Great sounding system - $2K all in

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Tell me, if you talk to someone you know over that ultra, ultra primitive, lo-res phone system - do you have any trouble picking up that they are not in a good mood; that they are a bit off-colour; that they are not "their usual self"?

 That  ultra primitive, lo-res phone system  is a result of bandwidth constraints developed by Engineers before the availability of later generation Fibre Optic cables, the same commercial interests that saw AM Radio downgraded from 15kHz to 9kHz ( or less) the use of .mp3 carts for FM stereo , and now the use of crappy 128kb/s .aac audio for many DTV transmissions , despite the capability of HDTV to have 5.1 Dolby or multi channel DTS.

The same greedy commercial interests  have now even dumbed down high resolution Audio formats using bloody MQA.

 Analogue Telephony, after the advent of Rocking Armature receivers, and Electret microphones to replace the older carbon types had a vastly higher quality capability, at least in the Sydney Au. network. . 

[fas42]

41 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 I have previously posted Frequency spectrum response graphs of typical small Laptop speakers.

Unless your laptop cost over $2K you will also have a similar limitation. There is usually a very larger dip at just over 10kHz.

Even my fairly expensive ATH M70x which claim a response to 40kHz have this typical dip, but way less than typical inexpensive headphones. 

 

What? Have you actually set up a microphone, in front of a laptop speaker, to capture what its output is?

[fas42]

35 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Which is as I said, and 128kb/s .aac audio is typically limited to around 16kHz maximum which is even inferior to FM  Stereo.

 

 Opus Audio is mainly used for encoding at lower bit rates than .aac audio. 

 

Opus on YT is 160kb/s; which is superior to other encoders working at a similar rate.

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

What? Have you actually set up a microphone, in front of a laptop speaker, to capture what its output is?

 "Google is your friend " (Supposedly 😉)

Try using the search facility , or locate my original post i a reply to you where I showed a typical laptop frequency response.

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Opus on YT is 160kb/s; which is superior to other encoders working at a similar rate.

 So what ? They could have used 529kb/s .aac Audio which is vastly superior,and VERY close to CD quality,  and would have only needed transcoding to 128kb/s without a format conversion.

 

In any event, the output is STILL only a miserable 128kb/s .aac audio

[fas42]

29 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

Believe me, there are lots of bad recordings out there, possibly more of them than of good ones.. and if one can't hear that, something isn't quite right.

 

Ps. @fas42 Why don't you use your active speakers with your laptop if I may ask.?

 

 

There's a difference between being able to pick that a recording is of poor technical quality - and being able, or not able to, enjoy the listening. Since I thought the point of the audio game was to find pleasure in listening to captures of music playing, I work towards achieving that ... it just turns out, luckily for everyone, that human hearing can compensate for poor recordings, provided that the playback chain doesn't mess it up even further!!

 

That last bit is where all the action is, but unfortunately it also turns out that this is not easy to do - even though that is steadily improving, year by year.

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 "Google is your friend " (Supposedly 😉)

Try using the search facility , or locate my original post i a reply to you where I showed a typical laptop frequency response.

 

Will hunt it down ...

 

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 So what ? They could have used 529kb/s .aac Audio which is vastly superior,and VERY close to CD quality,  and would have only needed transcoding to 128kb/s without a format conversion.

 

In any event, the output is STILL only a miserable 128kb/s .aac audio

 

What are we arguing here, Alex? YT is what it is - you work out the best method for extracting audio, from something uploaded - and use that ...

[fas42]

42 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

 

 

Ps. @fas42 Why don't you use your active speakers with your laptop if I may ask.?

 

 

Too far away, and inconvenient ... at some stage will organise another source setup; one of the bits of computing power lying round to do this - but my focus at the moment is to push the actives as far as I can with the original config; to see where the limits are.

[sphinxsix]

16 minutes ago, fas42 said:

provided that the playback chain doesn't mess it up even further!!

 

And you think that playing stuff from Youtube through built-in laptop speakers doesn't 'mess it up further', right.? 

 

19 minutes ago, fas42 said:

human hearing can compensate for poor recordings

 

Not mine, I'm probably atypical - when recording is bad I usually hear a bad recording..

 

[sandyk]

45 minutes ago, fas42 said:

What are we arguing here, Alex? YT is what it is - you work out the best method for extracting audio, from something uploaded - and use that ...

