Last post by hlloyge -
Well, I've first-hand witnessed the problems CD players have with burned disks at Croatian radio. They wanted to use copied disks to preserve originals, and to make compilations for broadcast. This was some 15 years ago, now they went full digital - but then, they played music from CDs, even tapes and vinyls sometimes.
Anyway, the most used player was TASCAM 401 (I think, I've checked the pictures and it looks like that one) and while it was playing originals well, it had much trouble with CDRs. We tried different combinations of media and burning speed and finally got the combination right - they worked as they should ONLY with Taiyo Yuden or Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation disks (you'll remember them from early days of testing CDRs, they were expensive but good and long lasting) and written at 4x. People who were making these CDRs already had Plextor drives as they were among the best in these days. Later on, as Plextors broke down, other drives were tested and found OK, as long as they could record at 4x speed on that media.
So, I would suggest OP to drop that CD player too much hasle. Transport is crap if it can't read CD-R in 2017.
FB2K is bit perfect, so if things are sounding harsh in the highs, that's either how the track sounds, or how your playback system sounds. I'd recommend a high quality EQ of some kind. If you can deal with a VST Wrapper component, there are lots of great free ones, TDR SlickEQ springs to mind.
Last post by darkflame23 -
Combine DD and BA in a IEM offer you the advantage to profit of all the major flaws of these two technologies.
If you are searching for an atomic unbloated bass rendering you should look at the DD<Ø13mm or the largest BA from sonion which have a decompression hole.
Many of CIEM builders use them and fill the hole with resin instead of making a cavity (the BA is designed for it) in order to say that they have used the best BA for lows... but totally destroy the performance of the transducer with the hole obstruction.
... but if you use this hole, you lower the isolation of the BA CIEM at the level of the DD ones.
Last post by jazzthieve -
If track numbers are tagged 1, 2, 3, [...], as opposed to 01, 02, 03, [...], there can be a problem once track 10 is encountered, depending on whether the tags and/or files are sorted as numbers or as text. If text, Track 10 will usually play after Track 1, with tracks 2 though 9 following for a ten-track album.
His issue isn't about sorting. You saying his tagging fiile naming can be correct isn't helping...at all. You're only adding to his confusion. Read the thread again.
I have in ear phones but would like to avoid them if possible.
Maybe battery powered bt might work.
Argh, thanks for spotting.
If anyone has this problem, it should be...
var panel = new _.panel('Musicbrainz', ['metadb']);
Typo at line 15 with foo-jscript-panel/foo_jscript_panel/samples/complete/musicbrainz.txt.
Last post by DVDdoug -
I have two completely separate viewpoints on this, one from a sound design aspect and one from a listening aspect.Pros record at 24/96, so if you're doing music/sound production you might want to go with that. (Of course, most music is distributed on CD or MP3/AAC. 24/96 is overkill for almost everything (maybe absolutely everything), but pros also often record at -12 to -18dB, so they are loosing a few bits of theoretical resolution, no matter what the bit-depth.
... = 144dB which is roughly the range of human hearing from what I remember.That's really not relevant to musical dynamic range... If someone shoots a gun next to your ear, your ears start ringing and it may be a few minutes before you can hear a whisper. You loose some of that theoretical range after hearing loud sounds, and music with that kind of dynamic would be totally unpleasant.
...and I think by around -110 dB, there's hardly anything at all to be heard.I suggested an experiment to someone recently, and you might find it enlightening too... Load a song into Audacity* (or your favorite audio editor). Somewhere around the 30-second mark, drop the volume by -90dB for a few seconds, then bring the volume to back to normal. (-90dB is near the lower-limit for 16-bits.) Play back and listen as loud as you like, but "no fair" boosting the volume during -90dB part. I suspect you'll be surprised how far-down -90dB is. Then you might also want to try something more "realistic" like -60 or -70dB.
The other thing I've been thinking about lately is, the whole analog vs digital debate.There's no "debate" among people rational/scientific people. Does anyone debate that analog VHS is better than DVD or Blu-Ray? The situation is similar in audio and video, and digital "wins" in every way.** (Except with "audiophiles" who enjoy the "warm" crackle and distortion from vinyl records.)
you can pitch those recordings down by an octave or more and the sounds won't audibly degrade in quality because inaudible frequencies, if they exist, are being transposed into the audible range.There nothing intentional in the ultrasonic range. Any ultrasonic artifacts may "enhance" or degrade the sound if pitch-shifted down into the audible range. Or more likely, they are attenuated to the point where they are totally masked, except possibly for any high-frequency noise that's present when there is no signal. And, any pitch-shifting THAT extreme is going to sound completely unnatural anyway.
* In Audacity, use the Amplify effect to attenuate the level, and since the maximum attenuation in Audacity is -50dB, you'll have to do it in two steps if you want to go to -90.
** I'm speaking of at-least CD quality or high-quality MP3, etc. Of course we can have "telephone quality" digital audio that's worse than some analog formats.