or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › A desktop CD player to use w/ Grado SR-125 (about $150) headphones or ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A desktop CD player to use w/ Grado SR-125 (about $150) headphones or ? - Page 3

post #61 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

Like I said before even the best algorithms can not replace information that was discarded by mp3**compression they can only substitute it with a best guess if you will in the mp3 process.

You clearly don't understand how MP3 processing works. There is no serious attempt to reconstruct the pre-compression waveform.

It is true that I just proved you wrong about measurements by proving that high bitrrate encoders preserve the waveforms of simple signals, notwithstandaing. But that was about simple test signals, not about music.

When a MP3 encoder encodes music, it removes portions of the music that your ear does not perceive because of masking. If that causes waveform distoriton, so be it. This key point causes a lot of people a lot of trouble because they can't conceive of two different waveforms sounding so much the same. Understand that, and you will have a good idea of why the ear is so tolerant of distortion in general.
Quote:
I am aware that *some mp3* measures well.

So you were lyiing in the post where I corrected you said otherwise? Or maybe you are concealing your ignorance of the true facts by saying something vague. The MP3s that measure well are MP3 that contain simple waveforms that lack components that are masked by the ear.

If you contrive a test waveform that are very complex like real world music, and have some way to measure how well the decoded wave is like the pre-encoding waveform, it will not measure well.
Quote:
but that can not tell the whole story of dicscarded information substituted by algorithms in mp3** that is why I said earlier that mp3 usually measures poorley (meaning not always)

Interestingly enough, the whole rest of your post sheds no additional light on how MP3 processing works. If it did it would contain words like "masking" and phases like "critical bands".

I'll leave what you wrote for the rest of your aimless and rambling post exactly as it was, so that people can see that in fact you were unable to say anything meaningful about how MP3 encoding and decoding works. I don't think you know, and your made-up weirdness about trying to reconstruct the original waveform is good evidence of that.

If you want to save yourself a lot of embarrassment, read up the Wikipedia article about MP3 encoding and decoding. It isn't easy reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3

Key sentence:

"The use in MP3 of a lossy compression algorithm is designed to greatly reduce the amount of data required to represent the audio recording and still sound like a faithful reproduction of the original uncompressed audio for most listeners. ."

Note that the article says that the goal is to create a file that the goal is to create a wavefrom that :"still sound like a faithful reproduction of the original uncompressed audio for most listeners."

Not recreate the same wavefrom, but rather "...create a waveform that sounds like a faithful reproduction of the original uncompressed audio..."
Quote:
If one wants to believe it makes no difference ,feel free to do so by all means but that does not validate the placebo science evident in that thinking, however all are welcome to believe what you will and defend those beliefs .Audio perception like most things human is subjective. everyone hears somewhat differently you can't quantify if with armchair/google science or legitamate scientific study you can get close but still no cigar!

Some here have some knowledge of the subject to be sure and believe what they may know to be true .
Nothing wrong with that but when dicussion degenerates into vitriole attacks and snide comments
then free intelegent dicsussion is inhibited .


OTOH at least for me (and many others ) I know that if I'm listening to 16/44.1 or better on a decent system its much more likely ( highly probable in fact to sound better than mp3***.)

Some here perhaps should come over to Audiokarma or maybe Steve Hoffman's forums just to see alternative viewpoints you may or may not find it interesting as they are more focused on audio than TV there. OTOH if you enjoy discussing audio it's a diversion from the usall TV stuff here
which is pretty good btw I'm learning a lot about TV here (I don't know everything :-) .


The bad part about the whole thread here is WE meaning ALL of us after post 5 or 6 hijacked the thread and contributed nothing of value to the OP 's origional topic.



Arnold I will say you did give OP good advise in post 3. You shouldn't take offense that I do not share your beliefs it's nothing personal or meant to be derogatory or denigrating in any way.

My beliefs are based on my experiences and knowlege not yours so ofc they are bound to be different .
Oh Arnold, Of course I can not fly you should know that !biggrin.gif

Unfortunately this thread has morphed into little more than a pissing contest most of us were guilty as charged and then some of the self proclaimed scientific illuminati were in fact trolling this tread and making snide comments and contributed nothing ,seems like in a lot of forums *some* folks that have a lot of posts somehow feel entitled to thread crap.

Hopefully the OP will not be to discouraged from this thread , most threads here aren't as bad as this one became.
OP would also do well to check out Audiokharma for audio questions.

Kinda of a poor welcome welcome for a new poster! This thred ended up being a crap fest (Ofc there was one main instigator maybe two) not
much free discussion although some did attempt some free discussion and got thread crapped .

I've met a' few educated fools' in my day *some* were *some* my college proffs some years ago I recognize their methods similar to what I read
on a few posts here trying intimidate some of the other posters with their knowlege
or references right,partially right , wrong maybe out of context or at least debatable . There was never much free discussion in those classes either.

That being said I think the Moderators would be doing us all a service by locking the tread
post #62 of 107
Quote:
BO 130 wrote
Would you agree that there is or the potential for a difference between what is measurable and what is audible?

If the differences are indeed obvious, they would show up no matter what kind of way of "proving" the audible difference, correct? I mean, if they're there, they're there.




@ BO 130
Correct , I believe there are differences that's pretty obvious (at least to me) many people do not hear the same especially if they have pointy ears biggrin.gif or even different ages (that is well documented ) I will tell you I wish I had the same hearing as I did when I was 25 !
not to mention the numerous variations possible in listening environments. Some folks don't get it.

It's also widely believed that men and women do have different hearing acuity Don't ask me for documentation on that .
Arnold will probably google that for us just for the sake of argument. He want's me and all of us to tell him he is always right not going to happen!


Here is how I look at it by all means it feel free to disagree or not...... it's all good just don't post whole wikipedia articles biggrin.gif links are fine.
320kbps = at best close approximation but it's still in part fake like most digital music to some extent (algorithmes or whatever ) mp3 is also compressed more than 16/44.1 but not the real thing no cigar !


Just like Sourdough French bread vs Wonder bread comparison with 16/44.1 being former.
 I think  just like 16/44.1  doesn't sound exactly like live music, mp3 doesn't sound exactly like  16/44.1  which doesn't sound exactly like vinyl either
hard for some to grasp the concept what do you think? .

I would put it this way put some peanut butter and jelly on the wonderbread and you have lunch ,make a french bread pizza and you have dinner better yet have some good sourdough and some decent cheese and nice wine and you are good !

@ Arnold give it up who are you are trying to impress ? I can read Wikipedia also ! that does not mean I believe everything I read you do realize
that Wikipedia is open source ? You can't fully explain subjective perception with computer code try some decent vinyl or maybe 16/44.1 and relax
I never claimed to be an expert in mp3 encoding. I see you are still quoting wikipedia you know we all have Google or bing also?
You really do not realise you are the one embarrassing yourself here do you ? You are not going to make very many friends with your vitriol comments maybe you were never taught that ? You should try dropping the faux academia nobody cares !
Read the comments....... sad really .


@ kbarnes701 ROTFLMAO biggrin.gif You just might have saved this thread !

Maybe we could start a new thread and certain people won't come biggrin.gif
Edited by tubetwister - 9/12/13 at 8:51pm
post #63 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

@ BO 130
Correct , I believe there are differences that's pretty obvious (at least to me) many people do not hear the same especially if they have pointy ears biggrin.gif or even different ages (that is well documented ) I will tell you I wish I had the same hearing as I did when I was 25 !
not to mention the numerous variations possible in listening environments. Some folks don't get it.

I don't know if you got my point or not. I was speaking to the difference between any given item in the audio chain (high-bit MP3's vs waveforms are the subject at hand) measuring different, but being sonically unidentifiable. As in, if someone didn't tell you which one you were listening to, you'd never accurately be able to name the file type.
Quote:
Just like Sourdough French bread vs Wonder bread comparison with 16/44.1 being former.

A more accurate analogy might be a french bread loaf, and another french bread loaf with an ingredient missing that you'd never notice.
post #64 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by bo130 View Post

I don't know if you got my point or not. I was speaking to the difference between any given item in the audio chain (high-bit MP3's vs waveforms are the subject at hand) measuring different, but being sonically unidentifiable. As in, if someone didn't tell you which one you were listening to, you'd never accurately be able to name the file type.
A more accurate analogy might be a french bread loaf, and another french bread loaf with an ingredient missing that you'd never notice.

In theory that's possibly true but in most commercially distributed music ( at least that I have listened to anyway ) that does not seem to be the case '
This subject has discussed end to end on many forums.

On most audio or music forums most of the members/enthusiasts would agree with me and prefer 16/44.1 or vinyl in most cases sounds better than mp3 are we all wrong?

I have however listened to 256kbps and 320kbps back to back without knowing which was which and I could not tell. I have done that with mp3 vs 16/44.1. also I did pick music I was familiar with and good quality recordings also I am not claiming it was scientifically valid I was looking for my own results preferences/perceptions or whatever on my equipment in my listening environment (treated studio ) nothing more.


I can usually tell on a decent audio system with a decent (not overly compressed mix) . like I say if you like 320kbps mp3 that's fine I listen to it occasionally.
Measurements *sometimes * do not always reflect the actual listeners perceptions . Get a room full of dyed in the wool audiophiles and try the db test that might be interesting.
ofc the law of averages will come into play as well but that is another discussion( I don't claim to be a statistical expert either) I just know what I hear in my listening environment with my equipment .

I can tell you IMO vinyl or CD ripped to .flac or .wave here sounds better than an mp3*** rip and ofc in vinyls case it be different maybe not always better at least than CD . lots of knowledgeable folks and industry professionals out there share that opinion . I really don't know what else to say . One way to put it is what is theoretically possible sometimes may not be possible.

SO BO have you done the 320kbps vs 16/44.1 dbt with others or alone ? I'm curious and if so and if with others how were the listeners qualified and what results or conclusions resulted?
I did a search here at AVS "mp3 vs CD " lots of threads here on that maybe I will read some of them never hurts to keep an open mind.
I might revisit an mp3 @320kbps /CD comparison here also
best regards
Edited by tubetwister - 9/12/13 at 10:16pm
post #65 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

I just know what I hear in my listening environment with my equipment .
Via bias uncontrolled casual listening? A lot of people do too. Then when their bias is controlled, something else happens.
Quote:
I really don't know what else to say . One way to put it is what is theoretically possible sometimes may not be possible.
At this point, it's safe to conclude that you've never done a level matched DBT of reproduced audio, right?
post #66 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Via bias uncontrolled casual listening? A lot of people do too. Then when their bias is controlled, something else happens.
At this point, it's safe to conclude that you've never done a level matched DBT of reproduced audio, right?

Correct as an end user I never felt the need to and still don't. I have done level matched sighted testing only a few people
the majority results were in favor of the 16/44.1 .flac some had no preference . As you say they could well be biased so I do not claim scientific validity
only that most people stated they preferred the 16/44.1 .flac. I did not ask them to say which one was which I just asked them which they preferred .
it was not intended nor do I claim it to to be a scientific test but rather a casual comparison so ofc purely from a scientific methodology the test was
totally meaningless .
post #67 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

[
@ Arnold give it up who are you are trying to impress ?

Frankly, you.

I'm trying to impress you of the facts that:

(1) You appear to have no idea of how MP3 works or even what its goals are
(2) You appear to be trying to school me about audio in general and MP3 in specific
(3) Your comments show that you are ill-equipped for that task.
(4) Audio can be a lot of fun if you actually are well-informed about it
Quote:
I can read Wikipedia also !

If you are going to lecture this forum about MP3s, you need at least a Wikipedia level of understanding of the topic, don't you think?
Quote:
that does not mean I believe everything I read

It would be good if you read it before you passed judgment on it.
Quote:
you do realize that Wikipedia is open source ?

Here's a news flash for you - I have even contributed to some of Wikipedia's articles about audio.

Is Wikipedia open source? Been there, done that! ;-)
Quote:
You can't fully explain subjective perception with computer code

You are using a bogus criteria - having a full explanation. Apparently you don't understand that the findings of science are always provisional and always incomplete.
Quote:
try some decent vinyl or maybe 16/44.1 and relax

As if I've never done such a thing. You ought to show a little respect!
Quote:
I never claimed to be an expert in mp3 encoding.

You seem to have tried to school me in the topic. You seem to think that you know more about it than I and can lecture me about it.
Quote:
I see you are still quoting wikipedia you know we all have Google or bing also?

If you've got all these great resources, why not use them?
Quote:
You really do not realise you are the one embarrassing yourself here do you ?

You posts are exemplars of humility?
Quote:
You are not going to make very many friends with your vitriol comments maybe you were never taught that ? You should try dropping the faux academia nobody cares !
Read the comments....... sad really .

I read the comments. You seem to have irritated a lot of people.
post #68 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

On most audio or music forums most of the members/enthusiasts would agree with me and prefer 16/44.1 or vinyl in most cases sounds better than mp3 are we all wrong?

If you are talking about 128kbps MP3 or lower bit rates then you are all correct. If you are talking about high bit rate MP3, then you are all wrong and you need to do some bias controlled testing to understand the difference as well what is and what is not audible. A subjective listening test simply isn't going to give you the truth. Been there done that and you have not.
post #69 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyA View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

I should add that one thing I try to do in most threads is to ignore the subjectivist trolls and just respond directly to the OP (or anyone else who seems to be asking legitimate questions). Just dismiss the trolls as the scientific illiterati they are, and encourage the OP to do the same.

I must admit that this approach requires more discipline than I sometimes have. Fish. Barrel. Shotgun.

As the OP I'm a bit underwhelmed that only approximately 10 - 20 % of posts were on topic.
I do appreciate the good insight / suggestions, additionally someone pointing out that a post contains incorrect information is certainly fair game in a forum.
But holy ****... At one point I considered asking if I start a thread titled "You don't know what you are talking about", could we move the argument there.

 

I think you got the right advice very early on - forget CD players and use a Bluray player. Even modestly priced Bluray players have no difficulty in getting 1s and 0s off the disc and sending them down an all-digital path to the DAC. You just won't hear any difference between one and another. 

 

After that the thread was invaded by subjectivists, as these threads often are, who make all manner of claims that they cannot support with independent evidence and who cannot grasp basic scientific facts. Then the thread took the 'mp3 tangent' with people failing to understand that there is a difference between what can be measured and what can be heard. Differences that show up in specs or measurements but which are inaudible to human beings are of no concern to us, or shouldn’t be.

 

I hope the thread has been of some use to you nevertheless. If it saves you from buying an overpriced 'audiophile' CD player, then it will have been time well spent. 

 

Of course, if you really want a nice shiny expensive unit in your rack, there is nothing in the least wrong with that. Just don't expect it to sound any better than a $100 Bluray player. 

post #70 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidjohnson22 View Post

I recommend you use a blu ray player for the purpose.

+1.

The only caveat is that some BD players are hard to use unless attached to a TV set or monitor. Doing this is facilitated by the fact that we now have a lot of inexpensive small monitors with HDMI inputs. I happen to use a discarded LCD monitor with a HDMI input for the purpose and now enjoy being able to operate my equipment from across the room.
post #71 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

Correct as an end user I never felt the need to and still don't.
But as a poster on public forum who claims to have heard the difference, you would be in a different "need" category.
post #72 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

But as a poster on public forum who claims to have heard the difference, you would be in a different "need" category.

I can only recommend that you buy or listen to some better equipment and try a double blind ..sighted or what ever placebo science test floats your boat and get back to us?
or better yet start your own thread on blind testing rather than trolling.


Oh listen to some DSD and see if it sounds like mp3 @320kbps Or is Sony wrong to continue development there or do you think mp3 is the end all?
I feel no need to continue feeding trolls You can do your own tests . Thats why I suggested the thread get locked too many trolls showed up in this thread and offered nothing of value to a new poster with a legitimate question my suggestion still stands.

On second thought never mind . You never answered any of my questions and I have answered yours yet you ask me even more questions ,further you have contributed no value to this thread regarding OP topic or anything else
You can run your own tests you seem to be the one that is curious here.


I feel no need to continue feeding *a couple of trolls* that have shown up to assuage their egos and at least one that never took the time to even acknowledge the OP's question if the shoe fits ? Thats why I suggested the thread get locked because of * a few*thread crapping trolls my suggestion still stands.
Edited by tubetwister - 9/13/13 at 11:55am
post #73 of 107
Quote:
name="arnyk" url="/t/1489386/a-desktop-cd-player-to-use-w-grado-sr-125-about-150-headphones-or/60#post_23730510"]



Here's a news flash for you - I have even contributed to some of Wikipedia's articles about audio.

Is Wikipedia open source? Been there, done that! ;-)
Precisely the problem with Wikipedia anybody can contribute !

Not saying you are wrong on all your points I never claimed to be a coding expert I did try to say what I can and can not hear
yet you seem to persist in telling me what I can and can not hear within the range of human hearing how can you possibly know that ?
second thought Never mind answering .

Isn't all mp3 considered low resolution as compared to lets say DSD Or even Redbook ?
As I understand it high bit rate in mp3 does not always translate to high resolution higher maybe when comparing lower to higher bit rate mp3but high as compared to other formats? really ? Again don't bother to answer.

Sometimes it is not so much what you say Arnold but more precisely how you say it but I guess you never learned that .

Like I said we went way off the OP topic and this thread and it turned into a crap fest that you seem to want to perpetuate for whatever reasons you feel the need to. some times silence is golden !

 Have you ever considering starting your own thread on mp3 320kbps as opposed to lets say 128kbps (or other or even 16/44.1 ) and maybe educating the rest of us ? Oh and don't bother to answer I think the reasons are readily apparent .

Further I would like to say the majority of posts here after post 3 or 4 including mine with but a few exceptions have been of little or no value to the OP . ( I've been feeding trolls it seems )

Only kbarnes701 has recently contributed anything of value here

ON topic I will agree Nothing wrong with playing CD on a BD player I think i said that in an earlier post as well.
like kbarnes701 says they read them just fine I have done that and IMO it sounded pretty good.

I still think perhaps Locking the tread is warranted nobody aside from kbarnes701 is even acknowledging the OP request
and further it has gone way off the OP's intended topic.
Edited by tubetwister - 9/13/13 at 11:54am
post #74 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

Further I would like to say the majority of posts here after post 3 or 4 including mine with but a few exceptions have been of little or no value to the OP . ( I've been feeding trolls it seems )

Where's the trolling? Because someone disagrees with you or wants to clarify something?

It seems you got yourself all twisted because someone has a differing viewpoint, and perhaps (just perhaps?) a greater understanding of a subject?
post #75 of 107
I will offer this question Have you ever considered starting your own thread regarding testing and DBT or whatever you seem to think is so important and maybe offer some value in educating the rest of us instead of just asking questions .

I will repeat myself because you don't get it

I still think perhaps Locking the thread is warranted nobody aside from kbarnes701 is even acknowledging the OP request
and further it has gone way off the OP's intended topic.
post #76 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

I can only recommend that you buy or listen to some better equipment and try a double blind ..sighted or what ever placebo science test floats your boat and get back to us?
You seem to have trouble comprehending what's written. Reread my post (#72) and try to understand what it means because you haven't.
Quote:
or better yet start your own thread on blind testing rather than trolling.


