Skip to main content
Recent Posts
22
General - (fb2k) / reverse stereo channels
Last post by antares -
Hi,

just by accident I found out, that stereo channels are reverse when I play via UPnP MediaRenderer Output 1.0. I did several dedicated tests with special audio files, containing channel checks (Accuphase Special Sound Selection Track 18), installed UPnP/DLNA Renderer, Server, Control Point 0.99.49, did the same tests and also used other UPnP renderer. Beyond doupt: UPnP MediaRenderer Output 1.0 has reverse channels.

Please could somebody else check this?

Martin
23
Opus / Re: Opus gapless and glitchness encoding
Last post by lithopsian -
The bug that Jean-Marc spotted in libopusenc has been fixed in v0.2.1.  It caused a one-sample glitch at the supposedly seamless transition.  No idea if this is what you were seeing (hearing) or not.
25
General Audio / Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Last post by greynol -
As reluctant as I am in getting near pissing contests without a good raincoat, I just wanted to make two comments.
You'd only need a raincoat if you wanted to challenge others to perform a listening test seemingly to make it look like you have superior listening skills.  Then act as if this superiority justified making highly exaggerated claims about the audible difference.

First, I've been reading HA for a long time, and this topic is exactly the reason why--to learn about these things.  Should I buy a K2HD product?  How does it work?  Is it "better"?
Feel free to start a discussion asking these questions.  This topic was never about that.  Read the first post.

 
The topic of visual representations of sound, whether by waveform or spectrograph, and how they do or not translate into audibility
Unless you believe that >22kH can come from CDDA or that the application of dynamic range compression is a necessary result of K2HD mastering then these images could be used to make an argument one way or another. Again, the original post does not set the topic up in this way.  It wasn't until post #21 that the discussion addressed one (bogus) aspect of the K2HD process, which was presented to justify a claim that the product sounded like crap. It was not presented in order to have a meaningful discussion on differences in audibility. How could it have?

I would opine that K2HD, at least in this small example, is indeed "utter garbage" and the fact that the end product of this wonderful process is only marginally worse than the original just proves that point.
I see nothing here to suggest that DRC is a direct and necessary result of the K2HD process. Without that criteria in place I don't see how you can use this as a means to jump to that conclusion.  While I doubt one will easily find it, given the penchant to use DRC, a K2HD title without additional DRC compared to other releases would shoot that argument down in flames.  I don't think it reasonable to draw the conclusion that K2HD must employ additional DRC, however. The fact that two versions released as K2HD have differing amounts of DRC doesn't exactly play well if one were to argue that additional DRC comes directly from K2HD process.
27
General Audio / Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Last post by includemeout -
Quote
Lately, it seems people want to use images to show the differences in the audio they are talking about.
which is slightly strange on a audio forum.
  
Nothing strange about it.  Representing audio or any signal visually in various ways is neither new or controversial.  I think the appropriate discussion is correlating observations of those visual representations with specific audible effects instead of making unwarranted assumptions about how they may sound.  ABX testing to see whether they are even audible at all is a start, but I think there's much more to be had.
 
 Thankfully, people with such mindset don't last long over here (or simply don't bother coming back) than they do in your run-of-the-mill audiophool/pseudo scientific forum - where such attitudes are ovbiously not only encouraged, but also find a fertile ground to thrive and spread bullshit all over our beloved Google search results.
28
General Audio / Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Last post by bdunham7 -
Quote
Lately, it seems people want to use images to show the differences in the audio they are talking about.
which is slightly strange on a audio forum.

Nothing strange about it.  Representing audio or any signal visually in various ways is neither new or controversial.  I think the appropriate discussion is correlating observations of those visual representations with specific audible effects instead of making unwarranted assumptions about how they may sound.  ABX testing to see whether they are even audible at all is a start, but I think there's much more to be had. 


30
General Audio / Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Last post by The Irish Man -
I always though this forum was mainly about audio.
Lately, it seems people want to use images to show the differences in the audio they are talking about.
which is slightly strange on a audio forum. :))
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018