That's not possible. Most youtube demos are recorded by some dolt using his mobile and moving around which nullifies any standard plus the recording quality is usually horrid. I find it very amusing when people post videos of their pricey speakers playing and it was recorded like I said plus it's being played back through your own speakers. Who can hear what it's supposed to sound like that way?😉
It is possible to download the clips and extract the audio, and resample to an ideal format to put through a top notch system. Doing this would surprise many people as to the quality that was captured in the original take.
Many, many years ago when I was barely aware of MP3, apart from hearing that it was supposed to be 'terrible', I was given a writeable CD of tracks derived from MP3, proper WAV files in other words - the person apologised for the fact that the sound would be "bad". Well, it sounded pretty good to me, I couldn't pick the "terribleness" - only if I really, really concentrated there were moments when it didn't quite register correctly, almost exactly like a crackle or pop while playing vinyl, 😛. But overall it did exactly what audio replay should do, convey an involving musical message - what was the fuss, I wondered ... 😕, 🙂
Many, many years ago when I was barely aware of MP3, apart from hearing that it was supposed to be 'terrible', I was given a writeable CD of tracks derived from MP3, proper WAV files in other words - the person apologised for the fact that the sound would be "bad". Well, it sounded pretty good to me, I couldn't pick the "terribleness" - only if I really, really concentrated there were moments when it didn't quite register correctly, almost exactly like a crackle or pop while playing vinyl, 😛. But overall it did exactly what audio replay should do, convey an involving musical message - what was the fuss, I wondered ... 😕, 🙂
Yes, that my next project if I can get Audioholics to back me. I think that will be determined by how much heat we both get over this article:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...-8-owners-did-you-know-denon.html#post3704311
If I can't get audioholics, I'm trying to find an academic resource to back the experiment. I work at a University, but we're not strong in engineering I'd probably have to find a psych or music faculty to back me. I may take it down the road to the engineering University, but I'll probably need to work with them to identify the physical principles claimed to be at work in the Synergistic products before they'd be willing to back an experiment design. It would come with a ton more validity, but it would be about 20x the work.
"Just wanted to pop in here on this thread to remind you gentlemen that in addition to our full line of interconnects, Synergistic and Flybee devices, we also carry an extensive array of male enhancement products."
Arty Toupe
Napolean Audio and Cable
Arty Toupe
Napolean Audio and Cable
YouTube - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This lists the audio and video rates that Youtube allows and uses. Resampling to an "ideal" format isn't going to improve any file that is already lower in bit rate than the file you resample to. It doesn't work that way. Yes some MP3 files can sound very good, that's what Hydrogenaudio.org has proven for many years now doing real ABX comparisons. What I was talking about earlier of course was the fact you can't judge what the person in the room was hearing compared to how it sounds on Youtube.
Last edited:
I don't see why revealing yet more overpriced, hardly any engineered audio product would cause you and Audioholics any heat. I applaud you both for forthcoming with this announcement. Where they came up with the $18,000 price tag must have been determined by how badly the owner wanted a new sailboat 😛
At the very least doing a series of SBT or DBT on the HFTs would be beneficial and very revealing no doubt 😉
Some friends of mine had a couple of gallons of submarine paint - I think they scored it at naval base in Washington. Supposed to reduce noise in subs. We were going to try it inside speakers but never did. Can't remember what it was called. IIRC it was black.
You'd like it to be red ?
Submarine paint includes anti-fouling components, fouling generates turbulence, turbulence creates noise.
The layer of acoustic tiles on a submarine's outer skin absorbs noise, the paint lowers the level of noise created.
(All underwater paints for navy vessels are a combination of corrosion protection and anti-fouling coating. Submarines receive the HD special, as they are docked less frequently for a cut and a shave. Subs are easy to dry-dock, I've been on one who came and went within 24hrs for a minor rudder repair job, but they're supposed to be on the move)
Submarine paint includes anti-fouling components, fouling generates turbulence, turbulence creates noise.
The layer of acoustic tiles on a submarine's outer skin absorbs noise, the paint lowers the level of noise created.
