[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz

Discussion:

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hi-Res or not Hi-Res at Qobuz - this is the question.

Rainer M Krug

2016-03-31 11:36:21 UTC

A little bit OT - but this forum seems to be a good place to ask.

Jazz and Classic albums at Qobuz are often available as 24 bits - 96khz
downloads. But they are usually more expensive.

I have read the discussions here, that in many cases, hires is worse
than CD quality.

I know that one can not say this in general, but is this also true for
Qobuz Jazz and Classic? Any experiences?

Thanks,

Rainer

--
Rainer M. Krug
email: Rainer<at>krugs<dot>de
PGP: 0x0F52F982

garym

2016-03-31 11:53:07 UTC

Permalink

Post by Rainer M Krug
A little bit OT - but this forum seems to be a good place to ask.
Jazz and Classic albums at Qobuz are often available as 24 bits - 96khz
downloads. But they are usually more expensive.
I have read the discussions here, that in many cases, hires is worse
than CD quality.
I know that one can not say this in general, but is this also true for
Qobuz Jazz and Classic? Any experiences?
Thanks,
Rainer
--
Rainer M. Krug
email: Rainer<at>krugs<dot>de
PGP: 0x0F52F982

It is actually a function of the mastering of the CD. 24/96 *may* have
better mastering, less dynamically compressed, etc. Or it may not. And
it may even be worse. Nothing inherently wrong with 24/96, but it may
not be better. The (very) few 24/96 files I have are because they were
specific different masterings or remasters. I'm not willing to pay more
for the same mastering as 16/44.1 vs 24/96 or 24/192. And I purchased
the 24/96 even though I could have purchased the 24/192 for the same
price. Saw no need for 24/192 over 24/96.

Regarding hires being worse, you may be thinking about his issue with
24/192 files:
https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

*Home:* VortexBox 4TB (2.3) > LMS 7.8 > Transporter, Touch, Boom, Radio
(all ethernet)
*Cottage:* VBA 3TB (2.3) > LMS 7.8 > Touch > Benchmark DAC I, Boom,
Radio w/Battery (all ethernet except Radio)
*Office:* Win8(64) > LMS 7.9 > Squeezelite
*Spares:* Touch(3), Radio(3), Boom, SB3, CONTROLLER
*Controllers:* iPhone6 & iPadAir2 (iPeng8 & Squeezepad), CONTROLLER, or
SqueezePlay 7.8 on Win7(64) laptop
*Files:* ripping: dbpoweramp > FLAC; post-rip: mp3tag, PerfectTunes;
Streaming: Spotify
------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105410

Rainer M Krug

2016-03-31 12:19:48 UTC

Permalink

Post by garym

Thanks for the clarification. So there is no way of knowing if it is
worth spending a few Euros more for hires at qobuz?

Post by garym
Regarding hires being worse, you may be thinking about his issue with
https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Looks interesting - I will read through it some time later. Thanks

Cheers,

Rainer

Post by garym
*Home:* VortexBox 4TB (2.3) > LMS 7.8 > Transporter, Touch, Boom, Radio
(all ethernet)
*Cottage:* VBA 3TB (2.3) > LMS 7.8 > Touch > Benchmark DAC I, Boom,
Radio w/Battery (all ethernet except Radio)
*Office:* Win8(64) > LMS 7.9 > Squeezelite
*Spares:* Touch(3), Radio(3), Boom, SB3, CONTROLLER
*Controllers:* iPhone6 & iPadAir2 (iPeng8 & Squeezepad), CONTROLLER, or
SqueezePlay 7.8 on Win7(64) laptop
*Files:* ripping: dbpoweramp > FLAC; post-rip: mp3tag, PerfectTunes;
Streaming: Spotify
------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105410
_______________________________________________
audiophiles mailing list
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

--
Rainer M. Krug
email: Rainer<at>krugs<dot>de
PGP: 0x0F52F982

garym

2016-03-31 12:26:31 UTC

Permalink

The real pain is discovering (as some have) when purchasing hi-res that
all you've paid extra for is an upsampled 16/44.1 CD quality file. HiRes
sellers are not very forthcoming about the providence of their albums
and just rely on statements like "we sell what the label gives us".
(and I'm not referring necesarily to Quobuz here, as I don't know about
them)

*Home:* VortexBox 4TB (2.3) > LMS 7.8 > Transporter, Touch, Boom, Radio
(all ethernet)
*Cottage:* VBA 3TB (2.3) > LMS 7.8 > Touch > Benchmark DAC I, Boom,
Radio w/Battery (all ethernet except Radio)
*Office:* Win8(64) > LMS 7.9 > Squeezelite
*Spares:* Touch(3), Radio(3), Boom, SB3, CONTROLLER
*Controllers:* iPhone6 & iPadAir2 (iPeng8 & Squeezepad), CONTROLLER, or
SqueezePlay 7.8 on Win7(64) laptop
*Files:* ripping: dbpoweramp > FLAC; post-rip: mp3tag, PerfectTunes;
Streaming: Spotify
------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105410

Rainer M Krug

2016-03-31 12:38:04 UTC

Permalink

Post by garym
The real pain is discovering (as some have) when purchasing hi-res that
all you've paid extra for is an upsampled 16/44.1 CD quality file. HiRes
sellers are not very forthcoming about the providence of their albums
and just rely on statements like "we sell what the label gives us".
(and I'm not referring necesarily to Quobuz here, as I don't know about
them)

I guess all of them want to sell you something...

Thanks,

Rainer

--
Rainer M. Krug
email: Rainer<at>krugs<dot>de
PGP: 0x0F52F982

Wombat

2016-03-31 14:12:45 UTC

Permalink

And then i lately realized that Watermark crap.
Your 24/96 qobuz purchase may have the Watermark vermin inside while a
standard CD hasn't.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111198.0.html

Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105410

Rainer M Krug

2016-03-31 15:21:46 UTC

Permalink

Post by Wombat
And then i lately realized that Watermark crap.
Your 24/96 qobuz purchase may have the Watermark vermin inside while a
standard CD hasn't.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111198.0.html

But the same applies to all downloads.

Post by Wombat
Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105410
_______________________________________________
audiophiles mailing list
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

--
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel : +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell: +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F): +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D): +49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email: ***@krugs.de

Skype: RMkrug

Wombat

2016-03-31 15:56:40 UTC

Permalink

Post by Rainer M Krug
But the same applies to all downloads.

Like garym already mentioned in a similar named thread it is a gamble.
In the hydrogen link i gave is also the sample of lousy downsampling of
the 44.1 version at qobuz.
I did not buy any download since but several CDs.

Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

Archimago

2016-04-02 18:31:05 UTC

Permalink

That's just sad. As usual, without decent quality control the whole
hi-res thing is a fail especially when they let stuff like this happen
with watermarking... Upsampled audio, questionable provenance, dynamic
compressed mastering, now watermarking. All when it's questionable even
if well done hi-res has audible benefits.

Do we have a sense of how prevalent the watermarking is in terms of how
many percent of albums are affected? If high, I'd certainly be avoiding
certain labels that partake in this nonsense. It'd be interesting if
there's a database of these albums out there...

Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

Julf

2016-04-02 19:06:21 UTC

Permalink

As usual, without decent quality control the whole hi-res thing is a
fail

Really? Why would you need quality control when everyone will hear a
night and day difference between "hi-res" and red book? :)

"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

Wombat

2016-04-02 23:18:19 UTC

Permalink

Post by Julf
Really? Why would you need quality control when everyone will hear a
night and day difference between "hi-res" and red book? :)

Over the years i was in contact with several persons on the internet and
exchanged samples of typical faults of mp3 coding. There was only one
person i know that heard all defects possible. Me for example found some
sandpaper or chirping noise many people simply missed while me never was
good at abxing transients. He heard everything, always and offered the
best qualifying ratings about the lossy codecs he listened i saw. I
didn't see him posting but lately on a french forum. Guess what? He is
not convinced of high bits or high samplerates at all. In short, that
leaves the chance i will ever see something convincing me pretty
unlikely :)

Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

Julf

2016-04-03 08:07:40 UTC

Permalink

Post by Wombat
Over the years i was in contact with several persons on the internet and
exchanged samples of typical faults of mp3 coding. There was only one
person i know that heard all defects possible. Me for example found some
sandpaper or chirping noise many people simply missed while me never was
good at abxing transients. He heard everything, always and offered the
best qualifying ratings about the lossy codecs he listened i saw. I
didn't see him posting but lately on a french forum. Guess what? He is
not convinced of high bits or high samplerates at all. In short, that
leaves the chance i will ever see something convincing me pretty
unlikely :)

Good point. And the point I was hinting at is that the current "hi-res"
download services are a great big double blind test. How many golden
ears have actually reported cases of upsampling or "fake hi-res" based
on actually hearing a difference (as opposed to "Audacity Cowboys"
detecting the upsampling by analysis)?

"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

Mnyb

2016-04-03 09:18:40 UTC

Permalink

As always picking the low hanging fruit.

As a large minority with some bying power always equal bitrate or sample
freq with actual recording quality .

Then we will have "hifi" streaming services like tidal et al . But it is
as random as ever they still rely on the labels to upload whatever they
see fit .

That's why I'm still on Spotify the 320k ogg format is good enough in
most cases and if they sound different it's probably not the formats
fault .

I real hifi streaming service to me would be one with a smaller but hand
curated content base with documented good recordings and mastering of
important music in each genre .

The streaming delivery format could even be a very good lossy encoding ,
for customer download I settle for CD to 24/96 depending on provenance
no nonse to upsample stuff 24/48 is apearently a common master format in
the real world .
Basically I would buy the good mastered stuff in its real native digital
format whatever that migth bee.
With the exception of DSD which I think is nonsens as a delivery format
( try DSP room eq etc and crossover etc with that ).

The best master of some work in256k MP3 would still trump any lesser
master in 24/192 or glorious DSD .

These charlatans lives of the confusing of actual recording quality with
high bitrates are impressive sample formats .
It the easy thing to provide . To provide actual good soundquality is
hard and takes some effort .

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3
sub.
Bedroom/Office: Boom
Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4
Misc use: Radio (with battery)
iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad
(spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller )
server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

Julf

2016-04-03 10:52:22 UTC

Permalink

Post by Mnyb
These charlatans lives of the confusing of actual recording quality with
high bitrates are impressive sample formats .
It the easy thing to provide . To provide actual good soundquality is
hard and takes some effort .

But... But... Larger numbers are better, right? :)

"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

adamdea

2016-04-07 14:46:20 UTC

Permalink

Post by Julf
Good point. And the point I was hinting at is that the current "hi-res"
download services are a great big double blind test. How many golden
ears have actually reported cases of upsampling or "fake hi-res" based
on actually hearing a difference (as opposed to "Audacity Cowboys"
detecting the upsampling by analysis)?

This reminds me of the alleged flaw in Meyer and Moran that some of the
"favourite sacds" were actually upsampled red book. Ok so hirez may
actually be distinguishable from 16/44 because some of the files which
were thought to be hirez, but were actually indistinguishable from 16/44
were actually 16/44 but no one noticed at the time. And why weren;t they
noticed to be upsampled 16/44?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

Julf

2016-04-07 14:58:21 UTC

Permalink

Post by adamdea
This reminds me of the alleged flaw in Meyer and Moran that some of the
"favourite sacds" were actually upsampled red book. Ok so hirez may
actually be distinguishable from 16/44 because some of the files which
were thought to be hirez, but were actually indistinguishable from 16/44
were actually 16/44 but no one noticed at the time. And why weren;t they
noticed to be upsampled 16/44?

Yes, that was a good one.

