Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio - Sound Science http://www.head-fi.org/forums/ en Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:37:52 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.head-fi.org/forums/images/misc/rss.jpg Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio - Sound Science http://www.head-fi.org/forums/ yea or nay: Sound Improvement Disc http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/yea-nay-sound-improvement-disc-456422/ Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:02:55 GMT NEW! SID - Sound Improvement Disc - WORLD's BEST CD MAT - eBay (item 160379703047 end time Nov-29-09 09:20:44 PST) ]]> Sound Science omigawsh_lollercoaster http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/yea-nay-sound-improvement-disc-456422/ Reviewing components http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/reviewing-components-456323/ Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:43:55 GMT I get a lot of hifi mags and like some reviewers more than others but i am a little confused about how they review the components. It seems to me... I get a lot of hifi mags and like some reviewers more than others but i am a little confused about how they review the components.
It seems to me that aside from technical measurements they simply install the said component into an existing system and then listen.
How do they know what a component brings to the party?
I changed my amp at home a few times whilst testing potential replacements and i didnt hear any difference other than gain. The amp seemed to me to be transparent in all cases.
I have also changed my sources and the only one that i noticed a significant change with was going from CD to Ipod dock playing lossless, all the CD players i tested sounded identical.
It seems to me that speakers will always be capable of the biggest change in a hifi setup. ]]> Sound Science astroid http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/reviewing-components-456323/ People rate 192kbps mp3 higher than FLAC in test http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/people-rate-192kbps-mp3-higher-than-flac-test-456115/ Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:12:40 GMT Sounds Good To Me - TrustedReviews - TrustedReviews (http://www.trustedreviews.com/mp3/review/2009/11/18/Sounds-Good-To-Me/p1) ---Quote--- We... Sounds Good To Me - TrustedReviews - TrustedReviews

Quote:
We won't pretend that we took the most scientifically rigorous approach or brought out an armoury of test equipment to check and compare waveforms. Instead, we ripped four tracks from CD to FLAC using DBPowerAmp CD Ripper, then used the freeware WavePad editor to create thirty-second excerpts from those files for testing purposes. We then used DBPowerAmp converter to make two MP3 encodes of those tracks, one at a constant bit rate (CBR) of 192kbps, and one at 320kbps. The LAME encoder, widely considered the best for high-bit rate MP3, was selected for encoding duties.
Quote:
Our test tracks went onto an Asus notebook. The kind chaps at hifi headphones had provided us with an iBasso D3 Python USB DAC and headphone amplifier - similar to the iBasso D2 we reviewed earlier in the year, but with enhanced sound quality and a little more oomph in the output stages. We used this to provide the audio output. Into the D3 we plugged a pair of BeyerDynamic DT770 Pro headphones
Quote:
We knew that discerning 320kbps MP3 files from lossless FLAC files was going to be hard, but we expected that, with decent listening equipment and a couple of hearings, most of the test subjects would be able to tell a 192kbps MP3 from the FLAC original. Shockingly, this wasn't so. In the tests where we played 320kbps files against FLACs the number of people who chose correctly and incorrectly were equal. In the tests where we played 192kbps files against FLACs, more of our subjects actually went for the lower-quality file.
]]> Sound Science sandys http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/people-rate-192kbps-mp3-higher-than-flac-test-456115/ Ripping audio from DVD http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/ripping-audio-dvd-456015/ Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:21:16 GMT I recently purchased the Killers live album. It includes a cd with their live recordings, and a DVD of them in concert. I want to rip the music from... I recently purchased the Killers live album. It includes a cd with their live recordings, and a DVD of them in concert. I want to rip the music from the DVD to Apple Lossless. Is this possible? ]]> Sound Science Sovelin http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/ripping-audio-dvd-456015/ one source, several amplifier? http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/one-source-several-amplifier-455961/ Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:14:43 GMT hi,

i really didn't know where to put this, so if this is the wrong place. By all means move it.

Basically my girlfriend likes my headphones and I like them too. So I was thinking about using one source and putting 2 amplfiers on it.

basically:

cd player -> digital coax out -> dac -> amplifier -> headphones 1
cd player -> analog out -> amplifier -> headphones 2

does this sound like a good solution?

thanks for your help.

The one amplfier is a LD mk-I and the other amplfier would be a LD mk-III or mk-VII not sure about it, so far.

Headphones would be AH-D5000, SHURES, Grado 325i (once I got them) ]]> Sound Science berlinguyinca http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/one-source-several-amplifier-455961/ <![CDATA[Impedances and sound in my system - please explain me what's going on!]]> http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/impedances-sound-my-system-please-explain-me-whats-going-455815/ Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:09:11 GMT Hi. I am getting some weird results in my system and I'm wondering what is the scientific explanation for this. Maybe some of you can help me understand - or at least try an educated guess. If so, please post.

System:
- CD player with an output impedance of about 500 ohms, measured by the procedure mentioned on the Sowter site (unbalanced), then
- short (~30 cm) diy interconnects made of some guitar cable and cheap connectors,
- ALPS pot, 50 kohms,
- diy interconnects (2 meters long), same guitar cable and cheap connectors, and finally
- active studio monitors, input impedance 10 kohms as stated in the manual, input trimmers set on full volume

Phenomenon I don't understand:
I have accidentally connected the cables in reverse position with respect to the pot, so the signal went from the CD player to the output of the pot, through the pot, then the from the input of the pot to the active monitors and heard the following:
1. with the pot in normal position: perhaps better bass control but too little bass, the low one in particular (coming form a bassy player and Mackies!), more linear and perhaps somewhat more relaxed mids, less involving, apparently less dynamic, slightly rolled-off highs
2. with the pot in reverse ("wrong") position: better frequency extension, especially much more bass (even too much sometimes, but still preferable to the normal pot position), significantly warmer mids (again, perhaps a little overdone), a bit congested, highs OK, more dynamic and involving, obviously better texture of the sound (such as the friction of the cello bow against the strings and the resonance of its acoustic body), acoustic instruments are much more believable in terms of tonality, texture and dynamic presentation

Overall, I prefer the "wrong" pot position and I don't understand, shouldn't it sound much worse? Also, is my CD player in danger because of me using the pot in reverse position? I have already listened to this configuration for several hundred hours for the past ~2 years, so I guess it should be OK, but somebody told me it's not good for the player...



P.S. In case it helps (read only if you feel some more info would be beneficial):
a) before I bought my current Stax and K1000 phones, I was using my 120 ohms K501 directly out of my CD player's output through a 1kohm pot. My actual CD player sounds much much louder in this configuration than my previous Technics 770 one, although both are rated at 2V output. In all the other configurations (for example player --> Stax amp --> Stax phones on in the speakers) the sound is normally loud
b) reducing the sound level by turning the trimpots on the back of the monitors (pot wired in reverse) results in obviously warmer, sweeter, less dynamic, less extended frequency wise, less detailed and somewhat congested sound
c) with the pot in normal position, connecting the wiper to the ground through a resistor (I don't remember the value) resulted in a sound that was tonally inbetween the options 1. and 2. above ("normal" position and "wrong" position pot), but detail, texture and dynamics similar to option 1. ("normal" position pot) ]]> Sound Science Don Quichotte http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/impedances-sound-my-system-please-explain-me-whats-going-455815/ Bit depth and sampling frequency explained http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/bit-depth-sampling-frequency-explained-455688/ Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:17:41 GMT I don't post much on head-fi since I don't really have the time, but I read it as frequently as I can. And I found that there is a lot of misunderstanding about the effects of bit depth and sampling frequency. Even in the "24 vs 16 bit myth exploded" thread. In fact most of the info is wrong.
I am a master student in EE, and have specialized in communications. Including lots of courses in Fourier analysis. Now I work in speech processing/recognition, so I am more qualified than most people here.
I will try to explain in layman terms.

Humans can hear to about 20khz. Some, and only in their youth, can go to about 22kHz, but that's about it. Any higher frequencies that appear in the signal are insignificant. We can suppose that the signal is low passed at 22kHz prior to digitization, for our purposes.
From the Nyquist–Shannon theorem, you have that if the sampling frequency is higher that 44kHz(2x), you can PERFECTLY recover the original signal. That's why the standard sampling frequency is 44.1kHz.
It should be noted, however, that the perfect recovery is only possible is you can get the exact amplitude of the samples(infinite precision or infinite bit depth). And this is clearly not possible. In practice you have finite bit depth, so you cannot perfectly recover the original signal.
So bit-depth does not only affect the dynamic range, but also the error between the recorded signal and original. Higher bit-depth=better, obviously.
Higher sampling rates don't do anything in theory. I practice, they can help with non-ideal performance of filters and DACs. For audiophiles with high performance components, 88.2/96kHz should be more than enough. Higher values are meaningless, with the introduction of high performance digital filters and delta-sigma DACs.
An ugly fact that you should know about is oversampling. It can be shown that if the noise (including non-ideal performance of components) is equally distributed, 4x sampling frequency adds 1 bit depth resolution. So 192Khz, 16bit is the same as 48kHz, 17bit. I facts most DACs do this to save cost.
If you buy a cheap 24bit DAC, most likely it's a 20bit working at 256x the advertised frequency, or even worse. Since in practice the noise is no where near equally distributed, this is a complete lie.
The conclusion, do a lot of research to make sure that the DAC is not oversampling. This means that they will have to use a 24bit circuit to advertise it as such and it will perform much better that an oversampling 24bit DACs which is not really 24bit. In theory, the price doubles with each bit depth added, since the circuit size doubles.
If the DAC is non-oversampling, don't go for high sampling rates. 44.1/48 will need (near) perfect filters and other components to get good performance, but 88.2/96 is enough. What is important now is bit-depth. Go as high as you can afford. ]]> Sound Science http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/bit-depth-sampling-frequency-explained-455688/ Scientific Way To Find out amplification requirements http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/scientific-way-find-out-amplification-requirements-455322/ Fri, 13 Nov 2009 06:52:29 GMT I want to be able to drive my headphones to about 90 dba without clipping. Under the assumption that if a headphone has enough power, most amps will... I want to be able to drive my headphones to about 90 dba without clipping. Under the assumption that if a headphone has enough power, most amps will be negligibly different which is the way to found out which is the minimum amplification. (for reference these are vintage headphones with a very low sensitivity and ohm rating) ]]> Sound Science Silenced http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/scientific-way-find-out-amplification-requirements-455322/ MarkL Mods/ Lawton Audio http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/markl-mods-lawton-audio-455006/ Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:08:53 GMT http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f4/how-build-one-worlds-finest-dynamic-headphones-markl-denon-ah-d5000-mods-299627/ ... http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f4/how...0-mods-299627/