(All underwater paints for navy vessels are a combination of corrosion protection and anti-fouling coating. Submarines receive the HD special, as they are docked less frequently for a cut and a shave. Subs are easy to dry-dock, I've been on one who came and went within 24hrs for a minor rudder repair job, but they're supposed to be on the move)
Last edited:
There are paints with damping properties, viscoelastic behaviour - that will reduce resonances that may impact parts behaviour.
All you are doing is adding zeros. Once encoded, you are screwed. I will say this, 44.1/16 uncompressed wave is just about all ever needed for high res 99% of all music, though you can get down to the noise floor sometimes especially classical. I've never even been close. 128-192 mp3 and aac for example has phasey sounding crap on any sustained HF. I've been fooled by 320s a lot.
People will dispute this, but altering the sample rate does 'improve' the sound, very specifically in the treble - depending upon everything. I've gone through this exercise many dozens of times in the PC setup I use for these listening comparisons, and it's as "easy" to hear as the other things people are mentioning at the moment ...
Why is this? Because, the replay hardware isn't 'perfect', it just works better when fed with material at certain, typically higher rates - when I examine a feed from YouTube I usually try for the best quality, which is often AAC 192 - audibly transparent for most people, and most material. Depending on what I'm looking to do, I may upsample that to 24/384, for an audible benefit for myself.
The best 'judge' in the room is the microphone, it's making no subjective assessment of what the sound is 'like'. As Tom Danley points out, an excellent way of really finding how good a speaker, or system is, is to record its output with a microphone and replay that through the same speaker - he finds most, other setups pretty poor by that test ...
If you watch a YouTube of someone playing a real piano, and the immediately after, in the same clip, a recording of a piano being played, then you have a reference of how it should come across. That's the sort of technique one can use to make judgements.
Well, it's not adding zeros, it increasing the number of samples that the DAC has fed to it within any time frame. But I'm interested in what 192 AAC may muck up - can you point to a specific bit of music, or instrument sample, where it gets it wrong.
Thanks,
Nope, its my biz, I fight this daily. Once encoded to s lossy format, its over. Flac, Ape and Apple lossless are non loss compression. I'm not going to argue this its well known. I suggest the Fraunhofer site for study, It's all done with algos that take advantage of the masking effect, and it is audible much of the time at low bit rates, Cymbals and sibulants will clue you in if you listen hard.
Yes, but what bit rate is too low? Is 192 AAC too low? If I get a CD quality sample of a cymbals only workout, will I detect 192 AAC encoding and decoding?
I think it will depend on the music, the person and the gear. This for certain, for better or worse efficient speakers are really good at showing that particular distortion up. There are a lot of 320s I can't tell. Most 128s with a lot of HF I can spot and some 192 are ok some not. It really does depend but its
my job to try to keep the standard, so I don't use encoding for listening
my job to try to keep the standard, so I don't use encoding for listening
lossless format- if the packed file is unpacked back to wav, compared to original it is 1:1 same
in total commander you can compare two files by content
in total commander you can compare two files by content
300Kbps MP3 sounds very close to FLAC to my ears, most of the time I cant tell the difference.
192Kbps and bellow sounds bad, especially with piano. Even worse through high res headphones.
I always use EAC & FLAC to rip files from my CD's, both programs are free to download and the results sound great. EAC removes the vast majority of read errors and music compressed to FLAC sounds no different from the uncompressed original file. Played using Media Jukebox 14 (also a free version download) through a decent USB DAC, I have no further use for a CD player. I sold my REGA Apollo after hearing this setup. A lot of work in ripping them all so I have everything backed up just in case. No more CD's all over the house is a great thing and it's so easy to find all my digital music, I wont go back now that's for sure.
192Kbps and bellow sounds bad, especially with piano. Even worse through high res headphones.
I always use EAC & FLAC to rip files from my CD's, both programs are free to download and the results sound great. EAC removes the vast majority of read errors and music compressed to FLAC sounds no different from the uncompressed original file. Played using Media Jukebox 14 (also a free version download) through a decent USB DAC, I have no further use for a CD player. I sold my REGA Apollo after hearing this setup. A lot of work in ripping them all so I have everything backed up just in case. No more CD's all over the house is a great thing and it's so easy to find all my digital music, I wont go back now that's for sure.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.