Quantcast
Channel: Hydrogenaudio Posts
Viewing all 11785 articles
Browse latest View live

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

$
0
0
QUOTE (Rich B @ Jun 17 2015, 17:16)
So Arnold, you are the inventor of ABX?


Thanks for the question, as I can now answer it in a better state of being informed about the prior (ca. 1950) non-interactive ABX test.

I am the sole constructor of the first Interactive ABX Comparator, and the person who did the first Interactive ABX test.

That test compared the amplifier section of a Heath AR1500 stereo receiver to a Dyna ST-400 power amp while driving Ohm F speakers

It came out random guessing.

Thinking of upgrading speakers

$
0
0
And yet when they're level matched and not clipping, they tend to sound the same in blind tests. Remarkable.

Files for cable listening test now online

$
0
0
QUOTE (mzil @ May 29 2015, 15:25)
I haven't bothered to click on the link. My only interest would be if someone ran frequency sweeps to see if the cables' R, C, and L, for the lengths they used, introduce appreciable changes in the frequency response, but somehow I expect nobody has done that.



You don't need to run frequency sweeps to determine that information. There are means for determining the transfer function using more or less arbitrary waves provided they have significant content in the frequency range of interest.

How do i convert CBR mp3 to VBR mp3?

$
0
0
I really wonder what it should be good for.

The only thing I can think of is lowering average bitrate to save some space. CBR192 isn't a big storage space eater though in terms of today's storage space.
However for this purpose I'd use -V5 or whatever suits my storage space / quality requirements.

If it's not about saving space but only in order to go VBR for whatever reason the only useful way IMO is to use mp3packer as was suggested. It doesn't change quality as it doesn't change internal mp3 contents, just packs it into frames the VBR way. However I can't imagine why this should be useful. When using CBR320 this procedure can save a few percent of storage space, with CBR192 it won't.

Experience of quality loss when reencoding is the only motivation left for me for going VBR. If minimization of quality loss is the side condition -V0 is the way to go (or whatever is considered best encoder and encoding setting). The fact that the source material is lossy has no influence on best quality setting.

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

$
0
0
QUOTE (bobbaker @ Jun 18 2015, 06:35)
QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Jun 18 2015, 11:43)
Classic move-the-goalpost deceptive post which I have fully and transparently answered and will answer again:

Arny, you like the “move the goalpost” deflection. The goalpost is the thread title. A directly relevant question is (since you have written “I invented ABX”): did you invent ABX? You have answered this many times in the past, but different ways at different times.

I accept your current answer below, but-
QUOTE
(1) One was a relatively simple task of building the first Interactive ABX comparator for which a-yes, I did it all and then put the results into the public domain. People can give me whatever credit they will or not, but it would be kinda nice if they were honest about it, didn't lie to my face about it and call me a liar when I try to set the record straight. However, even this has already happened two or three times. Just shows that there are some very small, jealous, hateful people in the world, I guess.

David Carlstrom (from SMWTMS and the ABX Company) also credits Bern Muller. What did he do?


Bern and I argued the issue up to everybody's attention in an initially private conversion at a SMWTMS club meeting. The topic was the audibility of quasi-complementary versus full complementary output stages with me arguing for the "can hear" side based on my recent conversion to the dogmas of The Absolute Sound. We agreed that we wanted a DBT that was based on same/different comparisons. The subject went cold for a number of months.

Then Clark (Club program chairman) called together a series of club staff meetings to discuss using DBTs as the focus for at least one club meeting.

Stimulated by that, on a classic rainy Detroit day in February/March I saw a possible relatively simple way to base the development an ABX Comparator on a component I discovered in the miscellaneous parts bin of a local electronics surplus store where I routinely browsed. While I developed the first Comparator, like several others, Bern stood around and kibitzed. One day after several months and at least one failed attempt at a public amp DBT at a bi monthly meeting I showed up with a stable, useful device.

Several years later ABX had been the centerpiece of a number of successful club meetings and stopped being a curiosity. Bern decided that he wanted a Comparator of his own, so he tried to design and build one based on TTL logic and wirewrap construction. That device kinda worked but was not reliable enough to be a commercial product, so there was about another year's worth of development by about 5 people including myself of its various subsystems into a more-or-less commercial product.

The device portrayed in Clark's AES paper was the work of about 5 different people including myself, most who had attended the meetings that spurred the development of audio DBTs for club meetings.

There were a number of attempts to build a universal switchbox. Hum and noise were a serious problem. I eventually realized that the problem was one of ordering contact closures, and built a series of increasingly sophisticated relay boxes that were slaved to existing comparators. The final version I built was reliable but there were concerns about how the required fairly complex timing was implemented. Clark developed a new timing circuit that implemented the timing scheme that I had developed using analog comparators, and we had our final product.

I don't think that Bern had anything to do with that stage except help assemble production products.

Finding duplicates and only delete duplicates in folders which contain

$
0
0
QUOTE
Seems to me that Similarity cannot restrict selection down to folders which contain no unique tracks

Yes, I would say so, too.

QUOTE
- though you can sort so that it is easier to spot that all tracks 1,2,3 ... are marked.

Yes, but it would be quite a big effort, I guess.

That looks very nice (strange, I hadn't found it before): http://i.imgur.com/LE2v25h.png. Hmmm, but, suppose you have two versions of an album, e.g. two ones of 1st Avenue in this example. And you would delete all of the 192 bitrate tracks shown (and keep the 320 bitrate tracks). And if that 192 bitrate album may be had two bonus tracks (not being in the 320 bitrate album), these 2 tracks would remain in that folder so you had 2 folders with a complete album and one with 2 bonus tracks (I would keep both of the albums completely). To check if there will be remainings of that version after deleting you would have to open that album in e.g. a file manager or so. That appears to be very inconvenient. If you would do it for thousands of albums....or...is there anything I am missing?

Thinking of upgrading speakers

$
0
0
QUOTE (greynol @ Jun 19 2015, 00:57)
I was wondering whether "sonic reinforcement" also accounted for "speaker placement," though I'll happily admit that I'm not familiar with how to go about accounting for a room's effect on loudness.

There is both the gain from the second (stereo) speaker and the gain from placing the speaker on the floor (radiating into half space - you would get additional gain near the back wall and even more in the corner of the room).

Maybe I should have better called it boundary reinforcement and speaker setup.
There is also room gain at low frequencies, which I completely ignored here.

Bookshelf speakers on an actual bookshelf?

$
0
0
QUOTE (John 31415926 @ Jun 18 2015, 15:47)
I've never owned quality speakers before, and I'm about to take the plunge.

After a bunch of listening to the better speakers that are for sale in reasonable driving distance, the Martin Logan 60XT floorstanding speakers sound good enough to make me pull out the debit card.



Only problem is that I'm getting cramped for space. I could use these floor speakers if I had to, with 8" or so air space all around, but in my listening room there are also these handy bookshelves on the wall above where the speakers would stand. (The bookshelves hang like kitchen cabinets.) That begs the idea of bookshelf speakers.

When I read about quality audio, airspace around speakers always comes up. Clearance from back walls and side walls, etc.

So now I'm thinking about Martin Logan bookshelf speakers like the 35XTs with a subwoofer to get a similar result as the 60XT's without needing to use up floorspace. (I also own a little sub from a 5.1 all-in-one kit that I no longer use, so I can recycle that and save a few bucks.) Other than buying a stand for a bookshelf speaker (which makes no sense to me, might as well just get the floorstanding speakers) ... if a guy actually does put his bookshelf speakers on a bookshelf, doesn't that introduce issues of muddy sound and such? Again, my shelves are like kitchen cabinets without doors. The speakers would be enclosed top, bottom, back, and sides by the bookshelf.

Should I expect that to seriously compromise the audio quality? Or would I not notice the difference very much vs if, hypothetically, the same speakers were on a couple of stands with plenty of wall clearance?


Book shelf speakers + good subwoofers can outperform many floor standers. It all depends on which speakers you are comparing.

Beware of listening demos in audio stores because how speakers sound is highly dependent on the listening room they are in.

Passive bi-amping with AVR

$
0
0
QUOTE (Rich B @ Jun 18 2015, 12:42)
QUOTE
Something about every valid TECHNICAL ANALYSIS showing the ineffectiveness of passive bi-amping.


But it doesn't appear to be clear cut. You can provide technical analysis and I can find technical analysis from other sources showing the opposite. You are not arguing from a neutral position Arnold.


I'd like to see that purported technical analysis showing the opposite.

I've never seen it and I've done more than a little reading in the area.

It might exist and then we might have a little clinic in the signs that a purported analysis is just hand waving. Or not.

lossyWAV 1.5.0 Development

$
0
0
QUOTE (halb27 @ Jun 18 2015, 22:43)
But what quality restraint should come from FLAC usage? We have a blocksize restraint, but this is not about quality. It's also not about FLAC but about the fact that blocksize has to be small in order to have a significant bitdepth reduction for many blocks.

