m1abrams Wrote:
>
> Bits are Bits, either they make it or they dont. You would have to
> have some serious amount of noise coming from that expensive equipment
> of yours to cause the bits to be scambled, yet your equipment can still
> sync on it AMAZING. .
Bits are bits, but in the end, the d
John Stimson Wrote:
> The time that the data arrives on the input pin does not affect the time
> that the output pin switches. The same clock signal is used to drive
> the clock input of every gate in the circuit, so the jitter between
> gates does not influence the timing of the signal at the f
void Wrote:
> I'm not an expert, but the jittery data signal has to pass the 'master
> clock gate' at the DAC. What comes out of the gate is jittery/noisy
> again.
> A flip-flop gate has a data input, a clock input, and a data output.
Here's how it operates: any time the clock input switches fro
John Stimson Wrote:
> What is the mechanism for upstream jitter to affect the DAC, when the
> master clock for the system is located at the DAC, on its own power
> supply?
I'm not an expert, but the jittery data signal has to pass the 'master
clock gate' at the DAC. What comes out of the gate is
void Wrote:
> I tried many jitter correction devices/solutions including
> masterclocking from the DAC, etc. but they don't bring the magic, the
> DAC keeps getting infected.What is the mechanism for upstream jitter to
> affect the DAC, when the
master clock for the system is located at the DAC,
There isn't really a significant difference in total CPU usage for FLAC
versus AIFF, or even MP3 for that matter (keep in mind there is a LOT
of other stuff going on in the system). The only real difference would
be in memory access patterns - here differences is jitter (see other
thread - we are
Andrew L. Weekes Wrote:
> -The only plausible reason I can imagine for any audible difference is
> that increased stress to the PSU affects the voltage or noise to the
> clocks, which in turn produces jitter. Then again, I'm no electrical
> engineer, and might be talking out of my ass.-
>
> You
-The only plausible reason I can imagine for any audible difference is
that increased stress to the PSU affects the voltage or noise to the
clocks, which in turn produces jitter. Then again, I'm no electrical
engineer, and might be talking out of my ass.-
You may not be an EE, but you are smart a
Mike Hanson Wrote:
> Sharing ideas is a good thing, but trying to do "online comparisons" is
> a virtual waste of time. (Or should that be "a waste of virtual
> time"?)
>
> -=> Mike Hanson <=-
He he!!
Love it!
Nay probs there Mike.
Nic
Now - letting thread "stay on topic"...
--
DrNic
___
Here's a thought: Could it be something like ReplayGain or some such tag
info gumming up the works? I hear that server side FLAC's can be "gain
adjusted" while onboard decoded FLAC's cannot. Could this be an issue
=somehow= although I realize that in this instance it doesn't make
sense (since
m1abrams Wrote:
> No contest my apple was the shiniest! But the free pony ate it :(
My apple will always be shinier, because it's -imaginary-!
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
--
Mike Hanson
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://
Mike Hanson Wrote:
> Don't worry, I wasn't accusing you of being heavy-handed or over
> emotional. I was merely trying to add some perspective to the
> situation. We may as well be having a conversation about who has the
> shiniest apple. Of course, it depends on the ambient light, the
> view
DrNic Wrote:
> I was not intending to start a "rant" either back or forth!! Just (like
> everyone else) putting in another view point/opinion... :)
Don't worry, I wasn't accusing you of being heavy-handed or over
emotional. I was merely trying to add some perspective to the
situation. We may a
lostboy Wrote:
> Just in case DrNic's language has confused the non British English users
> of this forum. The phrase "As for FLAC - its the dogs" is (I think)
> meant to be short for " ... it's the dog's bollocks" -
> http://english2american.com/dictionary/b.html refers. Of course I
> maybe wr
DrNic Wrote:
> I would love to see the spectral map of hearing for the audiophile set
> (and for the techs too) and then lets comment on how good the real
> "final stage" is in their systems... ! :)
Unfortunately, it's not just frequency response that counts here.
There's also the sensitivy to t
Just in case DrNic's language has confused the non British English users
of this forum. The phrase "As for FLAC - its the dogs" is (I think)
meant to be short for " ... it's the dog's bollocks" -
http://english2american.com/dictionary/b.html refers. Of course I
maybe wrong here :-), but I agree
Okay - a lurker posting here. But not one who isn't interested in
attaining the highest quality sound for the most reasonable (wife
friendly) cost!!!
