I am mourning the death

Nixy said:
Well, if someone feels their listening experience is best with a certain set up and someone else feels it's best with another why is that a reason to argue? They both have what they feel is best...it's personal opinion and what one person thinks is best may not be what another thinks...yet they persist to argue over it.
Click to expand...

Hi, welcome to OTC. :nerd:
 
Nixy said:
In the GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS it IS insignificant, I didn't say it was insignificant to the individual person. I also said that it's PERSONAL OPINION and the way one does it doesn't affect the other. Seriously, it's a pointless argument, it's a situation where it doesn't matter if you disagree. You share your opinions, the reasons for your opinions...but each person has their opinion because of EXPERIENCE and arguing with each other trying to change the other person's mind is pointless! It's like someone telling me their favourite colour is green and me saying mine is blue and then us arguing trying to make the other change their mind..it's just what we prefer personally. We can DISCUSS why we each prefer what we prefer but arguing over it is stupid. Making the other person agree with you has no benefit and by arguing you're losing the constructive conversation you could be having about it.
Click to expand...

I really don't see a discussion about making the other change his mind. Just a share of POVs. :shrug:

But then again, in the grand scheme of things, everything is insignificant except human survival. :rolleyes:
 
I almost let this one pass by.

Altron said:
Those amps have too much fancy circuitry and DSP. The damn things convert analog to digital, then fuck with it, then put it back into analog and send it through a cheap amp stage.
Click to expand...

I will not argue about the cheap amplification stage part, that can really mess the sound, just as any other crappy component within the amp.

However, a DSP and proper DACs and ADCs will offer the same quality at a reduced price.

On page 34, theorem 13:
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf

Tells us about the sampling theorem and it basically states that if you sample at atleast twice the maximum frequency of a signal (i.e. you end up with a digital representation) you will be able to reconstruct that very same signal back to the continuous time (analog) by following the procedure.

That works in the absence of quantization, a good amp with DSP would manage the sound with a resolution of 24-bit (I believe studios use this resolution for mastering), which is more than enough for home purposes.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
I went shopping for a new stereo system this weekend. After an hour of auditioning speakers, I moved on to the tuner. They're all preset these days...no EQ.

I put it all back. I'll go find one at a pawn shop. If I am going to listen to Van Halen (and I am), then I have to be able to fix what their idiot producer Ted Templeman did wrong, thereby making it bearable to the human ear. Same with Ratt...I want ten minutes in a locked room with their sound "engineer". A couple tweaks on the EQ and they sound decent. As is...so much distortion, such muddy sound. I cannot tolerate it.

Maybe country music all sounds the same. Rock don't. If one can enhance it, one should.
Click to expand...

For your consideration:
Pioneer SX-1250
 
Source


I've been suckered by music compression

Why I will not download more music

By Nick Farrell: Monday 17 April 2006, 18:05
FOR THE last few years I have not had time to listen to my hi-fi. It is a shame because I spent a lot on it a few years ago. Not a huge amount, by hi-fi standards, but more than a couple of grand.

When I changed countries it came with me, although I had to buy some bookshelf speakers to go with it. It was a sign that I had lost interest in hi-fi that I was happy to do this. However, the old floor standing speakers were not worth enough to use as take on luggage and too big to ship economically.

Like many people with a broadband connection I downloaded music files and made them into either MP3 or .Wav CDs. These I mixed in with my old 'real' Cd collection. If you are listening to music at a low level for background music or anything similar I never really noticed much difference.

Then two nights ago, my wife had the stereo up past the 10 o'clock setting beyond which it has not gone for many years. She was playing one of the real CDs and it sounded fantastic.

You could hear the sound of bows being drawn over strings, sounds floated in the air, bass rolled across the floor… great stuff. I had forgotten what it sounded like.

Then I put in a CD which had been created from a 128kps MP3. The difference was noticeable even before I sat down. The sound was flat, muddy and the channel separation was minimal. This was odd as I had selected 128kps as a compression standard that would be pretty good quality versus compression trade off.

Then I stuck in an MP3 into the DVD player. Now the DVD player is a high quality one. In fact I once used to use it instead of the CD player because it sounded better at playing some types of music. But at high levels, the MP3 music was distorted. The midrange sound slightly distorted and there was no top end. The bass grunted like a flatulent pig.

A lot of MP3s come down the internet with even more compression. The sounds these give off sound atrocious even on my computer speaker set up. I was left wondering who managed to convince the universe that MP3s are the way to listen to music?

A few years ago I couldn’t find an MP3 player anywhere. I was assured that after the initial interest in them amongst geeks, people were not interested.

It seems that Apple convinced a generation that the best way to listen to music was through tiny ear plugs and compressed to enable your record collection to fit into a small box. Recently it made matters worse by saying that by sticking your small box into another small box you will get hi-fi.

Expectations are slipping.

Today I popped into the shops and replaced some of my favourite MP3 albums with their CD cousins and got my first couple of new CDs in years. One up for the RIAA and all its cronies one would think (other than the fact that my downloads were all legal).

Alas one of the CDs I bought to be Sarah McLachlan's 'Afterglow' which ships with that wonderful Sony DRM which kills your computer. It appears that we still have them in Bulgaria after they have been outlawed elsewhere.

This is ironic because the same album, recreated in a wave file from a compressed MP3 is available from a market stall for an eighth of the price.

