Alec said:
I thought I was going to think that when the first ten minutes was primarily her rolling around in tomatoes (if you haven't seen the film that probably sounds slightly weird!), but by the end of the film I was blown away. I thought it was the best film I've seen for ages, but like 'Hunger' not something I will watch again tomorrow.
manicm said:
Listening to FLAC files (ripped from CD) streaming to active speakers right now, actually
Clare Newsome said:manicm said:
Listening to FLAC files (ripped from CD) streaming to active speakers right now, actually
Ooh. Which ones?
Lemme guess. The new Dynaudio's?
Gold star to Chebby. These beauties, which prove that high-quality actives don't have to be boxy beasts
gregvet said:
Yeah to be fair i took a bit of a cheap shot; I do think it got better. But later it very much gave the audience the money shot, as it were. I liked the subtlety of Beautiful Boy. I didn't think either was great.
Is it possible to talk the dog's whtsists? I thought one could only be them, and when that happens it's a good thing...
there were many parts of the article I didn't understand, but what I did I liked.
I am becoming increasingly disturbed by these forums.
Why do people have to try and use pseudo science to attempt to prove that only certain manufacturers have got things right.
I am begining to think that Apple and Bose fanboys are trying to take over these forums and that few, if any of the posts are anything to do with hi-fi at all.
There seems to be too many posts with meaningless measurements. I listen to flacs simply because mp3's to my ears sound flat compared to them. If there is a chance that higher quality bit rates convey more information about the music then that's enough for me. I would rather listen to music than defend my choices.
Why do people have to try and use pseudo science to attempt to prove that only certain manufacturers have got things right.
I am begining to think that Apple and Bose fanboys are trying to take over these forums and that few, if any of the posts are anything to do with hi-fi at all.
There seems to be too many posts with meaningless measurements. I listen to flacs simply because mp3's to my ears sound flat compared to them. If there is a chance that higher quality bit rates convey more information about the music then that's enough for me. I would rather listen to music than defend my choices.
juxter1 said:
1 - What?!
2 - Where is that happening in this thread? Where are the Apple and (pah) Bose fanboys here?
3 - They're not meaningless. What they mean and whether they are useful to you is open to interpretation, but they are not meaningless.
Ah but I am better informed than you think.
You see I use a rarely seen thing in this day and age. Common sense.
You see, I have actually done the ABX thing, ripped a cd to flac, wav, mp3 320 and mp3 256.
Guess what?
I heard a difference. The Wav and the flac actually sounded better and not so dull.
I don't use an mp3 player or a low fi apple iPod, I actually use a strange piece of kit known as a hi-fi. You'd never believe it but they come with amplifiers, seperate speakers and cd players. I really hated the sound that an iPod made when I tried them, I have never heard anything sound more artificial. My old panasonic portable tape player sounded far more rounded.
Measurements mean nothing if you can't hear the difference and if you prefer the sound used by inferior pieces of equipment then I suggest you stick to it and stop trying to tell the world you're wrong in not using the same piece of kit.
If you can hear the difference then just enjoy it.
Airplay? No thank you.
You see I use a rarely seen thing in this day and age. Common sense.
You see, I have actually done the ABX thing, ripped a cd to flac, wav, mp3 320 and mp3 256.
Guess what?
I heard a difference. The Wav and the flac actually sounded better and not so dull.
I don't use an mp3 player or a low fi apple iPod, I actually use a strange piece of kit known as a hi-fi. You'd never believe it but they come with amplifiers, seperate speakers and cd players. I really hated the sound that an iPod made when I tried them, I have never heard anything sound more artificial. My old panasonic portable tape player sounded far more rounded.
Measurements mean nothing if you can't hear the difference and if you prefer the sound used by inferior pieces of equipment then I suggest you stick to it and stop trying to tell the world you're wrong in not using the same piece of kit.
If you can hear the difference then just enjoy it.
Airplay? No thank you.
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
Think about the whole argument you are trying to pass off as fact.
Sampling. If you use a higher bitrate from a source that is analogue then you are definately going to end uwith something close to the original.
Drop that rate down and no matter what you think you hear there WILL be a drop in quality.
I would rather err on the side of higher quality and be more at ease in my mind that what I am listening to is closer to the original analogue sound.
As to the iPod thing, yes I am sorry, I was reading two threads at the same time. But I do feel that a certain company has gotten too big a hold on people and they think it really is hi-fi. A stranglehold that is damaging when you can't find high quality alternatives.
Sampling. If you use a higher bitrate from a source that is analogue then you are definately going to end uwith something close to the original.
Drop that rate down and no matter what you think you hear there WILL be a drop in quality.
I would rather err on the side of higher quality and be more at ease in my mind that what I am listening to is closer to the original analogue sound.
As to the iPod thing, yes I am sorry, I was reading two threads at the same time. But I do feel that a certain company has gotten too big a hold on people and they think it really is hi-fi. A stranglehold that is damaging when you can't find high quality alternatives.
Maybe I should post more pictures of my active set-up - that seemed to keep everyone quiet for a few hours earlier ;-)
juxter1 said:
Yes, but they don't fit in my car kit or pocket so well. Plus, the boss would probably go spare if I plonked all that lot on the desk.
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
juxter1 said:
There's nothing lo-fi about an Apple ipod, it is very good at replaying full res digital audio files and when plugged into a DAC can compete with "hifi" transports and streamers. Its only lo-fi as Joe Public choose to store compressed files out of convenience or ignorance. It certainly beats my HTC Desire, since that can only play analogue music.
I think HTC and Samsung are missing a trick here, wouldn't it be great if there was a digital audio interface on their phones :rockout:
juxter1 said:
According to the meaningless measurements you mentioned?
No one has any issue with the fact that as the bit rate lowers, th equality lowers, but does the audible quality?
There really was no need fro the attitude.
I'm off to read De tre bukkene Bruse.
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
I don't think anyone is trying to pass anything off as fact, rather sharing an article that may be interesting to those that have decided to click on the thread title. Form your own opinion using pseudo science, black magic, facts or a magic eight ball, nobody really minds.
Once upon a time it was common sense to state that the world must be flat.
Interesting article though. Thanks for sharing. Now back to my lo-fi iPhone with lo-fi FLAC music. :boohoo:
Once upon a time it was common sense to state that the world must be flat.
Interesting article though. Thanks for sharing. Now back to my lo-fi iPhone with lo-fi FLAC music. :boohoo:
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bluesound node Icon Vs Eversolo DMP A6 Master Edition sound quality comparison?
- Started by damo
- Replies: 16
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram