Any audiophiles here?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Tech Talk
Forum Description: Discuss musical instruments, equipment, hi-fi, speakers, vinyl, gadgets,etc.
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=59204
Printed Date: December 03 2024 at 12:59
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Any audiophiles here?
Posted By: mattmcl
Subject: Any audiophiles here?
Date Posted: July 01 2009 at 09:32
|
Just wondering if there are any folks here with this obsession. I've started to put my toe into the water and have found myself dragged into the deep end. Do you agonize over LP or CD? The depth and warmth of the LP can't be denied, but the clean crackle free CD is pretty sweet too. How many times in the past year have you swapped out capacitors in your crossovers? Lacking the funds for commercial equipment, I've started building my own. I'm working on a pair of transmission line speakers, then two monoblocks, a pre amp and DAC, probably in that order. I listen to most stuff digitally as FLAC files. Anyone else out there? |
Replies:
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 01 2009 at 10:23
|
I consider myself to be an audiophile person ... I love to listen to music on good equipment that brings out all the details of the music. The difference between me and typical audiophiles is that I not only embrace digital formats, but also MP3 (at high bitrates). There have been many studies that show that even on very good equipment it's often not possible to tell the original (CD/FLAC) apart from high bitrate MP3. And to make it even worse, I also use low-cost Logitech 5.1 speakers most of the time ... they sound magnificent at lower volume and/or if you sit in front of the computer in the optimal position. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: July 02 2009 at 01:14
i hate being labelled an audiophile  , i haven't got a £20,000 system with a £5,000+ cartridge - i just enjoy getting the best out of my lovely records, many of these miniature works of art have been painstakingly produced from state-of-the-art recording equipment (even the old 50's records sound amazing) and justify some respect, not played on a tin-can sounding ipod, MP3 or the over-eq'd and compressed cd that sets your teeth on edge!
...that out of the way, my modest mid-range setup has been assembled through many years of auditioning and matching many makes of components, after much testing i can say even a budget system can sound good if set up properly, but investment can produce even better results.
As for the vinyl / cd thing, both have their pros and cons but i prefer the sound of my vinyl records over cd generally, cd's are boringly convenient, but i have come across a few cd's that have been startling - the SACD and DVD-A 5.1 surround sound is very good, and i would recommend the 20 or 24 bit stereo recordings over the standard 16-bit ones, vinyl is still superior over these but i don't mind the odd pop or click, the high quality of sound produced by vinyl will come through, but sometimes i get no background noise at all as i keep my lp's CLEAN - though as John Peel famously said "Surface noise? ..life too has surface noise..".
btw placing the wrong capacitors in your crossovers can cause damage to the speakers...be very careful!
let battle commence....
 -------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 02 2009 at 01:23
|
^ the fact remains though that vinyl has inferior dynamic bandwidth ... I'd say that a digital medium with 14 bit resolution would be a good analogy. I know that this "battle" can go on endlessly, without any progress. My hope is though that with each generation people will look at the difference between vinyl/analog and CD/MP3/digital with less bias and more emphasis on the actual physical facts. BTW: I'm sure that you hear a difference between vinyl and CD, and that you prefer the sound of vinyl and - by your subjective perception - vinyl has more dynamics than CD, or CD is more "compressed" than vinyl. Well, sometimes our ears play tricks on us ... just have a look at the thread about optical illusions. Eyes, ears ... they supply us with data which is processed by our brain, and that's where things can go terribly wrong as far as accuracy is concerned.  ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: July 02 2009 at 01:33
|
i did do some experiments some time ago using a computer program that measures frequency response, and the cd had a very even bandwidth and was "louder" but the vinyl response was so wide it was difficult to keep within the scale (i printed the results somewhere on this site but it was a long time ago, they are here somewhere!) - sorry but there are no mind tricks, vinyl has much wider frequency response captured in those grooves, but i have had many discussions on the net and it would seem religious conversion woud be easier than getting someone to change from cd and vinyl! by the way - to return to the thread subject of audiophiles, i am not one becausei know a real audiophile would not be seen dead using cd's ...
------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 02 2009 at 01:34
|
^ I'm not sure what you mean by "wider frequency response" ... are we talking about dynamics or frequencies? ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: July 02 2009 at 02:20
|
frequencies - dynamics brings in the arbitrary subject of "loudness", many remastered cd's have enhanced dynamics which trick the ear in thinking it is louder and clearer - sounds great in the car but a bit overwhelming in the living room, unless you want to annoy the neighbours!
on the distortion front, i have listened to distortion-free sound analogue sound for most of my life (except for live gigs!) and my hearing is still pin-sharp, i pass every test at the doctors, though constant exposure to ipod would probably not be a good thing in years to come.... wait and
listening to some recent vinyl albums i suspect they have been recorded digitally and the inherent digital characteristics (pinched, compressed high frequencies) have been transposed onto the vinyl recordings, they just don't sound like those old 60's lp's - for years recording studios have been longing to ditch their expensive unreliable 32 track tape machines and cans of Ampex gold master tape and i guess they may have done it - a sad blow for the analogue fan, but "progress" is inevitable i suppose..
 btw to return to the thread subject of audiophiles, i am not an audiophile because a real audiophile would not be seen dead using cd's..
------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: July 02 2009 at 02:56
I'm the child of a poor audiohpile  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 02 2009 at 03:05
Well, that's not a something you can blame the CD for. First of all, like you said, you experience this problem with some CDs. It's up to the guy who does the mastering ... if he decides to *reduce* the dynamics (not "enhance", as you put it) in order to increase the level of loudness ... you really can't blame the medium for that.
IMO that's another myth ... if anything, CDs sound "pinched" or "sharp" because they contain more of the original high frequency parts of the signal than the vinyl edition. That's especially true if you compare a properly mastered CD (that is: not copied from vinyl) to a non-mint vinyl pressing. Of course the vinyl sounds warmer and softer ... because the treble parts are mostly gone.
Ok, the old vinyl vs. cd vs. mp3 discussion is probably off topic ... but like I said in the beginning: I consider myself to be an audiophile. I simply go one step further than you ... but I guess the difference between you and me is probably similar to the difference between you and a true audiophile.  ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
mystic fred wrote:Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 02 2009 at 04:43
 Expressing it like that is misleading.
14 bit resolution of vinyl is a measurement based upon the actual dynamic range (ie the amplitude of the signal above the measured noise floor) applied to the Effective Number Of Bits (ENOB) formula for an ideal ADC or DAC:
ENOB = (SINAD-1.76)/6.02 ... where SINAD is SNR+THD
Digital resolution is purely theoretical - a 24-bit DAC cannot achieve 24-bits in reality, the above formula is for calculating how many bits resolution the coder has achieved, not how many it can achieve in theory. 24Bits equates to a noise-floor of -146dB - an impossible figure (this number is thrown around by digitalphiles with wild abandon, but it is not very meaningful in real life) - the sole purpose of the formula is to measure the actual SINAD and then calculate how many bits your 24-bit DAC is actually achieving.
You can only compare ideal with ideal, effective with effective and actual with actual - you cannot compare ideal-digital with effective-analogue - that is misleading.
The 14-bits you quote for vinyl is the Effective number of bits based upon the noise-floor so must be equated to the Effective number of bits a DAC is producing in the same environment. So if the noise-floor is measured at -86dB in the analogue domain then it a DAC will achieve exactly the same (or worse) in the same system and therefore be 14-bits resolution too.