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f38/in...s-more-376339/

I need some help. Could these mods possibly give the improvements that people laud them for here? Is getting the denon woodied just a cosmetic change? What are your opinions about mods in general? Is this is all just placebo and over-enthusiasm from DIYers or is it the real deal? In Short is the "LA-2000" really "One Of The World's Finest Dynamic Headphones" or just a marketing ploy. ]]> Sound Science Silenced http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/markl-mods-lawton-audio-455006/ Please Help w/ Terminology http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/please-help-w-terminology-454655/ Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:13:35 GMT What is the appropriate terminology that describes non-colored SQ of a device? For example, to describe an amp that takes the analog signal from the... What is the appropriate terminology that describes non-colored SQ of a device? For example, to describe an amp that takes the analog signal from the source and "purely" magnifies this signal. ]]> Sound Science JiPod http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/please-help-w-terminology-454655/ My FLAC files are gone!!! I converted using EAC http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/my-flac-files-gone-i-converted-using-eac-454206/ Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:34:02 GMT Okay, so after ripping music from a CD to my computer as a WAV file, I tried to convert it to FLAC.

I didn't know how to do it so I just dragged the WAV file and dropped it to EAC.

A pop-up window shows up to choose a location to save it..

I press okay and then it starts converting!

But then when I go into that folder there are no files... And my WAV files have been deleted too..

But then.. I dragged and dropped another WAV file to EAC just to make sure I saved it in the right place.

The pop-up menu actually shows all my FLAC files in the right folder.

So what the heck is happening?? What should I do? ]]> Sound Science tldoxmf87 http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/my-flac-files-gone-i-converted-using-eac-454206/ Clarification/Correction Requested : iTunes AAC VBR http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/clarification-correction-requested-itunes-aac-vbr-454157/ Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:13:14 GMT I would like to request clarification on iTunes AAC VBR. Further, where incorrect please amend my comments. When ripping CDs to a lossy format... I would like to request clarification on iTunes AAC VBR. Further, where incorrect please amend my comments.

When ripping CDs to a lossy format using iTunes, and where specifying AAC VBR as the format, the specified bit rate is the minimum, whereas the maximum bit rate fluctuates dictated by algorithm. Therefore in the encoding process, data sections (I.e. "quiet" passages) requiring minimal bit rate are converted at the minimum setting.

If the above holds true, AAC VBR 320 should be a larger file size than AAC CBR 320. ]]> Sound Science JiPod http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/clarification-correction-requested-itunes-aac-vbr-454157/ Burn-in Naysayers: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/burn-naysayers-454019/ Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:19:36 GMT Just curious, but why don't you believe in this?

I've seen many people posting about their disbelief of this seemingly (to me at least) logical idea that headphone drivers, being moving, flexible units undergo some form of physical change (loosening up, stretching, etc) that does, in fact, have an impact on the sound.

Since this concept makes perfect sense to me I was wondering if some of you could possibly explain your viewpoint, so I could better understand. ]]> Sound Science MatchFire http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/burn-naysayers-454019/ What are Reference-Level Headphones? http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/what-reference-level-headphones-453683/ Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:01:18 GMT Why do they Usually cost more than regular headphones? sorry if its a n00b question:allteeth: Why do they Usually cost more than regular headphones?

sorry if its a n00b question:allteeth: ]]> Sound Science IDK http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/what-reference-level-headphones-453683/ please point me in the right direction http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/please-point-me-right-direction-453225/ Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:10:27 GMT Hi all,
I just started an A.S. degree in sound engineering and have limited to no knowledge about almost anything on this site. I'm sure anyone here can imagine how overwhelming this material can be. But I still want to undertake the task of building a stompbox.. I really want to build a delay pedal but hear it's better to start out with something simpler. I rented out some books on electricity and electronics and am associating myself with the physics involved there, but really want to get started on the project. I've seen some of the designs for the pedals and as you might guess am left rather clueless. Can anyone help point me in the right direction for learning how to build such devices and in learning about sound in general?
Thanks,
Newbie ]]> Sound Science kanakanaka77 http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/please-point-me-right-direction-453225/