Let's start with codec ABX testd conducted using the foobar2000 ABX plugin. Just today I read someone claim scoring 87% out of 30 trials of 320kbps mp3s vs FLAC encoded from the same source (of unspecified music). Now I wouldn't be so incredulous if this were a known golden ear listening to fatboy or something but this is just some random person listening to presumably random music. So what do you reckon he screwed up?It's entirely possible that he/she is really hearing an MP3 compression artifact.
320kbps isn't always transparent and it doesn't necessarily take golden ears to hear the difference. There are compression artifacts that don't improve over a certain bitrate. It does help if you have some "training" so you know what a compression artifact sounds like, it usually takes some careful listening, and it depends on the program material. ...Maybe this particular random song has audible artifacts... If they are claiming ~87% on all program material, I'm more suspicious.
Now, if someone says 320kbps MP3 "sounds terrible" or they claim they can always tell an MP3 (without comparing to the original) they are most-likely fooling themselves. And in that case there should be no 87%... They should be getting it right 100% of the time.
Almost every time I thought I heard a compression artifact when listening casually (LAME V0), it turned-out that the original CD had the same "defect".
I would probably just superglue it in the position that it would be when on my head. But that's just me.. Also the glue might not look very pretty if you do a messy job.
PS. it's "them"
Last post by sypqys -
Yes see that on screen captures.
I don't see the covert art for example...
Thanks to tell me if it's normal and if not how I have to do ?
Last post by zakazak -
On the Analog side are 2x Magnat Zero 8 with a Sony TA-F690ES.
When I used my headphone dac I could hear a reduction of noise and clearer sounds. Probably because my TV' DAC or the DAC in mx HTPC's motherboard has bad current isolation or what ever it is.
Plus I would like to stay with an Sony ES device as I have 6 more if them and they have been working for me for 20years perfectly fine.
Last post by greynol -
What's the problem you're trying to address?His collection of antiquated overpriced Sony gear is too small?
I'm really sorry, but I didn't release it public. I think I asked, but it seemed nobody was interested.
Now who knows where it is. I think it lies in an old computer, with a reformatted hdd. To be honest it would be fun to begin again, but only if somebody are interested. Because many people has stopped using it.
Last post by DVDdoug -
I am now in need of a DAC to hook up my HTPC/TV/LaptopWhat's on the analog side?... Headphones? Your stereo system? Powered monitors???
All of that stuff should have a built-in DAC and analog outputs, so are you sure you need a DAC? What's the problem you're trying to address? The audio quality from your PC/TV/Laptop isn't necessarily substandard unless you're getting excessive noise, or not enough headphone loudness, or something like that... Distortion & frequency response are usually better than human hearing, so noise is usually the only potential "audio quality" issue.
Last post by Wombat -
If it finds the correct CD but has 0 matches then it may be a watermarked version of the release. Check if the label of the music is related to UMG.
You see problems with the UMC204?
The only device we had a positive abx result for doing 44.1kHz audibly different then higher samplerates is the 202, isn't it?
How do you make appear that menu sort/shuffle to order the playlist manager frame?
To have the sorting of the list of the playlists, I'm using now the Playlist Organizer plugin, but why arranging the list (taking an element of the list and changing its position) doesn't reflect the arranging of the tabs, and viceversa? You know it?
I recognize that the list of playlists (the integrated Playlist Manager list or the Playlist Organizer's one) is a good expedient, provided that (at least in my idea of well-arranged layout) the list is always visibile and it just supersedes the tabs. I've just edited my layout in this way.
Well, now with my nearly 100 playlists opened, I don't have all the playlists in sight, although, and I have to scroll the list with the slider on the right... when instead the playlist tabs were always all well in sight. Tabs manually alphabetically ordered, task for me not so frustrating by itself, but made difficult by the "active row put in the last position" behaviour of foobar2000: this yes that is very frustrating... you try to keep in order something (yeah, maybe so big and so caotic, I know), and another changes your order. With 6 or 7 rows of tabs, for me this is tangible... when, for example, the 2nd row comes to life and decides to go, on his own, in the last, 7th, position!