Linux Audio the way to go!? - Page 106 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > PC Based

PC Based Computer music servers, crossovers, and equalization

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 28th March 2009, 11:04 PM   #1051
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally posted by EddieV

In the 1970's I met many technicians that started to laugh very loud if I said that I could hear differences between cables. In the early 1980's lots of technicians told us that CD's are perfect.
1) If so, can you distinguish in blind tests for example 10 different audio interconnect cables by brands and models ???

2) For early 1980 CDs were really best available mainstream media, there were no mainstream HD Audio or something comparable in commodity market.

Quote:
Someone else in this thread said "I do not trust my ears". Well, if you do not trust them, what do you trust?
What does it mean trust ears? Ears is not universal measurement instrument. Something very good for me may be bad for someone else. For example, I like tube sound, while others simply cannot stomach it at all. So, is tube sound good or bad, hi-fi or low-fi?

Do people listening cables or capacitors ever realized that acoustic of room and placement of speakers within it contributes incomparably more degree of sound perception then different decent quality DACs, capacitors, or cables ???

When people subjectively comparing different components of audio system setup, they simply do not realize the fact - they are speaking about that particular component and in that particular system in that particular room with all its acoustic characteristics, and it does not automatically correlates to the whole universe.

That's why measurements and numbers are so important. Yes, they do not tell the whole story about perception by certain person(s). But poorly designed component with high level of TIM, noise, high degree of non-linearity will not sound good in any system.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th March 2009, 11:14 PM   #1052
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/11/153205

Young People Prefer "Sizzle Sounds" of MP3 Format

"Jonathan Berger, a professor of music at Stanford, tests his incoming students each year by having them listen to a variety of recordings which use different formats from MP3 to ones of much higher quality, and he reports that each year the preference for music in MP3 format rises. Berger says that young people seemed to prefer 'sizzle sounds' that MP3s bring to music because it is a sound they are familiar with. 'The music examples included both orchestral, jazz and rock music. When I first did this I was expecting to hear preferences for uncompressed audio and expecting to see MP3 (at 128, 160 and 192 bit rates) well below other methods (including a proprietary wavelet-based approach and AAC),' writes Berger. 'To my surprise, in the rock examples the MP3 at 128 was preferred. I repeated the experiment over 6 years and found the preference for MP3 — particularly in music with high energy (cymbal crashes, brass hits, etc) rising over time.' Dale Dougherty writes that the context of the music changes our perception of the sound, particularly when it's so obviously and immediately shared by others. 'All that sizzle is a cultural artifact and a tie that binds us. It's mostly invisible to us but it is something future generations looking back might find curious because these preferences won't be obvious to them.'"


I guess this has been posted here before, but just in case... I guess the same kind of thing was said when rock 'n' roll arrived (I guess that was the initial rise of reinforced audio and electrical instruments?) - at the end of the day music is just a pleasant euphoric experience, some people like Jean Michelle Jarre, etc. However, the theme of this forum is figuring out high quality reproduction systems - (building poor ones and cheap ones has already been "done")

(edit: The point of this was supposed to be that ears are "unreliable" and also subject to "preference" and this preference can change through time and will also change based on what you listen to)
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th March 2009, 07:40 PM   #1053
EddieV is offline EddieV  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally posted by LinuksGuru


1) If so, can you distinguish in blind tests for example 10 different audio interconnect cables by brands and models ???

.... But poorly designed component with high level of TIM, noise, high degree of non-linearity will not sound good in any system.
On the second point I agree, BUT: most designers are aware of the fact that they cannot predict how a device will sound in a real listening test.

On point 1): no I cannot. BUT: this is really how you should not seriously test audio equipment.

My method is that I read a lot about pieces of equipment before I decide to do a listening test. Preferably technical reports and listening tests of persons that have no commercial interest in the product. Then I evaluate the price and the expected increase in performance and may or may not buy something. So usually I buy only one part as a replacement for the old and I have to do only one comparison. Mostly I get the improvement that I expected not because my ears are perfect, but because I have simplified the comparison. Mostly the difference is so clear that there is no need to switch back to the old situation. Sometimes, e.g. with software settings, I go up and down a few times before taking a decision.

This is a relative test, but it is the only sensible way. A particular cable or capacitor or whatever may work very well in my system but could be a disappointment in another setup. That is one of the reasons why your cable test does not work. Another one is that it can take a long time before you can judge a component. This breaking-in effect definitely occurs with cables, speaker units and capacitors and makes it impossible to judge 10 pieces in a good test of a sensible duration.

Being used to a particular sound is certainly a determining factor in comparisons. The MP3 preference brought up by ewildgoose is a good example. But again, that is why my own system is my reference when I plan to change something and the general reference is a good performance with good acoustical instruments.

Kind regards,
Eddie
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th March 2009, 07:46 PM   #1054
diyAudio Member
 
Onvinyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Germany
Hi,
which stereo recording software do we have, that is for stereo input (and pref. only stereo for easy use), reads both from digital and analog inputs (and via pipe for integration with e.g. ecasound), has a dB-scale for analog input, doesn't touch the digital input stream and is small and easy?

Rüdiger
__________________
"I can feel what's going on inside a piece of electronic equipment. I have a sense that I know what's going on inside the transistors." Robert Moog
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th March 2009, 08:00 PM   #1055
anli is offline anli  Russian Federation
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally posted by Onvinyl
Hi,
which stereo recording software do we have, that is for stereo input (and pref. only stereo for easy use), reads both from digital and analog inputs (and via pipe for integration with e.g. ecasound), has a dB-scale for analog input, doesn't touch the digital input stream and is small and easy?

Rüdiger

JACK server + timemachine (you can use last one as a meter only)
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th March 2009, 08:38 PM   #1056
EddieV is offline EddieV  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally posted by ewildgoose


By the way - when you say you swap Brutefir for Ecasound - how are you doing your convolution if you dropped brutefir? Do you use some kind of plugin filter? If this is explained in another post then please just send the link?

Good luck [/B]
Hello ewildgoose,

Forgot to answer this one up to now. Please have a look at:
http://www.diyaudio.com/wiki/index.p...Audio+Ecasound

All scripts I use(d) come from Soundcheck. Ecasound uses SOX as a sort of pre-processor. I am not familiar with the details.


Kind regards,
Eddie
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th March 2009, 07:46 AM   #1057
diyAudio Member
 
soundcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D
Hi folks.

I would like to prepare a Linux-Audio-PC-HW-Config Wiki to gather what has been discussed over here and at other places such as AA.

In earlier posts we discussed some basic characteristics. Perhaps it is a good idea to nail it down more thoroughly . With all your experience, we should manage to configure some real nice toys.

I am thinking of three rather "self-explaining" configurations. (It might be good to switch "Audio" against Multimedia)

1. Linux Audio DSProcessor
2. Linux Audio StreamingClient
3. Linux Audio NetworkServer

What do you think?


Cheers

(Perhaps I better fork into a new thread for not hijacking this thread.)
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th March 2009, 11:48 AM   #1058
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Quote:
Originally posted by EddieV

Forgot to answer this one up to now. Please have a look at:
http://www.diyaudio.com/wiki/index.p...Audio+Ecasound

All scripts I use(d) come from Soundcheck. Ecasound uses SOX as a sort of pre-processor. I am not familiar with the details.
Based on this I am not sure why you previously used Brutefir at all?

Ecasound is just a-n-other sound server. It competes with Jack and Pulseaudio (and a bunch of others) and it has a bunch of nice features and a bunch of limitations.

Brutefir is an audio convolver and used mainly for mangling your audio in a specific way (eg applying some sort of FIR filtering). JConv is another example of such a utility

You seem to be chasing network transparency, and this is problematic for various reasons, hence the small number of audio servers supporting this. If you don't need accurate sync then as you already showed, netcat is fine for this kind of thing. If you need sync and good handling of clocking multiple sources then it all gets a lot more complicated and stuff like netjack2 / pulseaudio seem to be the current leaders

On a related note, this link may be interesting - compares various sample rate convertor's performance.
http://src.infinitewave.ca/
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th March 2009, 01:31 PM   #1059
diyAudio Member
 
soundcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D
Quote:
Originally posted by ewildgoose


On a related note, this link may be interesting - compares various sample rate convertor's performance.
http://src.infinitewave.ca/
Have a look at the Sox SRC on inifintewave.

What I am working on is to run SOX (due to its superior quality (e.g. dither) and features ) as offline convolver and ecasound as the audio-engine.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th March 2009, 03:05 PM   #1060
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Quote:
Originally posted by soundcheck


Have a look at the Sox SRC on inifintewave.

What I am working on is to run SOX (due to its superior quality (e.g. dither) and features ) as offline convolver and ecasound as the audio-engine.

You may need to highlight exactly what you are looking at?

Sox certainly has improved a lot in these tests - early days it was pretty poor. However, in the tests above there are a whole bunch of convertors which have very adequate quality to my mind.

libsamplerate (1.1.3 and newer) is operating down at the -120dB level with low enough computation demands to be done in realtime. Sox and several others are well in excess of that and the sox convertor also has a slightly higher bandwidth - however, I'm not sure of the practical benefit of converters giving better than 96dB, and certainly seems of dubious value once you start hitting 120+dB? Sure, no harm if it's offline and computing power is available, but I think it's would be wrong to actually rank converters at that level - they are either acceptable, or below acceptable

However, related question, but why are you resampling at all?

Also you say "offline convolver", but what are you convolving with?

In my setup I run the audio chain at 44Khz and only resample stuff which is outside of that. In my case this means only DVDs and TV. Both of these I am happy to run through "decent" performance resamplers. (my quality requirements are certainly lower for video than pure audio)

Good luck

Ed W
  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



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:36 PM.


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