Last post by StephenPG -
Monty Montgomery of xiph.org agrees - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM
Yes, there is a readme.txt file inside component file if you open it with any archiver (you can change extension to .zip if necessary).
Last post by board -
If those speaker cables changed the frequency response, and this went unnoticed by Randi, then Fremer might have been able to hear a difference, and he would win a million dollars.as far as I recall the Randi/Fremer challenge was between speaker cables and not interconnects. The link to Stereophile is for interconnects.My faulty recollection was ICs, but it appears it was these Tara speaker cables with 1"+ round removable "slugs" at end
The link you provided went to their news site. Here's a link to the ones I mentioned, which I think are the same ones you were thinking of:
I'm currently running version 1.1.2 but I want to upgrade. Is there a complete changelog somewhere that I can read? I was hoping I'd be able to avoid trawling through 20 pages of forum posts.
Last post by Kamedo2 -
Interesting possible improvement though not a statistically significant result.36kbps is significant(p=0.020 and p=0.044).
It's a paired test so you cannot look at the error bar to determine the significance.
The tests we see encode samples of professionally mastered studio recorded audio and have them rated by "golden ears" listeners using high-quality setups in ideal silent listening conditions. But won't high frequency content and stereo separation matter considerably less to listeners when the original recording was noisy, their equipment and their hearing are average rather than stellar, or their listening environment has background noise? Won't the low frequencies typically be less masked? And aren't those use cases especially important for WebRTC etc?If you listen to the music on moving trains, cars, etc, low frequencies typically be more masked. And they are the typical use case of Opus at low rates.
Last post by Wombat -
He may came to the conclusion to prefer the 90s CDs because todays lossless downloads offer a recent 'remaster' that is more compressed.
Last post by guruboolez -
MPC --standard or --extreme (180~210k) may be good choice. Its very fast and could be better quality than AAC /MP3 256~320k. Mp3 has some technical limitations and AAC /OGG / opus have not had extensive testing or tuning at high bitrates.
I'm a bit surprised—and disappointed— to read this on HA.org nowadays. It was perfectly accepted in the first years of HA.org. But I far as I know, Musepack didn't improve quality since ~2003 when Frank Klemm worked on the encoder. On the meantime there were a continuous activity on LAME MP3, AAC (Apple) and Vorbis.
You mentioned HA archives. I remind to everyone my most difficult listening test I made at ~180 kbps on non-critical samples in 2005:
Musepack was clearly behind Vorbis at similar bitrate. It was twelve years ago, Musepack didn't improve while the other did (and in the meantime Opus appeared).
I also remind the existence of a serious flaw that affected (and still affects?) MPC and MPC only while encoding very quite samples which are either replaygained or played at high volume. The demonstration is now gone but the discussion is still —there—.
Was it corrected since? It doesn't seem so according to the descriptions I can read at musepack.net.
While MPC is still perfectly usable nowadays the format has lost to my ears all its magic more than ten years ago. It shines on some specific samples (pure pre-echo stuff) but on regular music I found it less impressive than Vorbis during careful and really hard listening comparison (which I probably can't perform again these days). I wouldn't use it at first place and rather go for AAC (Apple), Vorbis and maybe Opus.
I also insist: the listening test I mention is partially obsolete and is also based on my own sensitivity. AAC improved a lot in the meantime. But MPC didn't. It's a dead star... you can still see the light coming from but it's gone. Its excellent reputation come from days that don't exist either. There are better formats today.
Last post by ajinfla -
as far as I recall the Randi/Fremer challenge was between speaker cables and not interconnects. The link to Stereophile is for interconnects.My faulty recollection was ICs, but it appears it was these Tara speaker cables with 1"+ round removable "slugs" at end
Once again, the burden would not be on Randi to do on site measurements on that "cable" nonsense to check for sleigh of hand
Last post by board -
I only read through page 5 of this discussion here, so my apologies if I'm repeating anything, but as far as I recall the Randi/Fremer challenge was between speaker cables and not interconnects. The link to Stereophile is for interconnects.
I just looked up Fremer's latest review, and his speaker cables are also listed as Tara Labs: TARA Labs Omega EvolutionSP. So, I assume those were the ones he would pit against the Monster cables. Whether these speaker cables have a "magic box" I can't say.
I do believe that some speaker cables, whether they have an extra box or not, perform a sort of EQ on the signal, and I believe The Audio Critic already showed this by measurements in the early 90s (he showed measurements of a speaker cable that had a spike in the treble). There's also a thread here on HA of someone succesfully ABX'ing two different speaker cables, and measurements also showed different frequency responses for them.
Last.fm have updated their website to use https therefore the scripts need to be updated. Edit your text.js/thumbs.js files and replace http with https.
latest version here. there are no such lines in these files. can't get biography to work anymore, due to „Last.fm Bio: HTTP error: 0”. any help?
edit with solution for idiots like me:
these files are located at *user_name*\AppData\Roaming\foobar2000\js_marc2003\js if installed version is standalone (not portable)