or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

TDK BA200 Thread - Page 32

post #466 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

 

I'm a computer technician with programming background, and I understand the logic.  I'm not basing anything off of what people say.  i'm basing it off of the technical facts and my own listening tests.  I don't want to sound too forward, but I've provided logical examples, references and technical explanations as to why it is identical.  I haven't seen anything explaining why it is not, other than the fact that someone listened to them.  That is a hard sell.  We have to rely on you, your equipment, your audio settings, your trust, placebo type effects, etc.

 

I would only ask that you show technically "why" they aren't the same quality... :-)  And if you do want to continue this discussion, perhaps we should launch a thread so we don't interfere with the current thread any longer...

 

No wonder.. but since you'd know the logic, I couldn't understand why you're basing off with just the techinical facts. do you thing they're useful for your logics? Fyi, programming + digital + techinical specs does not add up to a good sound.

 

No, I don't think we need another thread for such discussion, since we're coming from different understanding. Basically you can continue sticked with technical theory facts, where I continue to enjoy my practical experience. Whether you are right or I am right it just doesn't matter or to be bother with. That's good things about this world, we can choose to have different opinions to sticked with.

post #467 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewForce View Post

No wonder.. but since you'd know the logic, I couldn't understand why you're basing off with just the techinical facts. do you thing they're useful for your logics? Fyi, programming + digital + techinical specs does not add up to a good sound.

No, I don't think we need another thread for such discussion, since we're coming from different understanding. Basically you can continue sticked with technical theory facts, where I continue to enjoy my practical experience. Whether you are right or I am right it just doesn't matter or to be bother with. That's good things about this world, we can choose to have different opinions to sticked with.

Out of curiosity... how did you decide ape was better? You made some comments about luisdent believeing marketing and facts etc. Well where did this opinion come from?
Quote:
2a. APE = Next best converted format to mimic original CD quality since there's no virtually data or sonically notes replacement during decoding like FLAC.
post #468 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewForce View Post

 

No wonder.. but since you'd know the logic, I couldn't understand why you're basing off with just the techinical facts. do you thing they're useful for your logics? Fyi, programming + digital + techinical specs does not add up to a good sound.

 

No, I don't think we need another thread for such discussion, since we're coming from different understanding. Basically you can continue sticked with technical theory facts, where I continue to enjoy my practical experience. Whether you are right or I am right it just doesn't matter or to be bother with. That's good things about this world, we can choose to have different opinions to sticked with.


I agree.  And all that matters is that we both enjoy our music.  But I was trying to make the distinction between "hearing a difference" and "hearing a difference because of a lossless format".  That is all.  You very well can be hearing a difference, in fact, you probably are.  But the point was that it was not the lossless that is causing the difference.

 

The most common problem, as we discussed is "ripping" the cd.  But here's the catch.  When you rip with any software, it first "rips" the audio to an uncompressed file.  The lossless compression will be an EXACT copy of the file when it is decompressed.  But if you are in fact hearing a difference between say a CD and lossless file, it isn't the lossless file.  The difference would have happened during the rip to the uncompressed file.  That's what I want to make clear.  Now, going back, that is a result of hardware, for example the cd-drive, or software, for example ripping with EAC.  Neither of those have an effect on the quality of converting a file to lossless.  If you lost quality at those stages the quality is gone and you'll never get it back.  But when you make the file a lossless file, you are getting exactly what you put into it.

 

Perhaps that makes it more clear?  I would use ripping software that does multiple pass error correction.  This should resolve the issue.  Unless the disc is really scratched, but that is an issue in itself.  Also, most people don't realize that every single time you play a cd on a stand alone cd player, there may be different errors, and the player is designed to mask those errors by different methods, but that is because the CD has to be read fast enough to playback in real time.  But the point is, it is the hardware causing the errors.  Depending on your hardware, it might actually be MORE accurate to rip a song to your computer and make it a lossless file than it would be to play the song back on your car or home cd player, because the computer can make multiple passes to remove all of the errors, because it will rip the cd slowly.

