Home of the Squeezebox™ & Transporter® network music players.
Page 5 of 31 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 302
  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    635
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Leigh View Post
    most photo mags call this out as nonsense... It's the manufacturers who know the mass market is driven by impressive numbers...pixels sell cameras! The pros are clamouring for dynamic range...

    The nice thing about optical stuff is that it is quite easy to measure and there is broad agreement on which measurements matter.
    Yup, I think the pixel wars is waning and serious photogs and forums all know this...

    Octavist: Hope you get the permission!

    I haven't seen the new TAS article yet, but check out this question from Audio Asylum:
    http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pc...10/103654.html

    Using a transformer across the ground wire, eh? I wonder what kind of score that got? Anyone see this issue?

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Buckinghamshire, England
    Posts
    9,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Archimago View Post
    Yup, I think the pixel wars is waning and serious photogs and forums all know this...

    Octavist: Hope you get the permission!

    I haven't seen the new TAS article yet, but check out this question from Audio Asylum:
    http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pc...10/103654.html

    Using a transformer across the ground wire, eh? I wonder what kind of score that got? Anyone see this issue?
    The transformer is across both signal and ground=galvanic isolation...
    Or you could just use TOSLINK. these pulse transformers need to be carefully selected and the circuit around them needs to be optimised, it's not just a plug n play thing... Well not if you want it to be optimised it isn't. Many DACs already have pulse transformers on their inputs...
    You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal...
    Touch(wired/W7)+Teddy Pardo PSU - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters,VdH Toslink,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables
    Stax4070+SRM7/II phones
    Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything.

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by Mnyb View Post
    You could convince miss aronowski to publish on bandcamp it's not only for indie pop, the right venue for a small scale sale or downloadable demo .
    You can set price yourself.
    Second the motion on bandcamp.com. Great site. The artist can give away their music for free or set whatever price they like. They also support file formats all the way to FLAC.

    Anyone who loves old-style New Orleans jazz with vocals, check out Tuba Skinny. Great recordings.

  4. #44
    Can we wield a little logic scalpel for a moment?

    The original source points out that there is no obvious technological mechanism by which bit-identical files might differ with respect to their playback - although the writer has overlooked fragmentation altering HD behaviour and therefore ground plane noise.

    He does appear to trust his instincts, or underestimate subjective biasing, more than I'd be comfortable with - but who honestly can throw the first stone in that regard? We're a long way from understanding perception, and we can't rule out advances in our comprehension of sound reproduction either. There's no room for arrogance.

    There's also no evidence here of spin doctoring: who benefits commercially from the suggestion that a slow, obsolete CD-ROM is better than a new one?

    There is, however, among some respondents, a 'software' mentality that ignores, or is unaware of, the fundamentals of digital audio, and a sneaky equation of audio devices with computer peripherals that is rhetorical subterfuge.

    Bits don't 'rot', but storage is not the same as real-time processing. Displaying pixels on your monitor is not time-sensitive, and a printer is not voltage-sensitive. Clocks, DACs and amplifiers are both. A PC is largely agnostic to its playback environment: an audio system is not.

    You may have noticed that computers are not built with vacuum tubes so much these days: but for audio electronics they remain quite a good idea: the design goals are different.

  5. #45
    Senior Member Soulkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,220
    Quote Originally Posted by item_audio View Post
    The original source points out that there is no obvious technological mechanism by which bit-identical files might differ with respect to their playback - although the writer has overlooked fragmentation altering HD behaviour and therefore ground plane noise.
    There is no logical reason to believe HD fragmentation will have anything more than a negligible effect on ground plane noise (unless possibly if the HD is extremely fragmented, but then the user wouldn't need to turn on the sound in order to notice it).

    Quote Originally Posted by item_audio View Post
    Displaying pixels on your monitor is not time-sensitive
    Not even at 120 fps?

    But seriously, if you transfer video via HDMI, it is not time sensitive, but if you transfer audio via HDMI, it is? Please explain?

    Quote Originally Posted by item_audio View Post
    and a printer is not voltage-sensitive.
    Actually, these statements hardly make sense. If you connect your printer to a 10 kV line, you'll see just how voltage sensitive it is.

    But seriously, the ink nozzles of most inkjet printers are voltage controlled, and laser printers work by very accurately charging different parts of a rotating drum. If that isn't voltage sensitive, nothing is.

    Quote Originally Posted by item_audio View Post
    A PC is largely agnostic to its playback environment: an audio system is not.
    You're giving me no reason to believe your assertions are true. I can give you several examples of environmental variables that a PC's "playback" (whatever that's supposed to mean) would be sensitive to. Do I really need to do that?

    Quote Originally Posted by item_audio View Post
    You may have noticed that computers are not built with vacuum tubes so much these days: but for audio electronics they remain quite a good idea
    Still, 99% of audio equipment is made without vacuum tubes. Not that good an idea, in other words.

    Quote Originally Posted by item_audio View Post
    the design goals are different.
    Often, yes, but not always.

