To the Audiophiles:

Question concerning digital encoding,

Let's have a look at this excellent article about digital technology:

http://www.stefanopasini.it/Audio_Fremer_CD_vs_Vinyl.htm

Edited by oliverstoned - March 21 2008 at 08:43

A Rega Planar 3 if you can!

I think having at least three sources (vinyl, tuner, CD) is not a luxury, some rare stuffs (especially rare prog) being available almost only on CD, analog tuner remains a great source, better than CD with a good broadcast.
I just bought an Arcam DV78 DVD player and it's a good CD player as well (1200€ new). I've got better for CD playback (drive/converter setup) but this Arcam can be a good CD player in a "budget" setup.

Funny you should ask that.  I recently downloaded the new NIN in FLAC.  Had a devil of a time finding a program to convert it to a format I could listen to.  Ended up converting it to WAV with a freeware program, that I could burn to CD format and then rip for my digital music program.  Found out later that Winamp reads FLAC.

I use 64 kbps in WMA format for my digital player.  Sounds fine to me.  Most portable situations where I listen to music there's competing background noise anyway.  When I really want to listen attentively to something, I'll use a portable CD player with non portable type headphones.

Ultimately, you just have to try stuff and see what you think.  I suppose some people have super ears and mine are sub par.  But when it comes to vinyl, I still never could get past needle noise, scratches, etc.  The CD was the best thing to happen since sliced bread for me.


Edited by Slartibartfast - March 21 2008 at 10:37

oliverstoned wrote: It's because you haven't listened to something better

Believe me, Oliver, I have. it did not convince me.

Oliver, please! The internal technical details of a hi-fi system are a book with seven seals to me. I completely have to rely on what people tell me when it comes to technical details. I am interested in the software (music), not the hardware (equipment). I would have no idea if it was tubes or not. All I know when seeing such a system is that it glitters and sparks, looks futuristic and is worth several thousand bucks.

For once I agree with BaldFriede here ... audiophile systems are not necessary to enjoy music. Of course systems will always be different, and your system may actually sound much better than mine. But give me 4000 EUR and I'll get a system which does not follow your best practices at all and I bet that it will impress typical listeners just as much as yours does. And I don't believe for a second that your system reveals details which mine doesn't - well, at least not at the level which you suggest. There are certain tests you can perform - for example the spoken words at the end of Dark Side of the Moon. Typically you don't hear them on a low-end system, particularly when you also use a bad source (128kbit mp3). But even a mid-range non-audiophile system like mine can properly reproduce trumpets (which you claimed at one point to be impossible with CDs, if I remember correctly), and certainly it reproduces birds singing. I'll gladly perform a detailed test if you tell me which track you're referring to (a track which features details which you can hear on your system but not on mine).

BTW: I'm not trying to ruin your enjoment of audiophile equipment ... I'm just saying that it may not be necessary for all of us in order to fully enjoy music. For some people even a grammophone would do!


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - March 21 2008 at 14:44

I get what Oliver is saying - if you're used to listening to top-end systems and the soundscape they present, then it's harder to adjust to something that is not as revealing.

Both files were rendered from the raw audio captured in ACID Pro - it's possible stuff went wrong in the rendering process, but unlikely. In my experience, 24-bit audio sounds significantly better than 16-bit - just like 24-bit pictures look better than 16-bit.

Edited by Certif1ed - April 16 2008 at 02:54