Skip to main content

Recent Posts

1
Quote
[T]he Album List is mostly a stock tree view, while the Playlist Viewer is entirely a custom control.
As the OP noted, it's the "built-in" viewer. I expect that to handle shift-clicks in the same way the built-in Album List does.
2
There is no reliable way to do this.
3
I have some music on CD's in .cda format. I'm trying to figure out if they were originally mp3's or wav's and what quality they were.
There's no point ripping them as 320kbps mp3's if they were originally only 160kbps. If they were wav's then I'd probably want to rip them as flac.

Basically I'm trying to retain maximum audio quality without using unnecessary hard drive space.

4
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_softplaylists
Last post by davideleo -
Unfortunately I cannot find the fb2k-component file, so this is the dll I have in my user-componets folder which has to be installed manually.
foo_softplaylists.fb2k-component - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-52fIoCowfjdFNtMlJnMk9UVGM


Thanks! I actually have this one and as far as I understand fuffi has it, too. What I meant is I cannot find the fb2k-component file, of the 2011 version.
5
Quote
There's an interesting psychological difference between how we responded to these samples. Could it be that the flaws of vinyl get under Arny's skin in such a way that he can never enjoy it, whereas I can somehow "dial it out"?

...In other words, we can place listeners into two categories: those who can (to some extent) dial out the faults of vinyl in order to enjoy the music, while others find those faults so off-putting that they simply cannot stomach listening to vinyl.
I believe that's true.   Vinyl defects bothered me back in the vinyl days, and now they bother me even more!

It seems fairly clear that audiophiles who prefer vinyl and claim it's superior (I'm not including you, Clive) are not bothered by the noise, or at least not bothered by occasional low-level noises...    

Back in the vinyl days, defects seemed to bother me more than they bothered my "casual listening" friends and acquaintances.  And, I was more bothered by the clicks on my records I was familiar with than by defects on other's records...  I knew when the tick was coming and I'd be anticipating it instead of enjoying the music.

It's also fairly clear that in those days, "audiophiles" were  bothered by vinyl defects as there was lots of interest in caring-for and preserving records.

I also remember visiting a house with a high-end stereo when I was a "kid",   They had a pair of those cylindrical Empire speakers.   The were playing an (distant?) FM radio station and the hiss from the tweeters was terrible!   (Our stereo at home probably didn't have tweeters.)   Nobody else seemed to be noticing the "poor sound quality".

But interestingly, I preferred vinyl over hissy (commercial) cassettes with rolled-off highs, and I never actually bought any cassettes, although I copied my records to cassette for listening in the car.   (8-Tracks were out of the question, since sometimes the track would change in the middle of a song.)    
6
When I listen to the two samples, I hear a "freshness" and clarity in the laser sample compared to the needle one. For example, the cymbals have more sparkle. I am realistic enough to acknowledge that this could simply be down to different frequency responses.
I think an important and relevant personal  facility for ignoring tics and pops is being afflicted by one or more common hearing disorders affecting the ability to hear high frequencies. I know for sure that some older friends who are "rediscovering vinyl" fit this profile.
Sorry Arny, are you saying that I'm able to ignore tics and pops because I have some kind of hearing disorder?
Do you really think that's the only conceivable explanation?
Or perhaps, to coin one of your favourite phrases, you're making a personal attack - which I find insulting.

I am frankly staggered that any time anyone ever disagrees with you, your response is to let rip with both barrels.
And in this case I wasn't even disagreeing with you!

What's also interesting is that you choose to target one small part of what I posted - even though my very next sentence points out that it isn't the main thrust of what I was getting at. Do you want to debate the core hypothesis I put forward, or do you just want to pick a fight?

Ever hear of TOS8?
Yes, and if you like I could post a FB2K ABX log showing 100% ability to distinguish the two samples. But you had already stated they are obviously different, so I assumed that wasn't necessary.

It is easy to show how your answer is dismissive and non-responsive, not to mention in violation of forum rules.

Frankly, I expected nothing better. I get it. In your mind you are right because you think you are right, science and forum rules be damned.
How many times have you berated people for arguing against things that you never said in the first place?
And yet that's exactly what you're doing now.
What is it that you believe I think I'm right about? Tell me and I'll let you know if you're putting words in my mouth.

There's a better way to at least attempt to collect reliable and relevant evidence related to  this question. Make the tics go away without affecting the remaining properties of the recording. I think that is  is doable. But there's no reason to do so because of the anti-science posturing.

Making the tics go away and doing a DBT  would be umm like scientific...
As it happens, audio restoration of vinyl LPs is one of my hobbies, and as you say, removing the tics is eminently doable.

So let me make sure I understand. Do you think that if the tics and pops weren't there, then an ABX comparison wouldn't find any differences? Because if that's what you're saying, and if you're prepared to take the test, I will de-tic these samples so you can ABX them for yourself.

On the other hand, you've already stated that the tics and pops are not the only audible difference - just the most obvious. So presumably you will expect the de-tic'd samples to still sound different. In which case, what exactly are you attacking me for?
7
Cliveb's posts were in no way violating TOS8.  This latest post of yours, OTOH, violates TOS2.
8
The Sennheiser HD-600 may be more neutral out-of-the-box, if you assume either of these sites have the right target frequency response curve:
Goldenears:
HD-600: http://en.goldenears.net/8072
DT-880: http://en.goldenears.net/11302

Speakerphone:
HD-600: https://clarityfidelity.blogspot.ca/2016/04/sennheiser-hd-600-over-ear-headphones.html?view=sidebar (check the Harman compensated graph)

Just to reiterate, if you have some effective means for equalizing headphones, the smoothness of the response curve and its power bandwidth (not shown by most tests) are the most important things.

Reasonable sized ups and downs, peaks and valleys, and general trends don't matter.

This is good, because many of those things depend on the geometry of the individual's outer and inner ear.

If you don't equalize your headphones, it appears to me that you are majoring in minors. Chasing a phantom.
9
To clarify. I have no X versions of either the M40 or M50.  Having no experience with either, I can't have an informed opinion, and I don't feel comfortable with granting an opinion based on measurements  I suspect that the M40  might work out well with equalization.
So, what can you tell me about the M40 and M50? Thanks!

I haven't done any formal comparisons.

When the M40s first turned up after she independently ordered them, I listened to them, probably with this computer,  and decided that somehow  I liked the M50s better. My wife would never pay more than about $50 for a pair of headphones.

I haven't even had them both together in my hands at one time, except maybe that one time several years ago.

The M50s are used with  this computer that I'm typing on right now, and my wife uses the M40s to watch British TV dramas via PBS's web site  with her iPad, I think.
10
I appreciate the fast response, but that's not what I'm asking. What I would like to know is how to convert a readable timestamp, like 2017-06-02 21:36:22, into the long string of numbers, like 131409273821466963, that foo_playcount apparently uses.