 

But again, none of this really matters for the point I was making.  The differences you hear might be real, but it isn't because of lossless.  What you put into a lossless file will be identical to what you put out.  A good test of this is to compare a song ripped to an uncompressed file and then manually convert that to a lossless flac file.  Those files are then identical in sound quality, and you can't tell a difference in a double blind test.  If you are comparing the CD playback to the lossless playback, depending on your cd player there might be errors and the lossless would actually sound better... :-)  If you're computer cd-rom is bad or low quality and your software doesn't do multi pass error correction you might get files that sound worse than a good cd player.  But again, that would be hardware problems or software settings, not the lossless compression.

 

Anyhow, I would stress that everyone should enjoy the music first and foremost. :-)  That's what all this technology is for right? :-P


Edited by luisdent - 12/14/12 at 11:10pm
post #469 of 1498

Yes it does. You are entirely wrong in what you're writing, sorry...

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewForce View Post

 

Please note that, "Lossless" does not equal to "No Loss at all".

post #470 of 1498

Facts aren't opinions, though. That's the biggest problem, and now you're just being arrogant. Just because a human states facts about compression and decompression doesn't mean it has suddenly become "oh, who knows? it's just their opinion!" He doesn't have his opinion and you have yours; he has the facts of math and you have the facts of psychological biases that occur in the human brain that dissolve the reality of mathematics.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewForce View Post

 

No wonder.. but since you'd know the logic, I couldn't understand why you're basing off with just the techinical facts. do you thing they're useful for your logics? Fyi, programming + digital + techinical specs does not add up to a good sound.

 

No, I don't think we need another thread for such discussion, since we're coming from different understanding. Basically you can continue sticked with technical theory facts, where I continue to enjoy my practical experience. Whether you are right or I am right it just doesn't matter or to be bother with. That's good things about this world, we can choose to have different opinions to sticked with.

post #471 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

The music player's key would include ironing the shirt before you wear it wink.gif
When you say you a/b the flac to the cd, that can be a difficult thing to test, because although they will sound identical if everything is equal, you need to make sure everything is equal. When you play the cd it reads the disc, converts the digital signal to analog among other things... It is possible therefore that the cd might sound slightly different if all if the converters etc aren't identical, however, if they are identical it won't matter. Then you have things like volume matching, etc. that are critical when comparing...

Exactly. There were a couple of settings that I missed, but Toast Titanium back then was believed capable of burning red book copies. I just didn't understand how to do it back then. Now the CD is with me, but I don't play it as much as the original. Too bad, it was one of my favorites back then...it was Jim Brock's Tropic Affair. Johnson Recording
post #472 of 1498
BTW, to my ears, timbre is more accurate with the BA200 than the SM3. While this doesn't mean the BA200 is better, nor does it mean the SM3 is bad. I have read BA drivers have a somewhat metallic timbre , and to my ears, and probably with the tips I use, it is just a little more apparent with the SM3.
post #473 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by muad View Post

Out of curiosity... how did you decide ape was better? You made some comments about luisdent believeing marketing and facts etc. Well where did this opinion come from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post


I agree.  And all that matters is that we both enjoy our music.  But I was trying to make the distinction between "hearing a difference" and "hearing a difference because of a lossless format".  That is all.  You very well can be hearing a difference, in fact, you probably are.  But the point was that it was not the lossless that is causing the difference.

The most common problem, as we discussed is "ripping" the cd.  But here's the catch.  When you rip with any software, it first "rips" the audio to an uncompressed file.  The lossless compression will be an EXACT copy of the file when it is decompressed.  But if you are in fact hearing a difference between say a CD and lossless file, it isn't the lossless file.  The difference would have happened during the rip to the uncompressed file.  That's what I want to make clear.  Now, going back, that is a result of hardware, for example the cd-drive, or software, for example ripping with EAC.  Neither of those have an effect on the quality of converting a file to lossless.  If you lost quality at those stages the quality is gone and you'll never get it back.  But when you make the file a lossless file, you are getting exactly what you put into it.

