Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Montserrat said:
Spiking speakers is just putting spikes into the bottom of them, so there is less contact with the floor.

and this is very effective, too. normal people find that after spiking there's "less bass", but we who have golden ears find that there's better articulation.

i however wouldn't recommend spiking for cheap speakers. if there's not enough quality in the speaker cone, even the best enclosure and best room and best positioning and spiking and cabling and whatever will not make the difference. but for good quality speakers, in a small room, spiking does wonders.

(i myself have a pair of 3-year-old "infinity kappa 80" speakers, which i find more than adequate. i however wouldn't consider them "reference" speakers in a sence of studio monitoring, but i find that they are a very usable comparison after i leave the studio. if i have a good mixdown in studio and a bad experience at home, there's clearly something wrong in my mix that i don't notice with "almost too good" speakers. if however i am satisfied with the mix in studio and at home, others have been satisfied with the sound wherever they listen to it. anybody else using infinity speakers at home?)
 
Rog210 said:
I think the point is that you can take the optical out from the new Apple widget and feed it into a decent DA converter and the results will be extremely HIFI.

Apple's audio guys know what they're doing and I'd be surprised if a CD ripped in the lossless codec and sent to the optical out wirelessly wasn't bit transparent when compared to the original CD.

if you connect a cd player and an airport express to the same hifi amplifier both with optical cables, and play the same cd via the cd player and via itunes (not encoded audio but actual cd), you should get pretty much equal output. "pretty much" means that there IS a slight difference in how the cd player reads and processes the data, and how the mac reads and itunes processes the data.

but once the audio is fed into the airport express, the signal is exactly the same than the signal that has been fed to the amplifier. digital signal is always perfect, when you don't hear artifacts in the sound - and if the cable is bad, you will hear it instantly. there's no doubt, digital distortion is very noticeable.

so if there is a difference between cd player and a mac/itunes/airportexpress combination, the difference will most likely be made in itunes. i would say it is very unlikely that the cdrom drive in a mac reads the cd audio worse than a standard cd player, and i would also say it is very unlikely that apple lossless would in fact be lossy. if it's lossless, it's lossess, period.

as soon as someone does an a/b test between cd player and a mac, please let us know. for the best test environment one should have such an amplifier that has at least two optical digital inputs and both sound sources connected at the same time via the opticals. and the tester should preferably have the same cd on both sources, both cd:s being original pressed cd:s and not burned copies, and the tester should have an assistant to switch between the sound sources not telling the test person which one is playing. the test person should then make notes about the sound sources and after a dozen or so switches he should be able to tell that a) there's no difference, or b) there's a difference and tell which sound source is which. if the test person says there's no difference and says that the mac is a cd player or vice versa, that is the strongest proof that there's no difference. the "a" alternative is also acceptable, but not as strong a proof.

if a test person can clearly tell that there's a difference, please let apple know about that so they can fix it. if there's a difference, the reason is most likely itunes.
 
jackc said:
I updated iTunes but it still says 4.5. Anyone else get this?
Mine says 4.6. Are you sure it updated right? Have you quit and restarted iTunes since the update?
 

Attachments

  • iTunes 4.6.jpg
    iTunes 4.6.jpg
    34.5 KB · Views: 109
Duh, I'm a moron. I thought I restarted since then. Now it shows 4.6. :p
 
JFreak said:
if you connect a cd player and an airport express to the same hifi amplifier both with optical cables, and play the same cd via the cd player and via itunes (not encoded audio but actual cd), you should get pretty much equal output. "pretty much" means that there IS a slight difference in how the cd player reads and processes the data, and how the mac reads and itunes processes the data.

No, it won't be "pretty much" the same, it will be exactly the same. CDs contain data, and reading a CD is the process of reading the data off that data, and since the data is digital it's read exactly the same as it was put on. Think of two identical CDROMs containing one file, you wouldn't say that the file as read from on computer is "pretty much" the same as the file read form another computer. It's exactly the same.
 
Montserrat said:
I'm not trying to fan the flames, but I too ridiculed Audiophiles around 3 years ago. I mean, how could having physically separate boxes influence the sound made? How could there be any variation when it's all digital now anyway?

I was so wrong, just a trip down to your local decent hi-fi shop (Audio-excellence is a good start in the UK) with a couple of good CDs (Leftfield Rhythm and Stealth was a particular eye-opener) taught me not to take the piss out of things I don't know about. Detail, clarity, dynamics and separation all became regular parts of my vocabulary! (Much to my girlfriend's annoyance)

You make a good point that "audiophile" level gear does sound good, but I think the big problem with audiophiles is that they have no real idea why particular equipment sounds good and they often attribute the sound quality to the things that don't matter at all. This is what causes the audiophile mythology and make most of them seem like blathering idiots to more informed people. If most so-called audiophiles new a little more about the physics behind audio recording and reproduction they wouldn't waste their money on useless items (or spaz about the quality of the APx :D ).

