirements (more than that being 24-bit), not
to mention DSP time to handle SRC down to 44.1kHz. Are your speakers
capable of 88kHz HF playback to make everything
dantheman;303537 Wrote:
SO HOW DO WE PUSH the HRx music into the Transporter. Will there be an
upgrade?
Of course Sean is the right guy to answer this question, but I rather
suspect that the answer will be no. If the Transporters hardware was
able to handle 192K sampling rates, then I'm
pfarrell;260357 Wrote:
Makes sense, as SACD is supposed to be an audiophile format, and thus
there is no need for loudness wars.
Even Redbook can sound impressive if properly mastered and mixed.
True - try any Linn Barb Jungr or Claire Martin CD. The remastered Dire
Straits CD sound superb
Phil Leigh;260378 Wrote:
I never believed that was about preserving high freqs anyway
I thought that 96/192 was more about the filters and their influences
(aliasing, pre/post ringing , impulse response, etc) than high freqs.
--
alekz
alekz;260470 Wrote:
I thought that 96/192 was more about the filters and their influences
(aliasing, pre/post ringing , impulse response, etc) than high freqs.
...erm, that's what I said!
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd
Phil Leigh;260475 Wrote:
...erm, that's what I said!
Oh ... but more about being able to move the filters out of harms way
disappeared somehow... Obviously my fault. Then I 100% agree ;-)
--
alekz
alekz's Profile:
You don't have to have spent very much time recording and mixing audio
to realise the point. I would take 24/44 over 16/192 every day, and
24/44 is much more efficient in terms of saving data space.
Space is so cheap as to not matter.
20/88.2 would make me happy, but its gonna be 24/88.2
And
Eric Seaberg;255374 Wrote:
I've been in the recording business for over 36 years and have been
through all of the stories with the old 'classic' recording consoles
where engineers claimed they could hear the 'air' above 25kHz, and
maybe you can... but that's a lot of data pushing through
seanadams;260280 Wrote:
SACD is not 24/96... it's actually 2822.4/1
Good info on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD
You're right... I didn't realize that. According to wiki, the
equivalent PCM resolution would be something like 20 bit/100kHz. Which
is a little
seanadams wrote:
opaqueice;260271 Wrote:
SACD (24/96)
SACD is not 24/96... it's actually 2822.4/1
Plus huge numbers of SACD are from ADAT sources, so they have zero data
over 22 or 24kHz
--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/
___
Andrew B.;260257 Wrote:
This is EXACTLY right! I feel like posting it every time someone gets
excited about high sample rates and ignores the fact that what is
really important is the bit depth, not the sample rate...
Do you mean important as an end-user format, or as a
recording/mastering
Pat Farrell;260284 Wrote:
Plus huge numbers of SACD are from ADAT sources, so they have zero data
over 22 or 24kHz
One of the interesting comments in the article is that they only found
a very few SACDs for which the noise floor was actually better than the
16 bit quantization noise
opaqueice;260271 Wrote:
SACD (24/96)
SACD is not 24/96... it's actually 2822.4/1
Good info on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD
--
seanadams
seanadams's Profile:
opaqueice;260316 Wrote:
the SACD versions did tend to sound better than the CD releases - but
evidently because of mastering differences, not resolution.
Makes sense, as SACD is supposed to be an audiophile format, and thus
there is no need for loudness wars.
Even Redbook can sound
Phil Leigh;255636 Wrote:
Hmmm...nice!
I Just Don't know what to do with Myself - loving the reverb bloom,
valve vocals mics and what sound like very expensive 60's valve
compressors/limiters.
Ball Biscuit - great timing/rhythm - real dirty foot tapping
stuff...and that lovely reverb again
gharris999;255826 Wrote:
You sound authoritative on this point. Are you Russian? Jewish? Both?
In this case it does not matter. I'm talking about another language. To
simplify: you understand what musician A is playing about and you don't
understand what musician B is playing about.
I can't
A question - though this is getting of topic:
Would a person born in the Ukraine - of whom one parent isn't
Russian/Ukrainian - be able to play Russian music properly?
(I have many more: Coul he play German music? Is Mozart's music German
music? Is Schubert's? Can a jew play Schubert properly?
Isn't this a question of empathy and emotional connection with the
music? A Russian may be more connected with Russian music, but surely
not only Russians can be excellent interpreters of Russian music? Or
have I mis-understood this somewhat off-topic discussion :o\
--
morris_minor
I don't think you've misunderstood this at all. Yes, it's off topic,
but I'll gladly pay the OT fine.
EVERYBODY plays with a heavy musical accent (pun not intended.) It's
call interpretation. With the exception of truly iconoclastic
interpreters, interpretations tend to cluster together in
And another thing...WARNING: WAY OT BLOVIATING
I'm no Buddhist, but lately I have been trying to think through a
theory of what would constitute mindful listening. This isn't easy
for me as I have trouble differentiating between preference and
judgment.
