To the Audiophiles:
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=46565
Printed Date: November 25 2024 at 16:27
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: To the Audiophiles:
Posted By: DJPuffyLemon
Subject: To the Audiophiles:
Date Posted: February 25 2008 at 16:01
|
Question concerning digital encoding,
Does the lossless .flac or .wav format really sound noticibly better than a 320 kbps encoded mp3 or is it all placebo? I've been wondering about this because there are some website that acutally look down on you for listening to lossy formats.
|
Replies:
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: February 25 2008 at 16:08
|
I'm not an audiophile, but I know of quite a few tests where people were unable to tell even 256kbit files from the CD. But it's very important that the music is ripped properly, a modern codec used etc..
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 21 2008 at 08:42
|
Let's have a look at this excellent article about digital technology:
http://www.stefanopasini.it/Audio_Fremer_CD_vs_Vinyl.htm - http://www.stefanopasini.it/Audio_Fremer_CD_vs_Vinyl.htm |
Posted By: Moogtron III
Date Posted: March 21 2008 at 08:54
 Well, I'll think I'll invest in a good turntable after all!
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 21 2008 at 09:37
|
A Rega Planar 3 if you can!
I think having at least three sources (vinyl, tuner, CD) is not a luxury, some rare stuffs (especially rare prog) being available almost only on CD, analog tuner remains a great source, better than CD with a good broadcast. I just bought an Arcam DV78 DVD player and it's a good CD player as well (1200€ new). I've got better for CD playback (drive/converter setup) but this Arcam can be a good CD player in a "budget" setup. |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: March 21 2008 at 09:40
|
This whole audiophile thing is mostly placebo anyway. The best sound system is in the brain. 1 will get you 10 that in a blind test most people won't be able to tell the "audiophile" system from others. There are certain things that can be done with equipment, but beyond a certain point it becomes ridiculous. I remember a friend who had a sound system that was worth thousands and he still was not satisfied and talked about some kind of "Klirrfaktor" (distortion factor) he still heard. When I suggested to him that he should listen to the music instead of to his sound system he looked at me without understanding. -------------  BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 21 2008 at 10:31
|
Funny you should ask that. I recently downloaded the new NIN in FLAC. Had a devil of a time finding a program to convert it to a format I could listen to. Ended up converting it to WAV with a freeware program, that I could burn to CD format and then rip for my digital music program. Found out later that Winamp reads FLAC. I use 64 kbps in WMA format for my digital player. Sounds fine to me. Most portable situations where I listen to music there's competing background noise anyway. When I really want to listen attentively to something, I'll use a portable CD player with non portable type headphones. Ultimately, you just have to try stuff and see what you think. I suppose some people have super ears and mine are sub par. But when it comes to vinyl, I still never could get past needle noise, scratches, etc. The CD was the best thing to happen since sliced bread for me. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 21 2008 at 11:15
| It's because you haven't listened to something better |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: March 21 2008 at 11:18
Believe me, Oliver, I have. it did not convince me. ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
oliverstoned wrote:Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 21 2008 at 11:27
| It's not because you have listened to expensive equipment one time that it was good. It's much more complex. For example, was it tubes? |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: March 21 2008 at 11:34
|
Oliver, please! The internal technical details of a hi-fi system are a book with seven seals to me. I completely have to rely on what people tell me when it comes to technical details. I am interested in the software (music), not the hardware (equipment). I would have no idea if it was tubes or not. All I know when seeing such a system is that it glitters and sparks, looks futuristic and is worth several thousand bucks.
------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 21 2008 at 11:50
|
I've got nothing to prove. The only people on this forum who listened to my system was Philippe -who is basically not more interested in Hifi than you- and he was impressed. The magic of hifi is that it makes you re discover records you have listen to hundred of times. You're missing whole instruments, details such as bird singing (an example)when listening through poor equipment. I'm currently a "portaphile", which means i'm into high end portable system, the aim being to bring a decent source into nature. Here's my current portable system:
If ever we attend to another prog meeting (preferably in Holland  ), i'll bring it! (and if you don't get into another terrible car accident)
Sony Discman D25S 
Sony Pro walkman WM D6 
RSA Hornet portable amp 
Sennheiser HD600 (studio reference, the best electrodynamic headphones) 
ALO audio "top line" cables 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 21 2008 at 14:43
|
For once I agree with BaldFriede here ... audiophile systems are not necessary to enjoy music. Of course systems will always be different, and your system may actually sound much better than mine. But give me 4000 EUR and I'll get a system which does not follow your best practices at all and I bet that it will impress typical listeners just as much as yours does. And I don't believe for a second that your system reveals details which mine doesn't - well, at least not at the level which you suggest. There are certain tests you can perform - for example the spoken words at the end of Dark Side of the Moon. Typically you don't hear them on a low-end system, particularly when you also use a bad source (128kbit mp3). But even a mid-range non-audiophile system like mine can properly reproduce trumpets (which you claimed at one point to be impossible with CDs, if I remember correctly), and certainly it reproduces birds singing. I'll gladly perform a detailed test if you tell me which track you're referring to (a track which features details which you can hear on your system but not on mine). BTW: I'm not trying to ruin your enjoment of audiophile equipment ... I'm just saying that it may not be necessary for all of us in order to fully enjoy music. For some people even a grammophone would do! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: April 15 2008 at 03:34
|
there are none so blind that they will not see,
there are none so deaf that they will not hear..
 -------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 15 2008 at 13:31
|
I get what Oliver is saying - if you're used to listening to top-end systems and the soundscape they present, then it's harder to adjust to something that is not as revealing.
My amplifier died recently, and a kind friend lent me his - but the sound is frankly terrible compared to my old amp, and it spoils the listening pleasure I get from my LPs. Still, I will buy a replacement in due course - I'm listening to as many as I can to find the amp that agrees with my ears.
I recently did an experiment with a work friend, who enjoys buying expensive tube headphone amps and reference phones to go with them. They sound tinny and awful to me - but that's by-the-by.
The test was to compare a 24-bit wav with a 16-bit wav.
Without knowing which was which, he completely fell for the 24-bit file as the most revealing and satisfying to listen to.
In short, it depends on what you're used to listening to and how you listen. If you listen out for a lot of detail in the music and enjoy the production and soundscape as much as - or even (and there actually are people like this!) more than the music itself, then higher quality encoding is for you - providing the equipment you're playing it back on is capable of reproducing all of the details satisfactorily, and that the encoding was good in the first place.
Ooops.
I said "in short"...  ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 15 2008 at 13:38
|
^ I'm wondering how the 16bit file was created from the 24bit file (a lot can go wrong with that), and whether the test was conducted properly, without your friend knowing which was which. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 16 2008 at 02:31
|
Both files were rendered from the raw audio captured in ACID Pro - it's possible stuff went wrong in the rendering process, but unlikely. In my experience, 24-bit audio sounds significantly better than 16-bit - just like 24-bit pictures look better than 16-bit.
I stated above that he didn't know which was which. The simple procedure was that I "drove", and he sat behind the monitor so that he could not see the screen. Obviously any file player shows the bitrate, so this was a logical way to conduct the test. There was no question which file he preferred - and I forgot to mention that we included a CD rip of the same song to level the playing field a bit.
24-bit audio is more dynamic. There's a lot of guff around that you don't really notice the difference except at low volume. 16-bit CD @ 44.1 has a dynamic range of around 90-96db, depending on whose figures you believe, vinyl comes in with a theoretical 120db, but can be as low as 80 (there are some really poor quality pressings as well as the superb ones), and 24-bit is around 146db.
Science can prove many things with facts.
When you get into the more abstract, or even at the absolute root of things, however, it runs out of facts and things it can accurately measure, and starts to depend on theories which must be tested in order to be proven.
Take particle physics as a superlative example, which has proven that the observer can actually change what is being measured: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect
And that's what I was saying above.
As with just about anything in music, it all depends on what pleases YOUR ears. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 16 2008 at 02:40
^ I actually believe that this could be true ... I don't believe that recordings with higher frequency resolution can reveal more details than CDs (because the human ear can't hear frequencies that high), but an increased dynamic range could very well reveal more details. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|