    Some products are made to get the job done as well as possible, as cheap as possible. Others are made to be expensive and exclusive.

    And that is where the difference lies; There's no magical divide between audio equipment and all other electronic equipment. They all work by the same principles, and they're all sold by the same principles.

  6. #46
    Senior Member Mnyb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Vństerňs Sweden
    Posts
    13,260
    that does not explain such pure idiotic conclusions that wav-flac-wav should sound different, this is not a real time problem you can copy and move around those files and play them later but still TAS claims that a identical copy (thats the definition of copy, it is really the same and in the computer world a copy really is a copy ) somehow sounds different .

    This conclusion are reached with the same methods they used for their other computer audio tests That clearly idicates that no other conclusion reached by their methods can be trusted , they have not accomplished anything but fud .

    They are a lot of things we don't know why not focus on them. TAS is trying to cast fud on things we actually do know for certain .

    It's where the honesty comes in to play .

    A much simpler and straightforward method would be to measure the different outcome via traditional methods and/or ADM discard the nulls and things that should really be inaudible by what we already know about human perception , but keep the dubious cases in the Grey area.

    The remaining cases could then could be subjected to ABX testing .

    99.998 of thier BS would disappear in round one as the connected DAC would have identical output so there is no need to listen if the output is exactly the same . The remaining dubius cases would be impossible to tell apart during controlled listening .

    If you don't do rigorous controlled testing (ab and abx and similar ) your results is not considered data, they just don't carry any information at all about what you are trying to test, placebo and other kinds of bias is overwhelming any real result even if it's there in the noise somewhere.

    I'm assuming DAC here no true believer in audiophilia would use the analog out from a PC but the result would hold true for the better of todays soundcards
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub.
    Bedroom/Office: Boom
    Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4
    Misc use: Radio (with battery)
    iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad
    (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller )
    server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux

    http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

  7. #47
    Senior Member ralphpnj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Northern NJ, USA
    Posts
    1,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Soulkeeper View Post
    There is no logical reason to believe HD fragmentation will have anything more than a negligible effect on ground plane noise (unless possibly if the HD is extremely fragmented, but then the user wouldn't need to turn on the sound in order to notice it).


    Not even at 120 fps?

    But seriously, if you transfer video via HDMI, it is not time sensitive, but if you transfer audio via HDMI, it is? Please explain?


    Actually, these statements hardly make sense. If you connect your printer to a 10 kV line, you'll see just how voltage sensitive it is.

    But seriously, the ink nozzles of most inkjet printers are voltage controlled, and laser printers work by very accurately charging different parts of a rotating drum. If that isn't voltage sensitive, nothing is.


    You're giving me no reason to believe your assertions are true. I can give you several examples of environmental variables that a PC's "playback" (whatever that's supposed to mean) would be sensitive to. Do I really need to do that?


    Still, 99% of audio equipment is made without vacuum tubes. Not that good an idea, in other words.


    Often, yes, but not always.

    Some products are made to get the job done as well as possible, as cheap as possible. Others are made to be expensive and exclusive.

    And that is where the difference lies; There's no magical divide between audio equipment and all other electronic equipment. They all work by the same principles, and they're all sold by the same principles.
    +1 to each response. Well done SK! I really like all those ultra-expensive laptops but why no Macs??

    Quote Originally Posted by Mnyb View Post
    that does not explain such pure idiotic conclusions that wav-flac-wav should sound different, this is not a real time problem you can copy and move around those files and play them later but still TAS claims that a identical copy (thats the definition of copy, it is really the same and in the computer world a copy really is a copy ) somehow sounds different .

    This conclusion are reached with the same methods they used for their other computer audio tests That clearly idicates that no other conclusion reached by their methods can be trusted , they have not accomplished anything but fud .

    They are a lot of things we don't know why not focus on them. TAS is trying to cast fud on things we actually do know for certain .

    It's where the honesty comes in to play .

    A much simpler and straightforward method would be to measure the different outcome via traditional methods and/or ADM discard the nulls and things that should really be inaudible by what we already know about human perception , but keep the dubious cases in the Grey area.

    The remaining cases could then could be subjected to ABX testing .

    99.998 of thier BS would disappear in round one as the connected DAC would have identical output so there is no need to listen if the output is exactly the same . The remaining dubius cases would be impossible to tell apart during controlled listening .

    If you don't do rigorous controlled testing (ab and abx and similar ) your results is not considered data, they just don't carry any information at all about what you are trying to test, placebo and other kinds of bias is overwhelming any real result even if it's there in the noise somewhere.

    I'm assuming DAC here no true believer in audiophilia would use the analog out from a PC but the result would hold true for the better of todays soundcards
    Mnyb - you hit the nail on the head with "They are a lot of things we don't know why not focus on them. TAS is trying to cast fud on things we actually do know for certain." The answer is that by using FUD the high end audio industry, along with their enablers in the press, are able to create a need where there wasn't any and then produce overpriced "solutions" to a "problem" that doesn't even exist.