"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

arnyk

2016-04-07 16:04:41 UTC

Permalink

Post by adamdea
This reminds me of the alleged flaw in Meyer and Moran that some of the
"favourite sacds" were actually upsampled red book.

It is true that this was a flaw in the experiment. They should have
played the SACDs and DVD-A to ensure that they actually had hi rez
content . Reporting this flaw would have enhanced the results and
conclusions part of their article. Interestingly enough I know of no
reports from high end reviewers of this effect.

Post by adamdea
Ok so hirez may actually be distinguishable from 16/44 because some of
the files which were thought to be hirez, but were actually
indistinguishable from 16/44 were actually 16/44 but no one noticed at
the time. And why weren;t they noticed to be upsampled 16/44?

The problem of the absence of appreciable ultrasonic content in
so-called ho rez recordings was AFAIK first reported in this article:
http://www.davidgriesinger.com/intermod.ppt

This paper was first given at the AES 24th AES International Conference
on Multichannel Audio: June 26-28, 2003 Banff, Canada. It seems to
predate the well known Meyer and Moran study by about 4 years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

adamdea

2016-04-08 11:05:01 UTC

Permalink

Post by arnyk
It is true that this was a flaw in the experiment. They should have
played the SACDs and DVD-A to ensure that they actually had hi rez
content . Reporting this flaw would have enhanced the results and
conclusions part of their article. Interestingly enough I know of no
reports from high end reviewers of this effect.
The problem of the absence of appreciable ultrasonic content in
http://www.davidgriesinger.com/intermod.ppt
This paper was first given at the AES 24th AES International Conference
on Multichannel Audio: June 26-28, 2003 Banff, Canada. It seems to
predate the well known Meyer and Moran study by about 4 years.

Ah yes, I havn;et read that Greisinger ppt in a while. It's well worth
the re-read.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

arnyk

2016-04-04 21:40:11 UTC

Permalink

Post by Julf
Really? Why would you need quality control when everyone will hear a
night and day difference between "hi-res" and red book? :)

;-)

Good point. The ultimate test of any audio file is whether or not it can
be detected in comparison using a level-matched, time synched ABX test
comparing it to a file of the same music with reliable provenance.

Difference testing and other tests based on mathematical comparisons are
not reliable because they can an give positive results whether the
difference is audible or not.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

Archimago

2016-04-06 15:52:11 UTC

Permalink

Post by arnyk
;-)
Good point. The ultimate test of any audio file is whether or not it can
be detected in comparison using a level-matched, time synched ABX test
comparing it to a file of the same music with reliable provenance.
Difference testing and other tests based on mathematical comparisons are
not reliable because they can an give positive results whether the
difference is audible or not.

True.

But the snake oil salesmen are selling things that not only didn't work
for the "ailment" but the contents even taste just like water, chemical
analysis shows us it's water, although packaged in a nice medicine
bottle.

Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

Julf

2016-04-06 17:35:48 UTC

Permalink

Post by Archimago
But the snake oil salesmen are selling things that not only didn't work
for the "ailment" but the contents even taste just like water, chemical
analysis shows us it's water, although packaged in a nice medicine
bottle.

But the problem with snake oil is that occasionally the patient does get
well, and that is *clearly* proof that the snake oil works!

"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

arnyk

2016-04-06 20:42:30 UTC

Permalink

Post by Julf
But the problem with snake oil is that occasionally the patient does get
well, and that is *clearly* proof that the snake oil works!

IME it is more likely that the *patient* lacks the listening skill and
test environment that would allow him to actually know whether the UUT
is *working* or not. 2 words: Sighted Evaluatioin.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

Julf

2016-04-07 05:29:36 UTC

Permalink

Post by arnyk
IME it is more likely that the *patient* lacks the listening skill and
test environment that would allow him to actually know whether the UUT
is *working* or not. 2 words: Sighted Evaluatioin.

Sure, but my point was also about the tendency to ignore or deny any
contrary evidence, and only focus on "data" that supports one's beliefs.

