My attempt a trying quality digital Hi-Fi.
18 June 2012, 06:38 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: If you're not braking or accelerating you're wasting time.
Posts: 2,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My attempt a trying quality digital Hi-Fi.
Hi, I have been thinking about trying high resolution digital hi-fi for some time now.
Have been into home audio for longer than I care to remember but being tight didn't want to fork out on any new
equipment without hearing it first.
It occured to me the other day that I have a laptop with a HDMI port.I don't use the HDMI as I have a Blu-ray player
& a Virgin Tivo box for
my cinematic needs.
Anyhow,it occured to me that HDMI uses hi-res digital sound & my Surround Amp has a spare HDMI input.
Hooked up the laptop to the Surround Amp & the laptop recognises the SOny TV but when I set my amp
to 'Pure Direct' which cuts out all the other circuitry to give the best stereo sound the laptop
detects the amp & suprisingly even the model number
in the 'sound' settings.
My laptop uses an Intel HD Graphics adapter to drive the HDMI.So I go into the laptop sound settings & configure it to use
just the front pair of speakers as full range speakers.
Also shows it will support DTS Audio & Dolby Digital up to 192kHz.
So,I needed to down load some studio FLAC files & chose from the Linn web site as these
will be of a known,verifiable quality(there are free sites around) & a find a free FLAC player on the web called Foobar
and it worked a treat.
Should mention that my Surround Amp outputs for the front 2 channels connect to my Hi-Fi.
The files I downloaded were from the Bob Marley 'Legend' Album because I have this on vinyl & CD so can
make a direct comparison. I use a Roksan Xerxes turntable & a Cyrus CD6s via Roksan Kandy L111 intergrated + Kandy Power Amp
connected to bi-wired/ bi-amped Monitor Audio GS20 speakers.
I am impressed so far but will reserve judgement.Would be interested if anyone else trys this.
The other massive bonus is the amount of high quality digital broadcast streams from internet radio stations.
I can now hear the music I want when I want it without any breaks.
Cheers,hope this helps if you want to try good quality digital music for free.
If you get addicted you will need to hook up
a large storage array for your downloads as they take up a lot of room but they
are fairly cheap now.
Have been into home audio for longer than I care to remember but being tight didn't want to fork out on any new
equipment without hearing it first.
It occured to me the other day that I have a laptop with a HDMI port.I don't use the HDMI as I have a Blu-ray player
& a Virgin Tivo box for
my cinematic needs.
Anyhow,it occured to me that HDMI uses hi-res digital sound & my Surround Amp has a spare HDMI input.
Hooked up the laptop to the Surround Amp & the laptop recognises the SOny TV but when I set my amp
to 'Pure Direct' which cuts out all the other circuitry to give the best stereo sound the laptop
detects the amp & suprisingly even the model number
in the 'sound' settings.
My laptop uses an Intel HD Graphics adapter to drive the HDMI.So I go into the laptop sound settings & configure it to use
just the front pair of speakers as full range speakers.
Also shows it will support DTS Audio & Dolby Digital up to 192kHz.
So,I needed to down load some studio FLAC files & chose from the Linn web site as these
will be of a known,verifiable quality(there are free sites around) & a find a free FLAC player on the web called Foobar
and it worked a treat.
Should mention that my Surround Amp outputs for the front 2 channels connect to my Hi-Fi.
The files I downloaded were from the Bob Marley 'Legend' Album because I have this on vinyl & CD so can
make a direct comparison. I use a Roksan Xerxes turntable & a Cyrus CD6s via Roksan Kandy L111 intergrated + Kandy Power Amp
connected to bi-wired/ bi-amped Monitor Audio GS20 speakers.
I am impressed so far but will reserve judgement.Would be interested if anyone else trys this.
The other massive bonus is the amount of high quality digital broadcast streams from internet radio stations.
I can now hear the music I want when I want it without any breaks.
Cheers,hope this helps if you want to try good quality digital music for free.
If you get addicted you will need to hook up
a large storage array for your downloads as they take up a lot of room but they
are fairly cheap now.
18 June 2012, 07:04 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
I know only listen to flac on my setup as its night and day the difference compared to .mp3
I'm getting a stickler for movies too I hate watching blu-ray with just dts not dts-hd
I'm getting a stickler for movies too I hate watching blu-ray with just dts not dts-hd
18 June 2012, 07:11 PM
#3
what kind of mp3?
LAME mp3 encoded@320kbps CBR is the BARE minimum audio standard for any kind of listening.
Any MP3s using lower bitrates or encoded using a different encoder (like iTunes without the lame plug-in for example)can and does sound pants.
LAME mp3 encoded@320kbps CBR is the BARE minimum audio standard for any kind of listening.
Any MP3s using lower bitrates or encoded using a different encoder (like iTunes without the lame plug-in for example)can and does sound pants.
Last edited by ALi-B; 18 June 2012 at 07:13 PM.
18 June 2012, 07:26 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
18 June 2012, 07:33 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd disagree with that. I find that a LOT of CDs are recorded with so much compression and such a poor production job overall, that the whole MP3 vs lossless debate vanishes into insignificance. It's hugely disappointing to buy what could have been a great album, only to find that it sounds mushy and flat because some idiot in the studio decided to just turn all the ***** up to 11.
Whilst FLAC certainly sounds better than MP3, the difference between a careful recording engineer and a cloth-eared idiot is far, far greater. It really winds me up that, even though we're now not constrained to the CD standard, I still can't download and listen to lossless studio quality tracks from anywhere bar a few irrelevant niche labels.
Whilst FLAC certainly sounds better than MP3, the difference between a careful recording engineer and a cloth-eared idiot is far, far greater. It really winds me up that, even though we're now not constrained to the CD standard, I still can't download and listen to lossless studio quality tracks from anywhere bar a few irrelevant niche labels.
18 June 2012, 08:15 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: If you're not braking or accelerating you're wasting time.
Posts: 2,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd disagree with that. I find that a LOT of CDs are recorded with so much compression and such a poor production job overall, that the whole MP3 vs lossless debate vanishes into insignificance. It's hugely disappointing to buy what could have been a great album, only to find that it sounds mushy and flat because some idiot in the studio decided to just turn all the ***** up to 11.
Whilst FLAC certainly sounds better than MP3, the difference between a careful recording engineer and a cloth-eared idiot is far, far greater. It really winds me up that, even though we're now not constrained to the CD standard, I still can't download and listen to lossless studio quality tracks from anywhere bar a few irrelevant niche labels.
Whilst FLAC certainly sounds better than MP3, the difference between a careful recording engineer and a cloth-eared idiot is far, far greater. It really winds me up that, even though we're now not constrained to the CD standard, I still can't download and listen to lossless studio quality tracks from anywhere bar a few irrelevant niche labels.
There are many bad recordings out there.Do these engineers actually ever listen to live music?
18 June 2012, 08:51 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worse still, why are we *mis*using a format released in 1982?
The format itself is OK, IMHO - just turn the average level down by 6dB or so and leave some room for dynamics.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only person in the world listening to modern music on a stereo that didn't cost £8.99 and doesn't totally suck...
The format itself is OK, IMHO - just turn the average level down by 6dB or so and leave some room for dynamics.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only person in the world listening to modern music on a stereo that didn't cost £8.99 and doesn't totally suck...
Trending Topics
18 June 2012, 09:11 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Don't get me started on the loss of dynamic range in digital releases. It feckin winds me up no end.
I refuse to mix and subsequently master to a "brick wall" standard.
All of my recording/mixing gets done at 96kHz and 24 Bit. My A/D/D/A is a Focusrite setup (and imho, this "link" is of paramount importance).
Granted, it's usually then run through an SSL console (analogue) and back into the computer as a stereo file.
But it does make SUCH a difference.
Sadly, there's a great many so-called Producers (you know the ones, they call themselves "producers" because it's a cool name, as opposed to working up through the ranks and gaining some real knowledge/experience) who have read on the Internet how to get a "loud/massive sound"....... at the expense of any dynamics in the song.
THEY have ruined the music imho. But so have the new generation of music-listeners (notice I don't say "buyers") - MP3 is now classed as THE standard. A sad state of affairs supported by all the online sellers of music.
The harsh reality is that regardless of the bitrate (not to be confused in any way with 96K/24Bit for example), the resulting file is STILL compressed.
When you compress something, you change it. SIMPLE.
Once you get to the higher MP3 bitrates, look at your file-sizes: they won't be that much smaller than the original file........ so why bother compressing it and making it worse?
Sadly, the only people these days who hear the music how it's meant to sound, are the artist and the engineer/producer........ in the studio.
Unless you recreate this environment, you ain't getting anywhere near.
Shame.
<steps of rant box>
I refuse to mix and subsequently master to a "brick wall" standard.
All of my recording/mixing gets done at 96kHz and 24 Bit. My A/D/D/A is a Focusrite setup (and imho, this "link" is of paramount importance).
Granted, it's usually then run through an SSL console (analogue) and back into the computer as a stereo file.
But it does make SUCH a difference.
Sadly, there's a great many so-called Producers (you know the ones, they call themselves "producers" because it's a cool name, as opposed to working up through the ranks and gaining some real knowledge/experience) who have read on the Internet how to get a "loud/massive sound"....... at the expense of any dynamics in the song.
THEY have ruined the music imho. But so have the new generation of music-listeners (notice I don't say "buyers") - MP3 is now classed as THE standard. A sad state of affairs supported by all the online sellers of music.
The harsh reality is that regardless of the bitrate (not to be confused in any way with 96K/24Bit for example), the resulting file is STILL compressed.
When you compress something, you change it. SIMPLE.
Once you get to the higher MP3 bitrates, look at your file-sizes: they won't be that much smaller than the original file........ so why bother compressing it and making it worse?
Sadly, the only people these days who hear the music how it's meant to sound, are the artist and the engineer/producer........ in the studio.
Unless you recreate this environment, you ain't getting anywhere near.
Shame.
<steps of rant box>
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
aaron_ions
General Technical
17
03 November 2021 11:07 AM
JackClark
Computer & Technology Related
1
25 September 2015 06:50 PM