It seems that the music industry has got this piracy thing all wrong. The RIAA has defended its product against an inferior but cheaper rival. It has not tried to make its product better or cheaper to compete, nor has it attempted to market CDs in terms of their own sonic superiority.

Instead of wasting money trying to protect its music with DRM or other things it should be creating packages that your average pirate can't or will not provide.

Boxes that do not spontaneously self destruct the second you leave the shop would be a start, but what about marketing the product on the basis of its sound quality? Why not do more to develop technology that makes the sound even better but which you will lose much of it all by compressing it?

Maybe, they should learn from the software industry where you allow update patches you’re your CD which will provide you with more material, but only if you have a licensed copy. Your average pirate is only going to duplicate the initial run of an album, they are not going to bother with updates.

Then all the music pirates will be doing is distributing tasters of the record label's product, but forcing people who want to hear the music in its full glory to buy the real thing. Just like I did. µ
Click to expand...
 
At what point does anyone not understand that when you compress something you lose part of it?
Then all the music pirates will be doing is distributing tasters of the record label's product, but forcing people who want to hear the music in its full glory to buy the real thing.
Click to expand...
Kind of like it is now...
 
128kbps is just too low, --preset-standard or -V0 --vbr-new will be hardly detected by human ears.

Bold statements such as mp3 sounds muddy without proper testing are just :bs:, the only way to prove that you actually hear a difference is under double-blind tests. If the test is not double-blind the person is subject to placebo.
 
Inkara1 said:
For your consideration:
Pioneer SX-1250
Click to expand...

Close, but not quite what I'm after. I've used those before, good pieces of equipment, but not exactly the one I want.

If anyone knows of a good tuner with built in equalizer, EQ with at least 8 channels if not more, with capability to run CD, turntable, and at least two aux or tape machines, kindly let a redneck know. I might even offer a finder's fee, but I doubt it. :D
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Close, but not quite what I'm after. I've used those before, good pieces of equipment, but not exactly the one I want.

If anyone knows of a good tuner with built in equalizer, EQ with at least 8 channels if not more, with capability to run CD, turntable, and at least two aux or tape machines, kindly let a redneck know. I might even offer a finder's fee, but I doubt it. :D
Click to expand...

I just thought of something, why not a pass-thru EQ like the ones used in car-audio? Those must still be available, they might not look as neat as a proper house setup EQ, but they do the job.
 
BeardofPants said:
I 'port all my stuff in at 320kbps for that very reason. 128kbps is just too low.
Click to expand...

What encoder do you use?

The recommended mp3 encoder by the community is lame 3.97b2 (for 320kbps use -b 320), and the ripper is EAC in secure mode.
 
Luis G said:
I just thought of something, why not a pass-thru EQ like the ones used in car-audio? Those must still be available, they might not look as neat as a proper house setup EQ, but they do the job.
Click to expand...

I haven't looked at components in years...hadn't needed to. I asked the sales dude about a separate EQ to run with the tuner. He said they were pretty much impossible to find.

I haven't given up hope yet. I will find something if I have to pawn shop one. Just haven't had time and energy concurrently to do a meaningful research session.
 
SnP, I'm afraid you'll have to settle for a receiver without an equalizer. It's just not mainstream anymore. But you can add on an equalizer. I find it interesting that crutchfield only offers one model equalizer, but has several models of turntables. Notice how the've bundled turntables and cassette decks?
 
I wish the pictures on that eBay page were bigger so I could read what the inputs on the back are. It's got the pre-out and main-in (I can tell by the connecting pins; my Concept 3.5 has them too) which means you could easily hook in an EQ, and good luck finding anything these days for anything under four figures that puts out 160 watts per channel into eight ohms.
 
I hate the widespread misconception that
"Digital always means better"
"Surround always means better"
"More watts are always better"
so much that it kinda bleeds over to a dislike of DSP and surround and cube speakers and subwoofers that is in some cases unwarranted. Surround can be really cool with movies. It is not, however, better than a comparably priced stereo system for music or other non-5.1 source material. There are many compromises that you get by having lots of digital processing, small speakers, and a single bass source.
 
Proper digital processing/transmition is almost lossless when compared to analog. A deformation to the signal in the electric stage does not affect 1's and 0's, but it does affect the final result when the signal is analog.

A comparative case would be:
A photo taken with a 35mm camera.
A photo taken with a digital camera (2 megapixels if you wish).

The 35mm shot is the analog master (one that you'll never be able to buy), while the actual printed photograph is your analog recording. The picture you store on your computer is the digital representation.

Now try to resize a 3x4in photo to a 3x4ft poster:
- In the case of the printed photograph (analog): making a 4x3ft poster out of a 4x3in involves using more analog equipment, and the final result will look like crap.
- In the case of the digital photograph (digital): you just use digital processing, perhaps some blurring to correct the edges and send a larger version to the printer.

In all honesty, which one will look better? which was easier/cheaper to produce?
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Close, but not quite what I'm after. I've used those before, good pieces of equipment, but not exactly the one I want.

If anyone knows of a good tuner with built in equalizer, EQ with at least 8 channels if not more, with capability to run CD, turntable, and at least two aux or tape machines, kindly let a redneck know. I might even offer a finder's fee, but I doubt it. :D
Click to expand...

Try here for a rough idea of what you want, then go down to your local Short circuit City or Worst Buy to have a listen. Then, buy yourself a seperate 10 channel EQ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top