Digital Audio Myths - Listening on a PC
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=11027
Printed Date: November 25 2024 at 01:12
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Digital Audio Myths - Listening on a PC
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Subject: Digital Audio Myths - Listening on a PC
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 06:16
|
In another thread the question arose whether it is possible to listen to digital music in good quality on a computer. What do you think? Edit: Please let's keep amp & speakers out of this discussion - the topic here is PC vs. top-notch CD player, both digitally connected to an amp. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 06:20
Good enough for me to listen to while I'm sitting here typing, for sure! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: cobb
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 06:24
| Certainly can. You need good audio hardware and decent speakers. My system is set up with a hoontech dsp24 card and I have a set of klipsch 2.1 speakers on it. It sounds better than my hifi. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 06:28
|
I think there are some important factors that influence the listening quality on a PC:
What I'm getting at is that crappy sounding audio on some PCs doesn't mean that it's IMPOSSIBLE to listen to audio on the PC in good quality. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 06:45
|
pfffff!!!
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 06:49
| You just loose 80% of the music...but if it's to listen to metal...that's not so important. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 07:06
|
Please back up such statements with evidence. If such evidence exists, I'm sure the manufacturers of "esoteric" HiFi components present it on their websites ...
Please, no "I hate metal" diversions here, that's ruining the thread. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
oliverstoned wrote:Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 07:35
|
Please, no "I hate metal" diversions here, that's ruining the thread.
Sorry 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 07:39
Put this crappy box:
on such a transparent amp, and it'll reveal how bad it is 
Be aware that in real hifi, the smallest details are important. With such a bad source, it cannnot work. Sorry. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 07:49
|
Be aware that in the digital world it doesn't matter if the source is a CD player or a computer, if the bits are identical. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 07:51
|
As soon as a signal is encoded to PCM, as long as it stays PCM (and at the same bit depth, frequency etc. etc.) there's no quality loss possible unless it's being transported implausibly long distances. Unless anyone has houses several kilometres across it can always be assumed to be a perfect digital copy. Assuming the data can be read accurately (ie. bit perfect), which is actually easier on a computer based drive since it has more buffering, and easier still when it's actually stored on the hard drive, then the digital output of the soundcard will be identical to the digital input, even on the worst soundcard. As Mike says, the analogue output's another story - the souncard on this laptop I'm using is absolutely terrible.
It's also worth pointing out that when someone concentrates with his eyes, the ears become less sensitive (an example being when people watch TV and turn it up much to the annoyance of others), so when using a computer the nuances of sound will be less noticeable anyway.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 08:00
|
Please, don't make this a discussion tube vs. transistor either ... I actually prefer the sound of good tube amps to that of transistor amps. But they also have disadvantages. As noted in one of the documents I posted in the Big digital thread, tube amps actually distort the signal. This added distortion is often referred to a "warm", "analog" or "70's" sound. While pleasant to most people, it is not an accurate playback of the original signal. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: cobb
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 08:12
I don't get the point of your thread with this edit. Are you just asking whether you think the pc can act as the player connected to your lounge room hifi, just as well as cd player can? Sure, why not? Isn't this the whole purpose of the new media centre pc's? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 08:18
Yes - I think that I can rip my entire CD collection to my PC in a lossless format and use Winamp to listen to the songs. Provided that the soundcard is connected to a really good amp & speakers using a digital interface, the music should sound identical compared to playing it on a HiFi CD player, which is connected to the same amp via a digital cable. oliverstoned disagrees strongly, so I'm interested about other people's opinions about this. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 08:20
|
"This added distortion is often referred to a "warm", "analog" or "70's" sound. While pleasant to most people, it is not an accurate playback of the original signal."
We are at the heart of the issue. True that tubes amps have higher distorsions rates on the paper than transistor ones. But this is NOT AT ALL a criteria for PERFORMANCE nad MUSICALITY. A GOOD tube amp like the one up reproduces the highs (the freq part that the human ear is the most sensistive to)with MUCH MORE ACCURACY than any transistor amp. The transistor makes ham raspe with the highs, which means it distors much more than tubes WHEN YOU LISTEN. ONLY RESULT MATTERS and i don't care about what is written on the paper. Distorsion rate is not the good criteria. I suppose you have heard about pair and unpair harmonics. Here's the explanation. With the amp up, well implemented, you can enjoy voices, flutes, violins, trumpets, etc... with an incredible clarity, openess, softness, transparency, precense, natural, MATTER, etc... and NEUTRALITY. A good tube is not colored at all. On another hand, tube amps are always a liitle "round" in the low and can lack of quickness in the low. The solution, which is the royal way, is the bi-amplification with a good transistor in the low and a good tube in the highs, and a good preamp (transistor, tube or hybrid, there's no rule). But that's another story. So, this statement: "it is not an accurate playback of the original signal" is untrue, considering a good tube amp like the one up. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 08:38
|
I indeed consider the amp the heart of all sound problems. NOT the digital source.
"distortion RATE" is indeed not the issue ... most tube amps have a higher distortion rate, but the distortion is more natural and pleasant for the ear. I actually agree about what you said about the better transparency of tube amps ... but that's not the topic of this thread.
Yes indeed, it's another story.
Yes it is true - the playback might actually be more accurate than a good transistor amp (and MUCH more accurate than a cheap amp), but the added distortion still changes the signal. But I admit that this is not really a problem, because there is NO amp which can give you a 100% accurate reproduction of the signal. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: cobb
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 08:41
A cd player and a pc producing sound from its cd drive (or from file) both use the same process to produce the analog signal that goes out the output jacks. Both use microprocessors to control the signal and hardware to convert the digital stream to audio signal. The cd player, though still just a microprocessor, has a dedicated job, all the hardware has been specifically set up to produce music, this is its only purpose. Therefore if you have a soundcard that is specifically set up to produce a (high quality) audio signal, the result should be the same. Many soundcard manufacturers produce high end cards that will do this job just as good as a high end cd player. |
Posted By: cobb
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 08:45
| Microprocessor driven sound generation also has the added advantage of being capable of sending digital stream directly to the amp (assuming the amp can handle optical). This makes it even better- no signal loss and distortion through wire cable. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 08:47
|
So we agree on most points, dear Mike.
I use the Jolida up as a wide band amp (i'm in a little room), but i've add a good subwoofer (Omega Magnat 380 with a 38cm driven by a 200 watts transistor amp) for bottom-low/extreme low. So it's a little like a bi amp with tube in the highs and transistor in the low. I let you reorient the debate. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 08:56
|
oliverstoned: Feel free to open a thread about the various types of amps ... it's an interesting subject. BTW: As a guitarist I have always prefered tube amps. Currently I use the Vox ToneLab SE, which simulates a tube amp + speaker environment by using a real (but slightly modified) tube. cobb: While I think that the analog outputs of GOOD sound cards are sufficient, for the sake of this discussion I was talking about digital interfaces to rule out any possible signal degradation by bad D/A converters or electronic pollutions of the sound card circuits by the computer components.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 09:01
|
[QUOTE=MikeEnRegalia] oliverstoned: Feel free to open a thread about the various types of amps ... it's an interesting subject.
I don't know nothing about instruments and related devices, but i've heard that tubes amps have the preference of musicians, which doesn't surprises me! cobb: While I think that the analog outputs of GOOD sound cards are sufficient, for the sake of this discussion I was talking about digital interfaces to rule out any possible signal degradation by bad D/A converters or electronic pollutions of the sound card circuits by the computer components. OK. But i think that computers are a great source of electric pollution, like digital devices, btw. |
Posted By: cobb
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 09:09
|
These high end soundcards for pc, usually have circuitry and/or
shielding to remove the interference from the other hardware of the pc.
As I said before my $300 DSP24 card outputed to my $200 klipsch 2.1
speaker system sounds much better than the far more expensive hifi
system in the lounge room. If I want to listen to music I sit at my
computer. This is essentially what you are talking about. The klipsch system is an amplified speaker set, so it would be the same as connecting it to the amp in the lounge room |
Posted By: cobb
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 09:15
| Oliver: I love digital sound. I have vinyl records that I have been listening to for years, that I have repurchased in digital format and found there are sounds there that I have never heard before on my vinyl copy (no, I don't mean remasters) |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 09:23
| You're free to love digital, but believe me it's less good than analog. |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 10:22
I think the very fact that tube amps are revered by musicians for their distinctive sounds implies their unsuitability for hi-fi use, where a distinctive sound is counterproductive to transparency. NB that statement's based on theory rather than anything else; as of now I know next to nothing about the workings of amps. And also I realise the amps are tailored differently to their functions.
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 10:55
|
Yes, facts are the contary than this theory:
(i quote myself): "With the amp up, well implemented, you can enjoy voices, flutes, violins, trumpets, etc... with an incredible clarity, openess, softness, transparency, precense, natural, MATTER, etc... and NEUTRALITY. A good tube is not colored at all. " |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 11:07
|
That's OPINION, not FACT. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
But I don't doubt that there are very good tubes ... in fact, I love tubes.Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 11:14
|
It's a fact as soon as all people who listen both agree that tubes are better. Nobody can pretends the contrary as it's so obvious. This is not a matter of taste.
It's better, that's all. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 11:15
Tube amps are better than transistor amps in the highs, agreed. Can we move on now? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 11:27
Look at this one: Kora, excellent french amps:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 11:27
Move on to what? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 11:30
|
"the topic here is PC vs. top-notch CD player, both digitally connected to an amp." ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 11:32
Why don't you save your music as .wav files instead, is it not better than .wma lossless? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 11:35
Nice joke! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 11:54
WMA Lossless is about 50% smaller, but all the information of the WAV is preserved (like a ZIP file). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 12:18
|
Know that this little wonder smokes (on a MUSICALITY criteria)even the BEST DIGITAL SYSTEMS of the world. NAKAMICHI 1000zxl BEST DECK EVER 
Gold version 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 12:25
Go away. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 12:47
|
There are four sources: CD, Tape, Tuner and vynil.
1 numeric and three analog. Cd is the worst source... Don't be a slave of marketing. A good tape deck like the one up is a fantastic source. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 12:51
|
It is the only source for me. Sorry, I won't buy vinyls ... that ship has sailed.
Besides ... why should I buy a tapedeck, when all I could do is copy my CD's to tape ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 12:54
|
You can record direct concerts from the radio for example (best source possible with vynil)...
I find it less ugly than this crappy box: 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 12:56
Let's talk about serious sources...
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 13:00
|
Here's mine:
(naka 1000) 
|
Posted By: philippe
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 13:08
ça s'enflamme ici!!! long life to the vinyl source ------------- 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 14:05
|
That's insane. It leads NOWHERE. I can enjoy music even on a crappy mobile radio ... I listen to music, not perfect sound. I even agree that vinyl CAN sound superior to digital media. But the topic of the thread was to compare HiFi CD players to digital media played on the computer and transported to the amp via digital connection. So oliverstoned: What is the definite explanation for the CD player being superior to the digital signal from the computer? I'm talking about facts, like something from a scientific study ... something better than "come here and listen for yourself". ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 14:39
|
Mike, can you answer my previous question please! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 15:07
Snow Dog: Was it this question? WMA Lossless is really great ... there are other lossless formats than WMA Lossless, and their quality is identical - a perfect copy of the CD. If you fancy an iPod, you can also choose Apple Lossless ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 15:11
|
^ ah....you did answer my question. I'm really sorry, I didn't see it! many appologies Mike! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 15:13
Well said Philippe!
I dedicated you this pic of a classic turntable: Linn LP12 
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 15:17
Vinyl pops and crackles too much! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 15:18
|
No need to apologize - the post was easy to miss next to these magnificent images of unaffordable mysterious devices. BTW: I'm listening to Porcupine Tree - In Absentia in WMA Lossless right now, and - wow! What a difference to ANY mp3 format. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 15:19
|
[QUOTE=MikeEnRegalia] That's insane. It leads NOWHERE. I can enjoy music even on a crappy mobile radio ... I listen to music, not perfect sound. I even agree that vinyl CAN sound superior to digital media. Good. It's not insane, cause figure that you loose half of the music. It's the magic of hifi: you'll re discover records you have listen to hundreds of times: you will discover instruments you have never heard on pieces you believe toknow by heart, hidden details, it's better than the fisr time you heard the music! isn't it good? |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 15:29
Yes I tried it out earlier today on a Zappa track, before I read this, and the difference was noticable. Hardly worth the effort for me though as I have a pretty basic PC set up! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 15:31
|
...you want scientific theory?
There's one which says that tubes amps are less good than transistor ones cause the distorsion rate is higher. "Unfortunatly" (for this theory), it's the contrary when you listen. Ther's another theory which talk about pair and unpair harmonics, and this one match with the results. So, that may be an explanation of tube's superiority. Eventually, only result matter. There are many reasons which explain that a computer can't be a good source. You want to compare top notch cd like mine with a crappy computer? A little musical cd player like this one already explodes any computer. And my CD explodes this little player. So, it's mathematic... 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 15:31
|
You're always messing up the [/QUOTE] - tags, oliver! I think it's insane to say that music only makes sense when listened to on excedingly expensive equipment. I already agreed on the superiority of Class A / Tube / etc. amps in comparison to cheap transistor amps. By the way - My Musical Fidelity amp indeed gave up the ghost ... and after that I bought the HK, because I was short on money and not much into music at the time (that was a short phase in my life). Maybe I'll buy an used Musical Fidelity X - amp sometime ... but right now I have other priorities. I know the difference which a good amp can make. The vinyl/CD/SACD/DVD-Audio discussion is also futile - I WILL stick with CD's, I made that decision long ago when my vinyl collection was destroyed by a water pipe leakage. I believe that CD's combined with a good amp and speakers are sufficient ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 15:36
I have 550 CDs, many of them double disc sets. one CD consumes about 400MB on the hard disk, so I'd need 650 x 0.4 = 260MB hard disk space for my entire collection in lossless format. Obviously, I won't do that. But this weekend I'll convert some 25 favorite albums ... BTW: You can get Soundblaster Audigy cards pretty cheap on Ebay ... they have a digital interface, so you can connect them to an amp like a CD drive ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 15:40
|
"I believe that CD's combined with a good amp and speakers are sufficient ..."
I think so. I think you would be happy with a musical player like a Nad, Rotel, Rega, Naim, Arcam or even Musical fidelity if you want. A musical integrated amp like Nad or Rotel and a pair of cheap Loudspeakears like Mission. Without forgetting good cables (QED). I advice you to turn on these cheap musical english brands. English are the kings of cheap and musical products. To conclude, you don't need to invest much, but you need to have only musical elements. That's all. Sell what you have (very easy) and follow my advices. For a very small amount of money, you'll have musical pleasure for years. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 16:14
|
Since you are unable to explain what makes the musical CD player better than the computer, I did some research on upsampling: http://www.aslgroup.com/dcs/upandover.htm - http://www.aslgroup.com/dcs/upandover.htm Now this begins to make some sense to me. The musical player is interpolating the 16bit/44.1khz data stream to 24bit/96khz or even 24bit/192khz and the D/A converter operates on the upsampled stream. The article confirms one of my earlier assumptions: both such players and "crappy" computers extract the same data from the CD, there is nothing the musical player can extract which the computer misses. The data stream is actually smoothened by the interpolation algorithm, making it sound less harsh and more harmonic than the original signal. Interestingly, modern PC sound cards also upsample 16bit/44.1khz CD audio to 24bit/96khz ... the question is now how the quality of the upsampling differs. I'll do some more research. Stay tuned! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 16:29
|
Hooray ... I found what I was looking for: http://www.soundblaster.com/products/x-fi/technology/ - http://www.soundblaster.com/products/x-fi/technology/ At last, Creative is introducing a new family of sound cards which use the same upsampling filters as the musical CD players. So I will get the best of both worlds: Computer with X-Fi sound card playing audio files in lossless formats -> connected to a Class A amp with good speakers.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 16:29
|
This is a fascinating thread ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 16:43
You can buy external hard drives fairly cheaply. I got one off ebay, 200GB for £70. It's a little noisy though.
I'm not sure if that's actually a perfect digital copy... Creative soundcards are notorious for upsampling to 48kHz when faced with a 44.1 signal. I don't know for sure if that affects the digital out but I imagine it would do, and that can only have negative impact on the sound.
And when it sounds too good to be true, it is
 . The X-Fi alters the sound by extreme compression and EQ, to makes things more easy to hear on cheap systems and in noisy environments but actually sounds worse... have a peek at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org - www.hydrogenaudio.org |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 17:27
Can you post a link to a thread where they describe that in detail? I found some threads there, but the posts were not very clever - upsampling is an established technology and known to improve the quality of CD audio, and the members ridiculed it - a bit like myself in the other thread. Actually my statements still stand, but the smoothening of the signal can indeed improve the sound very much. So what I need now is some article which in detail explains WHAT X-Fi really does to the signal (and not just assumptions, I need FACTS). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 17:28
|
I really enjoy not talking about how Gildenlow sucks or Neo-Prog rules for a change ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 18:45
I wasn't entirely clear in my post. I think mainly the hydrogenaudio way of thinking is that any modification to the signal is unwanted (and, ideally, we should be able to trust the original recording enough to avoid any post-processing. It's just a sad fact that a lot of masterings are horrible as well
) What I should have said is that Creative cards are said to upsample poorly, which is definitely a real issue. Since it's the only card I have I can't tell how true this is.Fact (well, unless someone faked it I guess
 ) Waves LinMB is just a multi(5)band compressor/EQ, and the X-Fi Crystallizer seems to have almost the same effects on the sound signal!
|
Posted By: cobb
Date Posted: September 02 2005 at 21:10
|
You don't need specs to tell you the pc can do as good a job as a
player, Mike, your ears are already telling you that it can. Ignore
oliver- audiophiles are always like this. I don't need fancy graphing
images to tell me how good the sound is. My ears do a pretty good job
all on their own.
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 03 2005 at 02:53
|
" I don't need fancing graphing images to tell me how good the sound is. My ears do a pretty good job all on their own. "
Agree! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 03 2005 at 04:34
|
Agreed. I like how my system sounds, and no comment here can make me throw it away and buy a new one. But I'm always interested in improving the system. Although I'm largely opposed to audiophile systems, I really try to understand them. Here's a summary of what I found out so far:
If I look at my current system (Computer (Audigy 2) - Harman Kardon Amp - Elac speakers), I think that I might buy an X-Fi sound card for €110 and maybe upgrade my amp to a Musical Fidelity Avalon ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: cobb
Date Posted: September 03 2005 at 04:58
And then you will never have to leave your house |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 03 2005 at 05:10
Hey, I'm already addicted to music. And I will even have to leave my house more often - to work and earn the additional money I need for my expensive hobby. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 03 2005 at 16:04
|
Can I ask something here, I hope its ok. Is it possible to rip Cds to MP3 using Windows Media Player aand using MP3 Pro? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 03 2005 at 16:20
No, I don't think so. Why would you want to use mp3pro? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 03 2005 at 16:25
Same sound quality at lower bitrate. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 03 2005 at 16:35
I was using mp3pro a few years ago and in the end I didn't like it. I ripped many CDs in 128kbps mp3pro format, but the problems with mobile players were annoying, and the quality isn't THAT better. mp3pro makes sense if you're using 64kbps - the results pretty much sounds like mp3 128kbps. But 128kbps mp3pro unfortunately doesn't sound like 256kbps mp3. What do you need the ripped files for? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 03 2005 at 16:38
Just for my hard drive, trying to be as space saving as possible. I was talking about the 64kbs rate as it happens! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 03 2005 at 16:48
|
I don't know how many CDs you're planing to archive ... I would recommend an external 200GB hard disk. I ripped my 650 CDs in 128-192kbps mp3 (VBR), and now I'm ripping many of them again in lossless format because it just sounds so much better. How many CDs will it be? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: September 03 2005 at 16:54
That graph tells me that there's compression, and my ears have already told me that compression sounds band (in this contex only, of course). Good enough for me.
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: September 03 2005 at 16:56
Fun with Audiophiles!
Here's some stupid audiophile tricks you can get people to do - kids don't
try this at home!
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 03 2005 at 17:19
I did a bit of reading on the X-Fi "Crystalizer", and I don't think that it uses compression in any way. I'm still looking for more meaningful graphs ... Edit: Have a look at this ... looks like the Crystalizer tries to reverse the compression that was applied when the signal was mastered to the CD: http://www.de.tomshardware.com/video/20050719/creative-x-fi-04.html - http://www.de.tomshardware.com/video/20050719/creative-x-fi- 04.html ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 03 2005 at 20:11
Don't know. There is no plan. I will not be buying anything extra... ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 04 2005 at 04:21
Have you tried WMA 64kbps or 96kbps? IMO it sounds much better than mp3 with extremely low bitrates. You can also consider ripping in two different formats, your favorite albums in 128kbps and the others in 64kbps ... or just rip your favorites. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: September 04 2005 at 04:58
|
audiophiles are crazy. i just dont get it anywho i have a 75 watt 5.1 system its really good esp when i blast stuff like magma |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 04 2005 at 05:25
I have been using WMA variable at the moment. Or I could use MP3pro in Nero. The reason I prefer using WMP though is it creates the folders for you, unlike Nero! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 04 2005 at 07:07
You're a fan of the psychedelic painter Alex Grew, i see. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 04 2005 at 07:07
| Alex Grey, i mean. |
Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: September 04 2005 at 13:55
I even have posters and a t-shirt . fits with all the prog |
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: September 04 2005 at 15:29
|
The other factor that's not being discussed is personal time. It's sad,
but I just don't set aside enough time solely for listening to
music...there's almost always something else going on. So almost all of
my music time comes either when I'm in the car (stock CD player) or
working (PC with Echo Gina soundcard into Grado SR60 headphones). Add
that to a somewhat limited budget for music, and an audiophile approach
for me would be wasted- and, honestly, even if I had more money than I
knew what to do with, I'd probably just spend it on more albums. Of course, as an old deadhead taper, I'm probably calloused towards poor sound quality. But high-bitrate mp3's are fine with me. BTW cobb: how's the hoontech? I thought of picking one up- they sound great, especially for the price...but the company makes me nervous (kind of a crappy website, not many US distributors, etc.). ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi"> 
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: September 04 2005 at 16:17
It uses a big-ranging EQ though, and seemingly enough to cause clipping, which in a roundabout way has the same effect as compression. I'm not able to read all the German on that site, but judging from the graphs, the processing on the second one assumes that every peak is compressed. Maybe that's not too bad an assumption to make these days, but it'd mess around with the peaks of a well mastered recording, and it seems to raise every peak to the same level, which gives the impression of a kind of dynamic variation (I'm sure it may well improve poorly done CDs, don't get me wrong) but it's only improving from one level to two. I'm getting somewhere near the end of my knowlege now, I'll get back to you in four years when I have a degree
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 04 2005 at 18:03
|
I wonder if there's a PC audio card that simply does musical upsampling like the audiophile CD players ... and yes, oliverstoned, it IS theoretically possible to do that on the PC. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 05 2005 at 03:02
| It's very complicated to do a musical converter. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 05 2005 at 03:37
|
It's a completely digital process ... there's no reason why it shouldn't work on a computer. Unless the algorithms are kept secret by the manufacturers of musical CD players, that is. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 05 2005 at 04:26
|
These algorithms -along with the components used in the convetster- are very complex.
You have to be aware that digital technology is much more complex than analog -vynil- A turntable is "only" high precison mechanic while aCD player has to face mechanic problems due to high speed rotation PLUS converter issue, which requires much money and studies to get a converter "which does music". That's why digital is so expensive. Because it's very complex. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 05 2005 at 04:36
|
I know all about digital technology. In the digital domain, there are NO mechanical, electromagnetic or acoustic problems. It's only bits and bytes. Sorry, but if you don't believe me ask any expert you trust. The ONLY complex part in the digital domain is the algorithm. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: cobb
Date Posted: September 05 2005 at 05:06
I have had mine for a number of years now- I bought it specifically to do stuff with sonar (cakewalk then). It does a fantastic job either with input (recording instruments) or playback. Yeah, their website looks pretty ordinary, but I did contact them once, when I first got it and their reply was pretty prompt and spot on with the solution. I have used it through two operating systems, 98 and XP, with no installation problems. The only problems I ever had with it were getting Cakewalk and it to communicate properly. I had no problems with it on Sonar though. [edit] In Australia, the distrubutors are mainly music (instrument) shops, not computer stores. It is designed for home recording and does a fine job of it. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 05 2005 at 10:57
Not as simple! Here's an article from "What hifi" (english magazine) which explains why a cd copy is less good than the original(they don't talk about good burners) and it's also about CD mechanic problems. They say what i told you: the smallest vibration disturbs reading and it makes corrections circuits works, which recreates an aproximative signal. I was right! "Why CD-R and Minidisc copies can sound different from the original The term 'digital' has been used by the marketeers to equate with 'perfection' - but there's still a lot that can go wrong... Our recent reviews of various CD-RW and MiniDisc recorders have attracted a flurry of correspondence, much of it via e-mail, denouncing the results we reported. 'How can different CD-RW discs/MiniDisc blanks/CD-RW recorders sound different?' they howl, adding, 'Surely the machine/disc combination either records the ones and zeroes or it doesn't. After all, different floppy discs don't make word-processor documents read better or worse, do they?' It's hard not to argue with that last bit of logic, even if sometimes the reviewing staff on the magazine would love to be able to blame their floppies (!). But experience has taught us that, just as different CD players impose their own sound on a recording, so the various digital recorders on the market, and even the various brands and types of blank media available for them, can make a difference. So what's going on? Digits are either there or not, right? The answer to that is 'kind of...' since all digital systems rely on error correction to get the sound from the disc to the analogue outputs in a recognisable form. The less hard the correction systems are having to work to reconstitute the original sound, the better the reproduction becomes. What's being corrected is faults in the data, caused by anything from scratches on discs to mistracking of the laser pickup, from fluctuations in disc speed to wobbles in the spinning disc, and from low reflectivity causing misreading to vibrations caused by someone walking across the room. And that's before you get into electronic failings such as jitter... Trouble is, a CD or MD player looks dead simple: you bung in a disc and it just plays music, just like these words are about to be saved to a hard disc on a computer and when we want to read them they'll come back on the screen exactly as they were typed. Hopefully. But the fact of the matter is that CD players, and digital recorders, are all about high-precision engineering operating in a fairly hostile environment. For example, the laser pickup system in a CD player, or the write head in an optical or magneto-optical recorder, needs to move in three dimensions, alter its power and focus, and deal with a disc spinning at a constantly-changing speed, and do all that on a microscopic scale. Thus anything that can make this task easier, be it discs with greater reflectivity, more even spirals of pits, or even a more consistent optical layer, is likely to give a better sound. No, all digital equipment doesn't sound the same, however much logic might suggest otherwise - in fact, it's a miracle most of it is so consistent... " WhatHiFiSound+Vision |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 05 2005 at 11:00
|
From the article up:
"The less hard the correction systems are having to work to reconstitute the original sound, the better the reproduction becomes. " It explains why a good drive works soooo much better than a bad one.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 05 2005 at 11:16
|
The article is just wrong. Unfortunately my browser just hosed a more elaborate reply ... but here's a short summary: Conduct a little experiment:
There, all proven wrong. And EVERYONE who has a computer with a CD-ROM drive can conduct this experiment, not just people with esoteric equipment. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: September 05 2005 at 11:44
|
The same goes for the ripper EAC (short for Exact Audio Copy, quite tellingly).
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 05 2005 at 11:50
|
^ Exactly. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 05 2005 at 12:44
|
"in subtle mistakes in the ripped files."
These subtles mistakes are called Harshness, sharpness, loss of image, low, high, dynamic, etc... all things you can't hear on a crappy computer with poor plastic boxes instead of speakers. And i don't talk about the amplifier. The use of corrections circuits does exactly the same than the difference between an original and a MP3 :it recalculates an aproximative signal, a simplified signal with half of the infos missing: you'll hear nothing on your computer, while on a transparent hifi system, the difference is huge, no need to have gold ears! it's just obvious. How do you want that a simle piece of plastic reads as well than a serious drive like the VRDS system exposed up? Worst? what happened when you have a micro-scratch on your cd? there's no blank moment at playback, but harshness instead!!!!(unless the scrath is too big or deep and really too much infos missing) |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 05 2005 at 13:04
|
I firmly believe that in these two areas the computer has a long way to go until it sounds as good as a musical CD player. But the EXTRACTION of the audio is a really simple process. Too bad that a lot of people are suckered into believing that in order to extract information properly from CDs, the same amount of mechanical precision as required for vinyl as to be done. It's just ridiculous. BTW: What makes you believe that audio CDs contain more information than CD-ROMs? CD-ROMs can be extracted without any error (obviously, because otherwise the programs wouldn't work anymore), so why do you refuse to believe that audio CDs cannot be extracted? A data CD-ROM is basically an audio CD with one huge track. The method to read audio CDs is EXACTLY the same as that for reading CD ROMs ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 05 2005 at 13:39
|
OK, but you just forget the data correction issue.
Music is made of MANY 0 and 1, and the human ear, or brain is very sensitive (more than eyes for example) and missing or approximative infos can be hear clearly. That's the case with a drive suffering from vibes.It brings reading error that can be "perfectly" corrected. A CD with minor scratches will be read "perfectly" in the way that there will be no gap in the music(as long as the scratches are not too deep),but the sounds get harsher as the corrections circuits are working more . In the case of the software, it makes virtually no difference, but in the case of music played on a transparent system, it's obvious. On another hand, if the scratch is too deep and too much info missing, the cd will "jump" and the software will "bug"! |