When listening to music, I find that
OK, more examples.
Compare Georgy Cziffra playing Liszt with anybody else.
Compare Brandenburg Concertos played by Masaaki Suzuki and Ton Koopman
or Harnoncourt.
Compare any Russian music played by Russians (Russian speaking
musicians studied in Russia or former USSR) and anybody else.
Any chance of moving (most of) this thread to the music forum?
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...SB3+Stontronics PSU - Altmann
JISCO/UPCI - TACT RCS 2.2X with Good Vibrations S/W - MF X-DAC
V3/X-PSU/X-10 buffer
Phil Leigh;256086 Wrote:
Any chance of moving (most of) this thread to the music forum?
Good point. I was only going to say that selling 27.6bit 212kHz
recordings does not make them worth buying.
OTOH (back to the subject), it would be nice to have a device able to
process all available
amcluesent;255419 Wrote:
why do you want 176.4kHz playback?
I'd tried to hint at my views with the initial 'Doh!' :)
Then again, with a wide-band amp and super-tweeters who knows...
I've got supertweeters and they won't go that high!
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path
opaqueice;255188 Wrote:
The White Stripes: ElephantWhite Stripes/Elephant is generally regarded as a
well produced album.
IIRC it was produced using analogue recording and mastering equipment
and much song and dance was made about that on its release (in the UK
at least). It sounds pretty
The Stone Roses eponymous debut is rather excellent music that was badly
recorded. It sounds amazing on a large boomy PA, but over a revealing
hi-fi it is barely listenable.
--
DynamicalSystem
DynamicalSystem's Profile:
Patrick Dixon;24 Wrote:
White Stripes/Elephant is generally regarded as a well produced album.
IIRC it was produced using analogue recording and mastering equipment
and much song and dance was made about that on its release (in the UK
at least). It sounds pretty good on my system -
DynamicalSystem wrote:
The Stone Roses eponymous debut is rather excellent music that was badly
recorded. It sounds amazing on a large boomy PA, but over a revealing
hi-fi it is barely listenable.
You really think so? Perhaps you've not got it turned up loud enough!
Don't waste your words, I
alekz;255217 Wrote:
If we are talking Symphonic Dances, I would say:
1. Rachmaninoff himself (You can find his recordings)
2. Martha Argerich with her husband Alexandre Rabinovitch (Teldec,
Elatus)
3. Kirill Kondrashin and Moscow Philarmonic Symphony Orchestra
(Melodiya) - Many
opaqueice;255584 Wrote:
Interesting. It's one of the few albums I have in 128 MP3, so I'll buy
the CD and see if that helps.
Do you listen to any noisy rock - say heavy metal or grunge?
I think the CD's worth having.
Some - although I tend to prefer the gentler tracks! I've liked
opaqueice;255584 Wrote:
Interesting. It's one of the few albums I have in 128 MP3, so I'll buy
the CD and see if that helps.
Do you listen to any noisy rock - say heavy metal or grunge?
This is rather interesting...oddly enough this is the sort of album I
would expect to sound rough as a
Hmmm...nice!
I Just Don't know what to do with Myself - loving the reverb bloom,
valve vocals mics and what sound like very expensive 60's valve
compressors/limiters.
Ball Biscuit - great timing/rhythm - real dirty foot tapping
stuff...and that lovely reverb again
Thanks for provoking me to
Do you listen to any noisy rock
I had a go with Therion's Lepaca Kliffoth at the weekend...never
again :)
--
amcluesent
amcluesent's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10286
View this thread:
gharris999;255596 Wrote:
Rachmaninoff: I don't think he ever recorded the Symphonic Dances,
either as a conductor, or in the duo piano version. He was dead within
two years of the work's premier.
I will check just in case. I may be wrong, indeed.
gharris999;255596 Wrote:
I've got
alekz;255733 Wrote:
Only Russians or Jewish can play Russian music.You sound authoritative on
this point. Are you Russian? Jewish? Both?
What about Finns? I quite like the Järvi recordings I've got of
Tchaikovsky, Taneyev, Prokofiev Shostakovich, though I'm not always
sure why: the
http://www.stereophile.com/news/010508ref/
Reference Recordings, the Bay Area-based audiophile label, is
releasing DVD-R with the .WAV files. The HRx format is a
digit-for-digit copy of an original Reference Recordings
24-bit/176.4kHz digital master.
--
amcluesent
Why not downsample to 88.2kHz that would be an ok compromise for me.
Intressting link ! I always intressted in new sources off high res
recordings
--
Mnyb
Mnyb's Profile:
amcluesent;254838 Wrote:
http://www.stereophile.com/news/010508ref/
Reference Recordings, the Bay Area-based audiophile label, is
releasing DVD-R with music content as .WAV files for music server
playback. The HRx format is a digit-for-digit copy of an original
Reference Recordings
alekz;254927 Wrote:
rant
Have they produced anything worth listening apart from the Burn-In
track?