NO !

 Conventional wisdom is to start off with the highest possible permissible Youtube file resolution and then translate that to the required bit rate and format. Starting off with 529kb/s .aac will invariably result in a better sounding conversion to 128kb/s .aac by Youtube than starting off with, for example, 160kb/s Opus where you have already discarded quite a bit of the original data.

 P.S. 

 I t appears that Youtube doesn't want you to use decent quality audio to start with.

 

Quote

Select your download audio quality

1. In the YouTube Music app, tap on your profile picture.
2. Select Settings.
3. Tap Downloads & storage.
4. Tap Audio quality.
5. Select your download quality:
   • Low
     • Uses least storage on your device
     • Bitrate: 48kbps AAC
   • Normal
     • Default setting
     • Bitrate: 128kbps AAC
   • High
     • Higher-quality audio will use more storage on your device 
     • Bitrate: 256kbps AAC

 

[fas42]

10 minutes ago, sandyk said:

NO !

 Conventional wisdom is to start off with the highest possible permissible Youtube file resolution and then translate that to the required bit rate and format. Starting off with 529kb/s .aac will invariably result in a better sounding conversion to 128kb/s .aac by Youtube than starting off with, for example, 160kb/s Opus where you have already discarded quite a bit of the original data.

 

Okay, this is about your belief that 529kb/s is accessible via some means, Alex. I have not yet seen anything that demonstrates that this can happen, so far - and just some downloading software saying this, is not good enough, I'm afraid.

[fas42]

26 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

And you think that playing stuff from Youtube through built-in laptop speakers doesn't 'mess it up further', right.? 

 

And a POTS certainly does that, right? But you can still identify what's going on at the other end of the line, because there are plenty of cues getting through!

 

You don't need precision to know something's wrong - but you need precision to know where any remaining shortcomings are ... two very different exercises.

 

26 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

 

Not mine, I'm probably atypical - when recording is bad I usually hear a bad recording..

 

 

I do that all the time, also - I take one of my CDs to play on another person's system ... oh man, that sounds bad!! ... Must be the recording, of course!! 🙃

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Okay, this is about your belief that 529kb/s is accessible via some means,

 No. It's about GI=GO which is apparently what Youtube wants because of demands by VEVO in particular so that people buy the recordings in the videos, not save those they have downloaded. It's no surprise that they have optimised the Video though to attract attention.

Transcoding the 128kb's .aac audio to 24/48 LPCM does however result in a worthwhile improvement in Audio quality as even Dennis (esldude) verified a while back.

Check out the example of this I posted back on page 1 of this thread.

 

 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - The Danish National Symphony Orchestra (Live) as mentioned in another thread .

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w41d4t6u1gv1ypx/The Good%2C the Bad and the Ugly - The Danish National Symphony Orchestra (Live)-0x0002.aac?dl=0

 

 A conversion to 24/48 LPCM helps it a bit, although in theory it shouldn't be able to do this.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oq2dlunh9v11jlm/The Good%2C the Bad and the Ugly - The Danish National Symphony Orchestra (Live).wav?dl=0

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I do that all the time, also - I take one of my CDs to play on another person's system ... oh man, that sounds bad!! ... Must be the recording, of course!! 🙃

 More likely it is EXPECTATION Bias .😄

[fas42]

27 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 More likely it is EXPECTATION Bias .😄

 

Ah, Expectation Bias - the "Get Out Of Jail Free" card ... works almost every time ...

 

Very simple technique I use ... I walk in, thinking "This will be the best audio I've ever heard - it will be undo everything I've learnt up to now, and show me that my understanding of audio so far was wrong" ... and then see how long it takes for that to evaporate. Very effective - you prejudge in the 'wrong' direction; and then wait for actual experience to undo that perspective.

[Rexp]

Our friends at Suncoast just uploaded this, sounds great. 

 

 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 

 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - The Danish National Symphony Orchestra (Live) as mentioned in another thread .

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w41d4t6u1gv1ypx/The Good%2C the Bad and the Ugly - The Danish National Symphony Orchestra (Live)-0x0002.aac?dl=0

 

 A conversion to 24/48 LPCM helps it a bit, although in theory it shouldn't be able to do this.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oq2dlunh9v11jlm/The Good%2C the Bad and the Ugly - The Danish National Symphony Orchestra (Live).wav?dl=0

 

Okay, FR disappears at 16kHz - as would be expected. And the WAV version has an identical spectrum, at the treble end ... no surprises there.

