Popular Post firedog Posted July 15, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 15, 2018 3 hours ago, GUTB said: About 2 years ago I tested VBR MP3 with the latest encoder vs FLAC and I seriously could tell NO difference. If there was a difference it was so small it couldn't break past memory effect / test stress. Wait, after all your snobby posts putting down everyone else's equipment, crappy "CD quality" music, and listening skills - you write this? So you've been lying to us all along and are now telling truth? Understand, I think many people, if honest, would agree about mp3 on at least some tracks, if not all. Teresa, Summit, mrvco and 4 others 6 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
audiventory Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 9 hours ago, jabbr said: If you mean by "aggressive" as "processor intensive" then yes, indeed processor intensive. Noise shaping is defined by filter in feedback of a sigma-delta modulator. See "DAC" in feedback at the picture "Sigma delta modulator inside" here https://samplerateconverter.com/educational/how-work-sigma-delta-modulation-audio Remark: there are number of different modulator schemes, but in the post described general principle. More shaping steepness (filter frequency-magnitude steepness) > more sensitive feedback > more unstable system with feedback (modulator). Steepness of the shaping depend on the order and design method of the filter. 1 order = 1 [multiply+sum] operation. As rule, sigma-delta modulators have orders lesser 10. And changing of the shaping steepness don't make big performance difference. Resampling filters and big sample rates (big number of calculations) consume most of performance. AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac, safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF, Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & WindowsOffline conversion save energy and nature Link to comment
sandyk Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 2 hours ago, buonassi said: As is the case with some others who've already posted: The better I dial in my system, the harder it is to tell 16 bit from 24 bit. It's to the point where I just don't care about high res anymore. Have you , or others compared stuff like " Blondie-Parallel Lines " in both 16/44.1 and the 24/192 versions ? There is also markedly better channel separation with the 24/192 version. It's simply no contest with my PC audio. I was comparing the .flac 24/192 after conversion to .wav earlier today. How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file. PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020 Link to comment
Andyman Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 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... AudioDoctor 1 Link to comment
PeterSt Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 9 minutes ago, Andyman said: Even the man in the background with the 70’s porn star moustache (part of the “band”?) is looking on in pain... It must be OK because it says "HD". 89reksal 1 Lush^3-e Lush^2 Blaxius^2.5 Ethernet^3 HDMI^2 XLR^2 XXHighEnd (developer) Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer) Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer) Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier) Link to comment
Fokus Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 On 7/13/2018 at 3:27 PM, mordante said: I own 1 24/192 album, So by Peter Gabriel. Not sure if it sound different or better compared to the 16/44.1 So is entirely an early digital recording, hence innately 44k1. Teresa 1 Link to comment
Andyman Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 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. Link to comment
firedog Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 46 minutes ago, Fokus said: So is entirely an early digital recording, hence innately 44k1. Peter Gabriel, "So": Quote The studio's basic equipment consisted of "two analog 24-track machines, a Studer A80, and a Studer A80 shell that had been modified by a local electronics wizard, with its own audio cards and transport controls".[nb 2] To record vocals a Neumann U47 tube microphone and a Decca compressor were used without equalization.[12] All of So's songs were made in a similar format. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_(album) So, a remaster to 24/192 might sound better than the original CD if it was made from the tapes. Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Fokus Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 Sorry, my info back then stated that So was fully digital. The LP has a tell tale ridge at 20kHz. The SACD has the same ridge. Both were clearly 44.1k at one stage during production. Edit: the story is in the Classic Tracks series on SOS. They ran into sync problems with the A80s, and had to bounce all tracks over a Mitsubishi 32track. Digital thus ... Teresa 1 Link to comment
firedog Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 9 minutes ago, Fokus said: Sorry, my info back then stated that So was fully digital. The LP has a tell tale ridge at 20kHz. The SACD has the same ridge. Both were clearly 44.1k at one stage during production. Edit: the story is in the Classic Tracks series on SOS. They ran into sync problems with the A80s, and had to bounce all tracks over a Mitsubishi 32track. Digital thus ... Well both things could be true - 24 track tape and a 16\44.1 master produced from the tapes. And certainly wouldn't be the first time SACDs were produced from upsampled Redbook. The album was remastered in 2002. And apparently again for hi-res and vinyl in 2012. http://blog.bowers-wilkins.com/music/remastering-peter-gabriels-so/ The question is what is the source of the 24/192 version referred to in the above post. I couldn't find a reference to such a version anywhere. Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Fokus Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 The story is they initially tracked on the A-80s, ran into problems, copied all tracks to the digital Mitsubishi, and proceeded with that one. There is no pure-analogue So. Not that it matters. Whatever the release, I have always found that the louder songs sound crappy. Link to comment
