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 from
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 may
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
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
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 wrong here
Mike Hanson Wrote:
Don't worry, I wasn't accusing you of being heavy-handed or over
emotional. g 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
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
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
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
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
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
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 data.
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 ears
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 pretty
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
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 of
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?
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
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
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, then
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
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
of
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,
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 based on
Yannzola wrote:
Okay...
So I listened to the same track over and over and over again with
FLACWAV 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
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
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
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
Okay,
I'm game. I'll try a HEARING test this eve... Sean, are the steps Timbo
performed (deselecting all FLACXXX conversion options except for
FLACWAV) 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 that
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
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
31 matches
Mail list logo
