Welcome to the IHoP v.2

[nem 2,019]

National Bench Day!!!

[Godsmack 361]

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/05/pono-neil-young-24bit-192khz-review

Neil Young is a great musician. Well, I've enjoyed a few of his songs, and plenty of people have enjoyed lots more of them – enough to give him a decades-spanning career in the music business.

I'm not sure, though, that this quite qualifies him to tangle with mathematicians waving Nyquist-Shannon's theorem, who are lining up to tell him his Pono music player – which crashed through its $800,000 Kickstarter finance-raising target within a day of being announced – won't actually give people (14,600 backers pledging nearly $5m so far) the benefits they hope for.

Pono is the latest in a long line of attempts to give people "high-quality" recorded audio. It will be able to play music that has been digitised in 24-bit audio sampled at 192 kilohertz (kHz), rather than the 16-bit 44.1kHz audio that CDs use. If you remember the ill-fated DVD-audio and SACD discs of a decade ago, you'll know this song already. Barely anyone pays for such high-quality digital audio, because they can't hear the difference from the medium-quality variety.

the kickstarter is at $5.5m with 8 days left. ridiculous. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1003614822/ponomusic-where-your-soul-rediscovers-music

My understanding is he wanted a player that was better than MP3. I sure as shit can tell an mp3 from a CD with my good headphones or my Martin Logan's. The Logan's are particularly cruel to production and compression.

They make some of my most nostalgic albums sound like flat shit because of it.

Just cruel cruel speakers.

The flip side is, some of those really well recorded albums have so much hidden content that they sound remastered compared to listening on junk speakers.

Its insane how much proper equipment can change what you experience.

J

[dem beats 1,223]

So.... I lost all my tax paperwork somewhere.

[dem beats 1,223]

That's fucking super.

[nem 2,019]

   

[sandt38 448]

And fuck me.  Had to turn down three different ladies tonight. 

 

Visiting the academy for the blind again?

[dem beats 1,223]

Lulz

[Aaron Clinton 2,372]

So.... I lost all my tax paperwork somewhere.

 

Shit balls.  The amount of paper work I have to keep track of and sumbit for SSA and personal taxes is just unreal.

[///M5 2,833]

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/05/pono-neil-young-24bit-192khz-review

Neil Young is a great musician. Well, I've enjoyed a few of his songs, and plenty of people have enjoyed lots more of them – enough to give him a decades-spanning career in the music business.

I'm not sure, though, that this quite qualifies him to tangle with mathematicians waving Nyquist-Shannon's theorem, who are lining up to tell him his Pono music player – which crashed through its $800,000 Kickstarter finance-raising target within a day of being announced – won't actually give people (14,600 backers pledging nearly $5m so far) the benefits they hope for.

Pono is the latest in a long line of attempts to give people "high-quality" recorded audio. It will be able to play music that has been digitised in 24-bit audio sampled at 192 kilohertz (kHz), rather than the 16-bit 44.1kHz audio that CDs use. If you remember the ill-fated DVD-audio and SACD discs of a decade ago, you'll know this song already. Barely anyone pays for such high-quality digital audio, because they can't hear the difference from the medium-quality variety.

the kickstarter is at $5.5m with 8 days left. ridiculous.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1003614822/ponomusic-where-your-soul-rediscovers-music

My understanding is he wanted a player that was better than MP3. I sure as shit can tell an mp3 from a CD with my good headphones or my Martin Logan's. The Logan's are particularly cruel to production and compression.

They make some of my most nostalgic albums sound like flat shit because of it.

Just cruel cruel speakers.

The flip side is, some of those really well recorded albums have so much hidden content that they sound remastered compared to listening on junk speakers.

can't tell a 320 I'd bet money on it.

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

[dem beats 1,223]

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/05/pono-neil-young-24bit-192khz-review

Neil Young is a great musician. Well, I've enjoyed a few of his songs, and plenty of people have enjoyed lots more of them – enough to give him a decades-spanning career in the music business.

I'm not sure, though, that this quite qualifies him to tangle with mathematicians waving Nyquist-Shannon's theorem, who are lining up to tell him his Pono music player – which crashed through its $800,000 Kickstarter finance-raising target within a day of being announced – won't actually give people (14,600 backers pledging nearly $5m so far) the benefits they hope for.