If the theoretical value for a DAC is 24-bits then to compare that with vinyl you have to use the theoretical value for that too, which for vinyl is infinite-bits.
There are other "problems" with this:
In the theoretical digital domain ENOB is limited purely by quantisation noise (which for low-level signals is 100% THD). In the analogue domain this is limited purely by thermal noise (which is SNR).
Therefore it is impossible to have digital signals that are below the noise floor whereas analogue signals can and do exist below the noise-floor. In fact digital signals that approach the theoretical noise-floor by 30dB are significantly distorted to make them unlistenable.
The surface noise of a vinyl is ratiometric to the signal - changing amplitude does not affect the SNR so does not affect the ENOB value - normalise to -6dB and the ENOB remains at 14-bits - this is not true with digital where the quantisation noise is fixed and quantifiable - changing the signal amplitude directly affects the ENOB value - if you normalise to -6dB you automatically reduce your 16-Bit code to 15-bits (and 24-bits to 23 etc.).
So while an analogue system can give a poor looking ENOB figure it is still subjectively better than a digital system with the same ENOB value. If this were not a true statement then 16-bit digital systems would be all we need and no one would bother trying to make 24 or 32 bit systems.
Essentially the noise-floor in an analogue system is external - in a digital system it is internal - the ADC and/or DAC sets the limit below which it is impossible to go. Increasing the number of bits (and the sampling frequency) of a coder is an attempt to remove the effect of this internal noise and therefore approach that of the analogue domain. (As an aside you cannot use the term "bandwidth" for anything other than frequency - amplitude is referred to as dynamic headroom or dynamic range) ------------- What? |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: July 02 2009 at 05:05
very nicely put Dean! 
may i also mention that as digital cd's are basically contructed from "bits" or samples they do not contain the whole musical information, unlike analogue which contains ALL the information, but the gaps in the digital signal is so slight the human ear could not really detect it, and the brain more than fills in the gaps...so it really doesn't matter, but i do play cd's of albums not available on vinyl on a £400 Rega Apollo and the lp's still sound better, many agree with me - just have a look at the prices they are fetching on the net, no one's buying them 'cos they're pretty ...
------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: mattmcl
Date Posted: July 02 2009 at 09:22
|
Wow Dean, thanks for the schooling. I never understood the science behind what my ears were telling me. It's interesting to note the proliferation of DAC and digital audio on the audiophile sites. The vast majority agree that LPs sound better, but the convenience of a music server with FLAC files for many is worth the tradeoff, and high end DACs are getting very, very good. Personally, I'll keep what I have on vinyl, but FLACs are "good enough" for me. At a certain level, it's all about tradeoffs. The guy with $500,000 into his system is still making tradeoffs. Loudspeaker and amplifier design is all about tradeoffs as well. There is no "perfect," we just choose which shortcomings are least offensive. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 02 2009 at 11:20
Thanks for clarifying that - and I'll remember to use the words bandwidth and range more appropriately. One comment regarding the distortion of digital signals approaching the noise floor: Those signals are also very, very silent. I think that a vinyl pressing would have similar problems? But to cut a long story short: In your opinion, how do the dynamic ranges of vinyl and CD compare? Realistically. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 02 2009 at 11:44
It depends on how close to the noise floor the signals are before the distortion becomes noticeable.
Assuming an 80dB noisefloor then 30dB above that the digital signal is effectively coded using a 5-bit resolution, which equates to around 3% THD - most of us would complain at 3% distortion on paper, but it is the actual harmonic content determines whether we like it or not (in general even = yes, odd = no) - the reality of valve (or tube) amplifiers is they have poor THD figures with a lot of even harmonics added by the output transformer, but people like them.
With a vinyl signal being 30dB above the noise-floor is still a signal that has the original 0.001% THD of the large amplitude signal and is still 31 times bigger than the noise in terms of voltage (actually it's even bigger than that since the noise is the RMS across the whole audio frequency spectrum) so it has retained its purity and can still be detected by the human ear as being distinct from the noise. (where as the digital signal is part of the noise).
Of course as the signals get even smaller the digital distortion will get bigger (and the effective resolution smaller), while the analogue will remain undistorted.
So in principle the digital dynamic range is not as pure as the analogue one, it is also added onto the inherent system noise of the audio recording and playback systems that is common to both analogue and digital.
Realistically - they are to all intents and purposes the same. The actual dynamic range is limited more by the listening environment - you use a PC, I can no longer use headphones, others listen in a car - none of us are in -146dB environments. (I've been in an anechoic chamber and it's one of the most unsettling environments I know of - especially when it's pitch dark) ------------- What? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 02 2009 at 12:25
Well, I'm not so sure about that. Even if that is the case, I've yet to hear this distortion. And I listen to many classical recordings on CD, which have some *very* silent parts. If the distortion happens like you describe, I'd say that those parts are still well above those 30dB distance from the noise floor. While I certainly agree that this distortion is not acceptable to a true audiophile (any degradation of the signal is not acceptable) ... but I have to ask: What difference does it make if it only happens for parts of the signal that we cannot hear?
It doesn't really matter whether I use my hi-fi system or the PC ... in terms of volume the limiting factor are my neighbours. But about those -146dB of >16bit digital audio: Even if we cannot use that - it would eliminate the distortion effects you mentioned, wouldn't it? ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 02 2009 at 13:29
That's kind of the point: all these numbers that people throw around to show how good a system is are ideal numbers created under unrealistic conditions and do not bear any resemblence to reality. The values are based upon single tones - music is a complex waveform that is naturally rich in harmonics so adding to those is not going to distract from your listenning pleasure unless it is extreme and harsh (eg clipping or excessive crossover distortion) - in my hyperthetical example the quiet passages are "only" 50dB below peak - but that is actually quite a lot (it is a power ration of 100,000:1) when most music has a range of no more than 20dB (100:1) and typically 10dB (10:1). If you distort a single piano tone by 3% it will still sound like a very accpetable piano - it won't sound like a Steinway or a Bosendorfer anymore but it will still sound like piano and not an electric organ. I arbitarily chose 50dB (ie 30dB above a 80dB noisefloor) because it made the maths easier for me.
If you set your hi-fi to acceptable listening level to appease your neighbours for the peaks then the -50dB quiet passages would be approaching the threshold of human hearing.
Yes, higher resolutions reduce the distortion effects and IMO that is the only reason for going for high bit-resolutions - to effectively give a higher resolution to the smaller signals - in the above example a 24-bit signal would be 19-bits resolution at -50dB. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: July 03 2009 at 02:01
|
I love these threads where I can't understand a bloody word ------------- 
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: Dominic
Date Posted: July 03 2009 at 02:15
|
I got a great sound card for my pc about a year ago; that along with my fav winamp sound enhancement plugins.... i can hardly stand to listen to music in my truck anymore. My precious 24 bit copies of PFM's Storia Un di Minuto and Per Un Amico Gold.... you can hear them breathing for goodness sake.
