Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 23rd July 2012, 12:03 PM   #6841
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oxfordshire
DVV . Even the MP3 can sound good . A look at DAC's , buffers, clocks , and with and without final filtering perhaps . I think it is time I built a universal digital interface for myself .

The Meridian 14 bit CD players still to me had more magic than the others . They were highly praised in their own time . I wonder how many kept them when the CD discs improved ? They would have been very surprised . Maybe a little less detailed than the very best , like taking a slightly less good seat at the concert hall .

Even the best digital I suspect does not investigate the sub 1 watt ?
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2012, 01:28 PM   #6842
dvv is offline dvv  Serbia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Quote:
Originally Posted by nigel pearson View Post
DVV . Even the MP3 can sound good . ...
That I have yet to hear, MP3 without the bloated bass and weak treble.

But I'm a patient man.
__________________
Such is life, baby! Ета жизњ, бејби!
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2012, 04:47 PM   #6843
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Birmingham, UK
My beef with MP3s isn't bloated bass or weak treble, it is a poor stereo image.

Basically what I get with MP3s is hard left-dead centre-hard right with nothing in between those points.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2012, 01:04 AM   #6844
fas42 is offline fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 9
I've done some interesting experiments of taking nominally fairly squalid MP3 files and resampling in Audacity up to the level of very high resolution files. MP3 -> 24/384 ... pretty extreme, huh, but it works! In terms of "fixing" the SQ, that is; at least, on playback via the very ordinary PC, on mainboard chip and conventional computer speakers.

Downsides are, very lengthy processing time in Audacity, and monstrous output file sizes ...

Why does this work? My theory is that a lot of the degradation is caused by the normal, real time processing of the MP3 file; if you offline the process then you get much, much better results.

Frank
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2012, 01:22 AM   #6845
Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 84
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Audacity's SRC algorithm sucks - I get around -82dB 3rd harmonic, -86dB 5th harmonic distortion on a single 1kHz tone at full scale. Also it rolls off the top end frequency response somewhat.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2012, 01:59 AM   #6846
fas42 is offline fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxalito View Post
Audacity's SRC algorithm sucks - I get around -82dB 3rd harmonic, -86dB 5th harmonic distortion on a single 1kHz tone at full scale. Also it rolls off the top end frequency response somewhat.
Fair enough, I won't argue that technically there are inadequacies, perhaps other algorithms can do an even better job. My point, though, is that, in my experience, the resampling made the world of difference in the quality of replay of an ordinary MP3 file, which to me is purely a result of the CPU not having to decode the MP3 file in real time.

In particular, the quality of treble dramatically improved. A cymbal strike in the original MP3 was just a bit of dull, white noise; the resampled, hi res output was a hell of a lot closer to sounding like proper instrument shimmer ...

Frank
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2012, 02:07 AM   #6847
Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 84
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Maybe it actually has nothing to do with the resampling at all. Perhaps the codec used by Audacity is a better one than in your fave media player?
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2012, 02:22 AM   #6848
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
What is 'better' abraxalito? I thought that you presumed that virtually all products are properly engineered or 'over-engineered'. How could there be any difference between the two? '-)
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2012, 02:42 AM   #6849
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
What is 'better' abraxalito? I thought that you presumed that virtually all products are properly engineered or 'over-engineered'. How could there be any difference between the two? '-)
How mosquito with elephant eyes can be better than an ordinary mosquito? Better engineered = more optimal for the functions.
__________________
"Our youth [...] have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders, contradict their parents, [...] and tyrannize their teachers. -- Plato, 447-367 BCE
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2012, 02:44 AM   #6850
fas42 is offline fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxalito View Post
Maybe it actually has nothing to do with the resampling at all. Perhaps the codec used by Audacity is a better one than in your fave media player?
I tried, from memory, 3 different players. Including foobar2000. Made slight differences to replay of MP3, but nowhere to the degree that resampling to different rates did. Audacity was never used for replay, merely for the processing (blown sound chip on work m/c).

There was a very precise, stepped improvement in quality with each upping the ante: MP3 -> 16/44.1 -> 24/96 -> 24/192 -> 24/384. Each time, resampling from the original MP3, and creating ever larger files. The last round took about half an hour to process, for a normal pop track!

Again, I think the gains were that the CPU and sound chip were having ever easier times during replay, and less electrical thrashing means better sound quality ...

Frank
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sound Card for Measurements Marik Solid State 2 2nd January 2012 08:59 PM
Sound Card Recommendations (For Audio Measurements) dchisholm Equipment & Tools 5 16th July 2011 09:40 AM
How to protect sound card during amp measurements? okapi Everything Else 13 2nd September 2008 03:06 PM
Quality Control differences = variations in sound quality? KT Class D 0 14th November 2004 06:51 AM
Sound cards - test and measurements jackinnj Everything Else 2 5th July 2003 03:02 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:54 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2