Oh listen to some DSD and see if it sounds like mp3 @320kbps Or is Sony wrong to continue development there or do you think mp3 is the end all?
I feel no need to continue feeding trolls You can do your own tests . Thats why I suggested the thread get locked too many trolls showed up in this thread and offered nothing of value to a new poster with a legitimate question my suggestion still stands.

On second thought never mind . You never answered any of my questions and I have answered yours yet you ask me even more questions ,further you have contributed no value to this thread regarding OP topic or anything else
You can run your own tests you seem to be the one that is curious here.


I feel no need to continue feeding *a couple of trolls* that have shown up to assuage their egos and at least one that never took the time to even acknowledge the OP's question if the shoe fits ? Thats why I suggested the thread get locked because of * a few*thread crapping trolls my suggestion still stands.
Not every forum is the same. The important thing is to find the one that suits your taste and stay with it. If you haven't found one, keep searching. That is unless someone is forcing you to stay here at a gun point.
post #77 of 107
Quote:
I can only recommend that you buy or listen to some better equipment and try a double blind ..sighted or what ever placebo science test floats your boat and get back to us?
Why should anyone do any more testing of MP3s? The audibility of differences between Redbook and MP3s at various bitrates have been tested extensively, following standards—which I presume you are totally ignorant of—established by an international technical body. The results of those tests are clear, and they indicate that your beliefs about the audibility of those differences is wrong. As others have already told you, at higher bitrates (and 256 kbps is certainly high enough) the differences are audible only with rare sound files specifically chosen to be difficult to encode properly.
Quote:
Thats why I suggested the thread get locked
The last refuge of those who just can't handle the truth.
post #78 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post


I still think perhaps Locking the thread is warranted nobody aside from kbarnes701 is even acknowledging the OP request
and further it has gone way off the OP's intended topic.

We're enjoying it. Sorry you aren't. I'm guessing this wouldn't be an appropriate time to comment on the use of vacuum tubes in audio equipment?
Edited by FMW - 9/13/13 at 1:09pm
post #79 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

I will offer this question Have you ever considered starting your own thread regarding testing and DBT or whatever you seem to think is so important and maybe offer some value in educating the rest of us instead of just asking questions .

It appears that we have struck a sensitive nerve.

You seem to fail to understand that asking questions in the context of a real world discussion is a mutually educational methodology. Just guessing but you are dodging all the questions and even irritated by them because you sense that logical answers to the questions will change your opinons.
Quote:
I will repeat myself because you don't get it

Or we got it ages ago and have dealt with many people who are trapped in old school opinions and beliefs and fear change.
Quote:
I still think perhaps Locking the thread is warranted nobody aside from kbarnes701 is even acknowledging the OP request
and further it has gone way off the OP's intended topic.

I've made a number of on-topic posts, probably more than you. If you weren't fighting so hard, there would no doubt be less of a fight.

You attempts to get your own way by killing off everybody else's ability to share their opinions by locking the thread are pretty transparent.
post #80 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post


Not saying you are wrong on all your points I never claimed to be a coding expert

Then why do you want to teach me?
Quote:
I did try to say what I can and can not hear

Any chance that you aren't an expert about that, either?
Quote:
yet you seem to persist in telling me what I can and can not hear within the range of human hearing how can you possibly know that ?

There is this science called psychoacoustics that relates to what can and cannot be heard. I've been studying it most of my life, both in practice and also at the university level via lectures. books and lengthy conversations with industry experts.
Quote:
second thought Never mind answering .

You seem to have a problem with listening to opinions that you want to disagree with.

Here's some friendly advice - if you don't want to hear about other people's opinons, don't post on public forums.
Quote:
Isn't all mp3 considered low resolution as compared to lets say DSD Or even Redbook ?

You seem to be conflating resolution and sound quality.
Quote:
As I understand it high bit rate in mp3 does not always translate to high resolution higher maybe when comparing lower to higher bit rate mp3but high as compared to other formats?

More or less.
Quote:
really ? Again don't bother to answer.

That's pretty negative posting don't you think - asking questions (presumably just for show) and then turning people off when they try to give honest answers to your question. One possible conclusion - you don't want to know the truth.
Quote:
Sometimes it is not so much what you say Arnold but more precisely how you say it but I guess you never learned that .

I don't think you read what you write because exactly the same thing can be said about your posts.
Quote:
Like I said we went way off the OP topic and this thread and it turned into a crap fest that you seem to want to perpetuate for whatever reasons you feel the need to. some times silence is golden !

It appears that the latest large diversion off topic commenced when you starting posting to this thread. Have you ever considered that?
Quote:
 Have you ever considering starting your own thread on mp3 320kbps as opposed to lets say 128kbps (or other or even 16/44.1 ) and maybe educating the rest of us ?

The best way to learn in my opinion is to share opinions focused on a real world problem.
Quote:
Oh and don't bother to answer I think the reasons are readily apparent .

the reason that is readily apparent appears to be a frustrated desire to receive reinforcement and adulation even when everything you say is not really right.
Quote:
Further I would like to say the majority of posts here after post 3 or 4 including mine with but a few exceptions have been of little or no value to the OP . ( I've been feeding trolls it seems )

IOW, you have been feeding yourself? ;-)
Quote:
Only kbarnes701 has recently contributed anything of value here

In your opinion. Your mind seems to be very closed, and even kbarnes has made very little progress with you.
Quote:
ON topic I will agree Nothing wrong with playing CD on a BD player I think i said that in an earlier post as well.
like kbarnes701 says they read them just fine I have done that and IMO it sounded pretty good.

I still think perhaps Locking the tread is warranted nobody aside from kbarnes701 is even acknowledging the OP request
and further it has gone way off the OP's intended topic.

Actually, the first piece of advice I gave (third post on the thread) was:

"Under the conditions, if that laptop is winging your way right now, you would probably do well to plug your headphones into it and take a critical listen before you spend more money for what you might already have."

and the last post from the OP said:

"Thank you for several pieces of good advice. I do plan to consider the laptop / ODD as the possible answer, if it ever gets here. Ever notice those with impulse control issues are rarely also patient people.."