Perhaps that makes it more clear?  I would use ripping software that does multiple pass error correction.  This should resolve the issue.  Unless the disc is really scratched, but that is an issue in itself.  Also, most people don't realize that every single time you play a cd on a stand alone cd player, there may be different errors, and the player is designed to mask those errors by different methods, but that is because the CD has to be read fast enough to playback in real time.  But the point is, it is the hardware causing the errors.  Depending on your hardware, it might actually be MORE accurate to rip a song to your computer and make it a lossless file than it would be to play the song back on your car or home cd player, because the computer can make multiple passes to remove all of the errors, because it will rip the cd slowly.

But again, none of this really matters for the point I was making.  The differences you hear might be real, but it isn't because of lossless.  What you put into a lossless file will be identical to what you put out.  A good test of this is to compare a song ripped to an uncompressed file and then manually convert that to a lossless flac file.  Those files are then identical in sound quality, and you can't tell a difference in a double blind test.  If you are comparing the CD playback to the lossless playback, depending on your cd player there might be errors and the lossless would actually sound better... :-)  If you're computer cd-rom is bad or low quality and your software doesn't do multi pass error correction you might get files that sound worse than a good cd player.  But again, that would be hardware problems or software settings, not the lossless compression.

Anyhow, I would stress that everyone should enjoy the music first and foremost. :-)  That's what all this technology is for right? :-P
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundstige View Post

Yes it does. You are entirely wrong in what you're writing, sorry...
Greeting to 3 of you,

I'm back! After luisdent reseach suggestion, I've actually spent my afternoon restoring my dinosaur digital sound knowledges through Googling about wav, ape and flac.

Yes, I'm agreeing with all of you that Lossless it actually mean no loss, at least at the data portion with md5 checksum confirming that.

muad, as I'd said my knowledges are too dinosaur age that actually caused a dent to whatever I've written before. Fyi, my deciding factor about APE having an edge over FLAC was based on how both handle the clipping sound data. My previous written remarks was "quiet sound" are incorrect due to I have lost touch digital sound knowledges.

luisdent, I am agreeing with every bit you've said about sound ripping, compress and decompress processes theory. The only thing I like to add, the CD, format conversion process and hardwares quality are the final factors that actually deciding how good can they reproduce a good sound. I'm not sure am my words good enough for you to understand, but this is how I feel about them.
post #474 of 1498

Thumbs up for taking it on the chin and becoming a better, more educated person. You're a good man (or woman but I assume man).

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewForce View Post


Greeting to 3 of you,
I'm back! After luisdent reseach suggestion, I've actually spent my afternoon restoring my dinosaur digital sound knowledges through Googling about wav, ape and flac.
Yes, I'm agreeing with all of you that Lossless it actually mean no loss, at least at the data portion with md5 checksum confirming that.
muad, as I'd said my knowledges are too dinosaur age that actually caused a dent to whatever I've written before. Fyi, my deciding factor about APE having an edge over FLAC was based on how both handle the clipping sound data. My previous written remarks was "quiet sound" are incorrect due to I have lost touch digital sound knowledges.
luisdent, I am agreeing with every bit you've said about sound ripping, compress and decompress processes theory. The only thing I like to add, the CD, format conversion process and hardwares quality are the final factors that actually deciding how good can they reproduce a good sound. I'm not sure am my words good enough for you to understand, but this is how I feel about them.
post #475 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundstige View Post

Thumbs up for taking it on the chin and becoming a better, more educated person. You're a good man (or woman but I assume man).