I suppose i sound like a typical audiophile diva here, but i dl MP3's (320 kbps) and purchase CD's quite frequently, and i can always tell the difference  Of course, i've had many people tell me that they can't hear the difference between mp3 (even high bit rate) and lossless quality. Perhaps i'm taking crazy pills or something.  ------------- 
|
Posted By: mattmcl
Date Posted: July 03 2009 at 11:43
| No, I can hear it every time. I've gone to re-ripping most of my stuff in FLAC for home listening. Hell, I can tell the difference between CD and FLAC too, but only if the CD is played on a real audio CD player and not the computer. Probably because the DAC in the CD player is superior to the one in my sound card. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 03 2009 at 14:54
|
http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicclassical/mp3test.html - http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicclassical/mp3test.html I'm never getting tired of posting links to this test ... I think that it's very difficult to conduct a truly objective test on this. So far I've heard many people say that they can hear those differences, but frankly I don't believe any of them. Please don't be offended by that ... I have my own ears, I think they're in quite good shape and I'm a skilled listener, and I can't hear a difference between CD and properly ripped mp3s. Neither could the guys that did the c't test. My own experience, combined with the test, far outweigh your statements - from my perspective of course. BTW: I think it's entirely possible that an expensive CD player can sound better than FLACs played on a computer. It doesn't necessarily mean that the expensive player is "more audiophile" though. Often those expensive players included filters and "upsampling" circuitry that enhances the signal (makes it more "smooth"). Be that as it may, such enhancements are not part of the original audiophile philosophy, which is to preserve the original signal as accurately as possible. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 03 2009 at 15:43
|
^ That test has always bothered me and I'm not sure it is as representative or definitive as they would like to think it is. The problem for me is that the three formats were converted back to Red Book standard (16-bit @ 44.1Hz sampling) so they could be played back on the Marantz CD14 CD-Player - for that I don't find it that surprising that people found it difficult to tell one from the other. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 03 2009 at 15:51
|
^ what do you mean by "converted back"? The mp3s were simply decoded and the resulting WAV burned to CD ... there is no signal degradation involved in that process. And of course they had to do that ... how else could you conduct an unbiased test? The sources had to look totally identical to the contestants.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 03 2009 at 16:19
|
^ the WAV file burned onto CD was 16-bit sampled at 44.1KHz - the two mp3 files were encoded at 128kbps and 256kbps - in real terms this means the stereo signals were upsampled from 44.1kbps to 64kbps and 128kbps respectively before the MPEG compression algorhythm was run on the digitised data stream. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 03 2009 at 16:27
|
^ sorry, that doesn't make any sense at all. When you rip a CD, the first step is that the 16bit/44.1khz stream is extracted from the CD. Then, a 16bit/44.1khz MP3 is created from that stream. I don't know why you think that there is any upsampling happening ... the MP3 bitrate doesn't have anything to do with the resolution of the signal (16bit) or the sampling frequency (44.1khz). They really just ripped the CD, created the mp3s from them and then decoded them back to WAV and burned that to CD. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 03 2009 at 16:36
|
^ Then what do the 128kbps and 256kbps bitrates do? ------------- What? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 03 2009 at 16:43
^ ok, let's go back to your first post on this page:
I can't see the logic in that statement. Suppose for the sake of the argument that what you think is happening there during the mp3 encoding ... that would degrade the signal and make it more distinguishable from the original, not less as you suppose. BTW: The third CD was created by converting the original CD to WAV and then burning it back to CD-R unchanged ... and only the worst audiophiles would claim that this process could affect the audio quality in any way. As far as your other question is concerned:
These files contain a compressed audio stream. If the source was 16bit/44.1khz before the mp3 compression, the result after decompression will again be 16bit/44.1khz. There is no downsampling happening during encoding, and no upsampling happening during decoding. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 03 2009 at 16:54
|
^ You haven't answered my question - what does the 128kbps do? (or what does it mean? if you prefer) ------------- What? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 03 2009 at 16:57
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Encoding_audio - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Encoding_audio Why should I explain what MP3 compression does? The point of the test is to decide how - and if - these mp3 files sound differently from the original. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 03 2009 at 17:05
|
^ okay - the 128kbps bitrate is the datarate of the mp3 file - this datarate is split across both left and right channels, resulting in 64kbps bitrates for each channel - or 64,000 samples per second - this sampled data stream is then processed by the compression algorhythm to extract the psychoacoustic information - this means that the 44.1khz sample rate of the original signal has been converted to 64Khz sample rate - that is upsampling. On playback on an mp3 player that same sample rate (64K) is used to playback the music - converting it to a 16-bit 44.1Khz WAV for playback on a CD player is downsampling it. Any mathematical process such as up and/or down sampling between non-coherrant sampling frequencies will introduce errors that were not evident in the signal before conversion. That is my reservation with this test. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 03 2009 at 17:12
|
You're really wrong here. The psycho acoustic algorithm (the mp3 compression) is applied to the 16bit/44.1khz source. The result of this algorithm is the 128kbps stream. If - as you said - the signal was downsampled first to some combination of word length / sample rate that fit into 128kbps, the result would severely degrade ... and why would you need to apply any mp3 compression to that stream, if it already was at 128kbps? And like I said above ... even if it all was like you said, that would make the files more distinguishable from the original, not less. Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself here. EDIT: It seems like you think of the mp3 data stream like it contains a series of samples ... it doesn't. It contains information that the mp3 decoding algorithm can convert into a series of samples ... which match the word size / sample rate of the original signal. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 03 2009 at 17:18
|
^ You're right I am - I've confused bit-rate with data-rate of course a CD bitrate is 1,411.2Kbps.
However, that does not remove or negate my reservations over that test.
/edit: don't believe all you read on the internet: http://www.mp3-converter.com/mp3codec/bitrates.htm - http://www.mp3-converter.com/mp3codec/bitrates.htm ------------- What? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 03 2009 at 17:20
Your logic escapes me ... and I'm too tired to explain it again. I'll check back tomorrow ... maybe you'll manage to explain to me how burning a 16bit/44.1khz WAV file to CD-R degrades the audio quality.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 03 2009 at 17:34
I never said burning a 16bit/44.1Khz WAV to CD-R degrades quality (that is simply a storage media transfer) - I assumed (incorrectly) that the mp3 files had been upsampled during the mp3 encoding to achieve the differing bitrates and would therefore have been downsampled to produce the WAv file. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 03 2009 at 17:41
Because I didn't know and wanted to know the answer. ------------- What? |
Posted By: cobb2
Date Posted: July 03 2009 at 20:50
|
Sampling rate is just simply taking a snapshot of the frequencies at a given interval. CD usually lies somewhere between 2000 - 3000 snapshots per second. MP3 is whatever you set it up to sample at. 320 would resample the original wav at 320 snapshots per second- lossing 90% of the frequency data. This is gone forever, hence the lossy format. The magic occurs in the mp3 codec algorithms which attempt to fudge the missing information. The lower the mp3 sample rate the more impossible it is to fudge this. Hence a 64kbs is perfect for web download speed but quite atrocious to listen to.
addition: if you then burn the 320kbs back to cd the algoritms in the burning software will resample it back to the higher wav sample rate, but now there are just straight lines between the original 320 rate and the new 3000 rate.
