Abootnoo said:Just read:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/technology/5212396.stm
What utter BS!
So, our mate Slim is going to build a version of the Squeezebox that's better than the original source is he? In ripping tracks from CD's the quality will somehow improve over the CD player used to do it.
He talks about "audiophiles" as though they are some kind of mythical, cave-dwelling creatures that people on the street only vaguely understand.
I really dislike this techno-babble, semi-scientific, aspirational marketing that uses straps like "components only normally found in a £10,000 product". Generally they're referring to a component that will only benefit from being linked to other similar quality items - hence the £10k price tag.
Still, plenty of people will take the bait. He and his fellow directors can then sit back and watch the cheques arrive.
bobdixon said:Well he's right in that MP3s etc are compressed (128 kbps I think) to such an extent that quality is reduced. For example if I burn a downloaded MP3 to CD, when playing it my RCS indicates clipping almost without fail - that is purely down to compressed files that were already mastered for extra loudness So if you want to rip your CDs (or vinyl come to that) instead of using MP3 etc you should use the lossless format of Wav or Flac or similar which 'do not' compress the files. In fact a new company in the states (called musicgiants I think) are offering downloads of uncompressed music of up to 1100 kbps which will be better quality without a doubt.
Abootnoo said:I really dislike this techno-babble, semi-scientific, aspirational marketing that uses straps like "components only normally found in a £10,000 product". Generally they're referring to a component that will only benefit from being linked to other similar quality items - hence the £10k price tag.
Why not?Abootnoo said:Just read:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/technology/5212396.stm
In ripping tracks from CD's the quality will somehow improve over the CD player used to do it.
The average PC doesn't tolerate errors? It does. Unless you use top grade, ECC memory chips it will make tiny errors all the time - the way a CD player does. Not to mention errors made in transferring data through the buffer to the disc etc. A quick 'system check' with a powerful tool soon reveals plenty of duff files that windows hides from view.welwynnick said:I think there are good reasons why a PC could be a better source of the digital audio stream than a player. The bit stream is generated in a completely different way, and is more robust. Bit errors are part and parcel of any digital communication system, but are not with computing, where errors are not tolerated. The consequences are all too familiar. With audio, the odd bit error is easily overlooked if you don't know any better.
nick
bobdixon said:Well he's right in that MP3s etc are compressed (128 kbps I think) to such an extent that quality is reduced. For example if I burn a downloaded MP3 to CD, when playing it my RCS indicates clipping almost without fail - that is purely down to compressed files that were already mastered for extra loudness So if you want to rip your CDs (or vinyl come to that) instead of using MP3 etc you should use the lossless format of Wav or Flac or similar which 'do not' compress the files. In fact a new company in the states (called musicgiants I think) are offering downloads of uncompressed music of up to 1100 kbps which will be better quality without a doubt.
jon_mendel said:In sighted tests, the MP3 'sounded' horrible, but blinded I couldn't tell the difference
Cable Monkey said:If the knowledge that what you are listening to is Mp3 spoils your enjoyment then even if a blind test is inconclusive it still makes lossless the prefered option. If our hobby were simply about ears it wouldn't be a problem but unfortunately we complicate things.
Even blind I can still tell the difference between a 320 MP3 and a standard music file. I thought in all honesty I wouldn't be able to, but the kids did a series of tests on me, and I could. Sad really...................jon_mendel said:Fair point. Now I know I can't tell the difference blind, listening 'sighted' doesn't spoil my enjoyment anymore...but for others it might still do so.
jon_mendel said:Am I missing something here? afaik, compression to save disk space (as used on MP3s) is completely different to compression of dynamic range (to make CDs sound louder). Even if you compress a track with good dynamic range to an MP3, it'll still have good dynamic range, although compression may introduce other artefacts (and if an idiot producer/record company has compressed the sound on a CD too much, to make it, like, LOUDER than all the others, you can't fix it )
One other thing - I'm always surprised when people claim that compressing files to MP3 does horrible things to the sound. 128 is somewhat noticable, but by the time you get up to 320 then I can't pick out a well-ripped MP3 in a blind test... In sighted tests, the MP3 'sounded' horrible, but blinded I couldn't tell the difference
If you haven't already done so, well worth trying a blind test of MP3 at 320 (or even 220) vbr vs lossless, to see if you can hear any/much difference. Foobar makes this v easy to do. Lossless is great for archiving, but don't know that I need it for listening...
bobdixon said:And almost all downloads are at 128, which to my ears there is a noticeable drop in quality
bobdixon said:Didn't say that compression to MP3 format and compression of dynamic range to increase loudness were the same, just two incidents of compression none of which improve quality. And almost all downloads are at 128, which to my ears there is a noticeable drop in quality
Yep, it is silly but true! Also, although I can't tell the difference between 320 and lossless on my current system (I can at 192) there's this the little worry in me that as I upgrade my system, I might eventually reach a point where I can hear a difference at 320. That would be horrible as I wouldn't want to have to rip my entire collection again. So, it's lossless FLAC all the way for me.Cable Monkey said:If the knowledge that what you are listening to is Mp3 spoils your enjoyment then even if a blind test is inconclusive it still makes lossless the prefered option. If our hobby were simply about ears it wouldn't be a problem but unfortunately we complicate things.