Pono is the latest in a long line of attempts to give people "high-quality" recorded audio. It will be able to play music that has been digitised in 24-bit audio sampled at 192 kilohertz (kHz), rather than the 16-bit 44.1kHz audio that CDs use. If you remember the ill-fated DVD-audio and SACD discs of a decade ago, you'll know this song already. Barely anyone pays for such high-quality digital audio, because they can't hear the difference from the medium-quality variety.

the kickstarter is at $5.5m with 8 days left. ridiculous.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1003614822/ponomusic-where-your-soul-rediscovers-music

My understanding is he wanted a player that was better than MP3. I sure as shit can tell an mp3 from a CD with my good headphones or my Martin Logan's. The Logan's are particularly cruel to production and compression.

They make some of my most nostalgic albums sound like flat shit because of it.

Just cruel cruel speakers.

The flip side is, some of those really well recorded albums have so much hidden content that they sound remastered compared to listening on junk speakers.

can't tell a 320 I'd bet money on it.

Is that the common standard now?

Last time I downloaded an MP3 it was wild to see it at 128 bit rate.

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

[dem beats 1,223]

So.... I lost all my tax paperwork somewhere.

Shit balls. The amount of paper work I have to keep track of and sumbit for SSA and personal taxes is just unreal.

I'm going to incorporate this year. I'm loosing my ass in taxes and can claim nothing.

[dem beats 1,223]

So.... I lost all my tax paperwork somewhere.

Shit balls. The amount of paper work I have to keep track of and sumbit for SSA and personal taxes is just unreal.

I'm going to incorporate this year. I'm loosing my ass in taxes and can claim nothing.

[///M5 2,833]

 

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/05/pono-neil-young-24bit-192khz-review

Neil Young is a great musician. Well, I've enjoyed a few of his songs, and plenty of people have enjoyed lots more of them – enough to give him a decades-spanning career in the music business.

I'm not sure, though, that this quite qualifies him to tangle with mathematicians waving Nyquist-Shannon's theorem, who are lining up to tell him his Pono music player – which crashed through its $800,000 Kickstarter finance-raising target within a day of being announced – won't actually give people (14,600 backers pledging nearly $5m so far) the benefits they hope for.

Pono is the latest in a long line of attempts to give people "high-quality" recorded audio. It will be able to play music that has been digitised in 24-bit audio sampled at 192 kilohertz (kHz), rather than the 16-bit 44.1kHz audio that CDs use. If you remember the ill-fated DVD-audio and SACD discs of a decade ago, you'll know this song already. Barely anyone pays for such high-quality digital audio, because they can't hear the difference from the medium-quality variety.

the kickstarter is at $5.5m with 8 days left. ridiculous.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1003614822/ponomusic-where-your-soul-rediscovers-music

My understanding is he wanted a player that was better than MP3. I sure as shit can tell an mp3 from a CD with my good headphones or my Martin Logan's. The Logan's are particularly cruel to production and compression.

They make some of my most nostalgic albums sound like flat shit because of it.

Just cruel cruel speakers.

The flip side is, some of those really well recorded albums have so much hidden content that they sound remastered compared to listening on junk speakers.

can't tell a 320 I'd bet money on it.

Is that the common standard now?

Last time I downloaded an MP3 it was wild to see it at 128 bit rate.

 

I've never downloaded a song so don't ask me, just telling you what I'd rip at.  Actually I don't think you'll even hear 192, but there are exceptions to that rule.  Blind a/b really shows how bad our ears are

[///M5 2,833]

Spent all day using digital ears.  Playing with the Acoustic Camera.  Found 1mm holes in wind turbine blades with nearly no excitation energy.  Might have to have some fun when I MLV my doors  Can you say NO leaks

[///M5 2,833]

Get to go to one of the big three, a major tier 1, an electric car manufacturer, a portable electronics company, and an aerospace company with it this week as well.  Yay, airplane.

[sandt38 448]

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/05/pono-neil-young-24bit-192khz-review

Neil Young is a great musician. Well, I've enjoyed a few of his songs, and plenty of people have enjoyed lots more of them – enough to give him a decades-spanning career in the music business.

I'm not sure, though, that this quite qualifies him to tangle with mathematicians waving Nyquist-Shannon's theorem, who are lining up to tell him his Pono music player – which crashed through its $800,000 Kickstarter finance-raising target within a day of being announced – won't actually give people (14,600 backers pledging nearly $5m so far) the benefits they hope for.

Pono is the latest in a long line of attempts to give people "high-quality" recorded audio. It will be able to play music that has been digitised in 24-bit audio sampled at 192 kilohertz (kHz), rather than the 16-bit 44.1kHz audio that CDs use. If you remember the ill-fated DVD-audio and SACD discs of a decade ago, you'll know this song already. Barely anyone pays for such high-quality digital audio, because they can't hear the difference from the medium-quality variety.

the kickstarter is at $5.5m with 8 days left. ridiculous.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1003614822/ponomusic-where-your-soul-rediscovers-music

My understanding is he wanted a player that was better than MP3. I sure as shit can tell an mp3 from a CD with my good headphones or my Martin Logan's. The Logan's are particularly cruel to production and compression.

They make some of my most nostalgic albums sound like flat shit because of it.

Just cruel cruel speakers.

The flip side is, some of those really well recorded albums have so much hidden content that they sound remastered compared to listening on junk speakers.

can't tell a 320 I'd bet money on it.

 

 

My wife could. Through a Butler 475, Hertz Milles, Cadance, and Adire Koda 10s she said she couldn't put a finger on it, but it sounded more "real". Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here.

[sandt38 448]

It has been debated rather hotly for years, and now it has become pretty much accepted that MP3 and sound quality do not mix. But why is it? Why do some people hear so much loss in their systems and others don’t? Are my old ears really better then someone 30 years my junior? Someone who still has a large amount of their hearing range left, while mine has deteriorated over the years should be able to hear these losses better then I!

I started with home tower speakers in the back seat of my old Delta88 back in the days when we had no real systems, and we still had post mounted tape decks and 8-tracks. Then times changed, and we started putting in tape decks with trunk mounted CD cartridge changers with $60 coaxials and $50 amplifiers and maybe a bazooka tube subwoofer for those of us with “discriminating” tastes. Eventually I wanted to just go boom and spent money on several thousand watts and some monster excursion subs. Then we learned about XBL2 and how these high output subwoofers could be very accurate. Finally I finished my journey with $1200 component speakers and $1000 amplifiers, all filled in at the bottom with very capable sound quality based subs dialed way back. My journey started out as just wanting to get some sounds, to wanting to get loud, to wanting to sound good.

Now that I have found a really nice sound quality install, my music seemed to really lack. I have been using MP3 for years, but eventually I started looking for higher bit-rate MP3s, and now I am at a level where only .flac or .wav or other lossless files suit my tastes. I have listened very critically to how the advancement of definition brought about by higher quality speakers and amplification, and source caused my MP3 listening experience, no matter the bit-rate to become bland, and I really felt more of the emotion brought out in music by using lossless formats in my car.

But then I asked myself, “Why does my lossless not only sound better, but seem to bring about a more emotional experience?” So I started to learn about how lossy formats work, and how they can stick so much information in such a small space.

Let’s discuss music reproduction first, so we can get an understanding of what we are listening to. All we are listening to is really a reproduction of an instrument or a voice, and to simplify this writing I will include the vocals as the instrument as well. Musical reproduction is usually characterized as fundamentals, harmonics (and as I will discuss below, low fundamentals can be included in this grouping), and finally overblow, breath, or air. The very heart of these sounds are called fundamentals. The fundamentals, are what I call meat and potatoes or music, are the essentials of the reproduction. They are what the instrument actually delivers, directly. But then we have carry over, which are termed harmonics. These are not as much a base of the delivery of the instrument, as they are an extension of it. You might also see the lower frequency carry overs dubbed as a “low fundamental”, as they are more apparent in low frequencies, where they tend to be less noticed in higher pitches. I like to call this the emotion of the music. Finally you have overblow, which is usually only noticed in wind instruments and vocals. I personally like to classify this as emotion as well, and therefore will include them as a group when I say emotion or harmonics.