Popular Post Teresa Posted July 15, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 15, 2018 1 hour ago, firedog said: ...And certainly wouldn't be the first time SACDs were produced from upsampled Redbook... Prior to multichannel computer music files the only way to get discrete lossless multichannel was to release on SACD or DVD-Audio. Thus there were two reasons to release on SACD: Multichannel surround sound High resolution audio Sometimes you get one or the other and sometimes you get both. Multichannel recordings made in the 1980s to 1990s were mostly 16/44.1. In the early days of HDTracks they ran into trouble as they wrongly believed that SACD always meant high resolution, it doesn't. Sometimes SACDs are released just for the multichannel. Summit, jabbr, Ralf11 and 1 other 3 1 I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums. I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past. I still love music. Teresa Link to comment
gmgraves Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 10 hours ago, Don Hills said: You may have missed the point of the video. Take the time to watch it right through. No thanks, Don't want to hear that kind of music. But thanks for the correction. George Link to comment
mansr Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 1 minute ago, gmgraves said: No thanks, Don't want to hear that kind of music. But thanks for the correction. It's clearly a parody, a joke. Mute the sound if you don't want to hear it. It's still funny. Link to comment
gmgraves Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 18 minutes ago, mansr said: It's clearly a parody, a joke. Mute the sound if you don't want to hear it. It's still funny. OK. George Link to comment
rando Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 22 hours ago, Blake said: Rando, your expertise with respect to the electronic music and hip hop genres is most informative..... keep going please, tell me more. God wiling, with your informed advice, I can graduate from the electronic music and hip hop that I listen to now, to whatever music it is that you enjoy. Whatever music it is, I am quite certain I am not yet ready or worthy to receive it, but with your guidance Sensei Rando, all things are possible! Boy did that tetchy reaction post wound me. Hormonal mood swings towards sarcasm and social exclusion? ?♀️ Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 if you want to graduate from hip-hop, try Bounce buonassi 1 Link to comment
Andyman Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 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! AudioDoctor 1 Link to comment
Andyman Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 1 hour ago, Ralf11 said: if you want to graduate from hip-hop, try Bounce Graduate? Listen to Kendrick - To Pimp a Butterfly... AudioDoctor 1 Link to comment
Popular Post esldude Posted July 15, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 15, 2018 20 hours ago, GUTB said: MP3 = OUT OF THIS BODY SATAN Well, to be honest -- which I always am -- modern psycho-acoustic processing on these lossy compression schemes work wonders. About 2 years ago I tested VBR MP3 with the latest encoder vs FLAC and I seriously could tell NO difference. If there was a difference it was so small it couldn't break past memory effect / test stress. STILL, it's better to store music in a lossless format simply due to the cheapness of storage, future flexibility and easier CPU load. Your speakers and amp are pretty entry level, so I wouldn't go crazy cleaning up your source, but some clean-up is recommended. At the very least a Jitterbug on your USB connection to the Teac, and I strongly recommend power conditioning, even inexpensive ones (check china-hifi and AliExpress, Panamax on eBay) will help the Teac, and POSSIBLY the Marantz. If you can't afford even this, at LEAST run an extension from another room's power circuit to power the Teac and Marantz -- in fact, you should do that anyway even with a power conditioner. You should do the bolded part above if you wish to create the chance for ground loops which may cause hum or noise that otherwise would not be there. Better advice is don't take advice from GUTB. He usually is wrong. AudioDoctor and Ralf11 2 And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
esldude Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 18 hours ago, Sonicularity said: Thank you for the advice. See my post just above. Sonicularity 1 And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
fas42 Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 10 hours ago, Fokus said: Not that it matters. Whatever the release, I have always found that the louder songs sound crappy. This type of statement is always a giveaway that the replay chain is not up to scratch - "louder songs" are merely those which use more of the potential of digital to encode anything, with "perfect" resolution of the content - if the rig can't handle it, then don't blame the recording methods. I used to play Peter Gabriel's "So" - no problems with any of the tracks, a relatively 'mild' album - a far more testing recording is album IV, Security; this has sections of very intense sound, which would trouble many setups. Link to comment
Sonicularity Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 1 hour ago, esldude said: See my post just above. I am not weak in my mathematical knowledge and deductive reasoning. I don't recall establishing my financial means; though, I suppose it was simply assumed from my comments. Neither of us will probably ever change GUTB's perspective on audio gear and its relationship with cost. I recognized the futility of continuing on in that direction. Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 Very cogent. I still stand by my recommendation to try out some Redbook files for your favs. also, IIRC some rates or bit depths can vary for mp3s, even beyond the types of music that may be just fine with mp3 - @mansr can explain this I think Link to comment
fas42 Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 I don't have a problem with mp3 at all - at one stage I got very interested in trialing this format, and played quite a bit with the settings of LAME, to see what happened with the SQ. Yes, one can hear the alteration, but it's not a disaster - perfectly acceptable, in the same way as a slightly different mastering is acceptable. Creating a diff file showed how little was lost, compared to the large variations that can occur for other reasons. If I was forced to listen to only good quality mp3 from now on, it wouldn't be hell on earth ... Link to comment
Recommended Posts