amazing miracle device
 

So the makers claim!, seems to decode wav and FLAC files to better than
CD
quality;!....


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5212396.stm
--
Tony Sayer

amazing miracle device
 

In my view, anything that attempts to kill off that pervasive disease that
is .mp3 must be good.

"The $1,999 (£1,079) player is aimed at people who encode music using
so-called lossless formats, such as Flac or Wav."

I have no idea what Flac is but .wav is not encoded (it is a bit for bit
digital copy) and therefore lossless. It is raw data (isn't it?).

"Audiophiles are investing a lot of money to rip their files at more than
simple 128kbps MP3."

Are they? I wouldn't have thought so. Surely an audiophile would want to
remain in the digital domain as far as possible.
If .mp3 is required 'for the gym', an encoder hardly requires 'investing a
lot of money'.

"Flac and Wav are the favoured formats of many digital audiophiles because
they retain all the information on a CD when converted or transferred into
digital or non-physical form."

The article corrects itself. Now .wav does 'retain all the information'
rather than being 'so-called lossless'. What is meant by 'converted or
transferred into digital'? There is no conversion - it remains digital.

At £1,079, it seems rather expensive for a DAC - that's all it is. Am I
missing something?

Ummm, I wonder how they can extract more information than there is present
on the CD. Ah, I am missing something!

Paul



"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

So the makers claim!, seems to decode wav and FLAC files to better than
CD
quality;!....


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5212396.stm
--
Tony Sayer

amazing miracle device
 

"Paul" wrote in message
...
In my view, anything that attempts to kill off that pervasive disease that
is .mp3 must be good.

"The $1,999 (£1,079) player is aimed at people who encode music using
so-called lossless formats, such as Flac or Wav."

I have no idea what Flac is but .wav is not encoded (it is a bit for bit
digital copy) and therefore lossless. It is raw data (isn't it?).

"Audiophiles are investing a lot of money to rip their files at more than
simple 128kbps MP3."

Are they? I wouldn't have thought so. Surely an audiophile would want to
remain in the digital domain as far as possible.



They would??

Ask all the 'I hate vinyl, but I prefer FM' audiophiles here! :-)

Anyway, WTF is MP3 if not in the 'digital domain'.....???

amazing miracle device
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Paul" wrote in message
...
In my view, anything that attempts to kill off that pervasive disease
that is .mp3 must be good.

"The $1,999 (£1,079) player is aimed at people who encode music using
so-called lossless formats, such as Flac or Wav."

I have no idea what Flac is but .wav is not encoded (it is a bit for bit
digital copy) and therefore lossless. It is raw data (isn't it?).

"Audiophiles are investing a lot of money to rip their files at more than
simple 128kbps MP3."

Are they? I wouldn't have thought so. Surely an audiophile would want to
remain in the digital domain as far as possible.



They would??

Yes they would, but I suspect your definition of 'audiophile' differs from
mine :)
Now, without having any desire to be argumentative, I see little evidence of
'audiophile' activity in this ng.
I closely link 'audiophile' with 'Hi-Fidelity'. While I am not having a go
(and will not be drawn into a senseless slanging match so much favoured
here), there is no evidence of any interest in Hi-FI.
It appears to me that this ng is for those with an interest in audio
hardware as a hobby. Absolutely nothing wrong with that but, as far as I am
concerned, this is not the pursuit of an audiophile. An audiophile is only
interested in Hi-Fi. End of story. He/she has not the least interest in how
it is achieved (while wearing their audiophile hat).

Ask all the 'I hate vinyl, but I prefer FM' audiophiles here! :-)
Sorry, I had a late night! I have no idea what you are getting at! However,
when I come across a sentence (in an audio context) containing the word
'vinyl' I know I need read no further.

Anyway, WTF is MP3 if not in the 'digital domain'.....???
Sorry again. That's my fault. Yes it is digital. However, my reference to
'digital domain' refers to pure audio data.
As I'm sure you will know, MP3 is about as removed from pure audio data as
you can get and still have (some) data. Microsoft Word is in the digital
domain but you wouldn't sit and listen to it (would you?) so why assault
your ears with MP3 crap?

Paul

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Paul wrote:
Yes they would, but I suspect your definition of 'audiophile' differs
from mine :) Now, without having any desire to be argumentative, I see
little evidence of 'audiophile' activity in this ng. I closely link
'audiophile' with 'Hi-Fidelity'. While I am not having a go (and will
not be drawn into a senseless slanging match so much favoured here),
there is no evidence of any interest in Hi-FI. It appears to me that
this ng is for those with an interest in audio hardware as a hobby.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that but, as far as I am concerned, this
is not the pursuit of an audiophile. An audiophile is only interested
in Hi-Fi. End of story. He/she has not the least interest in how it is
achieved (while wearing their audiophile hat).

For many on here it seems to be a life's work to try and convert true
audio enthusiasts back to vinyl, poorly designed valve amps and crappy
horn loaded single driver speakers. Can't think why, but there we are.
Probably stems from severe hearing impairment.

--
*Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

amazing miracle device
 

"Paul" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Paul" wrote in message
...
In my view, anything that attempts to kill off that pervasive disease
that is .mp3 must be good.

"The $1,999 (£1,079) player is aimed at people who encode music using
so-called lossless formats, such as Flac or Wav."

I have no idea what Flac is but .wav is not encoded (it is a bit for
bit digital copy) and therefore lossless. It is raw data (isn't it?).

"Audiophiles are investing a lot of money to rip their files at more
than simple 128kbps MP3."

Are they? I wouldn't have thought so. Surely an audiophile would want to
remain in the digital domain as far as possible.



They would??

Yes they would, but I suspect your definition of 'audiophile' differs from
mine :)


Probably....


Now, without having any desire to be argumentative, I see little evidence
of 'audiophile' activity in this ng.


OK, so it's not looking *all* bad then...?? :-)


I closely link 'audiophile' with 'Hi-Fidelity'.


I've no idea, but I suspect there's a few here who would take issue with
that....


While I am not having a go
(and will not be drawn into a senseless slanging match so much favoured
here),


Why not? You might enjoy it! ;-)


there is no evidence of any interest in Hi-FI.
It appears to me that this ng is for those with an interest in audio
hardware as a hobby. Absolutely nothing wrong with that but, as far as I
am concerned, this is not the pursuit of an audiophile. An audiophile is
only interested in Hi-Fi. End of story. He/she has not the least interest
in how it is achieved (while wearing their audiophile hat).


No, you lost me there....



Ask all the 'I hate vinyl, but I prefer FM' audiophiles here! :-)
Sorry, I had a late night! I have no idea what you are getting at!
However, when I come across a sentence (in an audio context) containing
the word 'vinyl' I know I need read no further.


And yet you did....??

;-)

See:



Anyway, WTF is MP3 if not in the 'digital domain'.....???
Sorry again. That's my fault. Yes it is digital. However, my reference to
'digital domain' refers to pure audio data.


????


As I'm sure you will know, MP3 is about as removed from pure audio data as
you can get


????


and still have (some) data.


????


Microsoft Word is in the digital
domain but you wouldn't sit and listen to it (would you?) so why assault
your ears with MP3 crap?


Er, because you're sitting on a bus and the turntable keeps sliding off your
lap....???

OK. Lemme relieve you of some of your burden....

There are some people in this world who like to eat caterpillars - great big
4 and 5 inch buggers! (They whirl them round smartly to flick the poo out of
'em first, I gather!) Anyway, I hafta say I'm not tempted myself, but they
say they love 'em and some say they prefer them to Macdonalds, they think
they are *better*!

I say *fine* - chow down and enjoy!!

:-)

It takes all sorts and the world would be a poorer place without them -
likewise, take the vinylphiles (me) out of this group and it'll be nobbut
DBTs, 'DAB stinks' and Cable Wars all the way....

Is that what you would like?

amazing miracle device
 

"Keith G" wrote


OK, make that:

It takes all sorts and the world would be a poorer place without them -
likewise, take the *MP3ers* and vinylphiles (me) out of this group and
it'll be nobbut DBTs, 'DAB stinks' and Cable Wars all the way....

Is that what you would like?


IOW this an audio group, not a *some audio only* group, IMO.....

amazing miracle device
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Paul" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Paul" wrote in message
...
In my view, anything that attempts to kill off that pervasive disease
that is .mp3 must be good.

"The $1,999 (£1,079) player is aimed at people who encode music using
so-called lossless formats, such as Flac or Wav."

I have no idea what Flac is but .wav is not encoded (it is a bit for
bit digital copy) and therefore lossless. It is raw data (isn't it?).

"Audiophiles are investing a lot of money to rip their files at more
than simple 128kbps MP3."

Are they? I wouldn't have thought so. Surely an audiophile would want
to remain in the digital domain as far as possible.



They would??

Yes they would, but I suspect your definition of 'audiophile' differs
from mine :)


Probably....


Now, without having any desire to be argumentative, I see little evidence
of 'audiophile' activity in this ng.


OK, so it's not looking *all* bad then...?? :-)


I closely link 'audiophile' with 'Hi-Fidelity'.


I've no idea, but I suspect there's a few here who would take issue with
that....
QED!!!!!!


While I am not having a go
(and will not be drawn into a senseless slanging match so much favoured
here),


Why not? You might enjoy it! ;-)
I'd rather spend the time listening to music :) However, I can perhaps see
that good healthy sparring could be enjoyable up to a point but, looking
back through the posts here, I have no wish to be a party to a 'discussion'
that degenerates (very quickly) into a foul mouthed tirade. Maybe I'm over
reacting. I'm no prude and I too have a very comprehensive arsenal of words
that I would not use in polite company at my disposal but honestly, what is
the point? Does it help anyone? When you see a post from somebody who
clearly is looking for advice/help/guidance have his or her post hijacked
and turned into one of those 'events' I have to wonder what the hell is
going on.


there is no evidence of any interest in Hi-FI.
It appears to me that this ng is for those with an interest in audio
hardware as a hobby. Absolutely nothing wrong with that but, as far as I
am concerned, this is not the pursuit of an audiophile. An audiophile is
only interested in Hi-Fi. End of story. He/she has not the least interest
in how it is achieved (while wearing their audiophile hat).


No, you lost me there....
? I think that is crystal!



Ask all the 'I hate vinyl, but I prefer FM' audiophiles here! :-)
Sorry, I had a late night! I have no idea what you are getting at!
However, when I come across a sentence (in an audio context) containing
the word 'vinyl' I know I need read no further.


And yet you did....??

;-)

I did??? I've read the op and my reply and cannot find 'vinyl' anywhere.
Perhaps my night was later than I thought!
I don't hate that word (I have some) but it is simply not Hi-Fi. I know it
and I believe you know it too.

See:



Anyway, WTF is MP3 if not in the 'digital domain'.....???
Sorry again. That's my fault. Yes it is digital. However, my reference to
'digital domain' refers to pure audio data.


????


As I'm sure you will know, MP3 is about as removed from pure audio data
as you can get


????


and still have (some) data.


????


Microsoft Word is in the digital
domain but you wouldn't sit and listen to it (would you?) so why assault
your ears with MP3 crap?


Er, because you're sitting on a bus and the turntable keeps sliding off
your lap....???
Ah, so you're the one that incessantly bombards my ears with bloody cymbals
:)
I was right then. This ng has nothing to do with Hi-Fi. I'll look for
another ng.


OK. Lemme relieve you of some of your burden....

There are some people in this world who like to eat caterpillars - great
big 4 and 5 inch buggers! (They whirl them round smartly to flick the poo
out of 'em first, I gather!) Anyway, I hafta say I'm not tempted myself,
but they say they love 'em and some say they prefer them to Macdonalds,
they think they are *better*!