    For example, now that the utterly worthless series on Computer Music published in The Absolute Sound has completed how long do you think it will be before we start seeing audiophile DVD/CD drives along with audiophile CD ripping software? Audiophile power supplies for computers? Audiophile blank CDs, flash drives, hard drives, etc.? Remember there was no market for high end USB DACs until the industry created it by falsely declaring all the other valid and less troublesome (than USB) digital data transfer methods somehow terminally flawed.

    You may also notice how, in spite of the fact several high end magazines have praised the Squeezebox Touch and Transporter, these two devices are NEVER used when testing the latest and greatest DAC. Or how when the Touch or Transporter is mentioned, it always seems to be along the lines of "I love my SB Touch, I use it to listen to Internet radio in the background". And of course throw in the fact that both the Touch and the Transporter are now officially non-starters since neither one goes above 24/96 and the new high resolution standard is now the absurd 32/384. Plus the only recordings available at that resolution are insanely expensive and happen to be the usual sub-par audiophile dreck.

    I am so glad that this forum exists and is frequented by well informed members who understand that something does not need to be expensive to sound good nor does something being expensive mean that it will sound good.
    Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub
    Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub
    Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub
    Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0
    Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar
    Garage: SB3-JVC compact system
    Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso
    Server: SBS on dedicated windows 7 computer w/2 Drobos
    Last.fm

  8. #48
    Senior Member totoro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    489

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by item_audio View Post
    Can we wield a little logic scalpel for a moment?

    The original source points out that there is no obvious technological mechanism by which bit-identical files might differ with respect to their playback - although the writer has overlooked fragmentation altering HD behaviour and therefore ground plane noise.

    He does appear to trust his instincts, or underestimate subjective biasing, more than I'd be comfortable with - but who honestly can throw the first stone in that regard? We're a long way from understanding perception, and we can't rule out advances in our comprehension of sound reproduction either. There's no room for arrogance.

    There's also no evidence here of spin doctoring: who benefits commercially from the suggestion that a slow, obsolete CD-ROM is better than a new one?

    There is, however, among some respondents, a 'software' mentality that ignores, or is unaware of, the fundamentals of digital audio, and a sneaky equation of audio devices with computer peripherals that is rhetorical subterfuge.

    Bits don't 'rot', but storage is not the same as real-time processing. Displaying pixels on your monitor is not time-sensitive, and a printer is not voltage-sensitive. Clocks, DACs and amplifiers are both. A PC is largely agnostic to its playback environment: an audio system is not.

    You may have noticed that computers are not built with vacuum tubes so much these days: but for audio electronics they remain quite a good idea: the design goals are different.
    And just how, exactly, are these different pieces of software supposed to affect the layout of the admittedly bit-identical files on disc (given that the files are bit-identical, this is the _only_ thing left that can be different)?

    Most software uses pretty standard io library calls to write the stuff out. And even then, where it gets put on disc is going to depend heavily on:

    what the filesystem is.
    how full the disc is.
    whether there is a raid system.
    what other software is using the io subsystem at the moment.

    In point of fact, _which software was used first_ will have vastly more influence over how the resulting files are laid out on disc than which software is used. Also, one could defragment afterwards, and again, this would have an _actual_ effect, rather than an imagined one.

    Claiming that the software writing out the _admittedly bit-identical files_ is somehow making some of them sound better without controlling for any of this (and this is just what I thought of off the top of my head) bespeaks of a profound lack of understanding of how computers actually work, combined with a level of hubris that is really offputting.

    This whole thing is bullshit of the first order, and I'm not at all sorry about being a bit impolite about it.
    Last edited by totoro; 2012-02-20 at 10:11.
    sb touch -> classdaudio sds-450 -> audio physic tempo 4 + rel storm 3 & rythmik f12se

  9. #49
    Senior Member ralphpnj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Northern NJ, USA
    Posts
    1,952
    Quote Originally Posted by totoro View Post
    This whole thing is bullshit of the first order, and I'm not at all sorry about being a bit impolite about it.
    totoro,

    You are being so close minded about this stuff. Don't you understand that by using quantum mechanics one can show how 2+2=5 when traveling at the speed of light squared? At that speed even bit perfect copies are different.
    Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub
    Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub
    Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub
    Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0
    Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar
    Garage: SB3-JVC compact system
    Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso
    Server: SBS on dedicated windows 7 computer w/2 Drobos
    Last.fm

  10. #50
    Senior Member Mnyb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Vństerňs Sweden
    Posts
    13,260
    Quote Originally Posted by ralphpnj View Post
    totoro,

    You are being so close minded about this stuff. Don't you understand that by using quantum mechanics one can show how 2+2=5 when traveling at the speed of light squared? At that speed even bit perfect copies are different.
    More like the multiverse theory which copy are you listening to and probably also which you.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub.
    Bedroom/Office: Boom
    Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4
    Misc use: Radio (with battery)
    iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad
    (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller )
    server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux

    http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •