Magnus, I'd be really curious, if you have the time and inclination, to see how HE-AAC at 80kbps cvbr sounds on your reference system. If it's not something you have an interest in, then fine, but if you're game, I'd be very interested to see how this codec/bitrate translates onto a critical listening rig.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Lossless Audio Codec (ALAC) Now Open Source
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Medieval cue splitter works great. It's a pc app though.
http://www.medieval.it/cuesplitter-pc/menu-id-71.html
Sol
macrumors 68000
Anyone can tell that audiophile magazines are full of hype by reading their reviews. They are almost never negative and that in itself proves how meaningless a review in such a magazine is. Besides, with so many products being described as sounding "warm" and "natural" you have to wander how it is possible for audiophile products to keep getting warmer and more natural without any drastic advancement in technology.
Prodo123
macrumors 68020
App developers and the PMP industry.
Now they don't have to pay royalties to implement ALAC.
Wait, so after all this you are now claiming you can hear differences between 320k mp3 and 320k mp3?
Mr. Golden Ear!!
Difference being that in a subjective listening test comparing vinyl to cd doesn't require the vinyl output to be digitised at any stage.
firestarter
macrumors 603
Except that most source material is digital these days, so the signal was digital until it was converted to analogue for the vinyl mastering.
So the whole vinyl/pickup/preamp chain is effectively just an elaborate analogue filter applied to an original digital signal.
hexx
macrumors regular
Great!! thanks for that, I've been using EAC on win a lot and didn't know of any alternative for Mac
hexx
macrumors regular
carver and psb - this is personal preference, honestly. My Music Hall MMF-7 with not that expensive Denon MC cartridge plays better than Accuphase 65 and costs 70% less.
CD misses something in it, atmosphere? definitely dynamic seem to be somehow 'compressed' in comparison with vinyl. but that's personal preference. I've heard many, and i mean many hi-fi/high-end combos or components (I used to sell them, write about them, do lot of blind tests and so on until 2004 - since then, not much, i became a developer 🙂 )
the best music experience i've had was with B&W Nautilus fed by 4 McIntosh MC402 and various sources (Wadia, Accuphase (drive and dac), transrotor and clear audio master reference) all this (apart from speaker cables) connected with AudioQuest (then) top of the range cables. I was lucky enough to experience this for 2 weeks. We got Nautilus speakers from B&W for exhibition and we had this setup in the shop for 2 weeks before expo to burn it in and prepare presentation. I temporarily moved to shop for two weeks 🙂 and vinyl is vynil and always will be - at least the old recordings which were analogue
Prodo123
macrumors 68020
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_monitor
Extremely accurate sound reproduction. Higher quality than home hi-fi systems, used by audio professionals as a tool for playing back recordings without putting in unnecessarily coloring the sound. If you compare two studio monitors and find some sort of difference in sound, then your ears are weird.
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 603
Odd that CD would sound compressed when vinyl's dynamic range is so much lower. But what we think of as "compressed" isn't always what we're hearing. Using most of today's digital recordings is meaningless in that regard, though because most types of music ARE heavily compressed, save some high-end classical recordings, usually on high-end labels. There are some exceptions, but even they aren't necessarily as uncompressed as they seem.
For example, Pink Floyd and Roger Waters recordings often contain a lot more dynamic range than other bands (meaning you have to crank the volume up to hear them at the same loudness as other recordings). Ironically, this often leads people to complain that the recordings are LESS dynamic (what they actually mean is they are too quiet at the same volume setting as their other music). This is very noticeable even on their best analog recordings on CD (e.g. The Wall compared to say Tori Amos' Scarlet's Walk album, the latter of which is VERY 'clean' sounding and well recorded, but heavily compressed). This was even MORE noticeable on Pink Floyd's A Momentary Lapse of Reason, which was 100% digital. It's VERY dynamic and thus VERY quiet on average volume. You have to really crank it up to get the same volume levels as other albums. But people DON'T crank it up (hell my car stereo almost has to be at full volume to get a decent level out of it) and that album got a LOT of sound quality complaints about how much digital sucked, etc. I don't claim it's digital's best example of a great recording, but it did not suck that much more than their other recordings. But most people don't realize that it's MORE dynamic. They think it's LESS because they think 'dynamic' means 'loud' and it doesn't. It means it can go from extremely quiet to loud, but the 'average' level is going to be lower to accommodate the loudest parts.
Mastering is sound quality's worst enemy to some extent. Most recordings are 'ordered' to be loud average levels (and thus kill dynamic range) by the record companies who have noted that louder recordings do better on the radio than quiet ones (instead of letting the radio stations boost it) and thus there was this push to make the loudest/least dynamic recordings ever. You may have noticed that many "remastered" albums are LOUDER than the original releases on CD. This is no coincidence and it doesn't necessarily mean you're getting better sound quality either. A good example that comes to mind is Ozzy Ozzborne's "Essential" CD set. "Crazy Train" (and worse yet "Over The Mountain") are seriously CLIPPING with distortion because they cranked up the compression so high that the loudest bits are 'hitting the rails' so-to-speak. (Note that the Red Hot Chili Peppers album "Californication" clips nearly the entire album for the same reason and unfortunately, there is no other 'non-clipping' version available). In Ozzy's case, buying the original non-remmastered versions will get you a CLEAN clipping-free (well except where intentional, of course for guitar, etc.) recording.
The B&W Nautilus series are lovely speakers. They're a bit out of my price range, however.
What's wrong with digitizing? With quality equipment, it's transparent. I could make the reverse argument that a true digital recording played back on CD didn't have to go through all that noisy analog processing equipment that pure analog recordings are subjected to. I can guarantee the noise levels will be absolutely lower on a good digital recording rig than even the best analog ones.
The point remains that no one I know of has been able to tell the difference between a purely analog record played back via a high-end analog record player and the same exact rig playing the same record recorded first with quality equipment and played back via CD. Even with an extra A/D->D/A stage, the results are not statistically significant. People can make any subjective claim they want, but double blind tests can prove if they're actually hearing what they claim. When literally all of them fail to prove their claim, they make up some reason the test is flawed (usually involving the ABX boxes normally used as if they somehow contaminate the analog recording into sounding like "horrible digital" (yeah a switch making something sound 'digitized' makes sense 🙄 )
I've compared probably about 15 different studio monitors, from lowly Yamaha NS10s all the way up to the B&W 801's that they use in Abbey Road, and along the way I've stopped off and compared Genelec, Adam, Mackie, Blue Sky, JBL, PMC, ATC, Dynaudio, and many others. Every single one of them sounds different. I have 13 years of recording engineering experience and you want to tell me that my ears are weird because I can detect how each different monitor colours the sound in its own unique way? Oh, that's right - you linked me to a Wikipedia article........
Let's have this conversation in a few years time when your opinion is based on actual real life experience, and not simply a collection of things that you've gleaned off the internet.
Last edited:
Prodo123
macrumors 68020
The link was in case you didn't know what you were talking about.
Coloring the sound means putting an unnecessary distortion on the sound. Monitors were made to remove this coloring. The slight distortion of sound each speaker has makes the speaker unique from others. Makes logical and practical sense that most monitors should sound the same, or they have failed their purpose.
So yes, your ears are particular in the fact that you are able to detect differences in monitor sound.
You haven't heard many studio monitors, have you?
Edit: and I'd also add that while I appreciate the talents of a brand of studio monitor such as Genelec when used under studio conditions, there is absolutely no way on God's green earth that I would want to use those things as hi-fi speakers.
Edit: and I'd also add that while I appreciate the talents of a brand of studio monitor such as Genelec when used under studio conditions, there is absolutely no way on God's green earth that I would want to use those things as hi-fi speakers.
Prodo123
macrumors 68020
How does somebody still in high school have the good fortune to have been exposed to so many different monitors? I have to admit I'm jealous.
However, if you have heard a broad range of monitors then I would respectfully suggest that maybe it is yourself with the "weird" hearing, if they all sound the same to you.
However, if you have heard a broad range of monitors then I would respectfully suggest that maybe it is yourself with the "weird" hearing, if they all sound the same to you.
Prodo123
macrumors 68020
firestarter
macrumors 603
If all studio monitors sound the same, then why did Focusrite go to the trouble of making a product specifically to model 10 different popular monitors, so that mastering engineers can hear how their mix is affected:
http://www.focusrite.com/products/audio_interfaces/vrm_box/overview/
Answer: they all sound different
(And yes, I realise there are some highly coloured 'grot boxes' in the VRM emulator, but there's also a range of monitors that should sound 'identical')
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 603
Every speaker I've ever heard sounds at least a little different. Studio monitors are no exception. Sound has a lot of parameters, not just frequency response and short of an anechoic chamber (very unpleasant environment), the room interacts as well. For example, Magnepans I heard sounded very nice in the midrange, light on deep bass, but stereo imaging was compromised due to the width of the planar drivers. Martin Logans sounded muddled to me in the imaging, once again due, no doubt to the shape of the electrostatic drivers. The Carver ribbons I have the beautiful midrange of the Magneplanars and image more like a point source due to the small width of the driver, yet don't muddle the ceiling and floor reflections due to the tall height of the driver.
All of these examples are dipolar speakers, with sound radiating equally out the front and back out of phase. Real sound sources are typically dipolar (or even spherical) in nature, radiating sound in all directions or more than one. The basic effect is that images produced by these speakers tend to "float in space" as if there were really something there in the room, producing an eerie effect of the band being brought into the room in real space. The down side is it tends to merge the original space of the recording with your own room and some find that less desirable than just hearing the original space (but to some that doesn't sound as believable as a real image in the room)
Monitors, obviously, aren't designed to sound realistic in a room or any other such thing. They are simply trying to present the recording uncolored as possible for mixing and imaging purposes in a mastering room. However, I haven't met a monitor yet that isn't colored too to some degree. I prefer listen to my final mixes on 4 different environments and coordinate them to the point where I like the mix in all 4. They then tend to sound as good as they can on most systems. I don't believe in making sound better for cheap systems as appears to be the goal in professional studios where they inflate bass (knowing that the average car listener has crap bass, etc. for the radio). I'm saying many studios purposely order their music compromised to sound better on the least common denominator instead of high quality systems. That explains the massive lack of dynamic range in today's 'pop' and 'rock' and 'rap' recordings, inflated bass, etc. Having a good monitor is obviously pointless if you intend to destroy the quality of the recording for the sake of being loud and having cranked up bass for the radio.
All of these examples are dipolar speakers, with sound radiating equally out the front and back out of phase. Real sound sources are typically dipolar (or even spherical) in nature, radiating sound in all directions or more than one. The basic effect is that images produced by these speakers tend to "float in space" as if there were really something there in the room, producing an eerie effect of the band being brought into the room in real space. The down side is it tends to merge the original space of the recording with your own room and some find that less desirable than just hearing the original space (but to some that doesn't sound as believable as a real image in the room)
Monitors, obviously, aren't designed to sound realistic in a room or any other such thing. They are simply trying to present the recording uncolored as possible for mixing and imaging purposes in a mastering room. However, I haven't met a monitor yet that isn't colored too to some degree. I prefer listen to my final mixes on 4 different environments and coordinate them to the point where I like the mix in all 4. They then tend to sound as good as they can on most systems. I don't believe in making sound better for cheap systems as appears to be the goal in professional studios where they inflate bass (knowing that the average car listener has crap bass, etc. for the radio). I'm saying many studios purposely order their music compromised to sound better on the least common denominator instead of high quality systems. That explains the massive lack of dynamic range in today's 'pop' and 'rock' and 'rap' recordings, inflated bass, etc. Having a good monitor is obviously pointless if you intend to destroy the quality of the recording for the sake of being loud and having cranked up bass for the radio.
rhett7660
macrumors G5
You can also try XLD which I have found to be very good also. I too have been using EAC for the a very long time. I hardly ever go to the win box to rip now, I use XLD for a good majority of my ripping and converting.
XLD has been incredibly useful and high quality for me over the past couple of years. The only problem that I can see is that I don't think it is able to generate logs or cue sheets from a rip, which may or may not be important to you.