I didn't mean to imply that the restraints had anything to do with FLAC. The restraints (like no joint stereo) come from the fact that the lossyWAV PCM output must be playable as-is. But as you mention it, yeah, the fixed block size doesn't help either.

How to create image+cue from non "red book PCM" files.

$
0
0
That's because Redbook audio cannot be 24bit PCM, so whatever you try to mount there is not an audio CD. Hence Daemon Tools doesn't know how to handle that situation. I think it's possible to author a compliant DVD(-A), or Bluray, with hi-res (L)PCM audio tracks.

xHE-AAC. Is it ready yet? Any encoders out there?

$
0
0
QUOTE (Moni @ Jun 19 2015, 15:58)
Hm, interesting topic. I did some Googling and am currently reading up but here is this: http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/ff/amm/pro...html#tabpanel-3

QUOTE
Availability

Codec implementations of xHE-AAC for use in DRM and streaming applications are available for the following hardware platforms:

PC (Windows/Mac OS X/Linux)
ARM (decoder only)
MIPS (decoder only)
Texas Instruments C6x, DaVinci, OMAP (decoder only)
Analog Devices Blackfin (decoder only)
Apple iOS® SDK (decoder only)
Android™
DRM broadcast encoder solutions based on Fraunhofer’s ContentServer technology, as well as third-party implementations, already support xHE-AAC. All DRM receiver chipsets belonging to the initial mass-market generation include xHE-AAC from market launch.

Patent licensing:

Via Licensing has issued a call for essential patents for the USAC Baseline Profile to enable a patent pool license for xHE-AAC which is expected to be available in 2015.



Strange that they mention the hardware platforms, but not the actual codec implementation names. I assume that there are software xHE-AAC encoders available for Android and PC based on that list.

Windows Media Player Plus! plugin crash

$
0
0
So, the plugin didn't crash actually...

Thinking of upgrading speakers

$
0
0
QUOTE (Rich B @ Jun 19 2015, 11:05)
I don't .... understand
True, but it's of little consequence, so there's no need to worry about it.


Passive bi-amping with AVR

$
0
0
Haha, the last one is genius. 2 amps and 2 speakers per channel. Perfect!

Audible symptoms of amplifier clipping

Bookshelf speakers on an actual bookshelf?

$
0
0
I'm not necessarily saying the ML are a bad choice for everyone. If you are the primary listener, it isn't meant for entertaining people both standing around at a cocktail party and seated, for example, then they can sound great, in the sweet spot.

This is easy for you to check out at the dealer's showroom. Listen to the high frequencies as you slouch down in your chair, as if reclining, also stand up and move about the room. They will sound duller when you leave the sweet spot, a bit more than most other speakers using a more traditional dome tweeter. Some find this disconcerting and others don't care.

All speakers are to some degree directional, especially in the higher frequencies, and are best aimed at the primary "sweet spot". Some spray the highs out [called "dispersion"] in a broad wide pattern like a flood light and others with a more narrow focus like a spot light, especially on the vertical axis in the case of those MLs. If you experience this and find it to be mild and inconsequential to your enjoyment of them, then they may still be the ones for you!

Speakers with a narrow dispersion are often some of the best at imaging though, being able to hear precise sonic localization of the various parts of the musical ensemble, and to some listeners this is more important than having a broad, multi-position/multi-listener sweet spot.

Since the way a speaker interacts with the room is critical and hard to calculate without actually trying them in that room, I'd say worry about how easy a given dealer is about swapping and returning speakers [and experiment with room placement and positioning by ear, not just what "looks pretty"] more than the speakers themselves. Good luck.

Efidelity wants to quiet your noisy PC

$
0
0
Those products are so LOL worthy even in the context of audiophiles. Who in the right mind would want the DAC to be operating INSIDE a PC full of EMI noise?

Let's not even go into that nonsense where the concept of burden of proof is apparently reversed in the placebophile world. People who make outrageous claims don't have to prove anything! It's the SKEPTICS job to prove it doesn't work!

Help finding modest 16 bit 44.1 kHz USB DAC

Windows Media Player Plus! plugin problems

$
0
0
QUOTE (lvqcl @ Jun 20 2015, 05:55)
So, the plugin didn't crash actually...

No, not actually, the next time I opened WMP it was back to the original version, with nothing that plus offers..
Don't know the problem
Viewing all 11785 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images