[middachten]

Quote:

Three seconds??? DON'T BELIEVE ALL THAT BALONEY THAT HUMANS HAVE A SHORT AURAL MEMORY!! When your mother calls on the telephone, do you have a hard time recognizing her voice? Of course not! Why? Because you heard it every day of your life for at least twenty years.

Couldn't agree more.
BTW this is the best explanation I've read since years!

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHansen 
Three seconds??? DON'T BELIEVE ALL THAT BALONEY THAT HUMANS HAVE A SHORT AURAL MEMORY!! When your mother calls on the telephone, do you have a hard time recognizing her voice? Of course not! Why? Because you heard it every day of your life for at least twenty years.

Couldn't agree more.
BTW this is the best explanation I've read since years!

Yes, this a good rule of thumb to start with, but as subtleties grow, memory typically shortens.  So we're not talking about huge differences any more, we're typically dealing with subtleties on the order of many people not being able to discern differences under any conditions.  At that point, you can throw away your perfect aural recall and go back to ABX switching.
 

 

[vert]

 
Quote:

Using AAC files for comparison is like trying to compare racing tires on a Fiat 600. It just ain't gonna make much difference.

Ha ha, I could easily hear differences between Decibel & Audirvana before with FLAC. Before Audirvana got it's integer mode, it sounded mechanical in my setup. Decibel was easily better. But now with integer mode, the soundstage is huge in Audirvana and everything else seems to have improved.
 
Gotta say, it's nice to have all of these software playback choices. The Mac's reputation for having high quality third-party software proves itself again, and it's amazing how fast it's taking off as a music server.

 

[drandall]

and here i thought that by keeping the comparison sections short i would be better able to hear nuances between them! will try full songs.
 
if AAC at 320kbps isn't gonna get it done, should i use apple lossless, FLAC, what would you (or others) recommend? other than the fact that it's a form of compression, is there other reasons why AAC isn't desireable?
 
learning...
 
thanks,
 
 
david r.
Quote:

 
You are severely handicapping yourself by using AAC files. All of these players are designed for better sonic performance than iTunes. Using AAC files for comparison is like trying to compare racing tires on a Fiat 600. It just ain't gonna make much difference.
 
The second problem is your protocol. Three seconds??? DON'T BELIEVE ALL THAT BALONEY THAT HUMANS HAVE A SHORT AURAL MEMORY!! When your mother calls on the telephone, do you have a hard time recognizing her voice? Of course not! Why? Because you heard it every day of your life for at least twenty years.
 
So pick three of your favorite songs that you have been listening to a lot lately. Then listen to ALL three, ALL the way through. Then switch to a different player and repeat. The order doesn't matter. Don't try to focus in on little details and remember what the treble sounds like or the bass sounds like. Just listen to the music and notice how it makes you feel. Are you into it or is your mind wandering and you are thinking about bills you have to pay? You will hear differences. Anybody can, as long as they are familiar with the music. Your system makes almost no difference.
 
Have fun!

 

[bixby]

Quote:

Since reading this article, i have done some back-to-back comparisons between itunes, decibel, and fidelia using the same tracks (44.1khz CD rips, 320kbps AAC) and switching between them in 3-5 second intervals. Listening through a uDAC feeding a tube-rolled little dot mkIII and senn HD600's, I have a hard time nailing down any hard differences.
 
Maybe I have a tin ear or my system can't resolve the differences, but in my case there simply weren't any substantial improvements. Of the three, Decibel seems to differ the most from itunes and seems to have a bit more sparkle on the high end, and a bit more authority on the low end with more forward mids...but with eyes shut, I have to A/B repeatedly to draw that conclusion and even then, i'm not sure i'm right. This also extends to using hog mode.
 
i would love to think that a simple change of software could yield a tangible sonic improvement, but i'm still waiting for the magic. perhaps at my modest level of investment, such determinations are impossible to make. i've even done some encoding tests with apple lossless and AAC's encoded not in itunes but through XLD and pitted them against each other to see if differences in encoding could reveal more dramatic differences in playback. Aside from the fact that lossless sounds a smidge better than 320kbps AAC's, i still got nothing.
 
deep shame. : (

I think you hit it on the head....lots of systems may not be resolving enough to hear differences which are more apparent on more resolute systems.  I know my headphone system cannot give me big differences in usb bridges for example but my speaker based system can very easily.  It is all relative.

 

[bixby]

Quote:

So we're left with just assuming? That's not very satisfying.

No,..............listen grasshopper................ do not assume

 

[Hero Kid]

Quote:

No,..............listen grasshopper................ do not assume

 
My thoughts exactly. I can't believe this had to be said!

 

[mrspeakers]

Apple lossless and flac are best. The better your source material the better thte results, always... But 320 or 256 aac isn't bad, but they are lossy, so there is always at least a minor degradation in detail.... Mileage will vary.

 

[limpidglitch]

Quote:

No,..............listen grasshopper................ do not assume

I do listen, and then I think, and then I doubt.
 
I read up a bit on oversampling and anti-aliasing/interpolation (on 'pedia, couldn't find mrspeakers' explanations), and I have to ask as 'Knowa did: Won't that be moot when I only play 16/44.1 files and my DAC does the oversampling and digital filtering?

 

[Rdr. Seraphim]

I ripped all my CD's to FLAC using XLD. Even my 16/44 medeia sounds better with Pure Music (vs. VOX), keeping things at the same bit/sample rates. Could there be fewer errors due to memory playback? 

 

[carebebear777]

Awesome thread man thank you.

 

[Currawong]

The scary thing for me now is, with Fidelia, seeing just how much of my favourite music is brick-wall filtered.

 
Couple of notes:
 
In Vox, the "Tracked Music" settings can be ignored.  They are for a special, obscure type of music file.
 
When comparing things that make subtle differences, I tend to use them for a while when listening, then see how I feel using something different. I tend to get feelings such as "Hmm, the music sounds better (or worse) today. What did I change in my rig recently?". I've found that to be as effective, if not more than quick A-Bing Subtle changes add up with hours of listening.

 

[iamoneagain]

Quote:

 
Ha ha, I could easily hear differences between Decibel & Audirvana before with FLAC. Before Audirvana got it's integer mode, it sounded mechanical in my setup. Decibel was easily better. But now with integer mode, the soundstage is huge in Audirvana and everything else seems to have improved.
 
Gotta say, it's nice to have all of these software playback choices. The Mac's reputation for having high quality third-party software proves itself again, and it's amazing how fast it's taking off as a music server.

 
I just tried the latest Audivana and you might be right.  I think I might like it better than Decibel.  A little richer and soundstage a little more open.  Sounds more natural.  Not a fan of the fake CD player interface but if it sounds better, so be it.  Still hoping Amarra gets it's act together soon because still prefer the idea of seamless iTunes integration.
 

 

[ttan98]

Quote:

 
I just tried the latest Audivana and you might be right.  I think I might like it better than Decibel.  A little richer and soundstage a little more open.  Sounds more natural.  Not a fan of the fake CD player interface but if it sounds better, so be it.  Still hoping Amarra gets it's act together soon because still prefer the idea of seamless iTunes integration.
 

Recently I have been comparing various music players from Window and Mac platforms, I agree that the latest Audirvana sounds better than Decibel, the former is more natural, whereas Decibel's sound has an emphasis on the mid to the high frequencies, which tends to be perceived to have a "clearer" sound. It can sound tiring if you listen at close range and esp. you have  a bright pair of speakers or even  headphone for some of you.
 
Audirvana sounds more natural than Decibel and I prefer it.

 

[KingStyles]

 
Quote:

The scary thing for me now is, with Fidelia, seeing just how much of my favourite music is brick-wall filtered.

Agreed. The little time I used it i was surprised to see what all my music looked like.