The ultimate audiophile poll
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=22130
Printed Date: November 28 2024 at 06:23
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The ultimate audiophile poll
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Subject: The ultimate audiophile poll
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 16:19
The poll options have limited length, so please also read these explanations:
For all those of you who can't decide ... just choose the option that you can agree more with. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Replies:
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 16:31
| Pathetic you said? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 16:36
I'm not talking about any specific persons here, just trying to get some opinions about the question in a poll which only has two extreme options and forces people to take sides. That's also why I added no "I'm kind of in the middle" option. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 16:50
When are you two gonna kiss and make up?  I firmly believe there IS a common ground. I personally can't stand what 128kbps encoding does to high frequencies, but I'm sure many, many people would never be able to tell the difference. I also think that the majority of "pre-fab" all-in-one stereo systems that are sold are designed to over-hype frequencies to the point where the _trained_ear_ can hear the differences... but again, the vast majority of people can't tell the difference. However, I think that gold-plated speaker cables, power filtering, etc... all the things you'll find in the so-called "audiophile" systems are marketing drivel, and do nothing other than part you with your well-earned cash for a benefit that's purely subconscious. ------------- Pure Brilliance: 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 17:23
|
Agreed. 128kbps results in a really noticeable difference especially in the high frequencies. But you can enjoy listening to that as well as you can enjoy watching a DVD movie. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 17:27
Why do I feel dirty whenever I say "Audiophile?" 
 ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 17:34
|
^ Because it sounds like "pedophile" or "necrophile". I don't know who invented the word, but we're stuck with it. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: The Miracle
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 18:33
Second choice for me. Music is always music Experience may change a little, but it's not that significant IMO. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/ocellatedgod" rel="nofollow - last.fm |
Posted By: Bj-1
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 18:39
|
I could live with a cheap stereo for years, if I have a good headset when Im listening to CD's on it I don't like too bad sound quality when it comes to music, but I can live with it. ------------- RIO/AVANT/ZEUHL - The best thing you can get with yer pants on! |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 18:57
|
I would vote for the latter, but since it's because of reasons best explained by the former it wouldn't make much sense: In essence, I think that an "audiophile" system can lead to a very audible difference and in many instances more enjoyment. However, when the very microphones we use to record with change the sound (including the famous and expensive ones, although it's what's percieved as a pleasant change), once I get to the point of a hi-fi system which sounds fairly good (probably something slightly above what oliver posts in his affordable hi-fi threads), I really don't see any value in spending more money when I could go to a concert, which will have not only sound exactly like how it did when they played it (!) it will also have more of an atmosphere..! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 19:09
|
Let me put it this way, goose: Would you feel like you've lost an arm if suddenly no more audiophile systems were available? Would you stop listening to music? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 20:13
| Certainly notw but if live music were banned I wouldn't feel far off..! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 20:15
|
Live music ... well, the atmosphere is great but the sound can be REALLY crappy. In most venues the acoustic situation is far from perfect, and depending on where you are in the hall/room it can be dreadful or decent. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 09:48
put it this way....my first car was an old 1949 morris minor. i had a year's happy motoring in this car, a real buzz, my first car, until i outgrew it and wanted something a bit more...well , racey, and over the years i've had many cars of variable luxury but always enjoyed driving them. now i wouldn't dream of going back to the bumpy, slow old morris minor. i listened to my first rock and prog music from 1966 on an old pam mono record player with an autochanger (which i still use to play singles on) and i was perfectly happy with that, i listened to "led zeppelin", "sgt.pepper" and "tommy" on that for the first time (i visited a friend who had a stereo radiogram-unbelievable sound!) and i was absolutely thrilled. i upgraded to a stereo music centre, about 12 watts per channel, and it was a revelation. these days my equipment is somewhat more sophisticated but i always think it could be improved, my listening experienced is enhanced but i never recaptured the buzz i got from that old pam record player again, so i voted "You can enjoy music perfectly fine on a cheap system" ...and so you can! -------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 09:52
|
option 2 ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 11:09
|
As i always says, a good system doesn't needs to be expensive to work.
And about analog's superiority, i told you recently about the tests i made, using a cheap (30€!)-but musical- Sennheiser px100H headphones, comparing a cheap Sony Cassette Walkman and MP3 players and how (not surprisingly)Walkman easily win. It shows that even on the more cheap ad basic equipment, analog wins. The difference is obvious, don't need gold ears. Ther's one with hurts the eardrums, the other not. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 11:16
You think, but you haven't tried. You rely on theories, while i rely on experience. |
Empathy wrote:Posted By: GoldenSpiral
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 11:23
|
The money would be much better spent on CDs to enjoy on my cheap system.
------------- http://www.myspace.com/altaic" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/altaic ALTAIC "Oceans Down You'll Lie" coming soon |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 11:25
Which mp3 player did you use, and which bitrate ... and was the file ripped from the CD professionally? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 11:26
Isn't it one of the audiophile principles that when even the smallest element in the "chain" is inferior, it all sounds like crap? How can someone then listen to a small system without power line filters and still enjoy it? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 11:30
|
Because this Walkman system featuring a battery is not polluted by something else. Anyway, it's very basic, but it's enough to hear the monstruous difference between numeric (bad numeric moreover, cause compressed) and a very basic Sony Cassette player, almost a toy.
Of course, i would not compared this Walkman (45€) to a big digital set up! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 11:32
|
Ok, so you don't want to give me more detail. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 13:04
|
The details are the following: ANY walkman beats ANY mp3 player.
About the tests i've made, i recall about a "Creative", but not the model or something (there's a psychological mechanism which tends to occult bad memories  ).
It's like the difference between analog old phone and mobile or worst: "voice-on-IP" phone sound. When there's some waiting music through the "IP phone", sound is more distorded than with 1900 wax records...What a progress!! Another obvious proof of numeric's inferiority... To come back to your poll, i voted 2, cause it was the only possible answer to this stupid (and not funny) question. I totally agree with you that you can enjoy music through the worst equipment, like on MP3. Moreover, that's what most people do, so do it. Anyway, to listen to some noise, MP3 is highly sufficient in your case. Enjoy! |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 13:30
|
Its getting bitchy in here.
DIGITAL RULES!!!!!!! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 13:44
Your VOIP actually sounds worse than a standard phoneline?! Something has gone very wrong if it has. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 13:54
| Yes, does it surprise you? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 14:12
It should, as a mobile phone line is also digital and usually uses much less bandwidth than an internet phone line.
Just confess, oliver - you're not a technician but yet you sometimes try to make technical statements, and sometimes that backfires on you. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 14:14
Do you even know what a bitrate is? Why do you keep avoiding my simple question?
Ok, insult my musical taste as much as you like. It only strengthens my position.  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 14:29
Don't try to confuse all! Both mobile phones and VOIP are both digital and both crap (i suppose that all VOIP are not the same, compression may varies and so quality). But the fact is that if you compare the one or the other to the old phone, listen to some waiting music calling a company like i do at work, and you'll realize that there's an atrocious saturation. BTW, i'm not alone to notice that, cause some of my (non-audiophiles)work colleagues complains about the bad sound quality, compared to the old classic phone. "Ok, insult my musical taste as much as you like. It only strengthens my position.Smile." Keep on insulting and polluting this website devoted to progressive music and not regressive "trash" music for teenagers. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 14:33
|
Sure, but telephones are not about audio quality. The algorithms are designed to transmit the frequency range of the human languange most effectively, and to cut out the parts that are not necessary. I agree that it sounds awful sometimes, but it gets the job done. I would never even think about listening to music through such a connection.
BTW: Needless to say that a 128kbps mp3 file sounds MUCH MUCH better. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 14:35
|
Oliver, please keep musical tastes out of this. What does Metal have to do with sound quality? I can point you to two excellent bands:
- Opeth
- Porcupine Tree
They still release their music on vinyl. Really heavy ones (speaking of the weight of the discs).
Maybe you can listen to those without prejudice, although I doubt it. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 14:36
|
"The algorithms are designed to transmit the frequency range of the human languange most effectively, and to cut out the parts that are not necessary. I agree that it sounds awful sometimes, but it gets the job done. I would never even think about listening to music through such a connection." MP3 does the same. Tadpol! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 14:37
Wrong facts won't help you either. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 14:39
| I mean the result is the same. Good night. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 14:42
If you really mean that - fine. But then your ears need to be replaced. You could even hear the difference by listening to headphones that are lying a few meters away from you. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 15:41
|
Mike, you are wasting your time.
Why did he call you a tadpole? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 15:54
|
It's mine to waste! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 17:29
|
What do you mean by listening to "old" phones as opposed to digital
ones? So far as I'm aware, there isn't a telephone system existing
today that doesn't use PCM. If there were, I'm pretty sure it'd be
horribly complicated. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 17:30
|
yes - in Germany all telephone communication is routed via ISDN. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 19:21
|
I voted for the second option. I have a cheap hi-fi system but with some (suppriseingly for a fiver) great heaphones. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 20:13
| Hmm... "In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan - Japan and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea - Korea up to 10% of subscribers, as of January http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005 - 2005 , have switched from analog to digital telephone service. A recent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek - Newsweek article suggested that Internet telephony may be "the next big thing." http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6831938/site/newsweek/ - [2] " says Wikipedia. That's probably just whoever wrote it thinking that digital means "using computers", though, since I'd very much doubt Japan would be using such an old system. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 22 2006 at 20:15
That's wikipedia ... the second sentence shows that they use "analog" as a synonym for "not-voip". ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: April 23 2006 at 13:09
|
Tut tut. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 23 2006 at 13:17
Did you know that you can even buy ringtones for the busy sign nowadays? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: April 24 2006 at 11:57
|
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by busy sign? |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: April 25 2006 at 01:17
|
I can't vote on this one.
I will say this though. Anyone can enjoy music on any playback system you listen to but, the better the playback system the better the listening experience. I have a fairly expensive system and you bet it aids me in hearing the music and thus better enjoying the music. It's like a nice sports car enhances my driving experience.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 25 2006 at 02:44
I just meant that in addition to the usual "ringtones" you can now install sounds that play why you're waiting for the other party to answer the call, or if the line is busy (the person you call is already on the phone with someone else). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 25 2006 at 02:48
would you say that if that expensive system was taken away from you that you couldn't really enjoy music anymore? BTW: I think that the sports car analogy is only partially valid, in my opinion the difference between cheap and expensive systems (like I defined them in the first post) is not as clearly measurable as the difference between cheap and expensive cars. But that's only me! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: April 25 2006 at 04:23
If the expensive system were to be taken away there is no question that my enjoyment of music would be compromised. Before mechanical and electrical music playback systems we had no choice but to listen to music live. The sound was pure and real. Music and all it's emotion or lack of was naked and on display. The closer the playback system is to producing that "live" sound, the more emotional the experience.
Look at it this way. Would your experience of the music you like to listen to be unaffected if you had to listen to it through one of those cheap transistor radios that you buy for under $20.00?
Of course it's all relative, but the better the playback system the more enjoyable the listening experience. I only have to listen to the comments expressed by the people who come over and listen to music on my system to know how enjoyable it is for those people. It's one of the best things I ever invested money into. I get enjoyment out of it everyday.
I recommend to anyone who loves music to upgrade to a better playback system. You will hear things on your recordings you never heard before. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 25 2006 at 04:38
|
^ "cheap transistor radios" ... I think I could adapt to that if I had to (I'd rather do that than stop listening to music), but thats two or three (5-10, actually) steps below my definition of cheap systems. Consider an mp3 player with some songs ripped at 192kbps + a computer with a decend sound card (X-Fi, preferably) + Logitech 5.1 speakers for 70 EUR. THAT is what I call a system that is "cheap" by audiophile standards, but IMO still a damn nice listening experience.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: April 25 2006 at 12:13
Like I say, it's all relative. If you enjoy your system and it brings you joy then who is to argue. I do have a problem with mp3 recordings though. The rate of compression is very high and this always effects the sound quality. That's why so many people complain about "digital harshness". Compression allows for more storage of data, music in this case. I would at least stick to WAV format, but if you are happy, well so be it.
It's very popular now to build a music system around a personal computer and I think that it's possible to get decent sound. It's not as good as a decent home system but I am sure the gap will close as time goes by.
For me it was something I wanted. I wanted good organic sound because music for me is everything. The better it's reproduced the happier I am.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 25 2006 at 13:17
|
^ Of course I agree that an uncompressed file sounds better than a compressed file - that's not the point. But I can listen to a compressed file and enjoy it almost as much as I enjoy listening to an uncompressed file. I can listen to it and forget that it's compressed. Incidentally: There are huge differences in quality ... independent of the bitrate. There are absolutely horrible 320kbps files and awesome sounding 128kbps files. Why? Because there are a few things which can be done horribly wrong when creating the files:
- Bad drive -> interpolation of the CD data or dropouts
- Analog audio extraction instead of digital: The signal has to be converted from D to A and then again be digitized (A -> D), creating increasingly bad distortion (errors multiply).
- If analog: interference introduced by the crappy cable from CD drive to soundcard
- Bad codec
- Volume normalization or effects (compression, de-noiser etc.) applied by ripping tool
All these things can be easily avoided ... and whenever you conduct listening tests with mp3s you have to be sure that these things are avoided, or else the result means nothing at all. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 00:04
The transport is critical and that's why most computer set-ups are inferior to say a decent CD player. The Transport that contains the laser is of paramount importance in data retrieval. Some of the very best are made by Philips, eg CDM 9pro
Some of the major problems with a lot of recordings has nothing to do with the actual playback system. It's the actual studio production of the music. There are very few producers or engineers that can do it right. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 01:17
|
I do agree with you that the transport is as important as the converter in a digital set up.
Bob Ludwig is among the engineers who makes digital work a little in the rock field. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 02:53
|
Sorry, but the "transport" is totally unimportant in the digital world. The "0"s and "1"s which are on the disc need to be extracted without errors ... as long as that is the case, the transport can be plastic/metal, heavy/lightweight ... TOTALLY irrelevant.
Any objection to this should be given in a separate thread - please let's not turn this into yet another "computer suck at audio" discussion. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 03:07
|
When you compare one drive to another, teh differences are huge, and it's partly due to power alimentation, vibration design, but not only:
"Not that long ago, digital audio was considered perfect if all the bits could be stored and retrieved without data errors. If the data coming off the disc were the same as what went on the disc, how could there be a sound-quality difference with the same digital/analog converter? This "bits is bits" mentality scoffs at sonic differences between CD transports, digital interfaces, and CD tweaks. Because none of these products or devices affects the pattern of ones and zeros recovered from the disc, any differences must be purely in the listener's imagination. After all, they argued, a copy of a computer program runs just as well as the original. As our knowledge of digital audio has become more sophisticated, however, we've learned that the timing of those ones and zeros is of utmost importance. It isn't enough to get the bits right; those bits have to be converted back into music with the same timing reference as when the music was first digitized. It turns out that timing errors in the picosecond (ps) range—the time it takes light to travel inches—can audibly degrade digitally reproduced music. These timing errors—called jitter—are only now beginning to be understood (footnote 1). Although I have a pretty good feel for how jitter in a digital processor can degrade sound quality, what I don't begin to understand is why CD transports sound so different. Some have a smooth treble, soft bass, and a deep soundstage, while others are bright, have tight and extended bass, and poor soundstaging. My auditioning of the C.E.C. TL 1 belt-drive transport (reviewed in Vol.16 No.7) deepened the mystery: The TL 1 had the most distinctive sonic signature of any transport I've heard, with an extremely smooth treble, lushly liquid midrange, and a soft, somewhat sluggish bass. The TL 1's presentation was in sharp contrast to the Mark Levinson No.31 transport's tight, punchy, highly detailed rendering. If jitter is the cause of these sonic differences, why don't poor (high-jitter) transports all have the same sonic signature? What mechanisms create such a broad palate of sonic flavors? There are two possible answers. The first is that, besides the bits and the timing of those bits, sound quality is influenced by a third, unknown factor. The second—and much more likely—answer is that the jitter's spectral content affects certain sonic aspects differently. Jitter can be randomly distributed in frequency (like white noise), or have most of its energy concentrated at specific frequencies. The jitter's characteristics probably determine each transport's sound. Is this the mechanism behind the different sonic signatures of CD transports? We may have taken the first step toward answering that question. Stereophile has acquired a unique test instrument that measures jitter in a CD transport's digital output. The analyzer takes in an S/PDIF or AES/EBU signal from a transport and outputs the transport's jitter content. The jitter can be looked at on an oscilloscope, measured with an RMS-reading voltmeter, listened to through an amplifier and loudspeakers, analyzed with FFT techniques, or plotted as a function of frequency with 1/3-octave spectral analysis. The jitter test instrument, designed by UltraAnalog's Dr. Rémy Fourré and described in his Stereophile article last month ("Jitter and the Digital Interface," Vol.16 No.10, p.80), is a powerful tool for revealing the different jitter performances of various CD transports (footnote 2). I used the analyzer to measure the jitter in a wide range of CD transports, most of them previously reviewed in these pages. The Stereophile test bench and surrounding area looked like "transport city," with more than a dozen high-end models awaiting testing. Also on hand for measurement was a "jitter-reduction" device, Audio Alchemy's Digital Transmission Interface (DTI). Because Stereophile has already reported on the sound of many of these products, we can look at the measurements and see if there's a correlation between a transport's sound quality and its measured jitter. I'll report on the test methods and results later in this article. First, let's look at how a transport's jitter affects the sound quality of a digital processor connected to it. How transport jitter affects DAC sound quality In "The Jitter Game" (Stereophile, January 1993, p.114), I explained how jitter in a digital processor's word clock affects the processor's sound quality. The word clock is the timing signal that controls when the digital-to-analog converter (DAC) converts the digital audio samples into an analog output. Timing errors in the clock produce voltage errors in the DAC's analog output signal, degrading the processor's sonic and technical performance. That article focused on jitter in digital processors; at the time, we had no way of measuring transport jitter. Since then, we've learned much more about the relationship between word-clock jitter, the digital processor, and the CD transport. It turns out that word-clock jitter in a digital processor—the point where jitter becomes audible—is a result of many variables, including the transport, the digital interface, and the digital processor itself. The transport's S/PDIF digital output drives the digital processor's input receiver. The input receiver generates a new clock by locking to the incoming clock in the S/PDIF datastream with a Phase-Locked Loop (PLL). This so-called "recovered" clock then becomes the timing reference for the digital processor. When your digital processor's "lock" or "44.1kHz" LED illuminates, the processor has locked to the incoming clock signal. If this recovered clock is jittered, the word clock at the DAC will also be jittered. It is commonly believed that transport jitter is rejected by the input receiver and not passed to the recovered clock. Unfortunately, that's true only above a certain frequency, called the "jitter attenuation cutoff frequency." Below this cutoff frequency, the input receiver and PLL simply pass the incoming jitter to the recovered clock. The popular Crystal CS8412 chip has a jitter attenuation cutoff frequency of 25kHz, meaning that the device is transparent to transport jitter below 25kHz. (This specification is clearly stated in the CS8412's data sheet [downloadable as a PDF file---Ed.].) The input receiver essentially acts as a low-pass filter to jitter. Note that jitter energy with a frequency between DC and 40kHz produces audible degradation. A second source of word-clock jitter is the input receiver's intrinsic jitter. Input receivers vary greatly in their intrinsic jitter, from 40 picoseconds in the UltraAnalog AES 20 input receiver, 200ps for the Crystal CS8412, up to 5000ps (5ns) in the Yamaha YM3623 chip. (The Yamaha receiver's jitter can be reduced with a few circuit tricks.) We can quickly see that the sonically degrading word-clock jitter in a digital processor is influenced by several variables: 1) the transport's jitter; 2) S/PDIF or AES/EBU interface-induced jitter (the digital interconnect); 3) how well the digital processor's input receiver rejects transport and interface jitter; 4) the input receiver's intrinsic jitter; and 5) how well the clock is recovered and handled inside the digital processor. The block diagram of fig.1 shows how transport jitter ends up in the digital processor's word clock. The call-out numbers in fig.1 correspond to the five jitter sources described above. Fig.1 shows why transports and digital interfaces sound different—their jitter directly affects the timing precision of the digital/analog conversion process. The "bits is bits" camp rejects this thesis, claiming that transport and interface jitter is completely removed by the digital processor's input receiver. They consider the PLL an absolute barrier to jitter. Consequently, they argue, transports, digital interfaces, and CD tweaks can't affect sound quality. I conducted a little experiment to test this hypothesis. I measured a digital processor's word-clock jitter (with the Meitner LIM Detector described in Vol.16 No.1) when driven by two different digital sources. One source has low jitter (the PS Audio Lambda transport), and one source has high jitter (the Panasonic SV-3700 professional DAT machine). Fig.2 shows the jitter spectrum of the processor's word clock when driven by the Lambda. For contrast, fig.3 is the same processor's jitter spectrum—measured at the DAC with the identical test signal and conditions—but with the high-jitter Panasonic SV-3700 driving the processor. Note the vastly cleaner spectrum and fewer discrete-frequency jitter components when the processor was driven by the Lambda. Moreover, the overall RMS jitter (measured from 400Hz to 22kHz) increased from 145ps with the Lambda transport to a whopping 561ps when driven by the high-jitter SV-3700. Clearly, jitter in the S/PDIF signal driving a digital processor does greatly affect word-clock jitter inside the processor. The following is available here: http://www.stereophile.com/features/368/index1.html - http://www.stereophile.com/features/368/index1.html |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 03:15
|
Don't waste our time, oliver ... I remember that article from or 8+ pages monster thread about the "Battle of the sources".
The above article is mainly about jitter and clock problems. Those are NON-EXISTANT when ripping audio on a computer, storing it on the harddisk. Anybody who says otherwise is a fool and doesn't know what he's talking about.
Remember that an audio CD is not different from a CD-ROM. Even cheap computer CD drives manage to read even scratched CDs without any error, you can even shake the computer while they're reading the CD. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 04:01
You're of bad faith, as usual. You try to confuse all to drown the fish! We were talking about differences between transports... and there are huge (i know i comapre drive very often) and I.E good Teac VRDS are far more dynamic and transparent than others. |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 04:48
|
I have heard the differences between transports, pre-amps, amps, wires and cables and on and on it goes. If you are not listening to high end gear, then it's hard to gauge. It really does not matter. I know the differences are very real. I started putting a system together in 1996 and 10 years later I am satisfied. Can I get better? Sure, but sound reproduction is kind of like drag racing. The law of diminished returns as the price increases exponentially. I have heard systems put together by rich people, and the equipment names all indicate fabulous sound, but they don't deliver. The right combination of equipment is very important and often the poor guys in the game are better suited at putting good systems together with modest sums of money. They know some of the bargains out there and there is good equipment to be had at resonable prices. Some expensive stuff is garbage as well. You have to be careful.
I can safely say that my system although not the best, still sounds very good for the money and the people who listen to the system and many of these people are musicians, all say the same thing. "Your system sounds lifelike."
That's all I can ask.
After listening to some of the systems my friends have, I am very happy to be at home and listening to music on my system. Most of them sound like crap to be honest with you. Can you enjoy music on a inferior music system? Yes. Is it more enjoyable on a good audio system? Absolutly!!!
The best place to start when putting a system together is with a good CD player and used equipment is a great place to start. Oh, you want a good CD player. You can start with a Linn Genki, or if you have a bit more money go for the Linn Ikemi. Both excellent players for the money.
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 04:54
|
I agree with you. Price means nothing, there are good musical products in every price range.
I keep on thinking that tubes are really essential in a good system, along with cables, power optimization (a system without dedicated lines and filters work half)and vib cancelling. Linn Genki is average IMO (i prefer a Naim) while Ikemi is excellent!! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 04:57
|
both of you are talking about a completely different issue. I am talking about ripping audio CDs to WAV files. You are talking about standalone CD players. If you think that these two issues are related in terms of drive/jitter/clock problems, then you are indeed completely wrong. I am not of "bad faith", I am simply an expert when it comes to computer technology. And please don't patronize me and say that you can hear a difference - I'm pretty sure that you never tried it yourself. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 05:04
|
Here, fyi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_Audio_Copy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_Audio_Copy ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 05:15
|
Is that all you found?
Everything is written up! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 05:16
|
"Written up"? Don't know what you mean, oliver. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 05:19
|
I gave you technical elements explaining why transports affects sound whereas you give me a poor link about a software claiming to do perfect copies...
|
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 05:20
|
You started this with:
Only audiophiles know how real music sounds.
That can't possible be true, anyone can see and hear a live show which is lightyears ahead of even the very best systems on this earth for sound reproduction.
You can enjoy music perfectly fine on a cheap system.
Very subjective here, but of course you can. I have listened to music for years on what I would call really bad equipment. The better system is a welcome improvment. I enjoy the music that much more now.
As far as differences percieved after ripping a CD. I have to say no. I have not heard any difference when a copied CD is played back on my system. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 05:24
It depends on the concert room's acoustic. A very good system can gives A BETTER RESULT than a concert in a bad acoustic room. And very few places have a good acoustic. I of course agree about the second point. The better the system, the more pleasure. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 05:26
|
oliver: You obviously don't have a clue, yet you continue to ridicule me. It was obvious that the arguments you presented are off-topic, they simply DON'T APPLY to ripping CDs. BTW: If you were used to reading technical articles or specifications you would probably have also looked at the links provided for further reading. Have a look at this one: http://www.exactaudiocopy.de - http://www.exactaudiocopy.de (browse to "Technology" or "DAE Quality" or "FAQ" ... plenty of infos there) I know that you're immune to facts which are in contrary to your statement, but I'll keep on trying! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 05:26
|
"I am not of "bad faith", I am simply an expert when it comes to computer technology. And please don't patronize me and say that you can hear a difference - I'm pretty sure that you never tried it yourself."
You know nothing about high fidelity. Please keep low profile. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 05:27
|
I know that you're immune to facts which are in contrary to your statement, but I'll keep on trying! It applies very well to yourself. I knwo cause i've tried, not you, so please s*** **! |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 05:28
|
^keep a low profile yourself. Cheeky blighter! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 05:36
Let the others decide which one of us is wrong or right. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 05:38
|
1 vote for Mike. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 05:43
|
BTW oliver: You do have a point with CD audio stability issues in the early days of CD audio and computer CD drives. But you must accept that with the tremendous progress in computer technology, extracting CD audio has become a fairly simple task for computers and drives. Audio CDs have a really low resolution, and DVD drives (or HD-DVD for that matter) extract much more data which is even stored more densely with a much higher need for precision of the laser beam. I quote the EAC technology page: "In secure mode, this program reads every audio sector at least twice. That is one reason why the program is so slow. But by using this technique non-identical sectors are detected. If an error occurs (read or sync error), the program keeps on reading this sector, until eight of 16 retries are identical, but at maximum one, three or five times (according to the error recovery quality) these 16 retries are read. So, in the worst case, bad sectors are read up to 82 times! But this will help the program to obtain best result by comparing all of the retries. If it is not sure that the stream is correct (at least it can be said at approx. 99.5%) the program will tell the user where the (possible) read error occurred. The program also tries to adjust the jitter artefacts that occur on the first block of a track, so that each extraction should be exactly the same. On drives found to have the "accurate stream" feature, this is guaranteed. Of course, this is a little bit more complex, especially with some CD drives which have caching. When these drives cache audio data, every sector read will be read from cache and is identical. I initially implemented two ways of dealing with the caching problem. First there is an extra option for resetting the cache for use the the old secure mode (the one being kept for compatibility reasons). In the current beta version, the cache will still be reset by resetting the drive completely. You might imagine that this would slow down the reading process very badly." Still convinced that this is all laughable? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 05:53
|
They should need to listen to our respective systems to judge!
BTW, the fact that DVD technology is different doesn't change the transport problem and you should refer to what i've posted from Stereophile. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 05:57
You're really immune to fact. I present fact and considerations and you say "listen to our systems". What does your system have to do with digital audio extraction? nothing at all. BTW: I'd be willing to bet 1000 EUR that when I connect the digital output of my sound card to you D/A converter box, you won't be able to hear a difference. How could you - the bits are identical. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 06:04
|
Experience proved that if you put a DVD player (even a good one) instead of a good drive, it’ far less good. No you can tell me that your theories say the contrary, but don’t tell me it’s like that, cause you have not tried, That’s what’s painful with you! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 06:12
This statement indeed only proves that you don't have the slightest idea of what we are talking about here.
Only your arrogance is painful to me. How can you know that I never listened to an audiophile system? Your arrogance dictates: I'm always right - so whatever facts people present to me - if they conflict with my personal experience then they must be wrong. This attitude has clouded your judgement so much that you can't even see that this discussion isn't about hi-fi systems. (that's alll in my humble opinion of course) Any opinion which suggests that computers+audio can make sense is ridiculous to you - even the article in your so highly praised stereophile.com website. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 06:46
|
Ths fact is that i've heard drive/converter, i own one and know others, not you.
BTW, i just received a thanks PM from one of our members, happy about a purchase he made, following my advice! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 06:57
The drive is connected to the converter digitally - that means it transmits the 0s and 1s to the converter. All that I'm saying is that computer cd drives can reliably extract the 0s and 1s exactly as they are on the disc, and thus they do the same as your drive. Absolute, undeniable, easily verifiable "carved in stone" bulletproof fact.
Show me one single post where I said that these systems don't sound good. All I'm saying is that I can be just as happy with my system. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 07:13
| ..except that you deny the jitter issue which affects transports, evoked in the text i posted up. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 07:18
It doesn't apply in the case of audio extraction, because computers have very large buffers. Driver units are legacy systems from times where large buffers (even 2MB) were not affordable even at these prices ... so it was crucial for these systems to not have any errors while reading the data which would cause the unit to have to go back and read the data again ... which leads to pauses in the playback if the buffer length is exceeded. Computers have all the time in the world to read the CD ... read the excerpt that I quoted on the previous page. The software reads a sector up to 82 times, and only if the different extractions are identical it accepts the result. There is no interpolation or "guessing" in case of data which has been not been read correctly due to jitter, scratches or whatever else that may happen. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 08:07
In your opinion?
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 08:10
Actually you are both wasting your time, this argument hasn't progressed from previous threads.
 In my opinion. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 08:11
|
I'm not bored at all ... these things cannot be explained too often. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Meddler
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 11:00
|
[Random question] Would I be wasting my time downloading musuc over the internet? Because, its just 128kps. It doesn't sound bad to me. (legally  [iTunes.. etc]) Or would my money be better spent buying CDs? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 11:17
Two things: - Today music you buy in internet stores is encoded in 192kbps. It's also not encoded as mp3, but WMA with DRM (digital rights management), which puts severe limitations on what you can do with the files. - Personally I would never buy music in this form, unless the price would be considerably lower than the real album. There are a few websites which offer mp3s in an acceptable form, most importantly www.emusic.com, where you can buy whole albums for around $2. That is a price well spent IMO, because you can always decide to get the real album later or to be content with the mp3. My personal recommendation: Look for subscription based services such as Napster, where you can listen to all they have for the price of one real album per month. Together with services like eMusic and a few albums per month which you still buy "normally", that is the perfect solution to me: - you have huge quantities of stuff to listen to in low quality - you don't pay much for that, so you have enough money left to buy those albums which you REALLY like after extensive listening. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 15:27
|
Mike, I think Itunes does use 128kbps still (!), according to
http://www.connectedhomemag.com/Audio/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=49339
anyway. Mind you, there are so many horrible innaccuracies in that
article that it's quite possibly wrong... oliver: EAC doesn't simply claim to make exact copies, it makes verifiably exact copies. That is the nature of digital audio. Jitter is, as Mike says, not relevant to this situation. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 15:31
|
^ goose, you may be correct about iTunes. But I'm talking about sane download stores.
Seriously: 192kbps are becoming the standard for downloads, Napster and most other European stores use that format (although some old tracks still exist in the Napster database which were ripped in 128kbps and haven't yet been replaced).
BTW: At this point I have to recommend http://www.emusic.com - www.emusic.com again - they offer tremendously well ripped mp3s at varying bitrates (VBR) which average at 200 kbps. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 20:29
|
For sure, but those buying Ipods have already locked themselves out of
(edit: most) sane music stores, as well as most music players and most formats of
music, bless them. Looking at emusic though, that does look pretty good. Not that I want to buy audio files, but if I did I'd probably look there first |
Posted By: Meddler
Date Posted: April 27 2006 at 09:30
|
Thanks Mike and Goose. I did read your reply sooner. I was just too lazy to post.
|
Posted By: Sloth
Date Posted: April 27 2006 at 14:20
|
I feel that you can enjoy music with any kind of equipment you might
prefer to use. This leaves me in the middle. However, i
believe that Analog is much better than digital in terms of actual
sound. With analog you get that deep, rich bass sound and soft
highs. But with digital you get flat bass and harsh highs.
Both are good in the mid-range. Even my fiance' can tell the
difference and she doesn't take music very seriously, to her
music is music. But i think anyone can get by just fine with a
decent system, whether i is digital or analog. I could see
spending upwards of $2,000 at the very most for a quality sound system;
amp, surround sound, cd, dvda, record player, seperate EQ. but to
spend more than that is absurd and a waste money. ------------- BUH!!! It's what the Buffalo say! |