 

The playback quality will vary purely because of the different sampling rates; depending upon hardware, and the software path, I would very much expect them to sound a touch different.

[sandyk]

17 minutes ago, fas42 said:

it will be undo everything I've learnt up to now, and show me that my understanding of audio so far was wrong"

 Come on Frank, we all know that is BS.😉

You are never likely in this lifetime to again accept that your understanding of Audio was wrong, as you did fairly recently with the "bits are bits" dogmanure.  🤣

 

[sandyk]

29 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I would very much expect them to sound a touch different.

 Why should they sound improved, NOT just a little different? 

.aac is a LOSSY format and you shouldn't , at least in theory, appear to be able to obtain a little extra info from both ends of the spectrum as Dennis also reported in one of his replies. Why can't the same apply as in my previous reply if the files are regenerated using an optimised PSU etc. ?

 

 Let's not go there again though.😉

  

 

[fas42]

12 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Come on Frank, we all know that is BS.😉

You are never likely in this lifetime to again accept that your understanding of Audio was wrong, as you did fairly recently with the "bits are bits" dogmanure.  🤣

 

 

How about, next lifetime ... ?

 

Just now, sandyk said:

 Why ? .aac is a LOSSY format and you shouldn't , at least in theory, be  able to obtain a little extra info from both ends of the spectrum as Dennis also reported in one of his replies. Why can't the same apply as in my previous reply if the files are regenerated using an optimised PSU etc. ?

 

 Let's not go there again though.😉

  

 

 

On the playback chain side of things, Alex 🙂 ... here, "everything matters" - that's why you have the madness of a thousand and so variations of parameters, to "make it better" ... just ask Peter, 😉.

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

that's why you have the madness of a thousand and so variations of parameters, to "make it better" ... just ask Peter, 😉

I don't need to ask Peter. My reports in this area predated his, with Peter originally saving some test files that I supplied to a member of his Phasure forum.( Jeff was a CSIRO Scientist from Brisbane)

 

 Can we now please get back to the topic of this thread ?

[fas42]

18 hours ago, Rexp said:

Our friends at Suncoast just uploaded this, sounds great. 

 

 

 

Yes, back OT ... somewhat "boxy"; and the piano is not quite right in the tonality - but otherwise lots of good qualities.

[John Dyson]

20 hours ago, sandyk said:

 No. It's about GI=GO which is apparently what Youtube wants because of demands by VEVO in particular so that people buy the recordings in the videos, not save those they have downloaded. It's no surprise that they have optimised the Video though to attract attention.

Transcoding the 128kb's .aac audio to 24/48 LPCM does however result in a worthwhile improvement in Audio quality as even Dennis (esldude) verified a while back.

Check out the example of this I posted back on page 1 of this thread.

 

 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - The Danish National Symphony Orchestra (Live) as mentioned in another thread .

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w41d4t6u1gv1ypx/The Good%2C the Bad and the Ugly - The Danish National Symphony Orchestra (Live)-0x0002.aac?dl=0

 

 A conversion to 24/48 LPCM helps it a bit, although in theory it shouldn't be able to do this.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oq2dlunh9v11jlm/The Good%2C the Bad and the Ugly - The Danish National Symphony Orchestra (Live).wav?dl=0

I tried processing the .aac version -- you judge...   It appears that the recording was compressed a little, which causes some troubles in louder passages...

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz6dwf33htkjfz4/The Good%2C the Bad and the Ugly - The Danish National Symphony Orchestra (Live)-0x0002.wav?dl=0

[sphinxsix]

19 hours ago, Rexp said:

Our friends at Suncoast just uploaded this, sounds great. 

 

 

 

38 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Yes, back OT ... somewhat "boxy"; and the piano is not quite right in the tonality - but otherwise lots of good qualities.

 

A multi kilo $$$ system should sound better than a youtube clip, does it.?  

 

 

Wishing everybody a fantastic evening! 

 

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

 

A multi kilo $$$ system should sound better than a youtube clip, does it.?  

 

If it's working impeccably, then it should show no symptoms of anything less than such, on a mere YT video ...

 

Quote

 

 

Wishing everybody a fantastic evening! 

 

 

Ta ... 🙂