Music type ??

karltimber

Hi,

not sure if this fits here or the music section - anyhoos

will be getting a new entry level amp and speakers this friday - for to enjoy my blu-ray collection in style.
with ref to music - I have loads of mp3's but what the best format for to get the full sound from the amp ?

If I use some FLAC albums will they give the best quality ?
theres no cd/dvd player at all connected -everything is on hd's

thx

K

akaSol

karltimber wrote: »

Hi,

not sure if this fits here or the music section - anyhoos

will be getting a new entry level amp and speakers this friday - for to enjoy my blu-ray collection in style.
with ref to music - I have loads of mp3's but what the best format for to get the full sound from the amp ?

If I use some FLAC albums will they give the best quality ?
theres no cd/dvd player at all connected -everything is on hd's

thx

K

Flac is an extremal high end way of digitally storing music files and should be encoded from original CD's to gain the maximum detail.
HD as in media drive? Or in HDD?
If its from a media drive/caddy/adaptor then I would look to Optical or Digital Rca as a connection from your media device to your new Amp.

>Sol
(BTW how are playing Bluray with no Optical Player?)

cnocbui

MP3 files that are 192kbps or higher will be indistinguishable from the original material in the majority of cases. It wouldn't hurt to have stuff in FLAC, but it wont actually sound any better than, say, 224 kbps MP3.

This is probably the best place on the net to look for answers about this sort of thing as the members have conducted properly structured tests to answer all sorts of such questions relating to audio compression and formats and to determine what is and isn't audible:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org

karltimber

thanks lads,

hd as in hard drive.
I have all my blu-ray movies encoded to 8gb mkv's and stream them form a nas.
so wanted to have a few fav albums in good quality flac files.
I use a popcorn hour to house some music which will be connected by optical.

will try out a few and see if there is any real difference.

thx

k

Idleater

cnocbui wrote: »

MP3 files that are 192kbps or higher will be indistinguishable from the original material in the majority of cases.

I disagree.

unless you include all the ipod's and headphones in the set of "majority of cases".

Once you go down the HiFi route, streaming FLAC (or any lossless format) is preferential to compressed lossy formats such as mp3.

I maintain two libraries, one FLAC version of each CD, and one mp3 version for use on the ipod (where I agree that lossless and lossy are pretty much indistinguishable).

Exact Audio Copy (windows only unfortunately) is acknowledged the best lossless ripper and there are mac/unix programs of similar quality.

cnocbui

nereid wrote: »

I disagree.

unless you include all the ipod's and headphones in the set of "majority of cases".

An iPod is as sonically good as a high end CD/DVD player and is perfectly well capable of revealing any and all deficiencies in source material, if they exist.

Here are the Hydrogen audio recommendations for LAME encoding rates for Hi-Fi listening:

High quality: HiFi, home or quiet listening

-V0 (~245 kbps), -V1 (~225 kbps), -V2 (~190 kbps) or -V3 (~175 kbps) are recommended. These settings will normally produce transparent encoding (transparent = most people can't distinguish the MP3 from the original in an ABX blind test). Audible differences between these presets exist, but are rare.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Recommended_LAME

They seem to agree with what I originally said.

Once you go down the HiFi route, streaming FLAC (or any lossless format) is preferential to compressed lossy formats such as mp3.

If by 'preferential', you mean it is sonically superior, I do not agree with you. I conducted my own tests to determine what level of compression was required to be indistinguishable from the original CD, and I came to more or less the same conclusion as the recommendations above.

I maintain two libraries, one FLAC version of each CD, and one mp3 version for use on the ipod (where I agree that lossless and lossy are pretty much indistinguishable).

I rip at 224 kbps AAC to my iPod and use it as the main source with my main and secondary Hi-Fis and as the main source in my car. I occasionally use it with good quality heaphones. I stopped using my CD player when I discovered the iPod was just as good, as the iPod is just so much more convenient.

Exact Audio Copy (windows only unfortunately) is acknowledged the best lossless ripper and there are mac/unix programs of similar quality.

iTunes can rip in Apple lossless, and does a fine job.