"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

arnyk

2016-04-07 12:12:04 UTC

Permalink

Post by Julf
Sure, but my point was also about the tendency to ignore or deny any
contrary evidence, and only focus on "data" that supports one's beliefs.

Agreed.

IME that's just one reason why sighted evaluations have this stunning
propensity to generate invalid results. Since the listener knows which
equipment he is listening to throughout the alleged test, there are no
safeguards against ignoring or denying evidence that runs contrary to
his tightly held beliefs, whether conscious or unconscious.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

docbob

2016-04-09 06:33:00 UTC

Permalink

Post by Julf
Sure, but my point was also about the tendency to ignore or deny any
contrary evidence, and only focus on "data" that supports one's beliefs.

Good point. But isn't that true for many people on _all_ sides of _any_
argument?

And since we want to display the benefit of rational thought with
reliable evidence, shouldn't we be extra vigilant to ensure that those
who share our beliefs/knowledge not defend our point of view with
spurious or incorrect data/info?

Just wonderin'

------------------------------------------------------------------------
docbob's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64780
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

Julf

2016-04-09 07:04:11 UTC

Permalink

Post by docbob
Good point. But isn't that true for many people on _all_ sides of _any_
argument?
And since we want to display the benefit of rational thought with
reliable evidence, shouldn't we be extra vigilant to ensure that those
who share our beliefs/knowledge not defend our point of view with
spurious or incorrect data/info?

A very good point. But I do think we mostly do live up to that - I don't
think there is an united "anti-foo" tribe that keeps protecting it's
own. I have seen many of us point out errors in data and rationale in
arguments, no matter which side is argued.

"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

Mnyb

2016-04-09 07:41:36 UTC

Permalink

And there are other experiments , if you want to be sure a good "fact" (
they are all temporary until someone finds better data/experiments ) is
supported by more than one experiment .

And it's is in the case of hirez audio . I think for example a lot of us
here have tried some blind testing of our own to determine audibility of
hirez vs red book .

But that old experiment shows one thing that's it's is hard to hear a AD
to DA loop even with a crummy old ADC/DAC

I saw some dude posting on a pro audio forum ( can't find it now sorry )
on how he expelled his "gear anxiety" he looped a file 10 times trough
his ADC and DAC and then ABX his result :)

It's funny how many audiophiles thinks the DAC's have some magical
properties like they where like the pickup on your vinyl player having a
distinct sonic signature .

If a DAC is transparent it's sounds jut like any other transparent DAC
IE not at all its flaws are below our threshold .

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3
sub.
Bedroom/Office: Boom
Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4
Misc use: Radio (with battery)
iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad
(spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller )
server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

Julf

2016-04-09 10:12:29 UTC

Permalink

Post by Mnyb
It's funny how many audiophiles thinks the DAC's have some magical
properties like they where like the pickup on your vinyl player having a
distinct sonic signature.

I guess part of the problem is that a lot of audiophiles belong to a
generation that got into the hobby back in the day of analog (and rather
imperfect) gear. Unfortunately the same goes for the journalists. And
far too many people prefer "intuitively correct" truthiness over
mathematics and information theory...

"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

arnyk

2016-04-09 12:29:55 UTC

Permalink

Post by Julf
I guess part of the problem is that a lot of audiophiles belong to a
generation that got into the hobby back in the day of analog (and rather
imperfect) gear. Unfortunately the same goes for the journalists. And
far too many people prefer "intuitively correct" truthiness over
mathematics and information theory...

The real problem is that people who believe or pretend that audio can
never be perfected can dupe people by endlessly *improving* the sound
quality of audio.

A good example of this would involve comparing the Pono digital player
(priced ca. $350) or Astell and Kern ($3500) to the far cheaper Sansa,
FIIO or other lower priced (ca. $60-100) players that have good enough
performance to not add audible artifacts.

Money is a good attractant for false claims about audio performance!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

Mnyb

2016-04-09 12:46:19 UTC

Permalink

You can still have an interest in good audio gear .

I know that almost no product in isolation provides an audible upgrade
speakers are the most obvius exception they still all have a signature
to them, but if the tech is perfected whole the way (preferably from the
recording studio and onwards ) you get better quality .

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3
sub.
Bedroom/Office: Boom
Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4
Misc use: Radio (with battery)
iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad
(spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller )
server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

arnyk

2016-04-09 13:55:10 UTC

Permalink

You can still have an interest in good audio gear.

Of course! It is just that sound quality will no longer the sole
determiner of one's preferences in audio.

Audio in its present form seems to suffer from an immature one track
mind. Sound quality is thought of by most as being the only reason to
make choices or changes, and that things like room acoustics and room
sound quality are irrelevant.

I know that almost no product in isolation provides an audible upgrade
speakers are the most obvious exception they still all have a signature
to them, but if the tech is perfected whole the way (preferably from the
recording studio and onwards ) you get better quality .

In fact the path from the point where to the recording is made to where
it is heard is thought to be the most important, while in fact many of
the points in that path as a practical matter can't be significantly
improved further (amplifiers, music players, etc) are where most of the
attempts to upgrade sound are being made. This includes CD and DVD
players, power amp upgrades, and use of separates where lower cost
players and lower powered amps and AVRs more than suffice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

arnyk

2016-04-09 12:20:04 UTC

Permalink

Post by docbob
Good point. But isn't that true for many people on _all_ sides of _any_
argument?

Sure, but by using correct procedures you can obtain reliable, relevant
results from time synched, level matched, DBTs. Fail to apply any of
those controls and all hope of reliable results is totally lost.

Post by docbob
And since we want to display the benefit of rational thought with
reliable evidence, shouldn't we be extra vigilant to ensure that those
who share our beliefs/knowledge not defend our point of view with
spurious or incorrect data/info?
Just wonderin'

Of course. The correct procedures for performing listening tests were
first published in the 1970s. This hasn't stopped the usual suspects
from skipping over the well-known correct procedures by doing things
like substituting single blind tests for double blind tests.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

garym

2016-04-02 23:46:59 UTC

Permalink

Post by Rainer M Krug

But the same applies to all downloads.

No, not all downloads are "watermarked" ... but buyer beware of course!

*Home:* VortexBox 4TB (2.3) > LMS 7.8 > Transporter, Touch, Boom, Radio
(all ethernet)
*Cottage:* VBA 3TB (2.3) > LMS 7.8 > Touch > Benchmark DAC I, Boom,
Radio w/Battery (all ethernet except Radio)
*Office:* Win8(64) > LMS 7.9 > Squeezelite
*Spares:* Touch(3), Radio(3), Boom, SB3, CONTROLLER
*Controllers:* iPhone6 & iPadAir2 (iPeng8 & Squeezepad), CONTROLLER, or
SqueezePlay 7.8 on Win7(64) laptop
*Files:* ripping: dbpoweramp > FLAC; post-rip: mp3tag, PerfectTunes;
Streaming: Spotify
------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

DJanGo

2016-04-03 09:03:11 UTC

Permalink

Post by garym
No, not all downloads are "watermarked" ... but buyer beware of course!

But are these Track with "watermarks" bitperfect ?:p

Long Time ago a german Computer Magazin (CT) did a big Test with 100reds
of People if the hear a difference between mp3 and Wav. There was a
minor group of People who always gets them right.
All theses People have a minor issue with their ears (20% on the left or
right ear didnt hear anything)

"Normal" People had just guessing (between 50 and 65 %) the "right"
Format.

Gruss
Jan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DJanGo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1516
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413

Julf

2016-04-03 10:49:17 UTC

Permalink

Post by DJanGo
Long Time ago a german Computer Magazin (CT) did a big Test with 100reds
of People if the hear a difference between mp3 and Wav. There was a
minor group of People who always gets them right.
All theses People have a minor issue with their ears (20% on the left or
right ear didnt hear anything)

Yes, indeed. Perceptual codecs rely on masking, and certain hearing
defects prevent the masking.

"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413