That being said, a lot of the vocabulary of audiophiles like detail, clarity, separation, warmth, imaging, are valid, though often abused, terms. They are subjective, but also are related to real physical attributes than can be measured. Speakers have the most effect on the sound, and all those qualities listed are effected by things like phase coherence, frequency response, distortion of the cones, resonances in the enclosure, crossover quality and choice of crossover frequencies. Since you hear "clarity", and not the exact combination of frequency response, phase coherence, etc. that effect clarity, it's useful to talk about it in terms of clarity, not the physics. But it's also useful to understand what really makes a speaker have clarity.

I think digital audio has thrown a lot of audiophiles because certain things are exact and it doesn't matter if you have a $50 CD player with a digital out, or a $1000 CD player with digital out, they both give you the exact same stream of bits. The typical audiophile finds this counter-intuitive because they like to think more expensive = better. I remember how many audiophile types I knew were very puzzled when Stereophile magazine (I think) recommended a $50 RadioShack portable CD player as the best CD player to get because it had digital out, wasn't prone to skipping, and was cheap. Then again, these were people who bought into the whole green marker thing. (not every audiophile myth is expensive I guess).

As for power cables, they can matter for certain things, but it's pretty minimal. The thicker and shorter the cable, the less resistance and the more power delivered to the equipment. This usually isn't an issue, but I play music and sometimes the whole band is running off one extension cord. Amps can sound worse or get damaged if they're not getting enough power, so I have a huge, thick extension cord for those situations, and I will use it over a thinner extension cable already provided. My amp also has a much thinker power cable than my keyboards, because it draws more juice. However, in a home, with a 3 or 6 foot distance, the cable that came with the amp is more than adequate.

There is such a thing as "bad" electricity though, and this is a much bigger deal than power cables. Once both my bassist's and guitarist's amps blew up on the same night. One of my effects started acting funny and so did a house amp. What probably happened is that we were just drawing too much power on a crappy electrical system and the equipment wasn't getting enough voltage. Bad things can happen when you run equipment below it's required voltage. I also live in a house that eats light-bulbs. It's ridiculously bad. Anyway, I do recommend a power conditioner. They protect against brown outs and filter the AC to get nice 60Hz AC. Tripp-Lite makes some good ones. I'm sure power amps and pre-amps without enough filtering on their own can be effected by noisy power, whether you could hear that is another question.
 
crap

Well, iTunes 4.6 is completely useless for me.

It still can't read multi-session Cds like every other player on the planet.

For example, if I put in a CD like "The best hung carrot in the fridge by Chixdiggit!" it doesn't recognize it let alone rip it.

What a joke.

Also, it does a really terrible job of genre recognition compared to media player.

I mean, yeah Hayley westenra is TOTALLY industrial! chroral, industrial, same thing.

Charlotte church? Electronic.

Joss Stone? COUNTRY!?!?

WTF!

I'm sorry but this piece of crap can't even rip a bunch of my cds. The ones it can rip, it doesn't have a clue WTF they are.

Obviously, it uses a different database for album identification than WMP since one sucks at it and other is spot on. I believe that WMP uses AMG.

WMP also imports the album cover automatically and a review of the album, artist biography etc from AMG. Why doesn't iTunes do this?

Overhyped garbage that doesn't work.

Useless...
 
By the way, when I use iTunes to rip my Cds, parts of various discs get put into about a dozen different folders. Who thought of that ingenious little chestnut?

Garbage.
 
Audiophile said:
By the way, when I use iTunes to rip my Cds, parts of various discs get put into about a dozen different folders. Who thought of that ingenious little chestnut?

Garbage.


You can change that in preferences... or are you talking about the way it puts multiartist CDs into seperate folders by artist. In that case, that annoys me too.
 
Calebj14 said:
You can change that in preferences... or are you talking about the way it puts multiartist CDs into seperate folders by artist. In that case, that annoys me too.

I have the appropriate option disabled and yes, I was talking about compliation CDs. I.E. Rock against Bush, vol. 1

The folders are bad. Browsing it after the fact is worse.

Hell, even CDs which aren't compilations but have more than one composer sometimes don't display all the tracks.

For example, Folklore doesn't show the first track if you choose nelly Furtado in the artist column then her folklore album in the appropriate column.
You have to go to "all artists," then find the folklore album to see all the tracks just because there's a contributing composer.

Yeah, you have to know the name of the Album if you want to see all the tracks. Don't remember it? Find it under artists....then go to "all artists" then go to albums and find the album name in there.

GENIUS!

That's completely half-baked and pretty stupid.

edit: to be fair, this is on windows. Maybe the mac version can read those CDs, I don't know.
 
Audiophile said:
Also, it does a really terrible job of genre recognition compared to media player.

...

