Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Neil Young's new iPod killer! (Read 85618 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #175 –
Quote from: Mach-X on
I am going to enter a comment as an HA regular that goes something like this...Why are we debating whether or not high resolution audio provides audible benefits. Aside from the fact that I don't get a physical hard backup, I am not against record companies selling "straight from the studio" audio. Is there any reason to be AGAINST this? Monty's explanation is fine enough as to why 192 could be detrimental to audio, but what if said audio was 192 to begin with? Is it wrong to actually know that you are getting audio straight from the source, unfettered? What I have a major issue with, is hdtracks, selling audio that skips the downsampling part, but charges more?! Can somebody entrenched in the music industry explain to me how skipping downsampling to our mediocre cd audio quality somehow costs you MORE, hence the prices?

There is an interesting side effect to the HD audio market. In the regular audio market, albums are mastered to compete with other albums and to accommodate a big range of listening situations. Cars, crappy PA's, radio stations and so on. The sound is mastered to sound louder than everything else and commercial thinking has taken over the mastering process. Some people would prefer 'director cut' masters; in other words, masters made only to sound great, not bound by commercial demands, targeting quiet listening rooms. With the 'HD' moniker a sort of solution has been found; now we have regular, commercial mastered, audio and we have 'HD' audio. Yes, the 24-bitness is audiophool nonsense, but the real point is that these tracks are simply mastered better. And because people are willing to pay for that and because the market is smaller, they are more expensive. They are 'HD' because the master provides more depth. Not because the bitness provides more depth. (Though audiophools think the extra bits provide more depth.)

A double blinded test designed to test if SACD's sounded better than CD's came to this conclusion. No, SACD's aren't better because of their resolution. They are better because the masters are better. And they can be better, because these SACD's don't need to compete in a crowded market, screaming for attention. Instead they have their own little, but expensive, HD market.
Here is the test: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=70893.0

Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #176 –
Quote from: drfisheye on
Yes, the 24-bitness is audiophool nonsense, but the real point is that these tracks are simply mastered better.
That assumption has not been proven to any effect, yet. I think people are way too optimistic regarding artists and producers which have only disappointed time and time again over the recent years. The blind assumption that engineers suddenly take more care of their releases because the delivery medium is 24bit is pretty naive. But of course we can hope.

I don't know if the measurements on the dynamic range database really work for 24bit sources, or if they can be believed, but there are several HDTracks releases which have poorer DR than older 16bit CD releases.

Quote from: drfisheye on
No, SACD's aren't better because of their resolution. They are better because the masters are better. And they can be better, because these SACD's don't need to compete in a crowded market, screaming for attention.
How do you explain that we also have "hot" albums in niche markets without any pressure, which see no commercial airplay at all, and where the competition is minimal? My assumption is that artists and producers simply don't know better, and/or don't care. The Loudness war is a human error which isn't solved by scapegoating the problems onto the delivery format. CD audio is sufficient, but simply not used to its full potential. Or, the other way around, there is no reason to believe that they will not simply continue the Loudness War at 24 bits.
It's only audiophile if it's inconvenient.

Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #177 –
Quote from: Kohlrabi on
The blind assumption that engineers suddenly take more care of their releases because the delivery medium is 24bit is pretty naive. But of course we can hope.

It's not a blind assumption, since I pointed to an experiment that found this conclusion,  but ok, it was a blind test 

The engineers don't take more care the release because of 24 bit, but because of the market for which the release is created.

Of course this isn't a black and white thing. There is nothing stopping anyone making a crap HD release. And yes, loundness seems to be an addiction.

Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #178 –
Monty mentioned the old "DDD" label on CDs, and I remember when I was a kid my older nerdy cousin telling me that those were the better sounding CDs. I didn't understand what he meant at the time, but maybe now we just need an "HD" label on CDs which would stand for "high dynamic range". We'll skip the "R" for marketing purposes, of course.

Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #179 –
Quote from: andy o on
maybe now we just need an "HD" label on CDs which would stand for "high dynamic range". We'll skip the "R" for marketing purposes, of course.

Highly Dynamic. Duh.

Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #180 –
Quote from: RonaldDumsfeld on
Not all the publicity is quite so informative.

Pono naysayers miss the point: It’s not about HD Audio, it’s about what’s inside 

They appear to be changing the marketing focus. It's not the hi-rez that makes it magic anymore. It's the quality of the player itself.


Yes, there was noise indicating some people had been contacting the Department of Consumer Affairs relating to claims that "high definition" sounded better because of the extra samples and bits, and it seems within the last few weeks several things have been carefuly re-worded as several web sites as a result.

I think they realize the danger in making claims that can't be backed up, no one want a federal investigation, now it seems that a lot of these web sites are making their claims referencing MP3 and trying to avoid specifically stating the audio sounds better than CD.

Personally I have no problem with them claiming their audio sounds better than MP3, as it almost certainly does.

Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #181 –
Quote from: AliceWonder on
Personally I have no problem with them claiming their audio sounds better than MP3, as it almost certainly does.


I guess that depends on the bit rate of the mp3.

Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #182 –
Quote from: AliceWonder on
Personally I have no problem with them claiming their audio sounds better than MP3, as it almost certainly does.


No it doesn't. Many of us on here can't ABX high bitrate (or even lower) MP3 from lossless. What makes you think having a higher bitrate and sampling frequency will somehow make it better? If it's better mastered, using MP3 makes no difference, it's encoding a source.

Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #183 –
Quote from: probedb on
Quote from: AliceWonder on
Personally I have no problem with them claiming their audio sounds better than MP3, as it almost certainly does.


No it doesn't. Many of us on here can't ABX high bitrate (or even lower) MP3 from lossless. What makes you think having a higher bitrate and sampling frequency will somehow make it better? If it's better mastered, using MP3 makes no difference, it's encoding a source.


I didn't say anything about higher bitrate or sampling frequency making it better. Don't put words in my mouth.

The unfortunate reality is that many mp3s out there are encoded with low quality encoders or poor settings. Even many encoded today are encoded with outdated encoders.

The music they are selling will sound better because it hasn't been degraded by poor MP3 encoding, not because it is high bit depth or sample rate.

Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #184 –
Quote from: AliceWonder on
The music they are selling will sound better because it hasn't been degraded by poor MP3 encoding, not because it is high bit depth or sample rate.


You said:

Quote
Personally I have no problem with them claiming their audio sounds better than MP3, as it almost certainly does.


You didn't mention poor MP3 encoding anywhere. Do most online shops do bad jobs at MP3 encoding these days? I don't think they do.

Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #186 –
32 bits! That would be like upgrading your old Super Nintendo to a Sega Dreamcast... if they ended up looking the same.

Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #187 –
Quote from: Hotsoup on
32 bits! That would be like upgrading your old Super Nintendo to a Sega Dreamcast... if they ended up looking the same.


I assume that is 32 bit floating point - with pretty much the same precision as 24-bit fixed point.

Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #188 –
Quote from: drfisheye on
Quote from: Kohlrabi on
The blind assumption that engineers suddenly take more care of their releases because the delivery medium is 24bit is pretty naive. But of course we can hope.

It's not a blind assumption, since I pointed to an experiment that found this conclusion,  but ok, it was a blind test 


That is *a* statement in the Meyer/Moran paper, but they don't mean that every SACD/DVD-A is mastered better than every CD.  In fact, 'loudness wars' mastering has been found on all of those formats.  I have 'seen'  it myself in rips of DVD-As that I own.


24-bit sourcing/mastering, in itself, does NOT automatically mean that engineers take more care of their releases.

Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #189 –
Quote from: AliceWonder on
The unfortunate reality is that many mp3s out there are encoded with low quality encoders or poor settings. Even many encoded today are encoded with outdated encoders.

The music they are selling will sound better because it hasn't been degraded by poor MP3 encoding, not because it is high bit depth or sample rate.



How do you know, really?

Are iTunes store lossy downloads encoded poorly, for example?

Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #190 –
Quote from: AliceWonder on
The unfortunate reality is that many mp3s out there are encoded with low quality encoders or poor settings. Even many encoded today are encoded with outdated encoders.

That's a sweeping generalisation which, true or not, would be hard to prove. There's a great deal of music out there, have you any figures to support the claim?

Quote from: AliceWonder on
The music they are selling will sound better because it hasn't been degraded by poor MP3 encoding, not because it is high bit depth or sample rate.

There's an old saying "you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear". There is no guarantee that a "high res" track will be sourced from a superior master and a poor master, inevitably, means a sub-par track. "Poor mp3 encoding" might, conceivably, mask some aspects of poor mastering and result in something more (subjectively) appealing. The only thing you can realistically state is that a "high-res" track is technically closer to the master, whether that be audibly so or not.

Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #191 –
Quote from: antz on
Quote from: AliceWonder on
The unfortunate reality is that many mp3s out there are encoded with low quality encoders or poor settings. Even many encoded today are encoded with outdated encoders.

That's a sweeping generalisation which, true or not, would be hard to prove. There's a great deal of music out there, have you any figures to support the claim?

Agreed.

Specially as, the way I see it, this seems to be the exact kind of generalization we've been fiercely fighting against, so far in this thread.

Quote from: AliceWonder on
The music they are selling will sound better because it hasn't been degraded by poor MP3 encoding, not because it is high bit depth or sample rate.

Not poor encoding but "poor old" MP3: alas, many a speech's favourite scapegoat, whenever they fall into the same category as the aforementioned one.
Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
União e reconstrução

Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #192 –
The output impedance of the Pono DAP has been changed from nearly 0Ω to 5Ω at the last minute. Audiophiles won't be too happy about this.

Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #193 –
Quote from: skamp on
has been changed

Ah, the good old feedback-is-bad argument

Quote
All products designed by Ayre (since its inception 21 years ago) have no negative feedback. This results in a more natural sound because feedback can only attempt to correct for an error after it has occurred -- clearly an impossibility. If negative feedback actually worked as people claim, then all products would sound the same because the negative feedback would eliminate the errors. But not all amplifiers sound the same, so feedback is clearly not the answer!

All the raving and SIWOTI-behaviour about promoting 24-bit and high-res music, this is actually much worse IMO. I wonder whether there's a Delta-Sigma DAC in there, which is AFAIK intrisically a feedback design... that would render their point moot. Especially the last part, on amplifiers (not) sounding the same, is saddening.
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #196 –
Quote from: includemeout on
Quote from: eahm on
I like this better than Pono: http://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/hd-walkm...players/nwz-zx1

At the price!? Does it brew coffee too?

No, but it does "restore the high-range sound lost in the compression process." Isn't that wonderful? All that bits that were lost are miraculously returned!

Quote
The Digital Sound Enhancement Engine (DSEE) upscales your compressed digital music files (MP3, ACC, ATRAC, and WMA) to CD quality. By restoring the high-range sound lost in the compression process, DSEE reproduces your digital music files in rich, natural sound, closer to the quality of the original recording.


That's why this is better than the Pono. It also doesn't look like a toblerone. 

Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #197 –
It's hard to understand how a 400$  device will change the way that people listen music.

An engineers are capable to make a difference.  Like NwAvGuy. 
He has opened his designs and educated people. Manufacturers take him seriously. Now that's what really counts. 

Neil is trying to re-invent a wheel which is already here.
Fiio production http://www.fiio.com.cn/  is very popular among an audiophiles and people who like a good quality of sound. 
They really know how to make a good and affordable audio devices.
Now try to beat that performance/price.

Neil Young's new iPod killer!

Reply #198 –
Quote from: IgorC on
It's hard to understand how a 400$  device will change the way that people listen music.

It is easy to understand how it will not.
Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
União e reconstrução