The recording quality is good but what is recorded is awful. The funny
thing is the Stereophile article is featuring Rachmaninoff's Symphonic
Dances played by Eiji Oue. Easily the most
I trust that I can skip this then :-)
I have enough off Audiophile records already.
There's always exceptions from the rule AIX (itrax) has produced some
good folk/blues/country ? things thats actually musically satisfiyng.
Their classical stuff not so exciting, but thats not my prime intrest,
opaqueice;255116 Wrote:
Ironically, I find that badly recorded music often sounds quite a bit
worse on a good system than it does on a boombox.
Given that there's a lot of great badly recorded music out there, I
sometimes wonder if audiophiles are getting the short end of the stick
and
Phil Leigh;255128 Wrote:
That's not ironic - these things are mastered to sound impressive on
below-par gear!
I've been thinking of designing a custom Inguz filter - or just an
equalizer setting - to make badly mastered rock sound better. Any
ideas on what to do to make an great system sound
opaqueice;255116 Wrote:
Ironically, I find that badly recorded music often sounds quite a bit
worse on a good system than it does on a boombox.
Given that there's a lot of great badly recorded music out there, I
sometimes wonder if audiophiles are getting the short end of the stick
and
alekz;254927 Wrote:
Easily the most disgusting interpretation I've even heard...
Minnesota chauvinist that I am, I purchased this recording (the HDCD,
not the audiophile release discussed here) a year or so ago. I still
have friends who play in the MinnOrch, so I'm happy I have this CD.
But
opaqueice;255132 Wrote:
I've been thinking of designing a custom Inguz filter - or just an
equalizer setting - to make badly mastered rock sound better. Any
ideas on what to do to make an great system sound more like crappy PA
speakers? :-)
Unfortunately, the everything louder than
Phil Leigh;255166 Wrote:
Unfortunately, the everything louder than everything else mastering
technique can't be reversed. Once the dynamic has been lost - it's
gone.
I'm not hoping for a miracle. I just want to make my system a bit,
well... less revealing. Or something like that. I want
gharris999;255140 Wrote:
Minnesota chauvinist that I am, I purchased this recording (the HDCD,
not the audiophile release discussed here) a year or so ago. I still
have friends who play in the MinnOrch, so I'm happy I have this CD.
But I'm realizing that this is my only recording of this
opaqueice;255188 Wrote:
I'm not hoping for a miracle. I just want to make my system a bit,
well... less revealing. Or something like that. I want it to sound
more like it would at a live rock venue, maybe using something like
this:
opaqueice;255188 Wrote:
I just want to make my system a bit, well... less revealing. Or
something like that. I want it to sound more like it would at a live
rock venue, maybe using something like this:
What's a prob? Just buy them. Less ado.
--
alekz
Phil Leigh;255166 Wrote:
Unfortunately, the everything louder than everything else mastering
technique can't be reversed. Once the dynamic has been lost - it's
gone.
The resultant squashed dynamic can't be undone.
Do you have a few examples of badly mastered albums?
My modern
slimkid wrote:
Ok, let's be serious here. Like there was any dynamic to begin with.
When was it last time you heard rock band playing, ppp than crescendo
into FFF, for example :)
Jethro Tull, live concert for Thick as a Brick. Probably 1970 or 71.
Since then, never.
--
Pat Farrell
slimkid;255251 Wrote:
Ok, let's be serious here. Like there was any dynamic to begin with.
When was it last time you heard rock band playing, ppp than crescendo
into FFF, for example :)
K
Lone Star - Bells of Berlin
Supertramp - Crime of The Century (pick a track)
Sledgehammer - Bachmann
Phil Leigh;255228 Wrote:
White Stripes I do have...
Interestingly they use all tube/60's gear to record. I'll have a listen
tomorrow and see.
There are some convolving apps you could try.
See what you think. Although I should say that my copy of that album
is an MP3, which might have
When I started digitising vinyl many years ago, I played with a program
called DCart. It's still around, and offering many ways to enhance your
music files, including a Virtual Valve Amp and Harmonic Exciter (sic.):
http://www.diamondcut.com/Catalog/vva.htm
Plus, there are some useful filters
Can I ask a question here... why do you want 176.4kHz playback? You are
QUADRUPLING your storage requirements (more than that being 24-bit), not
to mention DSP time to handle SRC down to 44.1kHz. Are your speakers
capable of 88kHz HF playback to make everything else worth it? Can you
hear
why do you want 176.4kHz playback?
I'd tried to hint at my views with the initial 'Doh!' :)
Then again, with a wide-band amp and super-tweeters who knows...
--
amcluesent
amcluesent's Profile:
59 matches
Mail list logo