While it takes a trained ear to listen for image and stage presentation, younger people with a naturally better range can hear losses in the “emotional” frequencies or the harmonics of the sound easier than us old fogies. So why is it that those of us who are older tend to hear these losses better then the young folks? I would dare to venture that it is simply because we tend to have more money invested in our component systems (and when I say system, I mean everything from source material, source equipment, sound processing, amplifiers, speakers, and installation techniques) with a higher definition then the younger folks who are running a simple inexpensive component system install. This is not to say our systems are better for all purposes, as I will discuss in this writing. In fact, for the vast majority of folks, a lower definition system makes more sense, as many are more concerned with the ease of storage media and they tend to use MP3 or other lossy formats. When we have these high definition systems, many of the weaknesses inherent in lossy encoding really jump out glaringly.

So, sandt38, what is it that we really listen to? Well, the human brain perceives and retains everything it sees, hears, thinks, etc. It is actually an amazing organ that captures far more then we are able to drag out of it. We simply do not have all the doorways opened up in the brain, so we forget, or don’t notice many of the things that we actually perceive. The mind actually only directly notices the loudest things we hear. So while there may be several instruments may be reproducing the same frequency at the same time, we only perceive the loudest of this information we actually hear. We ignore the other lower volumes of the same frequencies, but we still hear it. Our mind processes this information but determines that it is not that important so it will file it away in that subconscious part of the brain we do not actually consciously notice.

So let’s look at how these MP3 encoders work. In order to save space, an MP3 encoder usually selects certain information to discard, and other information to retain. The most common method of MP3 encoding functions similarly to how we perceive the music. Just like our brain, it ignores the lower volumes of the same frequencies, and all it retains it the higher volume material at that frequency. We fill in the rest subconsciously. Please be aware that many encoders eliminate only certain lower frequencies altogether, but they variably retain the higher volume information up to a certain point. For example, the encoder may retain ½ of the information at a certain frequency. But it will retain the higher volumes at a greater rate. While these are not the only methods of encoding MP3s, they are the most common.

So you see, by considering the way the encoder works we can get an idea of what happens to the music we listen to. The fundamentals tend to get retained, while the harmonics tend to be lost. So we lose the emotion, which is why MP3s sound so bland on systems with very high quality components.

Now, there are other things to consider when it comes to MP3 compression. Bit-rates, and not only the rate, but variable or constant bit-rates, are the biggest consideration here. Very quickly, the higher the listed bit-rate, the more information that is saved, and therefore the better the quality. But to be frank, these don’t alter what occurs with the music. Yes, these higher bitrates do sound much better, but there is still something that is lost.

So what can we gather about speaker selection from our source material? Well, we can help decide whether it is really worth it for us to spend $1000 on components, or if a $200 set will suffice. I am not trying to say that if you spend a grand on a set of components it will automatically be a better set then a $500 set. My mention of pricing basically assumes a basic cost/quality ratio. Clearly a $200 set of Sony Xplod coaxial speakers is nowhere near as good as a $180 Image Dynamics CTX65CS component set. So take these generalizations to assume a similar cost/quality ratio. The high dollar sets that you see out there are far more true to source then the lower priced units. This is a good thing if the source material is pristine. But if your source is not that great, these more accurate speakers will start to sound like crap. It isn’t the speakers that suck, it is the material you are putting through it. But when we get down into the lower dollar sets, these weaknesses are not quite so apparent.

I do want to point out this article, no matter how poorly the whole test was conducted the results still prove my point. The guy used some of the most awful source and speaker combinations. Why you would ask people to listen for nuances using a $200 receiver and a $200 subwoofer and satellite set using 5 3.5 inch full range units is beyond me. Sheer idiocy. But the end results are very significant, the differences between MP3s and lossless were detected by all listeners in the test.

All this considered, please keep a few other things in mind. I cannot stress the importance the rest of your signal chain has on the final product. The higher end speakers will also show off weaknesses in them as well. Be prepared to make some really high dollar signal chain investments when you decide to buy these high end components.

I also think it should be noted that while amplifiers of the same class may sound different while sitting still with little ambient noise, but once we get moving these nuances really disappear. I do feel that differing class amplifiers can have a different overall sound, and can be distinguished while moving.

 

 

Old paper

[///M5 2,833]

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/05/pono-neil-young-24bit-192khz-review

Neil Young is a great musician. Well, I've enjoyed a few of his songs, and plenty of people have enjoyed lots more of them – enough to give him a decades-spanning career in the music business.

I'm not sure, though, that this quite qualifies him to tangle with mathematicians waving Nyquist-Shannon's theorem, who are lining up to tell him his Pono music player – which crashed through its $800,000 Kickstarter finance-raising target within a day of being announced – won't actually give people (14,600 backers pledging nearly $5m so far) the benefits they hope for.

Pono is the latest in a long line of attempts to give people "high-quality" recorded audio. It will be able to play music that has been digitised in 24-bit audio sampled at 192 kilohertz (kHz), rather than the 16-bit 44.1kHz audio that CDs use. If you remember the ill-fated DVD-audio and SACD discs of a decade ago, you'll know this song already. Barely anyone pays for such high-quality digital audio, because they can't hear the difference from the medium-quality variety.

the kickstarter is at $5.5m with 8 days left. ridiculous.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1003614822/ponomusic-where-your-soul-rediscovers-music

My understanding is he wanted a player that was better than MP3. I sure as shit can tell an mp3 from a CD with my good headphones or my Martin Logan's. The Logan's are particularly cruel to production and compression.

They make some of my most nostalgic albums sound like flat shit because of it.

Just cruel cruel speakers.

The flip side is, some of those really well recorded albums have so much hidden content that they sound remastered compared to listening on junk speakers.

can't tell a 320 I'd bet money on it.

My wife could. Through a Butler 475, Hertz Milles, Cadance, and Adire Koda 10s she said she couldn't put a finger on it, but it sounded more "real". Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here.

remind me when I am home to send you a CD.

[dem beats 1,223]

Spent all day using digital ears. Playing with the Acoustic Camera. Found 1mm holes in wind turbine blades with nearly no excitation energy. Might have to have some fun when I MLV my doors Can you say NO leaks

When I get a new whip I'm comming straight over.

[Godsmack 361]

Get to go to one of the big three, a major tier 1, an electric car manufacturer, a portable electronics company, and an aerospace company with it this week as well.  Yay, airplane.

Anything down in Tampa?

J

[Godsmack 361]

Turned down the job offer today. I calculated it out and its damn near 10 grand difference at 40 hrs a week. I cannot lose that kind of cash.

J

[lithium 358]

Spent all day using digital ears.  Playing with the Acoustic Camera.  Found 1mm holes in wind turbine blades with nearly no excitation energy.  Might have to have some fun when I MLV my doors  Can you say NO leaks

wow, it has resolution down to 1mm? 

 

i really want to play with one.

[lithium 358]

 

 

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/05/pono-neil-young-24bit-192khz-review

Neil Young is a great musician. Well, I've enjoyed a few of his songs, and plenty of people have enjoyed lots more of them – enough to give him a decades-spanning career in the music business.

I'm not sure, though, that this quite qualifies him to tangle with mathematicians waving Nyquist-Shannon's theorem, who are lining up to tell him his Pono music player – which crashed through its $800,000 Kickstarter finance-raising target within a day of being announced – won't actually give people (14,600 backers pledging nearly $5m so far) the benefits they hope for.

Pono is the latest in a long line of attempts to give people "high-quality" recorded audio. It will be able to play music that has been digitised in 24-bit audio sampled at 192 kilohertz (kHz), rather than the 16-bit 44.1kHz audio that CDs use. If you remember the ill-fated DVD-audio and SACD discs of a decade ago, you'll know this song already. Barely anyone pays for such high-quality digital audio, because they can't hear the difference from the medium-quality variety.

the kickstarter is at $5.5m with 8 days left. ridiculous.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1003614822/ponomusic-where-your-soul-rediscovers-music

My understanding is he wanted a player that was better than MP3. I sure as shit can tell an mp3 from a CD with my good headphones or my Martin Logan's. The Logan's are particularly cruel to production and compression.

They make some of my most nostalgic albums sound like flat shit because of it.

Just cruel cruel speakers.

The flip side is, some of those really well recorded albums have so much hidden content that they sound remastered compared to listening on junk speakers.

can't tell a 320 I'd bet money on it.

Is that the common standard now?

Last time I downloaded an MP3 it was wild to see it at 128 bit rate.

 

I've never downloaded a song so don't ask me, just telling you what I'd rip at.  Actually I don't think you'll even hear 192, but there are exceptions to that rule.  Blind a/b really shows how bad our ears are

 

 

got some stuff off amazon yesterday. seems they use some kind of variable bitrate. 200-250 kbps mp3