"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Michael Chare" wrote

As an alternative to the Transporter you could use a laptop with a
M2Tech HiFace USB/SPIF converter.

Why specify that particular USB/SPDIF converter?, other converters are
available at lower cost but equal performance.

I just happened to know of it, and I don't know of any alternatives, but I
am happy to improve my knowledge!

It was an example not a recommendation.


It would appear that the HiFi world is moving in this direction. Perhaps
partly for convenience, and because it offers the opportunity to use
better than CD quality digital music.


whilst few people old enough to be able to afford this sort of kit can
hear the full range of frequencies present on a CD, let alone anything
supposedly "better".

Yes I have proved that point, as I found that my daughter could quite easily
distinguish between 16/44 and 24/96 flac music files when played via my
hifi, where as I struggle to do this.


What limits the quality of domestically reproduced music nowadays is the
quality of the original recording, the disc mastering, the loudspeakers
and the acoustic environment of the listening area.

That has been the case for a long time.


--
Michael Chare

In article ,
Michael
Chare wrote:
"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Michael Chare" wrote


whilst few people old enough to be able to afford this sort of kit can
hear the full range of frequencies present on a CD, let alone
anything supposedly "better".

Yes I have proved that point, as I found that my daughter could quite
easily distinguish between 16/44 and 24/96 flac music files when played
via my hifi, where as I struggle to do this.

How was one of the files produced from the other?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article
,
Michael
Chare wrote:
"David Looser" wrote in
message ...
"Michael Chare" wrote


whilst few people old enough to be able to afford this
sort of kit can hear the full range of frequencies
present on a CD, let alone anything supposedly "better".

Yes I have proved that point, as I found that my
daughter could quite easily distinguish between 16/44
and 24/96 flac music files when played via my hifi,
where as I struggle to do this.

How was one of the files produced from the other?

More to the point, how were the issues of time synch, level match, and
listener bias dealt with?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article
,
Michael
Chare wrote:
"David Looser" wrote in
message ...
"Michael Chare" wrote


whilst few people old enough to be able to afford this
sort of kit can hear the full range of frequencies
present on a CD, let alone anything supposedly "better".

Yes I have proved that point, as I found that my
daughter could quite easily distinguish between 16/44
and 24/96 flac music files when played via my hifi,
where as I struggle to do this.

How was one of the files produced from the other?

More to the point, how were the issues of time synch, level match, and
listener bias dealt with?

The two pairs of files that I used play at the same level, and were played
one after the other.

I did not explain what the difference might be or even why there might be a
difference in advance.


--
Michael Chare

"Michael Chare" wrote in
message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article
,
Michael
Chare wrote:
"David Looser" wrote in
message ...
"Michael Chare" wrote


whilst few people old enough to be able to afford this
sort of kit can hear the full range of frequencies
present on a CD, let alone anything supposedly
"better".

Yes I have proved that point, as I found that my
daughter could quite easily distinguish between 16/44
and 24/96 flac music files when played via my hifi,
where as I struggle to do this.

How was one of the files produced from the other?

More to the point, how were the issues of time synch,
level match, and listener bias dealt with?

The two pairs of files that I used play at the same
level, and were played one after the other.

I did not explain what the difference might be or even
why there might be a difference in advance.

Sighted evaluations are well-known to be useless for this kind of
comparisons.

Doing blind tests like thos one is not rocket science - it can be done on
any PC with a audio interface capable of 24/96 using free software that is
on the web. I was just testing a software ABX/ABC/hr comparator that was
written in Java, and therefore can run on any machine that supports the Sun
R6 Java run time support - which is an enormous range of operating systems
from Win7 to Mac to *nix.

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Michael
Chare wrote:
"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Michael Chare" wrote


whilst few people old enough to be able to afford this sort of kit can
hear the full range of frequencies present on a CD, let alone
anything supposedly "better".

Yes I have proved that point, as I found that my daughter could quite
easily distinguish between 16/44 and 24/96 flac music files when played
via my hifi, where as I struggle to do this.

How was one of the files produced from the other?


In the brief test I used two pairs of sample files downloaded from the Naim
website.

I just asked my daughter if she could hear any difference, and then to
explain the difference that she heard.


--
Michael Chare

In article , Michael
Chare wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Michael Chare wrote:
"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Michael Chare" wrote


whilst few people old enough to be able to afford this sort of kit
can hear the full range of frequencies present on a CD, let alone
anything supposedly "better".

Yes I have proved that point, as I found that my daughter could quite
easily distinguish between 16/44 and 24/96 flac music files when
played via my hifi, where as I struggle to do this.

How was one of the files produced from the other?


In the brief test I used two pairs of sample files downloaded from the
Naim website.

So I assume that you don't know how one was produced from the other in each
case. (I am also assuming the 'pairs' were from the same source recording.)

IIRC At least one person has analysed versions of such recordings and shown
that they have measurable differences that aren't due to a change of sample
rate or sample depth. Instead due to the producers deciding to "not level
compress the 'hi rez' version as much as the 'cd' one" or similar.

Hence in such cases a difference can easily be measured, and may be
audible, but actually tell you nothing about the difference in sample rate
or resolution being a 'cause' for said differences.

I just asked my daughter if she could hear any difference, and then to
explain the difference that she heard.

This tells you that she thought she heard a difference. But it doesn't give
you any clue to if there was any difference due to the difference in sample
rates or bit-depths.

Are the Naim files you refer to available freely? If so I'd be interested
in examining them sometime.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


In the brief test I used two pairs of sample files downloaded from the
Naim website.

So I assume that you don't know how one was produced from the other in
each
case. (I am also assuming the 'pairs' were from the same source
recording.)

Yes, and I also made the same assumption.



IIRC At least one person has analysed versions of such recordings and
shown
that they have measurable differences that aren't due to a change of
sample
rate or sample depth. Instead due to the producers deciding to "not level
compress the 'hi rez' version as much as the 'cd' one" or similar.

Hence in such cases a difference can easily be measured, and may be
audible, but actually tell you nothing about the difference in sample rate
or resolution being a 'cause' for said differences.

I just asked my daughter if she could hear any difference, and then to
explain the difference that she heard.


Her description of the difference made me think that she was hearing a
difference in the bit rate.


This tells you that she thought she heard a difference. But it doesn't
give
you any clue to if there was any difference due to the difference in
sample
rates or bit-depths.

Are the Naim files you refer to available freely? If so I'd be interested
in examining them sometime.


Yes, freely available from http://www.naimlabel.com/

Let us know your thoughts!


--
Michael Chare

"Michael Chare" wrote in
message
o.uk
\
Are the Naim files you refer to available freely? If so
I'd be interested in examining them sometime.


Yes, freely available from http://www.naimlabel.com/

Let us know your thoughts!

Which files?

In article ,
Michael
Chare wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


Hence in such cases a difference can easily be measured, and may be
audible, but actually tell you nothing about the difference in sample
rate or resolution being a 'cause' for said differences.

I just asked my daughter if she could hear any difference, and then
to explain the difference that she heard.


Her description of the difference made me think that she was hearing a
difference in the bit rate.

OK. The difficulty with that is that it is essentially basing your
conclusion on a series of assumptions. Could easily have been some other
factor.


Are the Naim files you refer to available freely? If so I'd be
interested in examining them sometime.


Yes, freely available from http://www.naimlabel.com/

Let us know your thoughts!

Well, don't hold you breath waiting as it may well be ages before my 'round
tuit' arrives! :-)

And as Arny has asked, can you say which particular files you (and your
daughter) compared? Might be best if I tried those if I can.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html