I see a very strong connection, do you?
post #81 of 107
Only thing I can add are a couple of small things Arnie. I did acknowledge that you gave the OP good advice earlier btw. It's just most posts following that went haywire
after I made a remark about mp3 murdering music which in most cases I believe to be true. Perhaps I should have qualified that with 128kbps or below even though I don't believe the loss of detail stops at 128kbps or even 320kbps although to a much lesser degree at 320 kbps than the lower mp3 bit rates.
Can't make everybody happy

.Lossy is just that ,Lossy OTOH Lossless is Lossless .choose your poison !

In hindsight I should have just said that one time here and left it at that.

Kinda like the never ending Mac/ PC debate I'm neutral on that BTW .,
even though Mac's are Nix based (generally a good thing ) . I have been using PC (Dos and Windows ) since before ALL Gore invented the internet.


This thread did go way off topic maybe that is the accepted norm here if that is so then so be it.
Arnie I don't doubt your knowledge of the subject I just believe that any scientific testing on this subject with
humans is open to wide errors of margin rightly or wrongly that is what I believe.

History has taught us Science has proven itself wrong time and again Moores law is one example .


I thought this (below) from kbarnes701 in reply to the OP made a lot of sense or at least is similar to what I believe whether I took completely of out of context is debateable but as I understood it, it made sense to me. He stated in 2 sentences what I could not convey in all of my posts in this thread.

Quote:
kbarnes701 wrote,
"Then the thread took the 'mp3 tangent' with people failing to understand that there is a difference between what can be measured and what can be heard. Differences that show up in specs or measurements but which are inaudible to human beings are of no concern to us, or shouldn't be. "

Almost lastly, I would like to add that for non critical listening, 320 kbps mp3's are fine by me. when my attention is devoted to the music I find them to be a disappointment. also on another note regarding vacuum tubes vs solid state for music I have heard good examples of each .

OFF Topic , OTOH looks like the twitter IPO might be an interesting opportunity either way it goes ofc depending how you play it and how it plays out so I will go back to CNBC and Fox Business .
Edited by tubetwister - 9/13/13 at 2:53pm
post #82 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

a remark about mp3 murdering music which in most cases I believe to be true.
You are free to believe whatever you want. Just curious, what is your belief based on, scientific tests or subjective bias uncontrolled listening comparisons?
post #83 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

You are free to believe whatever you want. Just curious, what is your belief based on, scientific tests or subjective bias uncontrolled listening comparisons?

Ofc . subjective bias and uncontrolled listening comparisons? I stated something similar to that earlier
I never claimed to have done any scientific tests only subjective sighted casual comparisons

like I said *imo* The key words being once again * IMO* mp3 @320kbps is close but no cigar . ofc we are both entitled our opinions whether based on pseudo science, psychoacoustics, things that we read and believe to be true or whatever, or even personal experience and or preference How many times must I repeat the SAME answer to the SAME question or maybe you can't remember ?
Once again I would would just Like to add lossey is lossy OTOH lossless is lossless choose your preference , many claim to be able to hear the difference on resolving systems with certain music I believe I fall into that group as I stated previously .
Edited by tubetwister - 9/13/13 at 6:39pm
post #84 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

ofc we are both entitled our opinions whether based on pseudo science, psychoacoustics, things that we read and believe to be true or whatever, or even personal experience and or preference How many times must I repeat the SAME answer to the SAME question or maybe you can't remember ?

Of course. Everyone is entitled to whatever opinion they choose. We have simply been trying to point out the difference between opinion and test results.
post #85 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

Of course. Everyone is entitled to whatever opinion they choose. We have simply been trying to point out the difference between opinion and test results.

FMW ,
Fair enough there were only a couple of posters in this thread that I took exception to you were not among those btw. Sometimes it's not always what you say but how you say it that holds true for me as well.
.
IMO opinion the difference is more apparent on headphones at least to me . It's also not impossible that some the streaming source files I used are not the best or maybe some of the CD/vinyl ones I have converted also With LAME might suffer from bad decoding however as I understand from all I have read Lame is pretty good converter but perhaps I should review my settings also.

As you know there are good and bad recordings maybe poor conversions or maybe even the original wasn't that good sound wise .
.I have tried AAC also it does seem to be slightly more open and somewhat more detailed .I cannot prove or disprove at this point if that is a placebo effect or not however.
I will have to say 320kbps mp3 is usually remarkably better than 128kbps mp3 .


I noticed a difference from mp3 and other especially in some classical music that is less apparent on modern music (if at all) mixed for loudness the difference with classical music and some other recordings I feel were done well was apparent to me at least in transients,openness, and especially vocals and the high frequency ranges on recordings familiar to me .

The classical that I used are on RCA Red label vinyl and also on RCA re mastered CD .The mp3 samples Both being broadband streamed from Mog @320kbps and also Pandora at A 228 kbps and .flac rips from both CD and vinyl and the original media playback also both converted here with LAME to AAC, also 320kbps mp3 and .flac . ofc these were not at all scientifically controlled or even blind tests so not at all valid in that respect . . Maybe with different source files my opinion might change not impossible.

It is fair to say I have a lot to learn about mp3/mp4/AAC etc.
I will read what I can maybe even something Arnie wrote in Wikipedia its seems at least to be an interesting subject with more variables than I realized so at least some good came of this thread in that respect who knows I might get some enlightenment ,hopefully as that will be my intent .
It never hurts to learn something new and maybe with some new found knowledge I can review my settings and make better quality file conversions.

I will also add that I am suspect of a lot of commercial academic research and even some at the university level because they are often funded in various ways and that being said
like anything else humans being what they are things can happen .

I spent the majority of my career in middle management with global fortune 100 companies I have seen some things that may surprise some or not both good and bad we spent many millions on professional lobbyists also funded research and many other things here and abroad. I have seen how money influences things It's all about the the money,here and around the world follow the money in any endeavor and a lot of questions will be answered that being said gives be a healthy scepticism .

I'm not afraid of change I use mostly mp3 .flac followed by ,CD,SACD and occasionally vinyl I have formed preferences I have my DVD movies in DVD 9 on my server looks identical to original DVD . . I think originally sourced DSD may have future potential in the high range digital space. I have formed preferences rightly or wrongly none the less . I

I'm retired not Not a degreed or career recording/audio or broadcast professional by any means just have a modest studio that is sort of a hobby business that I operate with my son (he knows much more than I do about digital music and actually does most of the actual work there ) I don't need the money (it doesn't pay that well at present anyway but it is coming along ) I don't claim to be a seasoned expert never will be but we turn out some decent sound quality for the local artists and that is part of the reward. I've also been a lifelong audio, (former amature radio) and electronics enthusiast.and ofc later computers and also Home theater and HDTV although my gear is very modest compared to many here .


