RE: [dallasaudioclub] Re: need turntabe
- Is it just software? The Antec VERIS is a hardware add on with a remote, receiver and software.
I have not read the full specs on the VERIS.
This will plug into a drive bay. It says most media formats, which means NOT proprietary firmware like Microsoft iPOD. Anyone who carriers these are limited in what they can do. It is ok for the gym, etc. FLAC is the best because there isn't any extraneous data attached to the stream so it is much more flexible, but it is still compressed.
I like the remote control features and I built a dedicated PC for music. I also need to integrate Pandora and XM radio. Will the Mediamonkey software be compatable with the VERIS? The software looks very good.
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:15:19 -0600
Subject: Re: [dallasaudioclub] Re: need turntabeOn Dec 10, 2010, at 5:29 PM, Dave Thomas wrote:Use Foobar as your media player: http://www.foobar2000.org/
Save your audio as FLAC, I would not use mp3 or AIFF. FLAC is first lossless and second you can convert it to any format you care to and unlock AIFF it will never lock you out of your music because you did something like buy a new computer. Plus you can download from a lot of sites in FLAC.
<graycol.gif>Paul Stewart <musicman32150@...>
<ecblank.gif>cc <ecblank.gif> <ecblank.gif>Subject <ecblank.gif>
RE: [dallasaudioclub] Re: need turntabe
I picked up the Pioneer-PL-518 Turntable for $75 and ordered a new Nagaoka MP-11 cartridge for $70. It works now and I will be spinning vinyl this weekend.
The CD quality is 44 kHz/16. So, I think I need to build a digital media system. The HDTracs is a good download site.
I am looking at an Antec VERIS multimedia station to integrate with my computer . This seems to be the best solution I can find for a digital set up. Any body have any other suggestions?
1. Audio Interchange File Format (AIFF)
AIFF is a format for storing digital audio data. This format was developed by Apple Computers and is therefore the standard for Apple Macintosh Computer users. AIFF files are uncompressed meaning that the sound quality of the file is uncompromised during the stream. AIFF files are at the top of the list of high quality file formats, although, since uncompressed, result in larger file sizes.
Even though compression shrinks the file into a smaller size, therefore allowing for faster streaming, and less space being taken up on your hard disk, compression slightly affects the sound quality of the file. Compression eliminates certain parts of songs that are outside the normal hearing range of a human being, and therefore unidentifiable by the listener. However, some people can distinguish between compressed and uncompressed files even on cheap stereo systems, while others cannot tell the difference.
2. Free Lossless Audio Codec (FLAC)
The FLAC file format has proved in many ways to be one of the best formats in terms of benefits in comparison to competing audio data formats. It is a compressed file; however, since FLAC files are lossless, there is no quality loss. Therefore it is fast, high quality, and does not occupy much space on a hard disk. In addition, the FLAC format is not restricted by patents or DRM, as well as being open format. This allows for format conversions without any loss during the process.
The FLAC format also has a good error resistance. Usually, when streaming errors occur with other formats the stream is destroyed from the point of error to the end of the file. However, FLAC files limit the amount of damage done, and therefore errors only cause about a seconds worth of data loss. The FLAC format is supported by various consumer electronic audio players on the market.
3. Mpeg-1 Audio Layer 3 (MP3)
A MP3 is yet another type of audio encoding format. MP3 files are compressed therefore eliminating any sounds that are outside the normal range of a human’s hearing ability. Layer 3, the coding scheme, eliminates the excessive information in the file that is redundant and unnecessary.
The main objective of this format is to allow compression of a CD quality song without noticeably affecting the CD quality sound. The compression aids in a speedy download while not taking up a significant amount of space (vs. an uncompressed) on a hard disk.
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 22:13:16 -0500
Subject: Re: [dallasaudioclub] Re: need turntabe
I hear you. I try to have an open mind. I do extensive audio measurement and design work and many on this distribution list own or have heard those efforts. I don't sell gear I provide design work to DIYers at no charge. But to compare analog playback systems to current digital systems is simply not fair and just goes to show how gullible we are as a group..
Current digital technology has gotten closer to transparency then we ever seen. The audio playback system should be as transparent and true to the original as possible.
Really if you want to improve your system the best place to start is loudspeakers, the past decade has seen big advancements in distortion reduction and linearity in drivers. It is possible today to build 3 way loudspeakers that can provide very linear response at distortion levels well below .5% distortion. With plenty of dynamic headroom. But like all aspects of audio there are still a lot of overpriced drivers out there that make outlandish claims.
Unfortunately most of the big box store brands don't use this technology because of cost and the boutique vendors tend to price it beyond most budgets or worse they pawn sub-standard product on unsuspecting consumers. But for the price of a decent amplifier you can build really good loudspeakers that don't have to cost $10K but will perform just as good.
Why have a decent cd player only to play it back with speakers that won't even come close to the level of playback even a cheap player can provide. The system is only as good as the sum of all parts and unfortunately most audiophiles get sucked into the snake oil.
From: my89_928gt [my89_928gt@...]
Sent: 12/05/2010 08:49 PM CST
Subject: RE: [dallasaudioclub] Re: need turntabe
For the first 15 years I believed analog was better if I spent $$$ for a good system.
I learned from listening experience that I was wrong.
I still own some vinyl it is no longer for a reference collection.
Sent from my HTC Touch Pro2 on the Now Network from Sprint®.
From: Dave Thomas <dave.thomas@...>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: [dallasaudioclub] Re: need turntabe
I don't want to argue but as engineer with a Master's degree and over 2 and half decades in audio systems design I am a little confused by your points and would begin with their is little in what you wrote that I could agree with. Your argument's below are a bit inaccurate. No doubt that analog tape can provide a good medium and sufficient bandwidth for most music recording but to try to imply that it has better dynamic range or signal to noise ratio than digital systems is simply a wasted exercise. The non-linearities in the recording/playback system put it out of contention before you start. As far as clipping in the digital domain that would only occur if you did not know what you were doing. These myths mostly seem to be perpetuated by people who either don't understand digital recording or analog systems or both. A lot of them are created by those selling $300 tone arms.
I would love to see a reference to a document discussing "listening -30db into the noise". Not that I don't believe it was done but when in the digital domain 100db snr is achievable it becomes of no consequence. Why would you want to listen to electronic noise or radio static in the first place. If a system has a decent signal to noise of 80db which is pretty mediocre by most standards, are you implying that we can hear signals at -80 to -110db? Even old vacuum tube devices had SNR's of 60db this statement implies you are hearing things that are -90db? It is typically accepted that -20db to -25db is inaudible. If it weren't tube amps would be very objectionable since they easily generate distortion artifacts approaching that level. Or are you inferring that the analog recordings you are listening to have noise so high that is eating up 30db of your dynamic range? I don't get your point at all you talk about recording levels then switch to signal to noise ratio.
"The reason is that digital recording uses as it's "0" level 12 10 16 dBFS (decibels below full scale). When analog clips hardly anyone notices so it uses at most 1 - 2 dBFS for it's "0" point. So there goes 10 -14 dB of digitals supposed signal to noise ratio"What the heck does this have to do with signal to noise ratio? You might have had an argument if you said dynamic range but even that is not true. Actually the opposite is true hence this is why digital has significantly better signal to noise performance and better dynamic range. You do understand that at 24bit depth rate affords 16,777,217 levels? This is why even with 1" tape you could never achieve the dynamic range of digital. And when you factor the much higher distortion and non linearity of even the best of tape machines you can't get close to the accuracy.
You do realize the typical professional quality 1" tape machine has less than 55db signal to noise and varied across the audio bandwidth by as much as 2 to 3db plus or minus. Distortion was usually well over the 1% range and this was professional grade systems. I am not saying they can not be good but they are not even in the realm of what can be do with digital systems. Unfortunately we rarely see the abilities of digital due to the recording practices of the music industry. But this does not make analog a better choice. I am not opposed to spinning vinyl for the sake of nostalgia but to imply that it is better is simply an indication of a lack of understanding. Actually it is the boutique audio suppliers who are perpetuating these snake oil myths about $300 tone arms that do more harm to the high end audio industry.
I am 50 years old and began my career in audio design when analog tape was king and compact discs were not even considered. I got a Master's in electrical engineering and the closest thing to a computer I ever owned before leaving college was an HP scientific calculator and that baby cost almost $400 and weighed over 1lb. The advances in digital technology have improved audio recording and playback. It is difficult for many of the analog folks to understand but it simply is true. Actually if you think of it most people who try to convince you that a turntable is far superior usually end the conversation with "will that be check or charge".
<graycol.gif>Robert Cham <cham@...>
Interesting thread, if somewhat vague about standards.Please respond to
<ecblank.gif>cc <ecblank.gif> <ecblank.gif>Subject <ecblank.gif>
Re: [dallasaudioclub] Re: need turntabe
Speaking as someone involved with audio recording either full or part time since the '60s, I must say that 24 bit 192 KHz digital recording approaches the quality of a good analog tape machine at 15 ips. CDs are a kludge forced upon the Audio Engineering Society, when they were trying to set a standard for digital recording in the early '80s. The perpetrators were Sony and Phillips, who simply came to the first AES Digital Conference, and stated that the players and CDs would be available the following monday. They were tired of spending money on research and that was that. Power trumps basic research every time. Just look at HD radio and TV.
Now for some basic facts. When digital runs out of bits there is either nothing, for small signals, or some rather obnoxious noises, for large signals (digital clipping). Believe me, you'll never hear digital clipping. The reason is that digital recording uses as it's "0" level 12 10 16 dBFS (decibels below full scale). When analog clips hardly anyone notices so it uses at most 1 - 2 dBFS for it's "0" point. So there goes 10 -14 dB of digitals supposed signal to noise ratio.
Now we look at the bottom end of the loudness scale. With digital 1 bit is the bottom. There is NOTHING below one bit. Analog is another matter. Have you ever noticed that If your listening to a radio station in your car, you can finish listening to a song or story as you drive away and the
station becomes noisy? This is known as listening down into the noise.
Research in the '70s and early '80s showed us that the AVERAGE person could discern information more than 30 dB down into the noise. This is small signal information, the stuff that gives you the "air" around an instrument, and tells you the shape of the hall and where the side walls are. In short, everything that makes a recording come alive! Guess what falls below one bit on most digital recordings.
So, if we agree that you don't use the top 12 - 16 dB in digital recordings, and analog recordings actually exist more than 30 dB below the noise floor, what has become of the "advantage" to digital recordings?
- I have to agree that current digital recordings far exceed old analog recordings at least from a pure capabilities standpoint. Don't want to offend but the nostalgia factor for vinyl is cool but the limitations of vinyl are easily proved when compared to digital. That is not to say that there aren't good analog recordings. But the advantages that digital offer make analog inferior. Biggest problem with recordings is the mastering, so much music is and was and is poorly mastered.
Good recordings have very little to do with the playback technology. The biggest advantage of digital over analog is the available dynamic range. You lose about 50db when you step back to analog. Unfortunately recording engineers don't as a practice take advantage of it. Since the 50's compression has been a popular tool in the recording studio. Without all the boring details it is done to sell more records even today. The masses don't own a system that can resolve hifi quali ty so they don't care.
There are some artist that insist on accurate and good mastering but if your favorite genre is rock or pop forget about it. You've been hosed for about 5 decades. There are a few good recordings in this genre but for every good one there are dozens that are unlistenable regardless of whether they are digital or analog. Actually the only audible difference between a digital and analog source of the same recording is a big loss in dynamic range on the analog version.
Compare some digital tracks from a provider like HDTracks.com you will easily see how superior digital formats can be. Too bad the selections are so limited.
From: "chimeralabs" [chimeraone@...]
Sent: 12/04/2010 03:41 PM GMT
Subject: [dallasaudioclub] Re: need turntabe
Based on what my ears tell me, how we store and playback Music to maximize sound performance will be digital.
There are very few analog recording studios left. I always thought a record offered better sound performance because it was recorded in analog. Using a Digital Master to cut an analog record doesn't make much sense to me.
I have heard some superb audio systems where the Music is stored on a solid state hard drive or SD card, no jitter, and fed into a USB DAC. Here are some links you might find interesting.
Digital done properly is getting aw fully good. Some people I know with large record collection are digitally recording them for conveniance and listening to their records less and less.
In my opinion, using a computer to create your own "records" by selecting tracks from your favorite albums is a great way to listen to Music.
- I posted some picks at PE of my latest build. not really a build, per se, but used some cabinets from some old north American Sound mini-Monitors that I slapped on a coat of rustoleum and screwed in the drivers. I still have my old NAS monitors that are below the garage speakers. Dave Thomas designed the XO and I just assemble them. It's amazing what you can learn on You Tube!