Thanks for your compliments and consolation. You're a good man too, like me (I mean I'm a guy too). smily_headphones1.gif
Edited by NewForce - 12/15/12 at 3:39pm
post #476 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewForce View Post


Greeting to 3 of you,
I'm back! After luisdent reseach suggestion, I've actually spent my afternoon restoring my dinosaur digital sound knowledges through Googling about wav, ape and flac.
Yes, I'm agreeing with all of you that Lossless it actually mean no loss, at least at the data portion with md5 checksum confirming that.
muad, as I'd said my knowledges are too dinosaur age that actually caused a dent to whatever I've written before. Fyi, my deciding factor about APE having an edge over FLAC was based on how both handle the clipping sound data. My previous written remarks was "quiet sound" are incorrect due to I have lost touch digital sound knowledges.
luisdent, I am agreeing with every bit you've said about sound ripping, compress and decompress processes theory. The only thing I like to add, the CD, format conversion process and hardwares quality are the final factors that actually deciding how good can they reproduce a good sound. I'm not sure am my words good enough for you to understand, but this is how I feel about them.

 

No, I think I do understand you.  The cd conversion process and hardware quality can have a direct impact on the sound quality, while the lossless compression and decompression do not.  I would agree with that. :-)

 

Quote:

Out of curiosity... how did you decide ape was better? You made some comments about luisdent believeing marketing and facts etc. Well where did this opinion come from?

Quote:
2a. APE = Next best converted format to mimic original CD quality since there's no virtually data or sonically notes replacement during decoding like FLAC.

 

For the record, NewForce, the reason one lossless compression is usually considered better than another is because of how small they can make the file.  Some algorithms are better than others at compressing the files to a very small size.  And you could argue that that saves you a lot of space, so it would be "better".  Other formats might make it faster to do the actual compression.  So when you are converting your thousands of songs it won't take as long.  So some people consider that better...

 

But regarding the topic at hand, if you have a perfect lossless file those tdk ba200 sound really great! ;) ;) hehe


Edited by luisdent - 12/15/12 at 2:15pm
post #477 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

 

No, I think I do understand you.  The cd conversion process and hardware quality can have a direct impact on the sound quality, while the lossless compression and decompression do not.  I would agree with that. :-)

 

Quote:

 

For the record, NewForce, the reason one lossless compression is usually considered better than another is because of how small they can make the file.  Some algorithms are better than others at compressing the files to a very small size.  And you could argue that that saves you a lot of space, so it would be "better".  Other formats might make it faster to do the actual compression.  So when you are converting your thousands of songs it won't take as long.  So some people consider that better...

 

But regarding the topic at hand, if you have a perfect lossless file those tdk ba200 sound really great! ;) ;) hehe

Great to know that my point of view are closer to your reference now. Our discussion will prevail with the better understanding. beerchug.gif

 

Yes indeed, TDK BA200 does sound better with lossless files. We are actually very lucky that TDK could make them sounded so good at the given price. If it was badged under Shure, Sennheiser, Westone, UE, Sony, Bose or any so-called premium brand, I believed BA200 will cost 1.5X the price as it is now.

post #478 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewForce View Post

Great to know that my point of view are closer to your reference now. Our discussion will prevail with the better understanding. beerchug.gif

 

Yes indeed, TDK BA200 does sound better with lossless files. We are actually very lucky that TDK could make them sounded so good at the given price. If it was badged under Shure, Sennheiser, Westone, UE, Sony, Bose or any so-called premium brand, I believed BA200 will cost 1.5X the price as it is now.

I agree.  The price is excellent in comparison to others of the same quality...

post #479 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewForce View Post

Great to know that my point of view are closer to your reference now. Our discussion will prevail with the better understanding. beerchug.gif

 

Yes indeed, TDK BA200 does sound better with lossless files. We are actually very lucky that TDK could make them sounded so good at the given price. If it was badged under Shure, Sennheiser, Westone, UE, Sony, Bose or any so-called premium brand, I believed BA200 will cost 1.5X the price as it is now.

 

The BA200 did start out with a $250 price tag which is comparable to the W2 and the SE425 but they've just drop in price much more than the others have for some reason.

post #480 of 1498
Do we have an IE800 appreciations thread? When searching, all I can find is Senn's IE800. Not TDK's.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: