Skip to main content

Recent Posts

1
Without starting afresh, I am not talking about skips and dropouts. Does the error correction not attempt to 'fill in' the gaps it can't read? Or am I thinking of another technology? It all becomes a blur after a while...
In ripping about 2000 CDs I only had a handful that got any non-correctly corrected errors on first read at high speed.  Error handling on music CDs isn't great, but it's pretty good.  Some older CD transports did extrapolate or zero fill on significant enough errors and that could cause audible artifacts, but these errors are quite rare for most undamaged CDs.
2
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_midi
Last post by jeremynsl -
Hey,

I'm trying to get MIDIs from the DOS game Gateway 1 to play with adlib emulation.  It works, but the instrumentation is way off.  Here is what it should sound like (from Dosbox)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ct5aJFl30M

Is it possible to extract instruments from the game somehow?  I got the MIDIs from here:
http://www.mirsoft.info/gmb/music_info.php?id_ele=MTM0MTE=

I thought at first it makes more sense to play from the original game files using foo_adplug but the .mus files in the game folder won't be accepted by the plugin.  Any ideas?
3
As it was years ago, as I stipulated, we'll have to consider it an anecdote.
...and as such I'm not buying it. ;)

Quote
Of course the intention of my mentioning it was supposed to be "in passing" and related to the strict black-and-white types that are always right, even though they haven't tested something for themselves. I agree with earlier sentiments that you can't argue against ABX if you're not willing to try it. It's the same principle.
Agreed.
4
It's quite a stretch to claim audible differences in a situation where tracking problems have made it too difficult to provide data without interpolation, yet not so difficult for there to be skips and dropouts.  If these aren't just speculative anecdotal musings on your part, I'd love to see some evidence which conforms to the standard you agreed to follow when registering here.

There are proponents of both sides.
I like to try to gather information so I can make an informed decision, instead of blindly following one herd or the other - and understanding how these things work hopefully goes a long way to cut through the misinformation.

From the few samples I've downloaded so far, I can understand where the two camps come from, but I'm not sure the difference is worth fighting over.

In the case of taking sides, again, I'll point to the standard and its logical conclusion: all things should be assumed to sound the same unless it can be demonstrated otherwise.

As it was years ago, as I stipulated, we'll have to consider it an anecdote. Of course the intention of my mentioning it was supposed to be "in passing" and related to the strict black-and-white types that are always right, even though they haven't tested something for themselves. I agree with earlier sentiments that you can't argue against ABX if you're not willing to try it. It's the same principle.

Probably a moot point now anyway as manufacturing qualities seem to have improved no end since the old days...
5
It's quite a stretch to claim audible differences in a situation where tracking problems have made it too difficult to provide data without interpolation, yet not so difficult for there to be skips and dropouts.  If these aren't just speculative anecdotal musings on your part, I'd love to see some evidence which conforms to the standard you agreed to follow when registering here.

There are proponents of both sides.
I like to try to gather information so I can make an informed decision, instead of blindly following one herd or the other - and understanding how these things work hopefully goes a long way to cut through the misinformation.

From the few samples I've downloaded so far, I can understand where the two camps come from, but I'm not sure the difference is worth fighting over.
In the case of taking sides, again, I'll point to the standard and its logical conclusion: all things should be assumed to sound the same unless it can be demonstrated otherwise.  Lending credibility to a side that has failed to fulfill the necessary burden of proof required by a science-based community is often taken as an affront.  This has been exacerbated thanks to a society that is increasingly rejecting science and the scientific method so belligerently.
6
No. Everything I said ...
In my opinion greynol has clearly explained the rules. More clear impossible.
There is nothing really to add from my part.
7
Interesting test, Kamedo2.  :)

Can You describe how Build C (or E) sound better for You? Does it happen in particular situations (samples, frequencies ranges etc)?  That will be probably useful for developers .

Thank You!
8
My cd-r sounds better because it can be played back without skips and dropouts doesn't exactly rise to a level of being worthy of discussion, not that Barry Diament's bits are not bits nonsense is worthy, either.

My bad assuming you were naively defending the latter.  Based on the direction this topic was heading (acceptance of arguments coming from the Camp of Audiophile Woo), I hope you can understand why I jumped to this conclusion.  I had no idea I was being countered in a game of tiddlywinks.  You win, yay!

Without starting afresh, I am not talking about skips and dropouts. Does the error correction not attempt to 'fill in' the gaps it can't read? Or am I thinking of another technology? It all becomes a blur after a while...
And I don't know why you keep thinking I'm pro-DSD when I'm trying to insist that I'm not taking sides!
9
The important thing to note is that if the smallest values that can be represented in a digital audio format are buried under noise in the listening environment or other factors or below you threshold of hearing when played back at a given listening level, then in the real world increasing bit depth doesn't really do anything. IOW increasing bit depth is only useful if it's the thing that is actually limiting resolution in the real world.
Noise already present in the content is one of those "other factors" which can be just as significant as the noise present in the listening environment.
10
That's how I thought it should work. Any input is split into whatever resolution you want (16/24/32).
The folks propagating "extra bits = greater dynamic range" as the ONLY reason for greater bit depth are wrong.

A dB is a logarithmic representation of a ratio. If dB is used with a suffix (for instance dB SPL), it is telling you the ratio relative to a predefined value specified by the suffix.

Increasing the bit depth increases the ratio between the largest and smallest value that can be represented by a factor 2x per bit (= ~6dB/bit).

The important thing to note is that if the smallest values that can be represented in a digital audio format are buried under noise in the listening environment or other factors or below you threshold of hearing when played back at a given listening level, then in the real world increasing bit depth doesn't really do anything. IOW increasing bit depth is only useful if it's the thing that is actually limiting resolution in the real world.