Slaphead07

cnocbui wrote: »

MP3 files that are 192kbps or higher will be indistinguishable from the original material in the majority of cases. It wouldn't hurt to have stuff in FLAC, but it wont actually sound any better than, say, 224 kbps MP3.

Are ye long mad?

There's a huge difference between 192kbs and full quality. You might, if space is an issue and your system isn't very revealing, get away with 320kbs. FLAC, Apples lossless and WMA losless would the formats to go for.

Slaphead07

cnocbui wrote: »

Here are the Hydrogen audio recommendations for LAME encoding rates for Hi-Fi listening:

High quality: HiFi, home or quiet listening

-V0 (~245 kbps), -V1 (~225 kbps), -V2 (~190 kbps) or -V3 (~175 kbps) are recommended. These settings will normally produce transparent encoding (transparent = most people can't distinguish the MP3 from the original in an ABX blind test). Audible differences between these presets exist, but are rare.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Recommended_LAME

Utter nonsense. Uncompressed nonsense too.

cnocbui

Slaphead07 wrote: »

Utter nonsense. Uncompressed nonsense too.

When I posted an article by one the worlds foremost and most highly respected speaker designers and manufacturers, where-in he resoundingly refuted the existence of audible differences between speaker cables, your oh-so-eloquent and intelligent reply was that you couldn't be bothered to read it.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055556112&highlight=cable&page=2

Now I have posted a reference to the collective opinion of arguably the pre-emminent site on the net for authoritative discussion on audio compression, and you again come out with a baseless and trite dismissal, with absolutely nothing to back your 'opinion' up.

You obviously do not like a science/reality based approach to audio, preferring your own faith-based opinions.

We should just agree to disagree.

By the way, are you a hi-Fi salesman by any chance?

Slaphead07

cnocbui wrote: »

an article by one the worlds foremost and most highly respected speaker designers and manufacturers, where-in he resoundingly refuted the existence of audible differences between speaker cables

Except that he's not "one the worlds foremost and most highly respected speaker designers and manufacturers".

cnocbui wrote: »

You obviously do not like a science/reality based approach to audio, preferring your own faith-based opinions.

It's not faith, it's hearing. There is no other way to judge hifi.

cnocbui wrote: »

By the way, are you a hi-Fi salesman by any chance?

No.

Slaphead07

cnocbui wrote: »

An iPod is as sonically good as a high end CD/DVD player...

I conducted my own tests to determine what level of compression was required to be indistinguishable from the original CD, and I came to more or less the same conclusion as the recommendations above.

The above tells me you don't know what you're talking about. You do know you can't fool all the people all the time?

cnocbui

Slaphead07 wrote: »

Except that he's not "one the worlds foremost and most highly respected speaker designers and manufacturers".

He was , up until the time he died. Would you like to post some links supporting your statement?

It's not faith, it's hearing. There is no other way to judge hifi.

It is faith when it rejects the findings of rationally based experiments. The Hydrogenaudio recommendations were derived from hearing - as performed by many people. Your position seems to be that you consider your hearing to be superior to that of those who participated in the tests. I very much doubt that it is and I therfore give no credence whatsoever to your opinions.

Slaphead07

You're bluffing sonny and I'm sure I'm not the only one that sees it.

Slaphead07

cnocbui wrote: »

Your position seems to be that you consider your hearing to be superior to that of those who participated in the tests.

You're making stuff up now. I don't.

cnocbui wrote: »

I very much doubt that it is and I therfore give no credence whatsoever to your opinions.

Do you really think I care? You've been wrong on everything else.

Idleater

cnocbui wrote: »

He was , up until the time he died. Would you like to post some links supporting your statement?

Who was he? I'd be interested to read his musings.

As for some links, have a read of this thread and I'm sure you can peruse this forum for real world people who seem to beg to differ with your opinion.

cnocbui

Slaphead07 wrote: »

The above tells me you don't know what you're talking about. You do know you can't fool all the people all the time?

I have a pre-amp which is programmable so when you switch between different inputs/sources the perceived volume can be matched. So I matched the iPod output via its dock with my CD player and a DVD player.

I ripped tracks in AIFF (equivalent to WAV) and put them on the iPod, for each track, I then cued up the same track on the original CD and the iPod and got them playing simultaneously so when you use the remote to switch between the sources the tracks are in-sync timewise. Having done this with several different pieces of music I could hear no difference between the iPod and CD player. Neither of my two children, nor my wife, could discern an audible difference between the sources.

I then repeated these tests using a DVD player, with the same result, for all listeners.

At no time did any of the listeners except myself, know which source they were listening to. So the test was at least 'blind' for 3 out of 4 listeners. Not quite as good as a doubel blind trial, which is the gold standard, but close enough for my satisfaction.

So, I do know what I am talking about.

Here is a graph showing the frequency response of an iPod Touch, Classic and a Microsoft Zune.

All of them are superb and on par with CD palyers as they are effectively dead flat within the limits of human hearing




There are other graphs for noise floor and crosstalk : http://www.anandtech.com/gadgets/showdoc.aspx?i=3204&p=9

I am not the only person who has compared an iPod to CD players and been unable to distinguish a difference.

The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players—ironic, considering that most of the time it will be used to play MP3 and AAC files, which will not immediately benefit from such good performance. But if you're willing to trade off maximum playing time against the ability to play uncompressed AIFF or WAV files, the iPod will do an excellent job of decoding them. Excellent, cost-effective audio engineering from an unexpected source.—John Atkinson

Dennis Dodd

Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: "Dennis Dodd" <dd...@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 20:49:08 GMT
Local: Wed, Jan 16 2002 8:49 pm
Subject: Re: iPod (was Re: what makes a c.d. player high-end)

Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author



I have done some a/b testing with CDs played in my Cal Audio Labs player and
MP3s burned at various bitrates above 128kbps using both CBR and VBR. I am
using MusicMatch Jukebox v7 for ripping and I am amazed at the sound quality
above 192kbps. I'm not even sure if 320kbps is necessary. Could be my ears
but my equipment is decent (Forte' preamp, pair of Hafler 9130 power amps
running as monoblocks and a new pair of Klipsch La Scalas).

It suspect it depends on the method and bitrate of the MP3. I have done a
bit of non-blind testing of 320 Kbps MP3 (converted back into waves, then
burned to CD-R) and the original CDs, and have been unable to hear any
significant difference between the sound on the discs. My software was LAME
3.91 and EAC, and my hardware for the listening test included Etymotic ER-4S
canal phones (which are the most revealing gear I own), a Pioneer 525 DVD
player feeding a Bel Canto DAC1, and run through a Musical Fidelity A3Cr
preamp and X-Can V2 Headphone Amp (with the X-PSU). At 320 kbps, I can't
hear the difference between the MP3-converted CD-R and the original CD.

I was a high-end bigot for expensive CD players. And yes, electrical
engineers can do things which differentiate one CD player from
another. The list of aesthetics technical and psycho are quite
lengthy.
The argument is *over*. I plugged my daughter's Xmas present into a
$30K stack of stereo gear. Apple's iPod MP3 player sounds
indistinguishable from a $7000 CDS player. At $400USD it's one hell of
a deal on high-end gear. The upside is it will hold ~1000 CD's and
play them anywhere, anytime with no pops, pings or scratches to your
investment.

Drop your CD's through your computer *once*, upload *once* and play
forever. My idea of a _killerApp_. Why spend $$$$$'s on high-end
gear when $400 gets the job done? The side-benefit of going iPod that
really makes sense is have 1000 CD categoried by artist, album, genre
and any number of personal playlists you want. Try it...

-r
Rex Riley

Slaphead07

cnocbui wrote: »

I have a pre-amp which is programmable so when you switch between different inputs/sources the perceived volume can be matched.

Again, your first sentence tells me all I need to know. A programmable pre-amp is a processor not a true pre-amp. The volume of tracks is irrelevant. I strongly suspect you've never actually heard hifi although you think you have. Wasting time comparing iPods to 'real' CD players is another indication. Why would you?

And stop quoting internet sources as factual. That's like thinking a programmable "pre amp" is hifi.