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 02:59
The Wikipedia page explains it better than I ever could ... ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 03:01
Yes... for once  Unfortunately I picked a website that didn't ------------- What? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 03:15
Sorry, but that's not really an accurate description of what mp3 does. THERE IS NO DOWNSAMPLING OR UPSAMPLING GOING ON. What the encoder actually does is it takes short intervals of anything from ~100 to ~1200 samples (called an mp3 "frame") from the input stream and then analyzes the frequency distribution. Have a look at this page for further technical details: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=MP3#Encoding_and_decoding - http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=MP3#Encoding_and_decoding In a nutshell, for each of these frames the mp3 encoding algorithm comes up with a shorter block of data , based on the frequency distribution data gathered. This data can then be used by the mp3 decoding algorithm to reconstruct a series of samples which is a reasonable approximation of the original (in that it sounds the same to the human ear). ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: cobb2
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 04:19
|
Okay- mine was an attempt at explaining in a more understable way (I only mentioned resample, not up or down sample) Here's an extract from O'Reily's Definitive MP3 MP3 uses two compression techniques to achieve its size reduction ratios over uncompressed audio-one lossy and one lossless. First it throws away what humans can't hear anyway (or at least it makes acceptable compromises), and then it encodes the redundancies to achieve further compression. However, it's the first part of the process that does most of the grunt work, requires most of the complexity, and chiefly concerns us here. Perceptual codecs are highly complex beasts, and all of them work a little differently. However, the general principles of perceptual coding remain the same from one codec to the next. In brief, the MP3 encoding process can be subdivided into a handful of discrete tasks (not necessarily in this order):
I don't doubt that you and dean will grasp this, but most won't. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 04:26
|
^ thanks, this definition is actually more concise and to the point than the ones I found at Wikipedia and HydrogenAudio. However, in your explanation it sounded like the mp3s were simply files with less information than the original ... like when you watch a DVD on the computer and reduce the size of the video window, which would be an analogy to downsampling (or re-sampling with a smaller resolution). That's definitely not the case with MP3 ... the key is that with MP3 you can preserve most - if not all - of the important information of the original signal. You could never do that with a downsampled version ... upsampling it will not restore the quality. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: cobb2
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 04:37
| Yes, but the bitrate still controls how much information in these frames is retained. That's why further on in this chapter a simple sine wave is shown displaying how a 64kbs retains less information than a 128kbs sample. I guess mine is a very basic view of the process- I deal with this with my Information Processes and Technology students (final year of high school) and they don't have to know the process in great detail. I basically just tell them that noises we can't hear are removed and show how the sampling rate works- using the sine wave example. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 04:46
CD sample rates are 44,100 snapshots per second, not 2000-3000. Sampling an audio signal at 3000 samples per second would result in an audio bandwidth of 1.5Khz - which is about half that of an analogue landline telephone system and no where near good enough for music. The lost data in lossy systems is far to complex to describe in simple terms, but essentially the information that is lost is data that the human ear cannot hear because it is masked by more dominant sounds in the music. Mp3 codecs do not fudge the missing information - once removed it stays removed.
My error was confusing bit-rate and data-rate -
bit-rate = speed of the digital data stream in bits
data-rate = speed of the digital data stream in words (number of bits per sample x 2 for a stereo signal)
sample-rate = the speed in which the analogue signal is sampled
in uncompressed data the data rate is the sampling rate, the bit rate is 32 times greater than that (44,100 x 16 x 2 = 1,411,200);
in lossy systems the data-rate is not the sample-rate so are not related since (as Mike pointed out) the compression is done after sampling at 44,100 times a second - the resulting bit-rate of 128,000 bits per second is the compression from 1,411,200 bits per second - the original sampling rate remains unchanged. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 04:52
You mean image 2-3 on this page: http://oreilly.com/catalog/mp3/chapter/ch02.html - http://oreilly.com/catalog/mp3/chapter/ch02.html That image is actually not correct. It shows the effects of quantisation at different sample rates, which - as Dean also said - are not to be confused with bit rates of MP3 streams. The internet ... sometimes even O'Reilly can be wrong. EDIT: They're actually clarifying the difference later on ("Bitrates vs. samplerates") so they're not actually wrong, but merely inconsistent. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 04:59
|
^ Yep - that's the page that mislead me ------------- What? |
Posted By: cobb2
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 05:08
|
You guys know far more about this than I do The sampling rate I mentioned was bringing up the properties on a wav audio file in windows. The details always show a bitrate. This is what is misleading me?
|
Posted By: cobb2
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 05:42
|
It's alright, I have figured it out. Because MP3 (read MPEG) was made especially for the web this is the streaming rate across a network, so on a wav file, windows is just reporting the stream rate.
addition: although it still makes sense that the lower the kbs, the less samples there must be within the streaming frames.
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 06:01
|
For a typical 16bit/44.1khz WAV file the bitrate is 1411kbps, and that's what Windows will display to you. The important thing is that an MP3 file at for example 256kbps is not just a downsampled version of the original 1411kbps WAV file. The reduction in size is achieved primarily by looking at the frequency distribution of the signal and leaving out those parts that the human ear/brain can't perceive because they're masked out by other parts of the signal. Of course there are limits to this method of reducing size ... whether it's successful depends on many factors, most importantly the complexity of the signal and the resulting bitrate. If you encode a file at 128kbps, for most signals too many parts will have to be removed in order to accommodate the small file size. 128kbps is less than 10% of the original bitrate. If you encode at 256kbps (about 18%), you usually won't be able to hear a difference, or in other words: The mp3 encoder operates in a range that allows it to only remove parts of the signal that we can't hear, while still achieving the desired bitrate/file size. I think this is the real problem: Some people simply refuse to believe that if you remove 82% of the original, the result can still sound exactly like the original (judged by human ears). Take into account though that even when you apply only lossless compression, most tracks can be reduced to about half their original size. Or let's say 60%, to be on the safe side. So adding the lossy compression to the equation actually only adds an additional ~ 40% of compression. You can also take into account that today tracks are usually encoded using VBR (variable bitrate). This means that for each frame the mp3 encoder can analyze it and decide - depending on the complexity - which bitrate to use. The encoder can also select bitrates for left/right channels separately. In a nutshell: There are many ways the mp3 encoder can use to optimize the compression rate. The bottom line for me: I have yet to hear a properly ripped ~256kbit MP3 that I could tell apart from the CD. I haven't done any real double blind tests, but I *never* found myself listening to such MP3 files and thinking "that sounds distorted/harsh/hollow, let's put in the CD". ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: cobb2
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 06:17
I think this line may sum up the audiophile problem with MP3. They know audio data is missing and may be pychosematic (bad spelling) to what they are hearing- it can't be as good can it? therefore it isn't
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 06:26
|
^ exactly. Personally, I don't ever think about that when I listen to music. A few years ago when I started to rip all my 1000+ albums as MP3, I was concerned ... but whenever I listened to the tracks - especially those that I had listened to on CD countless times over the years and knew in and out - I found no difference to the originals, and that really encouraged me to accept MP3.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 07:18
Compared to an analogue recording there is missing information in all digital data, including pure WAV files and lossless compression methods. Compared to a live concert hall performance there is missing information in an analogue recording. Neither analogue nor digital is capable of reproducing the whole frequency spectrum or full dynamic range of a live situation. (even if that "live" situation is a recording studio).
The goal of Audiophile is two fold - a) to minimise the effects of those losses, and (more importantly) b) not to add any more extraneous information into the system.
A case in point (as mentioned by Oliver Stoned some time back) is the iPod - it is not an audiophile system, while the Wolfson audio DAC is at medium audiophile standard, the analogue circuitry between the DAC and the headphone socket is not. Audiophiles can have their iPods modified to bypass that analogue circtuitry, ( http://www.redwineaudio.com/iMod.html - http://www.redwineaudio.com/iMod.html ), but they still will prefer to play lossless over mp3.
From a purity perspective bad mp3's remove information and add unwanted artifacts - higher bit-rate mp3s combined with higher sampling rates minimise both but at a price (file size). It is becoming evident that 256Kbps mp3 is indistinguishable from Red Book standard CD files for most people but anyone who is "unhappy" with CDs is not going to be "happy" with mp3 either. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 09:54
|
^ No doubt, some people will invest a lot of money into such esoteric devices.I never would. Today even your average low cost computer mainboard contains high quality DAC circuitry. Unacceptable by most audiophiles, I know. But again I trust my ears. Think about it: DAC circuits have been around for 30 years. Today computers are much faster, and more importantly: Manufacturing processes have been optimized. *Maybe* in the late 80s/early 90s it would have made sense to buy a $4000 CD player, but today? Come on. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 10:23
|
A modern sigma-delta DAC semiconductor costs around $0.10 to make and wipes the floor with the DACs from 30 years ago, but it is the associated circuitry around it that elevates it from adequate to hi-fi and then finally to audiophile. With all the best intentions in the world, a PC motherboard, chassis, power-supply and cooling system is not designed to be an hi-fi environment. A DAC on a motherboard not can be hi-fi and a high-quality soundcard may have impressive specifications, and coupled to some good quality speakers may sound very good, but it will never be audiophile since it is impossible to isolate the digital systems from the audio path - even on the soundcard you cannot get away from the PCI bus and all the associated rf radiation that emanates from the edges of the digital signals.
/edit - added the word "not" ------------- What? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 10:29
|
I have an ASUS P5N-E SLI motherboard. When I first got this new computer I also used my Creative X-Fi soundcard, but I soon got rid of it because of driver problems (I use Vista 64bit). Ever since I've been using the onboard Realtek hi-def sound card ... and I'm very happy with it. There is absolutely no audible interference from any component of the computer ... IMO it is simply an esoteric belief of many audiophiles that they have to protected their equipment from each other all the time ... every gadget needs its own power supply, the power supply needs power filters, the speaker cables need active shielding etc.. Come on people ... trust your ears! ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 11:11
^ If you are happy, be happy.  ------------- What? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 11:28
|
^ I really am. Just finished listening to this fine album on my computer: http://www.emusic.com/album/Kotebel-Ouroboros-MP3-Download/11447196.html - http://www.emusic.com/album/Kotebel-Ouroboros-MP3-Download/11447196.html Heavily recommended to ... anyone really, I cannot imagine any Prog fan not liking it. And it surely put my Logitech speakers to the limit. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Dominic
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 15:51
|
I don't know much about the actual tech details between Mp3 and Wav files, but i do notice that ambient sounds feel like they have a slight bit more range, and are more prominent and pristine when comparing a CD vs MP3 of the same music. Of course, if you were listening to some pop song you probably could hardly notice the difference, but listening to music like Isis or GYBE, the difference feels quite obvious to me.
-------------
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 04 2009 at 15:55
|
I purchased Wavering Radiant both on vinyl (excellent gatefold cover!) and as MP3 from eMusic.com: http://www.emusic.com/album/Isis-Wavering-Radiant-MP3-Download/11412845.html - http://www.emusic.com/album/Isis-Wavering-Radiant-MP3-Download/11412845.html Maybe I'll get around to conducting a little experiment tomorrow: First I'll listen to the album on vinyl on my hi-fi, then I'll listen to the mp3s on my computer. I'll let you know if I hear a difference! ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Dominic
Date Posted: July 06 2009 at 00:32
So, considering that we're on the subject of audiophilia, my longtime headphones have finally betrayed me; anyone have some phones they're especially proud of or feel like making a special recommendation?
Just got around to checking this out, super nice tunes; thanks -------------
|
Posted By: Rottenhat
Date Posted: August 06 2009 at 13:27
|
[QUOTE=Dominic]So, considering that we're on the subject of audiophilia, my longtime headphones have finally betrayed me; anyone have some phones they're especially proud of or feel like making a special recommendation? Sennheiser 650. Trust me. :) ------------- Language is a virus from outer space. -William S. Burroughs |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: August 06 2009 at 14:03
I have tried to tell the difference between a cd, a 320 kbps mp3, and a 256 kbps mp3. At a reasonable listening level I noticed no difference between any of them. I have even been thinking about reripping my cds to 192 kbps. I have everything from 128 to 356 on my mp3 player, and I never notice which is which. The only time I notice bad quality sound is when the recording itself is bad quality. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: August 06 2009 at 15:25
|
^ you should be able to identify 128kbit MP3 even on a half-way decent system. As for whether you should use 192, 256 or 320kbits ... who cares? If you already have most of your collection at 192kbit, why go through the trouble of re-ripping it all again. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: August 06 2009 at 15:35
Exercising your futility of course.  ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: jch
Date Posted: August 10 2009 at 16:38
|
Hi Guys Audiophile? I don’t know but I’m a person who enjoys a really good quality recording. Unfortunately they are not too many good recording (progressive/heavy metal) I mean to compare to some HD recording (mastering) like XRCD,K2 ,SACD and so on….Nevertheless it is all about music that is what I have missed the most. After some time I did realize that I’m listening only good recording CD’s LP’s but not necessarily good music or music that I like. ETC sounds vs Music. Now my system is nearly finish and I do hope to turn things around that is .”Enjoy the music” http://www.jirihifi.com/ - www.jirihifi.com
|
Posted By: friso
Date Posted: August 15 2009 at 08:58
| I'm audiophile enough to refuse every cd/mp3 if I can get (in theory, some vinyl is hard to get) a vinyl copy of the record. |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: September 06 2009 at 18:52
|
I have what could be considered a high end system. (Sim Audio Moon W3 power amp, Linn Kairn pre-amp, Newform Research R-645 modded speakers with outboard crossovers, Kimber wire through out. I also use a Benchmark Media Dac 1 with USB connected to a Rotel RCD 990 as a transport.
I have my complete collection stored on hard drive in so called lossless format and I must admit that the Benchmark outboard DAC is light years ahead of any on board computer DAC/soundcard I have ever heard. The USB stream going straight to the outboard DAC is the trick to getting decent sound from your computer. It's very good and the Benchmark manages the problem of jitter perfectly.
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: September 06 2009 at 23:31
|
The difference between 192kbps MP3 and loseless audio is absolutely
squat for me, and if there is any difference, it's not worth the extra
hard disk space. I'm not really an insanely audiophile-ish person, I honestly don't really own an expensive audio systems. My main thing is about production really. I cannot listen stuff (or just not as often) that has really poor production. Examples, such as metal albums with guitar tones that are a horrible, grating mid scooped grind (... And Justice For All, Cowboys from Hell) tend to make it a difficult listen for me. I'll probably end up selling me copy of AJFA purely for that reason alone. It's just so much easier to sit through an album with bigger and warmed guitar tones (like Colors by Between the Buried and Me with it's big low mid chunk and pretty much all of Pelican's stuff for example) for me personally because you're not being blasted with excesses of low end and high end. Once I get a more permanent job however, I will upgrade my studio monitors to something more high end so I can take advantage of the well produced albums in my library. |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: September 07 2009 at 01:15
|
^^^^
If I play a MP3 track and the same track in lossless I can certainly hear the difference in both detail and dynamics but to be honest you do need a system that resolves well in order to notice the difference from my experience.
Even my so called non audiophile friends can hear the difference, but on most computer based systems I dare say you would be hard pressed to notice much of a difference.
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: September 07 2009 at 08:15
vinyl is becoming easier to get, there are many companies re-issuing albums but unfortunately the discerning audiophile needs deep pockets
------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: September 07 2009 at 12:07
| Digital technology has gotten so good over the last few years that as good as vinyl can be I do enjoy the versatility of digital. The better systems do reproduce very well in the digital domain. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 07 2009 at 12:35
http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicclassical/mp3test.html - http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicclassical/mp3test.html They used high end equipment and the test was inconclusive ... and I can't hear a difference either, not on my low-cost (but quite well sounding) PC speakers nor via my studio quality audio interface and AKG headphones. And of course you always have to take into account the bitrate of the mp3s and the quality of the encoding algorithm. I think that with a modern encoder and bitrates of well above 200kbit you really can't hear any difference anymore, no matter how good your ears or equipment. BTW: Of course it's entirely possible that you *think* you hear a difference ... it's just how our brain works. If we are sure of something and expect a certain experience, the brain will try to make it happen for us. Which, in this case, is fairly easy to accomplish since the two sources (if ripped/encoded properly) are virtually indistinguishable. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: September 07 2009 at 15:01
I can tell you that I can hear a difference and it is not something of a dream either. In fact many of the people who come over and listen can hear the difference. You only have to live with a quality system to fully appreciate the organic sound that it offers compared to any computer system I have ever listened to. You may have a fine sounding computer based system but I'm not giving up what I have for a computer based system, maybe at gunpoint, but that's about it.
|
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: September 07 2009 at 15:22
| I will say that as you increase the sample rate you are going to find that the sound will become harder and harder to determine any differences, but what I have found is over long periods of listening to MP3 format as opposed to red book CD format is that listener fatigue sets in quicker with the decreased sample rates. The higher sample rates are naturally going to be more accurate, they have to be all things being equal and the brain knows. That's why listener fatigue sets in. |
Posted By: inrainbows
Date Posted: September 07 2009 at 15:41
I do agree, there are noticable differences between the several bitrates, which I certainly can hear in just one track played in both formats. A spectral analysis can prove it :  P.S. Flac=Lossless=Cd (compressed file) mp3 = lossy I'd say, in case of mp3, (if it's not possible to get a flac file which is always better ) a V0 vbr ripping is preferable than 320kps, as V0 encodes at high quality when it needs to, like at the loud parts, and doesn't unnecesarily waste space by encoding at high bitrate at the quieter parts. So it's the same quality [the difference is negligible] with a more sensible file size. ------------- 
|
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: September 07 2009 at 19:10
| Is it possible to go to a studio, record the velocity and position of every air molecule, and some how retrace that to the air displaced by the amps originally used to record a piece of music and somehow turn that data into sound? Would it be more accurate than vinyl? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 07 2009 at 19:54
Interesting idea, (though technically that is what a microphone does), but a studio would be the wrong place to do it.
Studio's are artificial environments that are essentially acoustically inert, or as inert as they can be, part of the reason for this is to isolate the recording space from the outside world, but also to reduce any effects of the room itself - they have acoustically non-reflective wall coverings to contain and reduce any natural resonance that the studio would produce and will have irregular shape to prevent standing waves (more resonance) and acoustic dead-spots (places where certain frequencies are naturally suppressed by the room dynamics). This not only applies to the space where the performers will be recorded, but to the mixing-room where the playback monitors are positioned to allow the engineer to hear what is being recorde and mix down to the final master.
Anything recorded in the studio in its vanilla state will sound flat and dull, the sound engineer adds dynamics back into each individual track to bring the recording "back to life" by adding EQ and reverb - sometimes to recreate a more natural environment like a concert hall, or a totally artificial one that just "sounds right". The acoustics of sounds you hear from the final mix are purposely not what is recorded in the studio.
Basically you would not want to recreate the inert audio signature of the studio in your living room. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 08 2009 at 01:28
The spectral analysis doesn't give you any indication about whether you're going to *hear* a difference - it just shows the mp3 compression algorithms at work. In modern mp3 encoders there is no "cutoff frequency" - if the compressed files contain much less of the very high frequency parts of the signal it's usually because when playing the track you can't hear them because other (louder) parts of the signal mask them. That's how mp3 (or any other modern) compression achieves the small file size ... it discards part of the signal. Of course this can't be done in a perfect way at any bitrate ... so if the target bitrate is too low, the algorithm also removes parts of the signal which we can hear. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 08 2009 at 01:33
I never said that your system doesn't sound better than mine ... actually I'm quite sure that it does. My active Logitech 5.1 speakers cost 80 EUR (that's amp + subwoofer + 5 speakers), and what I am saying is that they sound much, much better than any other system in that price range, and that they can even compete with a typical 500-1000 EUR hifi system (I have such a system, too), especially when you sit in front of the computer, at a 1-2 m range. Please tell me: How do you conduct these listening tests? Are they really "blind" tests, with neither of the contestants knowing which is the mp3, and which is the real CD? ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: September 08 2009 at 01:58
I don't conduct tests as a rule. I don't say a word. Often people will ask me what I did, and they will tell me it does not sound as good, and I will depending on what I have done tell them the change that I made. We don't get together to chat about equipment as a rule. It more comes up in casual conversation. I had a girl friend of mine ask me what happened to the bass and I told her that she was listening to my MP3 player through the system. She did not like the sound at all. So really to answer your question, it's people simply pointing it out to me without any prompting at all.
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 08 2009 at 02:11
|
^ there are many things that can mess with the signal though when you simply connect a mp3 player to your system ... and how were the mp3s encoded, does the mp3 player do any processing, etc.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: inrainbows
Date Posted: September 08 2009 at 03:17
The specral analysis shows what your ears listen to. There is no other way to prove the difference. Lossless Data Compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the exact original data to be reconstructed from the compressed data. This can be contrasted to Lossy Data Compression, which does not allow the exact original data to be reconstructed from the compressed data. i.e. lossless data = same to cd audio experience. MP3 uses a lossy compression algorithm that is designed to greatly reduce the amount of data required to represent the audio recording.This results in a file that is typically about 1/10th the size of the digital data found on an audio CD, and many signals are lost forever (in particular low and highest signals should never be reproduced). A good audio system allows your ears to hear the differences. Just play the same file in two different formats following one another, in a good audio system and I'm sure you can hear the difference. -------------
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 08 2009 at 04:10
|
http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicclassical/mp3test.html - http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicclassical/mp3test.html I would call that a good audio system ... case in point. Nobody's contesting the fact that during mp3 compression data is lost. What I am contesting is that this loss is audible even on high end systems, as long as high bitrates and modern encoders (like LAME) are used. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: September 08 2009 at 12:34
The thing I hear with MP3 as compared to red book CD or WAV (all things being equal) is a subtle increase in hardness, a slight drop in both macro and micro dynamics as well as a harsher treble. This becomes more apparent after longer listening sessions. I know there are people out there that say that all amplifiers sound the same and I can safely say that that is ridiculous. However, I do think that some people do have more sensitive hearing than others as well.
The famous pianist Glenn Gould could audibly detect changes in recorded tape speeds and equipment changes in the recording studio. He was very fussy about it and all the techs that worked with him can attest to the fact that he had such a good ear (this is very evident in how well his recordings sound, even the ones done in the 50's as he did all the mastering and mixing himself as well as pick the equipment he felt was best suited for the studio). I don't think it is exclusive to everyone though, as many people are tone deaf. Most people don't put much emphasis on sound quality, but those that do certainly do detect changes no matter how subtle. Often these changes are not detected immediatly but after longer listening sessions when the ear is more relaxed. I do not put a lot of stock in statistics either, as they can be very misleading as well. Statistics may be useful as far as marketing goes but not to my own personal views. The ear needs time and should be in a more relaxed zone to detect subtle changes.
It took me over ten years of equipment changes to get the system that I feel sounded the most organic to my ears. Now that I have it I have remained static in my system.
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 08 2009 at 16:38
|
^ so in essence you're saying that those subtle differences can only be heard after longer listening sessions? Call me naive, but in my book prolonged listening means fatigue, not relaxation. And independently of the source, too ... I know that some audiophiles will immediately say that listening to mp3 means fatigue and listening to vinyl means relaxation ...
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: September 08 2009 at 19:29
I don't watch TV and the music is on most of the time, and I have found that the system is very relaxing as it is now. I do not listen to MP3 as a rule except in my car. I do not listen to vinyl either anymore, and I will say this. The single biggest improvement that I ever made to my system was the addition of a Benchmark Media Systems DAC 1 with USB. Digital through this unit is the closest thing to an analog sound I have ever heard. The equipment has much to say as well as equipment synergy. In your particular case I can't speak for you. No system is perfect, but the system I am using now is the best I have ever had and I don't get listener fatigue unless I listen at very loud volume levels.
I did have a fair amount of music stored on hard drive in a compressed format for sake of saving memory but I did not like what I was hearing so I bought a bigger hard drive and went with a lossless storage format. It sounds much better now. In fact it sounds quite a bit better to my ears. That was through the same DAC as well in case you are wondering.
I will also add that I have quite a few SACD format discs as well and the dynamics and inner detail is better. It's a little easier to check this one because both formats are included on the same disc. I will also mention to that the staging is much better with the increased bit and sample rate.
I have a friend who tends to lean on your side of the fence and he will tell me that he can't hear any difference but in all honesty, he is the only one who holds that opinion that has heard my system. He just likes to be difficult, but everyone else just shakes their head. I have heard his system as well and it's not even close to what I am listening to, but then again, I did not get into this hobby for mediocraty. I just happen to love to listen to music.
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: September 09 2009 at 05:27
|
Eh, I tend to think listening fatigue comes from over compressed albums. I don't get that problem much since I don't listen to stuff very loud, since anyway I'm a musician that doesn't want to bust his hearing. But I do notice, certain albums in my collection, I cannot listen to them even moderately loudly (such as The Faceless album "Planetary Duality", Gojira's album "From Mars to Sirius" and a few others) for the entire duration of the album, otherwise I get a minor headache and I just feel like I've had a barrage of noise shot at me. Planetary Duality in particular is bad, although it doesn't have much in the way of audible clipping, the master bus limiting is so ridiculous the sound constantly "pumps" which is very irritating to listen to. Although I tend to master bus limit my music fairly loud, it's nowhere near clipping/audible pumping levels and I like it that way, even if it means I'm not in the race of the loudness wars. Anyway, MP3 vs loseless continued, I tend to rip my stuff at 256Kbps these days. Sounds good to me, eh. I don't have a massive hard drive (300 GB) plus I need to keep it very freed up to maintain system stability and performance for doing audio stuff (recording, mixing etc) and since I don't hear a difference at 256Kbps, it suits me fine and doesn't overload my hard drive. And believe me, I've been spending hours mixing stuff, constantly doing tiny refinement to my guitar tone/bass guitar tone most people wouldn't even be able to hear, so it's not like I don't have an ear for detail. Some people own 50 000 USD sound systems. That's awesome and I'm jealous of them, but thinking rationally I see no point in owning one for myself because the music I listen to just doesn't take advantage of it. If you listen to heaps of jazz, fantastic, because those ultra high end systems really work with that kind of music, the soundstaging, the perception of depth (being able to hear where instruments are in a room, in a sense)/ how tall/wide it is/sounds. Honestly jazz and other music that has lots of 'space' in it makes up a small portion of my listening. I'm mainly a rock music guy and a big heavy metal fan as some would know by now. So the benefits of such expensive audio systems is entirely lost, because there is just too much going on in the music I generally listen to. Everything is just competing for it's own space in the sonic spectrum, no matter how well mixed it is, it's just a fact when you have stuff like that going on you just can't give it heaps of depth. Quad tracked electric guitars, bass guitar parts that are essential for keeping all the low end down, there just isn't any space in the mix to have any proper perception of depth and space that you'd hear in jazz or something like that. I've spoke to some guys on other forums about this, and this was their complaint basically, that as I said, the benefits were just lost on music that revolves around high gain double/quad tracked guitars and they felt deeply disappointed by that. So really, I think at most I'll end up with a 5000 AUD system when I move out of home and I'll be fine with that. It'll be good enough to take advantage of the music I like that has amazing production (like This Godless Endeavor by Nevermore, End of Heartache by Killswitch Engage and not have to think "Well at least I didn't spend 50 grand, I don't have enough jazz" lol. Chances are I'd be spending even more on my studio monitors by that stage anyway. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 09 2009 at 13:13
|
^ I listened to Planetary Duality just earlier today via mobile player / headphones. It was loud, but it didn't strike me as overly compressed ... at least not compared to Death Magnetic. Do you know Obscura - Cosmogenesis? Most of these albums are equally loud (at least according to the Album Gain value computed by Winamp), but of course there are different approaches to achieving the loudness. I agree that the production/mastering is the decisive factor for whether listening has a fatiguing effect ... I can listen to good albums for hours on my 80 EUR Logitech speakers without getting fatigued, as long as I don't crank up the volume too much. BTW: Let me emphasize again that I don't think that these speakers sound as good as a really good (and big) hifi system. I'm just saying that they sound great for their price ... and they are good enough to reveal many of the details that you normally wouldn't hear on low-budget systems. If I had 5000 EUR in my hands right now, I probably would buy a big 5.1 system with a decent amp and really good speakers. But then my neighbors would probably kick me out of the building when I put on something like Between the Buried and Me ... ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: September 11 2009 at 01:01
|
^It's definitely not as compressed as Death Magnetic, otherwise it would probably be clipping, but I can't hear any clipping going on in Planetary Duality, but it's quite compressed enough that there is an audible pumping effect, which is quite unfortunate. Death Magnetic, even if I liked the music, which I don't (well, I don't hate it, just don't particularly love it either), the sheer amount of compression on the master bus alone would be reason for me not to listen to it. Indeed, I know Obscura's Cosmogenesis, great album, but again mastered a bit too loud for my tastes. When it comes to the kind of loudness I prefer, think the debut Rage Against the Machine album. Great level of dynamics and still fairly loud without being over the top. Personally I think you'd be better off with a stereo system for that price too, since after all less components and more money going into each individual component means those 2 speakers will sound better than a 5.1 system, although I realize you probably wont go out and get a new system to listen on. I just tend to be very comfortable listening on stereo, but that's just me I suppose. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 11 2009 at 01:11
|
^ I would get a 5.1 system primarily because I also watch DVDs/Blu-Rays a lot, and I wouldn't want to use two separate systems. I agree that for music a stereo system is quite adequate, and even if I enjoy many 5.1 mixes (Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Symphony X) I don't think that 5.1 is the "next big step" for music production. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: jch
Date Posted: September 12 2009 at 01:06
|
Hi I have been building my setup (system) for a long time let say 15 years and I thought that Progressive /heavy metal will always improve on my upgrades. I know now that I was wrong More money and effort I have spent towards my system degrade the overall sound of Progressive /heavy metal sound. However I do have a lot of Jazz/blues and Classical discs and I have to say the sound always improved on every upgrade. So I would not recommend spending a lot of money on stereo if you only listen Progressive Hard/rock/metal disc. Cheers Jiri http://www.jirihifi.com/ - www.jirihifi.com . PS: Some bands like Porcupine Tree, older recording of Ayreon, older recording of Enchant sounds OK |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 12 2009 at 04:47
|
How much money have you been spending in those 15 years? I hope it was worth it ... ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: jch
Date Posted: September 12 2009 at 05:10
|
Hi Mr ProgFreak I don’t exactly how much .I have spend a lot > I have started to change amplifiers ,then preamplifiers, then speakers, then speakers cables, then power cables and so on and on…. I hope it was worth it Not yet the journey is still going on I have to say for a jazz /blues my system is absolute (at least to my ears) but still have to find compromise for a progressive/heavy metal. Thinking of different approach multiple tweeters and bass (in one) system switch able for different style of music. Take care jiri |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 12 2009 at 07:25
|
^ I hope you'll find what you're looking for. As far as I'm concerned, my 80 EUR Logitech speakers give me a lot of joy ... maybe I'll upgrade to the more expensive digital version later this year, but I can't envision myself spending more than 1000 EUR on audio equipment. I know what big systems sound like, I've had one about 15 years ago and we even had a home recording studio in the basement, with expensive monitors and a 24/8/2 mixing console for about 4000 EUR. So I know what I'm missing, and my opinion is that it's not worth the effort ... IMO it actually distracts you from the music. There's a reason why it is called "audiophile" and not "musicophile" ... obviously I'm the latter. BTW: This is what I currently use to listen to music: http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/speakers_audio/home_pc_speakers/devices/211&cl=au,en - http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/speakers_audio/home_pc_speakers/devices/211&cl=au,en And this is what I might upgrade to: http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/speakers_audio/home_pc_speakers/devices/224&cl=au,en - http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/speakers_audio/home_pc_speakers/devices/224&cl=au,en ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: jch
Date Posted: September 12 2009 at 16:20
|
Hi Mr ProgFreak Thanks a lot hopefully I will get there. I had a look at your Logitech set. I will go and have a listen the Z5500 Digital for my self for (computer room) It looks nice and compact. Anyway good luck with Z 5500 upgrade. Jiri Hi Petrovsk
I couldn’t agreed more with your previous post Chances are I'd be spending even more on my studio monitors by that stage anyway. Just wondering if you have any particular (brand, model) monitors in mind? I have recently auditioned ATC Nevertheless price is too high unless bought 2 hand from Audiogone or so http://www.atc.gb.net/scm150aslpro.htm - http://www.atc.gb.net/scm150aslpro.htm |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 12 2009 at 16:43
|
I've read good things about the new entry level Genelec monitors: http://www.thomann.de/gb/genelec_6010a_anthrazit.htm - http://www.thomann.de/gb/genelec_6010a_anthrazit.htm P.S.: They're meant to be used with a separate subwoofer: http://www.thomann.de/gb/genelec_5040_apm.htm - http://www.thomann.de/gb/genelec_5040_apm.htm ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: jch
Date Posted: September 12 2009 at 16:54
|
Hi Guys Just sending a funny video link for true audiophile’s addiction.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs1aUws0Lrs - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs1aUws0Lrs
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 12 2009 at 17:02
|
^ very entertaining ... as a scientist I can't help it, I find most of the esoteric equipment ridiculous. "Clean electricity" ... that does not affect the sound in any way. Computers have very strict requirements about voltage, but still a 30 EUR power supply can easily provide that, independently of any typical fluctuation in the power grid.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: September 13 2009 at 23:26
That's a really awesome set up man, wow!
Distracts you from the music.........interesting. I don't feel distracted from them music when I listen through my active monitors, simply because if I'm in the mindset where I'm just there for listening and not concentrating on production aspects, it's ok. Personally I couldn't live without a set of studio monitors now. I still haven't decided whether I'll pursue professional audio engineering yet and even if I don't, I still want to hone my skills to at least a semi professional level for my own personal home music projects and of course that would mean computer speakers would simply not be good enough, especially since I'd like to at least post my music on forums and show them to friends and such. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: September 14 2009 at 00:03
The ones you seem to be looking at look more mid field monitors, which isn't what I want at this stage. Bear in mind I'm 20 years old and don't make much money at this stage, so I don't have the kind of physical household space for those type of monitors. Currently I'm just using a set of Genelec copies but I hope to upgrade them. http://www.event1.com/ - http://www.event1.com/ These are my absolute dream near fields. I know someone (he's a pro audio engineer that bought a set of the Opal's very recently for about 4999 AUD and he said. They compared well to American made imported monitors costing over twice the price and now he feels he wont need new monitors for a very long time. He said from there, now he had to upgrade the room treatment and most importantly, his ears so to speak, in order to take full advantage of the sheer detail they provided. Yes, 4999 AUD isn't cheap, but if they do compare to monitors that are 10 000 AUD+, then I certainly wouldn't mind a set. Thinking more realistically, I'm looking at these monitors: http://www.krksys.com/product_vxt.php - http://www.krksys.com/product_vxt.php Those replaced the V Series 2 monitors fairly recently (2 years ago IIRC) and they look like strong contenders in their price range. They cost around 3000 AUD, although I imagine I could pick them up for about 2000 AUD if I shop around and look for sales. They are in about the same price range as the Mackie HR824MKII and some of the Alesis monitors. They aren't top shelf, but considering I don't have a pro environment (good room treatment etc) the Opals would be wasted on me anyway.
It's not ridiculous at all. Well okay, the extent to which this guy does it is, but on the other side the coin I would not be protecting my hypothetical super high end system with "FROM YER AVERAGE ELECTRICAL STORE" type power adapter/supply unless I knew my wiring was absolutely perfect. I live in a relatively modern house and my father is a qualified electrician and did the wiring himself, so I'm lucky, but others might not be as lucky. Otherwise that's why proper power conditioners exist, because in the real world conditions are not perfect. I may live in one of the most developed and one of the richest (GDP per capita) in the world, but I'm not gonna fool myself into thinking every music venue around here is going to have exceptionally good wiring. Be it in Canada, the US, wherever, the horror stories of musicians have their gear destroyed, DJs having their equipment damaged etc by bad power does happen -------------
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 14 2009 at 03:49
I'm just saying that looking for the perfect system can become an obsession ... like that one guy in the video who had already spent 10000+ EUR but still wasn't happy with it, and said that it was an ongoing journey. Nothing wrong with that - as long as it makes you happy. Others collect stamps or build miniature railways. Still, I maintain that with most audiophiles I argued with over the years it seemed to me that they had become more interested in audio equipment than the actual music. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 14 2009 at 03:51
Every power supply contains a "power conditioner" ... what I don't understand is why you would want to use separate power conditioners. Ok, if you worry about surges then you can get an USV or something like that ... but power filters specifically designed to improve audio quality? Sorry ... that complete nonsense. Ask you father if you don't believe me! ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |