Jump to content

BEEMB

Members
  • Content Count

    591
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BEEMB

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  1. Real measured results - great post. And it confirms what a number of us thought when this was originally started - lossless really is lossless. And if you hear a difference then it's time to buy a new computer.
  2. Okay - umm - unfortunately I don't actually have an AIFF version of Day Tripper .. Know where I can grab an uncompressed version online?
  3. I've not been here in a bit but a number of these e-mails have come through and caught my attention. I've just sat here comparing lossless vs AIFF - three songs.. Spent some time comparing Loneliliy by Damien Rice - listened to the bass line, the voice etc .. listened for how open everything sounded. I listened on some pretty good Beyerdynamic headphones. I couldn't hear the difference. What songs are you guys hearing these differences on. I'm curious to try them and listen for myself. Since you shouldn't be able to hear a difference, technically, maybe it has something to do with audio card/drivers/OS / what the OS is doing with a specific audio card - perhaps resampling lossless and not AIFF ... I dunno - looking for an explanation. Let me know the songs so I can hear it first though ...
  4. ... can you trust Bob's comments ... ?? ;-) @ Bob
  5. A few posts ago you said: "If this forum is to be a place for intelligent debate about computer audio, nonsense like this can't be allowed to stand unchallenged, and should be moderated" Then you state: "Please, can we end this nonsense about exact bit transmission being the only factor in play: a DAC is not a printer." A difference of opinion doesn't make it nonsense as you were right to point out earlier on. Back on the subject though - what they're trying to say is that the bits are identical before they get to the DAC. The data is sat there in memory uncompressed before it's sent on it's little journey onward. ie: before it hits the DAC, there is no difference in the data. The same bits go to the DAC. Simple as. A bit, is a bit, is a bit ... but that's just my opinion. Which is certainly not nonsense.
  6. I'm sure it sounded great. Generally though, why do so many hifi shops demo so loudly? Few months back I had a bose home cinema demo. Was just curious. It was so loud that it was far from comfortable to listen. I was impressed by some of the tech but demoing so loudly ruined the experience.
  7. Just remember if you buy a mac the software side is a little easier to set up and the wonderful itunes interface is bit perfect with no tweaking. You could then use bootcamp to run windows. On the pc side you'll need to fiddle some more but its not difficult to get a nice clean output. Even itunes has turned on dac lights since apple added windows audio session under the quicktime preferences.
  8. A few years back I'm sure JRiver never used to be considered an audiophile choice.?! With every update they seem to plant something new in there and clearly audiophiles are now well catered for. This is great to see and well done to the programmers! I'm going to have a play.
  9. Hiya Jon, This is a third recommendation for the AVI AMD9.1s. I use the M-Audio interface Bob mentions simply to pass 16bit 44khz material straight to the DAC of the ADM's - pass a bit perfect signal and let the DAC in the ADM's do all the work.. After a year and a half or so of ownership, I couldn't be happier. That or another active route such as the Mackie HR624's owned by my brother. These are cheaper speakers but you'll need a separate dac or decent audio card too such as the PreSonus Firebox. I'm not saying you definately must take the active route, it's just in my experience you get a lot for your money. And all the advice you receive around here will be top notch.. Matt.
  10. My brother replaced his Naim and Pro-Ac setup with a less expensive Sonos Firebox and pair of Mackie Studio monitors. For less money he has definately achieved better sound. Matt.
  11. Miska, Room correction is worthy of an entirely separate thread. I'd love to know more about what software is available etc etc ... If you've got time ... there's a thread waiting to be started with your name all over it. Matt.
  12. .. and its certainly worth listening to the makers of some of the best computer audio gear available. .. and hard disks affecting audio quality ?? Guess if your using the analog outputs from the audio card it's possible, but not with digital out.. Oh yes - sorry, every time i open up the same Word document it's changed .. those bloody hard disks ... must get a solid state drive to lessen the number of times those Word documents and picture files change .. ;-) ;-)
  13. Interesting. And pretty much sums it up for me. Guessing that's not going to be enough to satisfy everybody though.
  14. Interesting reading - I think I may been involved at the very earliest stages of this discussion when things went sour with a couple of ex forum members. It's certainly a heated debate. Shibboleth - Ziggy is simply trying to put forward a point regarding processor load and is just trying to arrive at the same end point as you .. so no need to remove higher bit rates from the discussion when processor load has been discussed as a reason for reduced sound quality associated with compressed lossless files. I can't hear a difference between ALAC and full fat AIFF. If software decompresses the data which is then passed on in it's original uncompressed form I really struggle with how audio quality can be affected. Can Peter comment regarding XXHighEnd? Miska - surely the information has to be decompressed and loaded in RAM before going anywhere doesn't it?
  15. "If such things happened then were looking at corrupted word files, etc" .... says enough for me ... He'll probably read our comments. Has he ever posted on here ?
×
×
  • Create New...