Slaphead07

to give a straight answer to the OP,
Assuming your setup will be a typical domestic one then 320kbs MP3s should be fine. Windows media player does a perfectly good job of coverting CD to that or higher if you'd prefer.

cnocbui

Slaphead07 wrote: »

Again, your first sentence tells me all I need to know. A programmable pre-amp is a processor not a true pre-amp.

The Pre-Amp in question is a Meridian 201. It is not a processor, as it is late 1980's vintage and thus pre-dates the digital audio era. It is a true pre-amp and most people who know anything about audio would consider it suitably Hi-Fi.

Yet again, you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

The volume of tracks is irrelevant.

No it isn't, it is an absolute requirement, based on established scientific fact, due to the way humans perceive sound. And by scientific fact, I mean the conclusions of carefully conducted studies, the results of which have been published in peer reviewed publications such as the AES Journal and which have not been contradicted by further studies. There are universally accepted principles of human Psycho-Acoustics, and volume dependent bias is one of them.

If you present a pieces of music to a listener as two samples, where one is slightly louder than the other, but which are identical in all respects except their volume, then ask the listener if one sounded better than the other, the listener will in almost all instances, state a pronounced prefernce for the louder sample.

So if you are going to compare two sources to try and establish if there is an audible differnce between them, you have to level match the sources - as I did.

SteveCallas
03-19-2006, 11:39 PM

Steve Callas:
...
Another thing to consider is that blind testing requires level matching, whereas just switching a piece of equipment and doing casual listening doesn't. A difference of a db or two can easily be interpretted as clearer, brighter, better bass, etc.

I strongly suspect you've never actually heard hifi although you think you have. Wasting time comparing iPods to 'real' CD players is another indication. Why would you?

My speakers are B&W 802 Nautilus. My poweramp is a Perreaux 6000B, which is rated at 300w RMS per channel. These amps are used in professional recording studios. My Pre-Amp is the aforementioned Meridian 201 and I use a 3rd gen iPod as my main source. I also have a Micromega Stage 2 CD player, but hardly ever use it anymore.

I do not understand an attitude that states comparing two pieces of audio equipment via listening tests is a 'wast of time', unless you have such an innate preconceived bias that you think the results of such tests are foregone conclusions.

I originally bought my iPod with the intention of using it as a walkman and in my car instead of a clunky CD changer. I was astounded at how good it sounded with my headphones and thought it easily comparable to my portable DAT. So I wondered what it would sound like through my main system, compared to my CD player. The rest is history.

And stop quoting internet sources as factual. That's like thinking a programmable "pre amp" is hifi.

Don't presume to instruct me, you are not knowledgeable enough to do so.

Slaphead07

Ok. You be the big fish in a little pond then. I'm sure many here will believe you know your stuff.
Here's some free advice and because it's on teh internet I know you'll believe it. Your amps and speakers aren't compatible, that will only get worse if you use low quality sources such as an iPod with low-res files. But hey, you're the expert with the high-end system yeah?:D

cnocbui

Slaphead07 wrote: »

Your amps and speakers aren't compatible,

:rolleyes:

That would be because the speakers require blue electricity with yellow highlights whereas the amp produces red electricity with cerise streaks?

karltimber

thanks to all who contributed

It's gas the way you think you know a bit about a subject and then you read all your replies - "I know nothing" :D

I will try out mp3 and flac and see what suits my needs thru the Onkyo amp.

It has an mp3 upscale facility built into it - so that just may do the trick.
"Music Optimizer™ for Compressed Digital Music Files"

again, thanks
k

Slaphead07

karltimber wrote: »

It has an mp3 upscale facility built into it - so that just may do the trick.
"Music Optimizer™ for Compressed Digital Music Files"

Don't put too much faith in that. MP3s are produced by actually removing sounds from a track so, where a bass note or a drum beat might be 'behind' a guitar chord the process will remove that. It can't put it back, it's gone forever. MP3 upscalers tend to produce a muddy sound as they simply fill in the gaps with another sound. It's the oldest computer mantra again - "garbage in, garbage out"

karltimber

thx

I will re-rip my favourite cd's to flac format so.

thx all.

k

The Ritz

That was interesting.............. Please note that the next time a discussion like this includes abusive remarks, I'll be handing out bans.


Ritz.