16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[Andyman]

4 hours ago, numlog said:

 

As the system improved the limitations of redbook really start to show which is a disappointing surprise.

 

Sample rate is important but I did not realise just how critical higher bit depths are, 16 bits is just way to low.

Even with the best 16bit recordings and I can now notice this distinct hazy and compressed sound , it's really surprising how clearly audible it is once you get to moderately high volumes.

 

 

 

 

Hmm. So you’ve improved your system so much, the vast majority of recorded music sounds worse. Red book is quite capable of stunning sq. Don’t have a clue what you have or have changed but I respectfully suggest you haven’t improved in all areas. 

Regarding electronic, hip hop etc. you may be aware of recent posts from a mastering engineer who posted here for a while before being banned (I think?) for being a bit of an arse. During his brief tenure he did however bring some interesting insights. Of relevance here is that 16/44 is actually the preferred choice (admittedly often mastered in 24 bit for headroom) for many masters due to the particular sound density (my words and interpretation). 

This has further implications for those upsampling to dsd etc. Changing the sound perhaps but also presumably moving further from the (audio) truth...

[Andyman]

On 7/14/2018 at 9:38 AM, semente said:

 

 

 

 

I haven’t yet worked up the courage to press the play button. Even the man in the background with the 70’s porn star moustache (part of the “band”?) is looking on in pain...

[Andyman]

35 minutes ago, Andyman said:

 

I haven’t yet worked up the courage to press the play button. Even the man in the background with the 70’s porn star moustache (part of the “band”?) is looking on in pain...

 

Excuse quoting myself. Watched it now - it’actually very funny.

[Andyman]

On 7/14/2018 at 7:14 AM, AudioDoctor said:

Speaking of Hip Hop and Electronica...

 

This is where the sub in my main system really makes itself heard.

 

 

Played this a couple of times over the weekend. Wasn’t listening out for bass (or anything else hifi). But what a great album. Think someone said later in thread Barry White with Portishead. Yep - kudos!

[Andyman]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

if you want to graduate from hip-hop, try Bounce

 

Graduate? Listen to Kendrick - To Pimp a Butterfly...

[Andyman]

5 hours ago, esldude said:

Here is a chart showing quality in one simple graphic.  No one is claiming 128 kbps is transparent vs lossless.  But they get near that once you starting going above 128 kbps.  Therefore none of the formats have a decisive advantage at the upper rates.   Opus btw is an open source codec from xiph.org.  Soundcloud can/does use Opus. 

 

http://opus-codec.org/comparison/

 

 

Hi Dennis.

Not sure about this graph. Whilst the vertical scale is somewhat arbitrary, it does seem to imply that with AAC (amongst others) there is very little difference between 32 (and a bit) and 128. I'd be surprised if that were true.

[Andyman]

42 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

To estimate quality, it is necessary to define measurable value (distortions, method of audio perception testing, etc.).

 

Whoah there. I didn't post the graph but was questioning it (bloody Dennis causing me trouble!)

[Andyman]

27 minutes ago, numlog said:

Sorry I was mistaken, dithering is set to 'always'.

 

Ah, you mis-spoke (wrote). Are you American?

[Andyman]

38 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

So re-set.

 

"The Music on this Compact Digital Disc was originally recorded on analog equipment. We have attempted to preserve, as closely as possible, the sound of the original recording. Because of its high resolution, however, the Compact Disc can reveal limitations of the source tape."

 

I claim this is BS. You seem to disagree with me saying this is BS.

How ?

 

(and I say it again : this is supposed to come forward from a head to head comparison with the tape itself and a replay of a digital recording of it)

 

Mind my emphasis because that is how it should read.

If the "however" would not have been there, we are supposed to read it all differently and it would NOT be BS.

The "however" suggests something (more) negative. And this is not so at all. Instead it will show the very same as how the tape did (sounded).

 

 

 

 

 

Peter. This can be considered disingenuous or not dependent on how conspiratorial you’re feeling.

Consider. Analogue master tape as others have posted will “contain” hiss etc. 

On transfer to lp these “defects” will mostly be masked (by the higher noise floor).

Most consumers of the day will have had no access to the original tape and on listening to their lp will be aware only of its own noise.

The cd transfer (notwithstanding changes to mastering) will have been sufficiently resolving to render the tape hiss audible. 

Thus revealing the (previously masked) “limitation” of the tape. As per the disclaimer/marketing hype.

No- one is referring to a comparison of original tape vs cd.

 

As an aside, previous references to frequency balance should take into account that transducers (cartridges) vary wildly in their fr compared with CD players - to all intents and purposes flat.

 

Of course you know all this. Maybe you’re having a niggly Dutch morning!

[Andyman]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

It is exactly about that and what I tried to say. No-one WAS doing that, because it couldn't happen (OK, I had a couple of DAT recorders). But today we can and today the disclaimers does not make sense. Not to me.

 

 

In the immortal words of ABC,

 

”that was then and this is now”

 

?

[Andyman]

Hello. I’m Andy. I’m looking for the “16 bit files almost unlistenable now...” thread?

[Andyman]

Fair enough.

 

I rented Roon for a year. Everything it did, it did very well. But for me (admittedly not using its multi zone capabilities etc.) there were no must-haves to warrant the cost. I suspect many will think likewise once the honeymoon period wears off and predict problems with their business model. Back to A+ upgraded to v3. 

[Andyman]

8 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Are you saying you have no self control?

 

No - that was the other Peter (Gabriel)!

[Andyman]

8 hours ago, diecaster said:

 

No, I did not......I said he was the one that piped in with the insulting comments. I stuck to facts and information.....

 

Don't mention the war

 

You started it

 

No I didn't

 

Yes you did. You invaded Poland

[Andyman]

1 hour ago, diecaster said:

 

Sorry, Jud. There is no reason to believe that a general purpose server motherboard is going to be electronically quieter than the custom designed specific purpose board in the ultraRendu.The ultraRendu should put out a less color by noise USB signal (including power, ground, and clock phase noise) than any general purpose server motherboard. If you feed the ultraRendu with an Ethernet switch that blocks most of the high impedance noise as outlined by John Swenson in other threads here, the ultraRendu should put out a USB signal cleaner than any general purpose motherboard.

 

What you say makes sense and the Sonore philosophy is simple to understand (and I own a microrendu so have bought into the theory). But there are many ways to skin a cat. You can choose low power (valve) amps with high efficiency speakers. Or the converse. You can adhere to minimal feedback amps or align with Bruno Putzeys*; that once you get past a certain (insufficient) amount things massively improve. I don’t understand Peter’s thinking (not even sure he does half the time!) but perhaps it’s equally radical. He has enough of a following to suggest he’s on to something. Maybe going up you can end up in the same place as if you’d gone down. How many sides does a circle have?

 

(*unless you’re GUTB)