Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

Mnyb wrote: > You can still have an interest in good audio gear. > Of course! It is just that sound quality will no longer the sole determiner of one's preferences in audio. Audio in its present form seems to suffer from an immature one track mind. Sound quality is thought of by most as

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

You can still have an interest in good audio gear . I know that almost no product in isolation provides an audible upgrade speakers are the most obvius exception they still all have a signature to them, but if the tech is perfected whole the way (preferably from the recording studio and onwards

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

Julf wrote: > I guess part of the problem is that a lot of audiophiles belong to a > generation that got into the hobby back in the day of analog (and rather > imperfect) gear. Unfortunately the same goes for the journalists. And > far too many people prefer "intuitively correct" truthiness over

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

docbob wrote: > Good point. But isn't that true for many people on _all_ sides of _any_ > argument? > Sure, but by using correct procedures you can obtain reliable, relevant results from time synched, level matched, DBTs. Fail to apply any of those controls and all hope of reliable results is

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

Mnyb wrote: > It's funny how many audiophiles thinks the DAC's have some magical > properties like they where like the pickup on your vinyl player having a > distinct sonic signature. I guess part of the problem is that a lot of audiophiles belong to a generation that got into the hobby back in

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

And there are other experiments , if you want to be sure a good "fact" ( they are all temporary until someone finds better data/experiments ) is supported by more than one experiment . And it's is in the case of hirez audio . I think for example a lot of us here have tried some blind testing of

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

docbob wrote: > Good point. But isn't that true for many people on _all_ sides of _any_ > argument? > > And since we want to display the benefit of rational thought with > reliable evidence, shouldn't we be extra vigilant to ensure that those > who share our beliefs/knowledge not defend our

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

Julf wrote: > Sure, but my point was also about the tendency to ignore or deny any > contrary evidence, and only focus on "data" that supports one's beliefs. Good point. But isn't that true for many people on _all_ sides of _any_ argument? And since we want to display the benefit of rational

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

arnyk wrote: > It is true that this was a flaw in the experiment. They should have > played the SACDs and DVD-A to ensure that they actually had hi rez > content . Reporting this flaw would have enhanced the results and > conclusions part of their article. Interestingly enough I know of no >

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

adamdea wrote: > This reminds me of the alleged flaw in Meyer and Moran that some of the > "favourite sacds" were actually upsampled red book. > It is true that this was a flaw in the experiment. They should have played the SACDs and DVD-A to ensure that they actually had hi rez content .

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

adamdea wrote: > This reminds me of the alleged flaw in Meyer and Moran that some of the > "favourite sacds" were actually upsampled red book. Ok so hirez may > actually be distinguishable from 16/44 because some of the files which > were thought to be hirez, but were actually indistinguishable

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

Julf wrote: > Good point. And the point I was hinting at is that the current "hi-res" > download services are a great big double blind test. How many golden > ears have actually reported cases of upsampling or "fake hi-res" based > on actually hearing a difference (as opposed to "Audacity

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

Julf wrote: > Sure, but my point was also about the tendency to ignore or deny any > contrary evidence, and only focus on "data" that supports one's beliefs. Agreed. IME that's just one reason why sighted evaluations have this stunning propensity to generate invalid results. Since the listener

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

arnyk wrote: > IME it is more likely that the *patient* lacks the listening skill and > test environment that would allow him to actually know whether the UUT > is *working* or not. 2 words: Sighted Evaluatioin. Sure, but my point was also about the tendency to ignore or deny any contrary

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

Julf wrote: > But the problem with snake oil is that occasionally the patient does get > well, and that is *clearly* proof that the snake oil works! IME it is more likely that the *patient* lacks the listening skill and test environment that would allow him to actually know whether the UUT is

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

Archimago wrote: > But the snake oil salesmen are selling things that not only didn't work > for the "ailment" but the contents even taste just like water, chemical > analysis shows us it's water, although packaged in a nice medicine > bottle. But the problem with snake oil is that occasionally

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

arnyk wrote: > ;-) > > Good point. The ultimate test of any audio file is whether or not it can > be detected in comparison using a level-matched, time synched ABX test > comparing it to a file of the same music with reliable provenance. > > Difference testing and other tests based on

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

Julf wrote: > Really? Why would you need quality control when everyone will hear a > night and day difference between "hi-res" and red book? :) ;-) Good point. The ultimate test of any audio file is whether or not it can be detected in comparison using a level-matched, time synched ABX test

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

Mnyb wrote: > These charlatans lives of the confusing of actual recording quality with > high bitrates are impressive sample formats . > It the easy thing to provide . To provide actual good soundquality is > hard and takes some effort . But... But... Larger numbers are better, right? :) "To

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

DJanGo wrote: > Long Time ago a german Computer Magazin (CT) did a big Test with 100reds > of People if the hear a difference between mp3 and Wav. There was a > minor group of People who always gets them right. > All theses People have a minor issue with their ears (20% on the left or > right

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

As always picking the low hanging fruit. As a large minority with some bying power always equal bitrate or sample freq with actual recording quality . Then we will have "hifi" streaming services like tidal et al . But it is as random as ever they still rely on the labels to upload whatever they

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

garym wrote: > No, not all downloads are "watermarked" ... but buyer beware of course! But are these Track with "watermarks" bitperfect ?:p Long Time ago a german Computer Magazin (CT) did a big Test with 100reds of People if the hear a difference between mp3 and Wav. There was a minor group

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

Wombat wrote: > Over the years i was in contact with several persons on the internet and > exchanged samples of typical faults of mp3 coding. There was only one > person i know that heard all defects possible. Me for example found some > sandpaper or chirping noise many people simply missed

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

rkrug01 wrote: > > > And then i lately realized that Watermark crap. > > Your 24/96 qobuz purchase may have the Watermark vermin inside while a > > standard CD hasn't. > > https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,98.0.html > > > > > But the same applies to all downloads. > > No, not all

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

Julf wrote: > Really? Why would you need quality control when everyone will hear a > night and day difference between "hi-res" and red book? :) Over the years i was in contact with several persons on the internet and exchanged samples of typical faults of mp3 coding. There was only one person i

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

Archimago wrote: > As usual, without decent quality control the whole hi-res thing is a > fail Really? Why would you need quality control when everyone will hear a night and day difference between "hi-res" and red book? :) "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

That's just sad. As usual, without decent quality control the whole hi-res thing is a fail especially when they let stuff like this happen with watermarking... Upsampled audio, questionable provenance, dynamic compressed mastering, now watermarking. All when it's questionable even if well done

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - thisis the question.

rkrug01 wrote: > > But the same applies to all downloads. > Like garym already mentioned in a similar named thread it is a gamble. In the hydrogen link i gave is also the sample of lousy downsampling of the 44.1 version at qobuz. I did not buy any download since but several CDs. Transporter

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - this is the question.

Le jeudi 31 mars 2016, Wombat a écrit : > > And then i lately realized that Watermark crap. > Your 24/96 qobuz purchase may have the Watermark vermin inside while a > standard CD hasn't. > https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,98.0.html > > But

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - this isthe question.

And then i lately realized that Watermark crap. Your 24/96 qobuz purchase may have the Watermark vermin inside while a standard CD hasn't. https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,98.0.html Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 ->

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - this isthe question.

garym writes: > The real pain is discovering (as some have) when purchasing hi-res that > all you've paid extra for is an upsampled 16/44.1 CD quality file. HiRes > sellers are not very forthcoming about the providence of their albums > and just rely on

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - this isthe question.

The real pain is discovering (as some have) when purchasing hi-res that all you've paid extra for is an upsampled 16/44.1 CD quality file. HiRes sellers are not very forthcoming about the providence of their albums and just rely on statements like "we sell what the label gives us". (and I'm not

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - this isthe question.

garym writes: > rkrug wrote: >> A little bit OT - but this forum seems to be a good place to ask. >> >> Jazz and Classic albums at Qobuz are often available as 24 bits - 96khz >> downloads. But they are usually more expensive. >> >> I have read the

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - this isthe question.

rkrug wrote: > A little bit OT - but this forum seems to be a good place to ask. > > Jazz and Classic albums at Qobuz are often available as 24 bits - 96khz > downloads. But they are usually more expensive. > > I have read the discussions here, that in many cases, hires is worse > than CD

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - this is the question.

A little bit OT - but this forum seems to be a good place to ask. Jazz and Classic albums at Qobuz are often available as 24 bits - 96khz downloads. But they are usually more expensive. I have read the discussions here, that in many cases, hires is worse than CD quality. I know that one can

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res audio and low DR (ie. compressed) music...

Archimago wrote: Thanks for the info guys, that's what I thought... I've said to myself many times not to bother with HDTracks until they provide more info on where the master comes from or at least provide some kind of review section for users/buyers to post their comments (like Amazon and

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res audio and low DR (ie. compressed) music...

RonM wrote: It's useful to note, though, that HD Tracks has many tracks available in basic CD 16/44 quality. For many recordings that's the only resolution available, for others, it's one of several available resolutions. On numerous occasions I have been able to download in CD quality

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res audio and low DR (ie. compressed) music...

garym wrote: If the 24/x files are from the exact same master as the 16/x files, there is no benefit to the high res files (other than to the sellers removing cash from your bank account). Plenty of evidence from rigorously done experiments that people can't detect the difference between

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res audio and low DR (ie. compressed) music...

Hi everyone, I've been wondering this for awhile... Is there any point in downloading 24-bit hi-res music IF the music is already significantly dynamically compressed? For example, I bought a couple recent HDTracks releases and ran them through the DR meter in Foobar. Ringo Starr - Ringo 2012

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res audio and low DR (ie. compressed) music...

Archimago wrote: Hi everyone, I've been wondering this for awhile... Is there any point in downloading 24-bit hi-res music IF the music is already significantly dynamically compressed? For example, I bought a couple recent HDTracks releases and ran them through the DR meter in Foobar.

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res audio and low DR (ie. compressed) music...

Archimago wrote: Hi everyone, I've been wondering this for awhile... Is there any point in downloading 24-bit hi-res music IF the music is already significantly dynamically compressed? For example, I bought a couple recent HDTracks releases and ran them through the DR meter in Foobar.

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res audio and low DR (ie. compressed) music...

garym wrote: If the 24/x files are from the exact same master as the 16/x files, there is no benefit to the high res files (other than to the sellers removing cash from your bank account). Plenty of evidence from rigorously done experiments that people can't detect the difference between

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res audio and low DR (ie. compressed) music...

Thanks for the info guys, that's what I thought... I've said to myself many times not to bother with HDTracks until they provide more info on where the master comes from or at least provide some kind of review section for users/buyers to post their comments (like Amazon and essentially every

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res audio and low DR (ie. compressed) music...

Archimago wrote: Thanks for the info guys, that's what I thought... I've said to myself many times not to bother with HDTracks until they provide more info on where the master comes from or at least provide some kind of review section for users/buyers to post their comments (like Amazon and

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res audio and low DR (ie. compressed) music...

ralphpnj wrote: Also don't expect any help to come from the audiophile press since HDTracks is smart enough to advertise in all the high end audio magazines and to make sure that they carefully wine and dine the editors and reviewers of these publications. Except for '\Hi-Fi News ( Record

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res audio and low DR (ie. compressed) music...

Julf wrote: Except for '\Hi-Fi News ( Record Review)\' (http://www.hifinews.co.uk/) in the UK that not only publishes spectrum plots of hi-res downloads, but actually points out cases of upsampling etc... What?!?!? You mean to say that there is a hi-fi magazine actually worth reading. Good

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res audio and low DR (ie. compressed) music...

ralphpnj wrote: What?!?!? You mean to say that there is a hi-fi magazine actually worth reading. Good to know. It's the only one I still subscribe to... Julf's Profile:

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi Res

Another solution is to try a few of the various third party music library front ends that are available. Moose: Moose is an advanced Windows frontend client for controlling and providing information about units connected to Logitech's Squeezebox Server.

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi Res

aseltzer;697253 Wrote: 2) Why is Music Folder SOO slow with a big library? Takes 40-120 seconds to paint the left panel. As asked above, what is a big library? I have 80,000 tracks spread between 6500 albums in my library and LMS is essentially instantaneous. Realize that a lot of

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi Res

Archimago;697475 Wrote: Realize that a lot of this depends on the hardware you're running the server off of. In my case, it's a Core 2 Quad at 2.4GHz. I believe the speed of Browse Music Folder also depends on the number of items in each directory. For a given library, a very flat structure

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi Res

aubuti;697520 Wrote: I believe the speed of Browse Music Folder also depends on the number of items in each directory. For a given library, a very flat structure of Albums/Tracks will generally take longer to load than a more hierarchical structure such as Artist/Album/Tracks or [first

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi Res

Archimago;697537 Wrote: Mine is a very flat structure. Album/tracks, and if lots of albums for a particular artist - artist/album/tracks. Seems vey fast with the Windows build of LMS! And this is with the music all on WD Green 2TB drives, so not speed daemon HD's... I wonder if the OP is

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi Res

Archimago;697537 Wrote: Mine is a very flat structure. Album/tracks, and if lots of albums for a particular artist - artist/album/tracks. Seems vey fast with the Windows build of LMS! And this is with the music all on WD Green 2TB drives, so not speed daemon HD's... I wonder if the OP is

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi Res

Obviously to flat is every song in just one directory , if you see the windows flashlight when browsing in explorer it's going to be worse in LMS . Running LMS with high memory setting might improve things . -- Mnyb Main

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi Res

I'm running SB3 with Logitech Media Server Version: 7.7.1 - r33750 @ Mon Dec 12 09:42:47 PST 2011. Playing with 24 bit FLAC. 1) Can anyone tell me under what circumstances LMS downsamples and when it passes the full bitstream? Some 96/24 goes full, some is downsampled. Same for 192/24. I

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi Res

aseltzer;697253 Wrote: Can anyone tell me under what circumstances LMS downsamples and when it passes the full bitstream? In your case everything above 24/48 is downsampled. Chris :) -- Stratmangler There is no element of personal attack in my response.

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi Res

Stratmangler;697255 Wrote: In your case everything above 24/48 is downsampled. Chris :) +1 Only the Touch and the Transporter will go up to 24/96 without down-sampling. Please define what you mean when you say big library. Exactly how big, e.g. number of tracks, albums, artists, etc. --