I say *fine* - chow down and enjoy!!

:-)
Absolutely fine by me but would they try and tell me that that's what I
should eat because it's the only gourmet food? If they said that to you,
wouldn't you take issue with them? I think you have drawn a rather nice
parallel with this ng!!!!!


It takes all sorts and the world would be a poorer place without them -
likewise, take the vinylphiles (me) out of this group and it'll be nobbut
DBTs, 'DAB stinks' and Cable Wars all the way....

Keith, the group is as much yours as anybody's. I hope you continue to
express your views and opinions as long as you have a desire to do so. As
for those who wish to spoon feed me with tripe, well, I can do without that!

Is that what you would like?
I thought I was clear on what I like - High Fidelity!!!!

Ok. Have I been drawn enough :)
It is clear that we differ in many areas of sound reproduction (I can't say
Hi-Fi here can I) and I could go on as I'm sure could you but I would never
convince you any more than you would convince me. We simply know what we
like and that's how it should be. For my part I guess I am a little obsessed
with wringing the last drop of signal, at the highest quality from my
system. Yep, High Fidelity - it sure does it for me. It's just wonderful!!!

PS. I have to admit that you are right - it's good to talk (as long as it's
civil) :)

Finally, Nothing I have written is in anyway intended to cause offence.

Paul

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Paul wrote:
I did??? I've read the op and my reply and cannot find 'vinyl' anywhere.
Perhaps my night was later than I thought! I don't hate that word (I
have some) but it is simply not Hi-Fi. I know it and I believe you know
it too.

There is a dedicated vinyl group uk.rec.audio.vinyl set up by some of
those here. But it's virtually moribund apart from a few spams and ads.
There's no point in trying to take the Gospel to the converted. And it
seems the converted don't want to talk about it.

--
*Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

amazing miracle device
 

Ok. Then I guess I will have to talk about it. :)
To me, the 'vinyl' issue is simple.
We could perform a little experiment.
Here we go...
Take a sound source that can be replicated. Let's use a digital synth
together with a sequencer.
The use of a digital synth rather than an analogue one is simply because an
analogue synth may well not sound the same twice due to temperature and
other variations.
Hopefully, while off topic, most will understand what a sequencer does.
Now play some chords or what ever and record the performance (not the audio)
in the sequencer.
Plug the synth directly into the best cutter available and produce a master.
Use the best virgin vinyl and create a disc.
Now plug the synth directly into a PC or whatever and blah blah create an
audio CD.
Pick a turntable/arm/cart combination of your choice and compare the result
with the synth sequence.
Do the same with the CD and synth sequence.
Game over, job done, end of story.
Elementary(?) physics will enlighten as to why this should be.
When the master was cut, information was lost due to the fact that it is
impossible to move mass (however small) from rest instantly. Inertia - bang
goes transient response. Try and get moving mass to change direction
instantly - bugger, more information lost.
It gets worse (well you knew that). Now we will try and get another body to
'read' the information from the groove. Buzzzzz, repartition! I'm not even
considering the 'damage' caused to the signal by the unstable, pliable disc.
Need I say more? Yes, even more data lost. Mind you, you do get some
addition data - hiss, clicks and pops!
Do the same test with the CD.
Yes, I am well aware that light has mass but please.... Just don't go there!
Which, in all honesty, will sound closest to the original?
I rest my case.

Paul.

PS. I've just realised that I am guilty of hijacking the op - face goes red.




"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Paul wrote:
I did??? I've read the op and my reply and cannot find 'vinyl' anywhere.
Perhaps my night was later than I thought! I don't hate that word (I
have some) but it is simply not Hi-Fi. I know it and I believe you know
it too.

There is a dedicated vinyl group uk.rec.audio.vinyl set up by some of
those here. But it's virtually moribund apart from a few spams and ads.
There's no point in trying to take the Gospel to the converted. And it
seems the converted don't want to talk about it.

--
*Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.