I joined the thread originally just to give the Op some advise that I thought may be useful, then a remark I made sparked a flame war that I was unprepared for and fed into also . It can happen sometimes in discussion and on forums to anyone although that was not my intent .

No bad feelings here even to Arnie who is very persistent OTOH likely very knowledgeable.

OFC we do not all share the same education,career or personal experiences or knowledge base of the subjects at hand but hopefully we can all contribute something or at least encourage free discussion without vitriolic behavior . I actually joined AVS to learn about HDTV and related subjects a lot of very knowledgeable folks here. I bought 3 new TV's this year a Plasma and LED/ LCD and CCFL LCD a lot of what I learned here helped me make informed decisions on those purchases that I am very satisfied with ,


best regards
Edited by tubetwister - 9/14/13 at 5:27am
post #86 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

Like I said before even the best algorithms can not replace information that was discarded by mp3**compression they can only substitute it with a best guess if you will in the mp3 process.

Again, nothing of that kind is part of the MP3 process. It isn't even attempted. The information that is removed is information that is not ever perceived by the listener so there is no purpose in trying to put it back.

There are no best guesses. The information is omitted for all time.
Quote:
I am aware that *some mp3* measures well but that can not tell the whole story of dicscarded information substituted by algorithems in mp3** that is why I said earlier that mp3 usually measures poorley (meaning not always)

Again, there is no substitution. The information that is discarded is lost and gone forever. The reason why simple signals emerge unchanged is that they never contained every much information in the first place.
Quote:
If one wants to believe it makes no difference ,feel free to do so by all means

That would be called "Knowing and believing science". And, the data that is removed does make a measurable difference, but it makes no audible difference. That's why high bitrate MP3s can pass ABX testing.
Quote:
but that does not validate the placebo science evident in that thinking,

Actually, placebos have nothing to do with MP3. The place where placebos come into the story is where people doing sighted evaluations perceive differences by other means than just listening.
Quote:
however all are welcome to believe what you will and defend those beliefs

In this case its called "Knowing and believing science". Its not a matter of believing something for which no reliable evidence exists. I don't know why someone would want to have false beliefs about how MP3 processing works. MP3 coders are programs that are written based on principles that can be taught to university students. The principles and much wisdom about their execution are well known and highly teachable.
Quote:
.Audio perception like most things human is subjective.

A great deal about audio perception has been learned, as others have correctly pointed out, over the last 80 years. In the early 1930s scientists at Bell Labs determined that the ear is not uniformly sensitive to all frequencies, and that this changed with the SPL of the sound. However, this information was insufficient to create lossy compression that was truly useful. In the late 1960s a more complex characteristic of the human ear known as masking became apparent, but its true nature took a long time to understand. By the late 1980s masking was well enough understood that useful amounts of lossy compression could be implemented, but there were a lot of glitches and audible artifacts. It took about another 15 years for lossy compression to achieve its current highly useful state.
Quote:
everyone hears somewhat differently

That is not a stumbling block for modern science. The differences exist over a known range. After all everything in the real world is different. Its all about mean values and variances.
Quote:
you can't quantify if with armchair/google science or legitimate scientific study

That would be a false claim. Human perception is not simple, but it is not impossible for a person to educate themselves about it. I think that a person can learn enough about how MP3 technology works that if they were a good enough programmer and studied the available online documentation which includes a goodly number of scientific papers, they could write a mediocre MP3 coder within a few months. The really good MP3 coders that are out there as open source products. One such encoder is Lame, and the source code for it can be downloaded by anybody from here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/lame/files/lame/3.99/

Lame is considered to be one of the best high-bitrate encoders that exists. Pretty good for a programming project that lacked big corporation support.

If you are a good programmer you know that if you have the source code there are no secrets that are hidden forever. You may have to work hard to ferret them out, but its like getting ideas from a book. And of course there are many university textbooks and online courses in the subject. It is all about being intelligent, educated and motivated enough. Thagt's one reason why people who make false claims about MP3 can be frustrating to work with. Their apparent ignorance is self-induced.

Now I'm not saying that everybody has to be a MP3 encoder guru and read all of the source code and documentation. There is a mountain of expository material that has been written at all kinds of different levels. If you don't want to learn, you have an easy choice: Just sit back and enjoy and don't confuse the world by making false claims about what you don't want to take the time to learn.
Quote:
you can get close but still no cigar!

Given the impact of Lame, I would say that people who cared about such things indeed won their cigars.
Quote:
Some here have some knowledge of the subject to be sure and believe what they may know to be true .

It is highly destructive to criticize and dispute true facts.
Quote:
Nothing wrong with that but when dicussion(sic) degenerates into vitriole attacks and snide comments
then free intelegent(sic) dicsussion(sic) is inhibited .

I left the misspelled words in to make a point - some discussion is pretty well inhibited coming right out the door because it is based on careless work.
Quote:
OTOH at least for me (and many others ) I know that if I'm listening to 16/44.1 or better on a decent system its much more likely ( highly probable in fact to sound better than mp3***.)

Says someone who seems to admit that he's never done a proper listening test, even though doing so takes only a few downloads and maybe at worst an hour or two of work.
Quote:
Some here perhaps should come over to Audiokarma or maybe Steve Hoffman's forums just to see alternative viewpoints you may or may not find it interesting as they are more focused on audio than TV there.

Audiokarma and Steve Hoffman's forum are well-known for their utter ignorance of and distrust for modern science. If you wish to have a magical view of audio, they are good place to obtain your knowledge from. Since you seem to find them credible, many things fit into place.
Quote:
OTOH if you enjoy discussing audio it's a diversion from the usall(sic) TV stuff here which is pretty good btw I'm learning a lot about TV here (I don't know everything :-) .

I'm glad to see that you understand that you don't know everything. I suspect that you view of everything is a little larger than you think.
Quote:
The bad part about the whole thread here is WE meaning ALL of us after post 5 or 6 hijacked the thread and contributed nothing of value to the OP 's origional topic.

So speaking as the most recent hijacker, what can you till us about the experience? ;-)
Quote:
Arnold I will say you did give OP good advise in post 3. You shouldn't take offense that I do not share your beliefs it's nothing personal or meant to be derogatory or denigrating in any way.

That's the advice I gave before any number of hijackers started posting.
Quote:
My beliefs are based on my experiences and knowlege not yours so ofc they are bound to be different .

Not true. The knowledge base about MP3 is well known to many and while we may discuss fine points, our basic knowledge of human perception and how MP3 exploits it is shared.
Quote:
Oh Arnold, Of course I can not fly you should know that !biggrin.gif

Flying was a metapor.
Quote:
Unfortunately this thread has morphed into little more than a pissing contest most of us were guilty as charged and then some of the self proclaimed scientific illuminati were in fact trolling this tread and making snide comments and contributed nothing ,seems like in a lot of forums *some* folks that have a lot of posts somehow feel entitled to thread crap with a comment and quickly duck out without participating.

I have encountered many people who seem to enjoy disseminating incorrect knowledge and philosophies of science. It appears that for them, it is more important to them to always be right than to evolve and become accurate.
Quote:
Hopefully the OP will not be to discouraged from this thread , most threads here aren't as bad as this one became.
OP would also do well to check out Audiokharma for audio questions.

LOL!

So your actual purpose was to attract people from AVS to Steve Hoffman's and Audiokarma. I actually agree with that. If people find science boring and don't want to do their homework, there should be a place for them.

Quote:
Kinda of a poor welcome welcome for a new poster! This thred(sic) ended up being a crap fest (Ofc there was one main instigator maybe two) not
much free discussion although some did attempt free discussion and got thread crapped .

It's too bad that you are apparently remaining unchanged.
Quote:
Some posters here were trying intimidate some of the other posters with their knowledge
or references right,partially right , wrong maybe out of context or at least debatable .
and took offense to anyone that did not agree with them . (not my problem :-) )

It seems to me like you avoided the what you appear to be the evils of knowledge and relevant references.

The purpose of references is the opposite of intimidation. It's a matter of sharing things that people have found give them more strength.
Quote:
That being said I think the Moderators would be doing us all a service by locking the tread

Tyrants get their way by eliminating or unduly throttling free expression. That's a simple lesson of history. You might want to embrace it some time.
post #87 of 107
Arnie sometimes silence is golden you never learned that . You wouldn't last long at AudioKarma that's for sure you would be banned maybe you already have for all I know maybe from Steve Homan's also that would not surprise me . There are many qualified engineers broadcast and media and other audio and computer related professionals there equally and probably more qualified in their respective fields and more successful than either of us so to make unfounded assumptions and call them idiots does not put you in the best light but with your ego you can not see that . Steve Hoffman's forum isn't that great technically and he runs a too tight ship admittedly but for music it's not bad I am very infrequent there .Now that you have impressed us with your knowledge lets just agree we do not get along and probably never will.
See I made some unfounded assumptions that maybe you were banned from AK and SH forums and about your ego
almost as stupid as the comment you made about my purpose being to attract visitors to the other forums
you probably don't like it but I am just returning in kind some of the vitriolic behavior you seem to be fond of . Only problem I've ever had here is named Arnie ,

I've dealt with folks with insatiable egos in my career ended up firing quite a few of them because they were not effective, sometimes embarrassing tried to make their own rules or got caught with their hands in the cookie jar and most were not team players.
Unless you are CEO, best to keep your ego in check it applies elsewhere in life as well.
At this point with all due respect NOT ( I tried but you made that impossible ) I think it is best that you and I conclude our conversations .
Edited by tubetwister - 9/14/13 at 6:33am
post #88 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

FMW ,
Fair enough there were only a couple of posters in this thread that I took exception to you were not among those btw. Sometimes it's not always what you say but how you say it that holds true for me as well.
.
IMO opinion the difference is more apparent on headphones at least to me . It's also not impossible that some the streaming source files I used are not the best or maybe some of the CD/vinyl ones I have converted also With LAME might suffer from bad decoding however as I understand from all I have read Lame is pretty good converter but perhaps I should review my settings also.

As you know there are good and bad recordings maybe poor conversions or maybe even the original wasn't that good sound wise .
.I have tried AAC also it does seem to be slightly more open and somewhat more detailed .I cannot prove or disprove at this point if that is a placebo effect or not however.
I will have to say 320kbps mp3 is usually remarkably better than 128kbps mp3 .


I noticed a difference from mp3 and other especially in some classical music that is less apparent on modern music (if at all) mixed for loudness the difference with classical music and some other recordings I feel were done well was apparent to me at least in transients,openness, and especially vocals and the high frequency ranges on recordings familiar to me .

The classical that I used are on RCA Red label vinyl and also on RCA re mastered CD .The mp3 samples Both being broadband streamed from Mog @320kbps and also Pandora at A 228 kbps and .flac rips from both CD and vinyl and the original media playback also both converted here with LAME to AAC, also 320kbps mp3 and .flac . ofc these were not at all scientifically controlled or even blind tests so not at all valid in that respect . . Maybe with different source files my opinion might change not impossible.

It is fair to say I have a lot to learn about mp3/mp4/AAC etc.
I will read what I can maybe even something Arnie wrote in Wikipedia its seems at least to be an interesting subject with more variables than I realized so at least some good came of this thread in that respect who knows I might get some enlightenment ,hopefully as that will be my intent .
It never hurts to learn something new and maybe with some new found knowledge I can review my settings and make better quality file conversions.

I will also add that I am suspect of a lot of commercial academic research and even some at the university level because they are often funded in various ways and that being said
like anything else humans being what they are things can happen .

I spent the majority of my career in middle management with global fortune 100 companies I have seen some things that may surprise some or not both good and bad we spent many millions on professional lobbyists also funded research and many other things here and abroad. I have seen how money influences things It's all about the the money,here and around the world follow the money in any endeavor and a lot of questions will be answered that being said gives be a healthy scepticism .

I'm not afraid of change I use mostly mp3 .flac followed by ,CD,SACD and occasionally vinyl I have formed preferences I have my DVD movies in DVD 9 on my server looks identical to original DVD . . I think originally sourced DSD may have future potential in the high range digital space. I have formed preferences rightly or wrongly none the less . I

I'm retired not Not a degreed or career recording/audio or broadcast professional by any means just have a modest studio that is sort of a hobby business that I operate with my son (he knows much more than I do about digital music and actually does most of the actual work there ) I don't need the money (it doesn't pay that well at present anyway but it is coming along ) I don't claim to be a seasoned expert never will be but we turn out some decent sound quality for the local artists and that is part of the reward. I've also been a lifelong audio, (former amature radio) and electronics enthusiast.and ofc later computers and also Home theater and HDTV although my gear is very modest compared to many here .


I joined the thread originally just to give the Op some advise that I thought may be useful, then a remark I made sparked a flame war that I was unprepared for and fed into also . It can happen sometimes in discussion and on forums to anyone although that was not my intent .

No bad feelings here even to Arnie who is very persistent OTOH likely very knowledgeable.

OFC we do not all share the same education,career or personal experiences or knowledge base of the subjects at hand but hopefully we can all contribute something or at least encourage free discussion without vitriolic behavior . I actually joined AVS to learn about HDTV and related subjects a lot of very knowledgeable folks here. I bought 3 new TV's this year a Plasma and LED/ LCD and CCFL LCD a lot of what I learned here helped me make informed decisions on those purchases that I am very satisfied with ,


best regards

Yes Arny is very knowledgeable. He is a straight shooter with no pulled punches. I don't recommend discounting what he said. In order to understand what we have been talking about, you should engage in a bias controlled test. That means you need to compare a red book audio segment against the same one in 256 MP3 format without knowing which one is playing at any given time. You say headphones work best for you so, by all means, use headphones. The process is a little fussy but it will be a jaw dropping experience, I can promise you. Few people understand that their ears are just transducers connected to the brain and the brain does all kinds of strange things as it processes sensory input. If you eliminate the ability to discern which piece of audio is playing at a given time, you eliminate all the other inputs (expectation, memory, bias, preference etc) except for hearing. Then and only then do you know what is really audible and what is not because the brain has no other input to process along with the sound.

I was where you are years ago. I was a high end audiophile for about 40 years. I got involved in bias controlled listening tests about a dozen years ago and my attitudes toward sound and audio equipment and reproduction were altered irrevocably. Not only has the epiphany saved me a lot of money but it has allowed me to enjoy music for its content without so much concern for sound quality. It isn't that I don't appreciate or understand good sound quality. It is that I am no longer obsessed with listening for it instead of just enjoying the music. Sonic memory is fleeting but I believe firmly that my current system which cost less than 10% of my best high end system sounds 95% as good or perhaps even closer.

By the way, when MP3's get to 128kbps I can tell the difference in a bias controlled test. That's why I chose 256 and 290 for my digital rips. 128kbps MP3's still sound great. But they have a perceptible difference from red book at the ears. The beauty of it for me is that it has never been necessary for me to worry about re-ripping the audio to one of the "improved" modern formats. What I have is indistinguishable from red book so there isn't going to be an improvement no matter how much better a modern format is.
post #89 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

Arnie sometimes silence is golden you never learned that .

Could you make it more clear that you can't stand even polite correction and want to shut me up at any cost?
Quote:
You wouldn't last long at AudioKarma that's for sure you would be banned maybe you already have for all I know maybe from Steve Homan's also that would not surprise me .

I am smart enough to recognize totalitarian states where the local dictators want me dead or at least muted.
Quote:
There are many qualified engineers broadcast and media and other audio and computer related professionals there equally and probably more qualified in their respective fields and more successful than either of us so to make unfounded assumptions and call them idiots does not put you in the best light but with your ego you can not see that

If you are trying to say that I called qualified engineers broadcast and media idoits then you are up to inventing self-serving "facts" again.
Quote:
Steve Hoffman's forum isn't that great technically and he runs a too tight ship admittedly

Then we agree.
Quote:
but for music it's not bad I am very infrequent there .Now that you have impressed us with your knowledge lets just agree we do not get along and probably never will.

Gee, so much hurtful sarcasm so early in the morning? ;-)
Quote:
Assumptions that maybe you were banned from AK and SH forums and about your ego
almost as stupid as the comment you made about my purpose being to attract visitors to the other forums

Well, you are running a pretty good advertising campaign for them. You don't think that is OT?
Quote:
you probably don't like it but I am just returning in kind some of the vitriolic behavior you seem to be fond of . Only problem I've ever had here is named Arnie ,

That's not true and the proof is in the thread above.
Quote:
I've dealt with folks with insatiable egos in my career ended up firing quite a few of them

But of course you never fired yourself except perhaps figuratively. How many major job moves, eh?
Quote:
because they were not effective, sometimes embarrassing tried to make their own rules or got caught with their hands in the cookie jar and most were not team players.

I am nothing if not a team player. You don't see the team? I guess you would have to be a team player to see it...
Quote:
Unless you are CEO, best to keep your ego in check it applies elsewhere in life as well.

I think I've been fired once in over 50 years of work experience, and that was kind of strange because the company was in bankruptcy and the boss was being investigated for fraud.
Quote:
At this point with all due respect NOT ( I tried but you made that impossible ) I think it is best that you and I conclude our conversations .

I would position you as being more of a boss than a true leader. Leaders encourage willing teamwork based on non-economic considerations.
post #90 of 107
FMW,

I agree it seems Arny is indeed quite knowledgeable it's obvious to me that him and I do not get along and likely never will. Different social styles it happens .
I gave Arny what I thought were a couple of opportunities to bury the hatchet I was hoping that might happen he chose not to, that is his choice not my problem anymore .

OTOH as I stated earlier I have a lot to learn about lossy compression what little I have read lately last couple of days is interesting.
I listen to mp3 almost as much as .flac I don't spin that many CD's anymore they are all on hdd in one format or another , and vinyl even less and to tell you the truth at my age my hearing isn't what it was 30-40 yrs ago not impaired but not near as good as then . Also I don't play music as loud as I used to .

Computers are are one of my hobbies so I kinda get what folks are saying here about high bit rate mp3 not that I'm entirely convinced yet but I will keep an open mind and see what shakes out as I learn more about it. You never want to stop learning that's for sure.

I am curious about mp3 constant bit rate vs AAC and the optimal quality settings in LAME for best AAC export quality.

I'm not so much worried about file size metal drives are cheap now Even some of my movies are bit perfect copies depending on the movie that's a waste on some movies though. they are all in WMC beats the heck out of waiting for a DVD player to load . also I have a wireless WMC controller so that makes it convenient .

I have done DVD 5 vs DVD 9 vs ISO comparisons and DVD5 does not hold up to the other two in *most* cases that I can see anyway ofc they are getting upscaled to 1080p so best quality to begin with is best there but that is another topic altogether .

I'm not so much about testing as much as just hearing or seeing something that looks/sounds good to me .

Best regards
Edited by tubetwister - 9/14/13 at 7:33am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › A desktop CD player to use w/ Grado SR-125 (about $150) headphones or ?