Coming from a scientific background (father electronic engineer) myself
an orthopaedic surgeon I think you may gather the slant I will have on
this
Triode Wrote:
> Now if this thread had been about the visualizer or scrolling text
> impacting the sound quality then it would be more interesting
> [withdrawing quietly to see if this sparks some more comparison
> threads...]Well now that you mention it, I've noticed between the analog and
The theory being that the microprocessor executes sufficiently different
instructions between decompressing flac and wav to impact the psu in a
way that impacts the rest of the player? I believe the processor uses
a 1.6V rail and the oscillator impacting jitter is 3.3V so there is
little chance o
from styx's ass Wrote:
> The only plausible reason I can imagine for any audible difference is
> that increased stress to the PSU affects the voltage or noise to the
> clocks, which in turn produces jitter. Then again, I'm no electrical
> engineer, and might be talking out of my ass.
To me this
Patrick Dixon Wrote:
> I understood that there were a number of tracks in the playlist, each in
> WAV/FLAC, and then randomly shuffled. Seems 'blind' to me.
But then how would he quickly switch between the 2 same songs that have
one as flac and one as wav quickly without looking at the display?
> Also when he loads up the playlist, how does he not know which track is
> which? If he only has two tracks I guess he could select shuffle, but
> you always will know which track you started with, and with just 2
> tracks not hard to figure which is which.I understood that there were a
> number
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 08:14 -0700, m1abrams wrote:
> But it is generally consider not a true ABX test if done solo.
Good science usually requires a double blind test, where both the
person doing the test and person administering the test do
not know what is real and what is a placebo.
It would b
Patrick Dixon Wrote:
> Indeed. All you need to do is to figure out exactly what measurements
> are required, and then what instruments and techniques you'll need to
> make them with. As it happens, when it comes to equipment designed to
> reproduce music, I always reckon your ears are are prett
> Yes measurements are ALL that is needed,Indeed. All you need to do is to
> figure out exactly what measurements
are required, and then what instruments and techniques you'll need to
make them with. As it happens, when it comes to equipment designed to
reproduce music, I always reckon your ear
Please read his reply again!
m1abrams Wrote:
> My complaint is your argument that by decoding FLAC to PCM (on any
> correctly working decoder) there is some how a change in the quality of
> the data. Which it is just that DATA, and it is been proved over and
> over that it is the EXACT same dat
> Please guys dont try to ridicule me for wasting space - its my space
> and it is cheap and who knows what compression format will be with us
> in five years time - I am happy uncompressed WAV - you choose FLAC I
> will choose WAV - no problem.
This is my exact reason for using FLAC, because I
Oh dear well - I think its best if I leave this particular topic alone
as it seems my audiophile type discussion has riled a few folk here
and I can really do without that and I know everyone else can as well.
I am very happy with my choice of formats (for me) and I was only
contributing to wha
I don't think he is claiming that the bits are getting changed en
route to the SB2.
He is claiming that when the SB2 has to do the decoding itself,
perhaps this results in some interference that is audible.
However, I agree that a blind test is required in order to establish this.
On 7/19/05, m1
On 7/19/05, m1abrams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am sorry but you have to be kidding me right, is this a troll? Cause
> it is a good one if it is.
>
> Bits are Bits, either they make it or they dont. You would have to
> have some serious amount of noise coming from that expensive equipment
>
Timbo Wrote:
> Hi there - I hear what you say and agree that if space is an issue (or
> bandwidth if you are wireless) then FLAC certainly adds up to a good
> idea - but - in my case, in my system, with my ears, I don't *hear*
> EXACTLY the same quality (and I am not alone) - when it comes to aud
So store it as FLAC and stream it as PCM (server side decoding). Then
you're getting exactly the same data going to the SB2, thus negating
any differences caused by RF coming out of the processor (!?!), but
with the addition of easy tagging and 30-40% more available storage.
Bargain!
> Just let m
As of your last post, I don't recall a true blind test having been
conducted. Have you had the chance to do that yet?
On 7/19/05, Timbo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> m1abrams Wrote:
> > Why? FLAC produces bit for bit identical to the WAV file, you can test
> > this by ripping a CD to PCM wav,
m1abrams Wrote:
> Why? FLAC produces bit for bit identical to the WAV file, you can test
> this by ripping a CD to PCM wav, then taking that wav encoding it to
> flac but save the original wave. Now decode the flac back to wav and
> perform an md5sum of the two wave files, unless your encoder/d
tried it on a few songs (not blind though) and couldn;t hear any
difference between internal and external. actually my server is so poor
there was a stutter on external (server side) decoding so i'm sticking
with internal.
cheers
julian.
--
julian2002
_
Timbo Wrote:
>
>
> What I would like to know from someone however is - bearing in mind I
> would really like to store my sound files uncompressed - then how do I
> get EAC to do this and not end up with a WAV file I cant tag :-/
Why? FLAC produces bit for bit identical to the WAV file, you c
I have to agree with Sean and some of the others -- there's little to
talk about here without a blind comparison being done. Without that,
there is too much room for error.
On 7/11/05, Timbo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> seanadams Wrote:
> > please back up these claims. You are saying that base
Tried it again... and still can't hear a diffrence. Any others care to
give it a go?
y.
--
Yannzola
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Yannzola wrote:
Okay...
So I listened to the same track over and over and over again with
FLAC>>WAV vs. FLAC>>(onboard). Tried it blind (had my wife induge me by
engaging/disengaing the toggle and rstarting the track.
Result: I couldn't honestly hear any diffrence. But... I'm not certain
tha
Okay...
So I listened to the same track over and over and over again with
FLAC>>WAV vs. FLAC>>(onboard). Tried it blind (had my wife induge me by
engaging/disengaing the toggle and rstarting the track.
Result: I couldn't honestly hear any diffrence. But... I'm not certain
that the track was b
Yannzola Wrote:
> Okay,
> I'm game. I'll try a HEARING test this eve... Sean, are the steps Timbo
> performed (deselecting all FLAC>XXX conversion options except for
> FLAC>WAV) the correct way to test for this?
>
> y.
That should do it.
--
seanadams
_
Okay,
I'm game. I'll try a HEARING test this eve... Sean, are the steps Timbo
performed (deselecting all FLAC>XXX conversion options except for
FLAC>WAV) the correct way to test for this?
y.
seanadams Wrote:
> Like I said in the wired vs wireless topic: I am not going to entertain
> the idea th
Yannzola Wrote:
> Can the process involved in converting the FLAC onboard somehow effect
> the sound?
Like I said in the wired vs wireless topic: I am not going to entertain
the idea that there's a problem until someone can either HEAR or MEASURE
it. Either of those tests is extremely easy to p
Yannzola Wrote:
> I don't think Timbo is claiming that he isn't getting the same data out
> (bit wise)... only that he is hearing a difference between a raw WAV
> file sent directly to the SB vs. the same info sent as a FLAC file
> decoded onboard.y.
Exactly - thanks...:-)
--
Timbo
__
seanadams Wrote:
> FLAC is by definition lossless. If you're not getting the same data out
> that you put in, then it's broken in every sense of the word.
You said you tested your implementation (which after all is the same
standard code in software regardless of where it is implemented) and
you
I don't think Timbo is claiming that he isn't getting the same data out
(bit wise)... only that he is hearing a difference between a raw WAV
file sent directly to the SB vs. the same info sent as a FLAC file
decoded onboard.
>From my reading of Timbo's post, it seems he agrees that both the FLAC
Timbo Wrote:
>
> Secondly who said anything about your decoding implementation being
> *broken*, me-thinks you might be a tad overreacting here.
FLAC is by definition lossless. If you're not getting the same data out
that you put in, then it's broken in every sense of the word.
--
seanadams
>Two last trick: you need bubbles in the water (so you have to change it
quite frequently) and the glass need a tuning period. It wont work out
of the box (and don't clean it to often).
You jest, but how true your words - the bubbles would no doubt oscilate
at approx. 50-60khz and have an effect
seanadams Wrote:
> please back up these claims. You are saying that based on a non-blind
> subjective listen, our FLAC implementation is *broken*. The correctness
> of our FLAC decoder is empirical and all you need to do is save the bits
> at the output to test it.
>
> Please note that our imple
Fifer a écrit :
There's a good reason for this effect. If you read the label, you'll
find that San Pellegrino is a mild diuretic and the perceived
improvement is a result of taking the p**s.
Great explanation (as a poor French I dad to google a little bit to
really understand it...). But I tho
There's a good reason for this effect. If you read the label, you'll
find that San Pellegrino is a mild diuretic and the perceived
improvement is a result of taking the p**s.
--
Fifer
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http
please back up these claims. You are saying that based on a non-blind
subjective listen, our FLAC implementation is *broken*. The correctness
of our FLAC decoder is empirical and all you need to do is save the bits
at the output to test it.
Please note that our implementation:
1) is based on the
Timbo wrote:
Hi there folks - I wonder if anyone can comment on my findings here as I
think my brain has seized (well it is 1:30am and I shouldn’t be playing
with my Squeezebox at this time of night...;-)
Anyway after reading all the advice on the forum I eventually settled
(after much trial an
Well, I felt exactly the same way about audio quality comparing Wired
vs. Wireless SB2. Finally conducted a BLIND listening test, which
showed NO difference. See thread...
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=14811
Now, if you can score 70+% correct on a BLIND test, that would be
sign
54 matches
Mail list logo
