Skip to main content
Recent Posts
1
General Audio / (Free) Software to analyze HD and DSD tracks?
Last post by 16Bit Audiophile -
Hi,

I performed countless blind tests on myself and finally gave up (re-)buying more expensive HD tracks. To save some space, I want to convert some of my 1-3 GB albums to 44.1 or 48/16. For that I want to uncover all the badly done masters and cut off all the information that is only noise. (Backup the original downloads on an external drive and forget about them.)

I guess the best way to do that is to use a spectral analyzer. Then, look at the information that is happening above 22 kHz and try to see whether it's actual audio (should be a downward slope) or noise (non-dynamic and constant peaks).

To some extent, Audacity is sufficient. But it limits the analysis to 109 seconds and I noticed that the beginning often has less reach so I have to search the file for the part with the most amount of data. Also, it does not read DSD.
BTW, I'm on a Mac so unfortunately a foobar2k plugin wouldn't help me.

If I got anything wrong, please let me know. I am willing to learn!
Thanks!
2
General A/V / Re: High resolution audio - lowest audio setup?
Last post by greynol -
Listening tests. Low pass at 16.5k.  Check it to make sure there is no imaging and levels are identical in areas where there isn't any HF "musical" tones to be discarded.

Provide clips the critical part of the sample before and after low-passing that are 30 seconds or less.

Bonus points for providing a vinyl version that can withstand repeated plays.
3
General Audio / Re: This is a High Resolution Listening test
Last post by Nikaki -
Decoding failure at 0:00.085 (Unsupported format or corrupted file)

Anyone else get this error?
Nope. The file is fine:

Code: [Select]
flac -t "high resolution listening test audacity HD.flac"

flac 1.3.2
Copyright (C) 2000-2009  Josh Coalson, 2011-2016  Xiph.Org Foundation
flac comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.  This is free software, and you are
welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions.  Type `flac' for details.

high resolution listening test audacity HD.flac: ok

md5sum "high resolution listening test audacity HD.flac"
1de01dd315f243e4a53e98c4ad0be3d1  high resolution listening test audacity HD.flac
5
General A/V / Re: High resolution audio - lowest audio setup?
Last post by magicgoose -
Off the top of my head, very loud HF tones (perhaps above 16kHz but I don't remember exactly) can be heard in "Perdition City" album by Ulver.
Show me.  Better yet, show me an ABX log indicating you can hear such an extreme mosquito tone in that piece of music when compared to a 16.5k low-passed version.

Alright, I just found the track which contains this (07 - "Dead City Centres"), and the frequency of that sound is ~18178 Hz, which will not be preserved with 32 or 34kHz sample rate.
I am quite confident that I will pass the test, so, shall I just apply a hard lowpass filter at 17000Hz, or resample to 32000Hz, or resample to 34000Hz for the sake of the test?
Also, post it here, or in a new thread in "Listening Tests" category?
6
General A/V / Re: High resolution audio - lowest audio setup?
Last post by greynol -
Off the top of my head, very loud HF tones (perhaps above 16kHz but I don't remember exactly) can be heard in "Perdition City" album by Ulver.
Show me.  Better yet, show me an ABX log indicating you can hear such an extreme mosquito tone in that piece of music when compared to a 16.5k low-passed version.

Quote
I guess some other extreme/experimental/electronic music could have something like that too sometimes.
I guess we're left with guessing.  But sure, you can't disprove a negative (or however the saying goes).

Quote
{music is a broad term and it seems that signals with whatever characteristics may comprise music nowadays.
Indeed. I guess it can be written for dogs and bats which will obviously require a higher sampling rate. ;)
7
Polls / Re: 2018 Format poll [Lossy Formats]
Last post by magicgoose -
With streaming services, the user, arguably, doesn't use a format, unless it's a conscious choice.
It's used when you encode something in it for your own needs.

Hmm… it could probably make sense to define the meaning of "using a format" in the opening post.
8
Polls / Re: 2018 Format poll [Lossy Formats]
Last post by polemon -
I'm having a hard time considering streaming services a viable choice for this thread. It just doesn't match the whole idea of this poll with localy stored media that you made the choice for it's format. For example, in iTunes or Amazon, atleast you do have files localy stored and you can re-encode them to something else if you have a preference to another format. To make it even more complicated, if I said that I was using Deezer, it offers 2 options of codecs for streaming, mp3 and flac. What if I said that i was listening my music from Youtube, would I vote for opus, aac or ogg? Also what if a streaming service offered somekind of proprietary codec? The whole idea behind streaming services is that you are not given any kind of choice in codecs, just qualities. Also, if Spotify didn't get pressured to share the fact that they use OGG, you wouldn't know that it's using and they want as much as possible for you to have no idea what they are listening to. So the problem here is mostly that you are given no choice and you do not possess any file to begin with. The final and bigger problem is that it also clashes with what most of the people in the poll had in mind when they voted for themselfs. We need in some way to separate Streaming Services from this topic.
A lot of people don't have locally stored music at all anymore. They rely 100% on streaming services. Not including them, would be actually what's skewing the statistics, because I'd argue this is where most of the use for a codec comes from these days: The ability for it to be streamed.

Sure the choice is not one of using a codec to encode music from a lossless source, but it's still very much a market decision on the user's side. I can see why some users would choose one service over the other, because of the codec/quality.

When it comes to streaming services that let you select the codec, you'd choose your preferred codec here. Keep in mind, this is the poll for the "lossy" codecs, so selecting FLAC even though Deezer offers it, would be incorrect anyhow. But that is also a non-sequitur.

I use youtube for listening to music all the time. And it's super easy to see what codec you're using, especially when using mpv + youtube-dl. While mpv and youtube-dl display it right there in the console, even when you're using the youtube website you can right-click on the video and check what kind of media is playing. (right click -> "stats for nerds").

When it comes to services like Spotify: assuming they wouldn't want to tell you the codec: At the end of the day, that audio stream needs to be decoded on your device. Incases where you're using a browser on a desktop or laptop, it'd be super easy to figure out what sort of codec they'd be using. If they opt for something proprietary, and need in-browser decoding in JavaScript: well, they're in for a ride... When it comes to apps on a phone, etc.: You could still intercept the bitstream and inspect it. Essentially, for a media provider to be secretive about their codec, is kindof a fool's errand here. Those kinds of secrets, would be more than likely figured out sooner or later. That tangent aside, you'd simply choose "other" from the list, in case that is truly the most used codec that you'd use here.

But I also get what you're getting at, and I think the misunderstanding comes from the term "use". "Using" a codec, is very much using a streaming service in my book. However "using" a codec to encode from a lossless source, is also - well - "using" that codec. So Perhaps one might want to compartmentalize that further, but that Is something on the end of the person running the poll. I believe @IgorC intention is to get an overview sort of result, and I believe that includes streaming services, DAB, etc, etc.

The poll includes the option "USAC / xHE-AAC", which as of now, I know of no freely available encoders. I actually know of only one streaming service available on the internet, that streams in xHE-AAC. I wish I could listen to that stream on my computer - for testing and suchlike - but there's simply no decoder available to my knowledge. All other streams are short-wave or medium-wave DAB radio (which require horrendously priced radio receivers, and I know of no one personally who owns one). As far as I can see it, the only way to "use" USAC right now, is to either listen to it with a special DAB radio, or being a radio station yourself, having access to the encoder software and/or appliance hardware.
9
Audio Hardware / Re: Searching for a tube amp / compressor
Last post by oo131193oo -
Ok, so now i don't really know what I should think about this idea that i head.
It is kind of like, I want something that has some interesting characteristic sound (some effect box...)
but what it could be... Should I stay with VST plugins or is there any category of effects for me.

So as they are active it is clear that there should be no amplification.
I will look around and if there is something that interests me I 'm gonna post it, before i blame myself to much
10
General Audio / Re: Why wasn't there ever a VHS based consumer audio format?
Last post by Artie -
Wow! This thread is definitely a trip down memory lane.  8)

I still have an old NEC Hi-fi VHS recorder that could be used in an "audio-only" mode using the spinning video heads. IIRC, it's frequency response and dynamic range exceeded the best R2R's of the day. It's been sitting in a closet for about 30 years.  :P

I also still have a couple of old 3-head Dolby B/C cassette decks. (A Nak and a Sony ES.) And, I still have a couple of car tuner/preamp cassette decks, that also had Dolby B/C. (A Nak and a Harman-Kardon.) The cool thing about the Nak was that it had a front panel azimuth adjust knob for making fine tweaks on the fly.

I need to dig those and play with them again.
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018