Obviously, it uses a different database for album identification than WMP since one sucks at it and other is spot on. I believe that WMP uses AMG.

Wow, so do you like iTunes 4.6 or what?

iTunes uses CDDB, like most of the media players out there (free ones usually use FreeDDB since Gracenote started charging)

CDDB entries are user submitted, and yes there are a lot of errors, but it usually does an OK just and you can submit your corrections back to the database.
 
spankalee said:
I think digital audio has thrown a lot of audiophiles because certain things are exact and it doesn't matter if you have a $50 CD player with a digital out, or a $1000 CD player with digital out, they both give you the exact same stream of bits. The typical audiophile finds this counter-intuitive because they like to think more expensive = better. I remember how many audiophile types I knew were very puzzled when Stereophile magazine (I think) recommended a $50 RadioShack portable CD player as the best CD player to get because it had digital out, wasn't prone to skipping, and was cheap. Then again, these were people who bought into the whole green marker thing. (not every audiophile myth is expensive I guess).

You'd need an external D/A converter for that though - and those can be pricey. I agree that the stream of data from the disc is uniform, but the properties of its conversion to audio are subject to the equipment used. I have an Arcam alpha CD player which has optical out, but I don't have D/A converters and my NAD amp doesn't include one, so I rely on having a sweet converter built into my CD player. Timing is something that can really suffer with a bad D/A. Your point is good though - expensive doesn't always equal good and definately the most important piece of kit is the speakers (though they can reveal too much about the quality of your equipment)

Tom

(Think it's time to bury this thread - not really about iTunes 4.6 anymore is it...)
 
spankalee said:
No, it won't be "pretty much" the same, it will be exactly the same. CDs contain data, and reading a CD is the process of reading the data off that data, and since the data is digital it's read exactly the same as it was put on. Think of two identical CDROMs containing one file, you wouldn't say that the file as read from on computer is "pretty much" the same as the file read form another computer. It's exactly the same.

it is not exactly the same, but it is so close to exact than it is perceived as such. have you ever given a thought why on earth every single cd manufacturing plant requires that the production master cd media has been burnt with 1X speed and not any faster? the reason being that although you cannot have more than two values to choose from, there will always be reading errors (or writing errors in the production master example).

cdroms is a bad example, because the cdrom drive can always be asked to read the data again to get the correct result, but the cd-audio drive is a real-time device that has one chance to read the data, and there will always be errors. however very unsignificant in quality, but still.

it is not exactly the same, period.

quality-wise it is very unsignificant if there is one bit of error every second - that would be 1/(44100*16) (or 0.000001%) distortion which is quite impossible to hear, but still, the difference is there.

and what about scratches in the disc surface? do you think the laser head magically turns when it will have to read data below one? no, it simply skips the bits until it can get a solid reading from the bits after the scratch. a normal (non-audiophile) human ear can hear a 0.001% harmonic distortion so there can be up to 1000 consecutive "unreadable" bits before average joe begins to hear a difference.

but nonetheless - even if you cannot hear it - it is not exactly the same. cd media is affected by the laws of physics.
 
runeasgar said:
My signal goes from my USB port to an m-audio audiophile usb powered A/D converter that outputs an analog signal from either TRS or RCA to my speakers. Tell me how I'm going to do that with AirTunes. Tell me how I'm even going to reproduce that quality on AirTunes, much less in the same way that I'm doing it now.

M-Audio isn't quite the pinnacle of Hi-Fidelity audio.
 
JFreak said:
it is not exactly the same, but it is so close to exact than it is perceived as such. have you ever given a thought why on earth every single cd manufacturing plant requires that the production master cd media has been burnt with 1X speed and not any faster? the reason being that although you cannot have more than two values to choose from, there will always be reading errors (or writing errors in the production master example).

I don't know where this claim comes from, but a CD manufacturing plant has no idea whether the production master (lets just assume it's a PMCD and not a CD-R for arguments sake..) is burned at 48x or 1x. The only differentiation that they make is whether the Block Error rate is too high for duplication. Every single PMCD that I send out is burned at 8x. This keeps the client happy because they're not paying for an hour of studio time for a single speed master, and out of 300+ projects that I have done, 2 have been refused because of high BLERR rates. In both cases, the safety copy (also burned at 8x) had BLERR rates that were acceptable to the plant.
 
mikeap834 said:
I don't know where this claim comes from, but a CD manufacturing plant has no idea whether the production master (lets just assume it's a PMCD and not a CD-R for arguments sake..) is burned at 48x or 1x. The only differentiation that they make is whether the Block Error rate is too high for duplication. Every single PMCD that I send out is burned at 8x. This keeps the client happy because they're not paying for an hour of studio time for a single speed master, and out of 300+ projects that I have done, 2 have been refused because of high BLERR rates. In both cases, the safety copy (also burned at 8x) had BLERR rates that were acceptable to the plant.
I'm very curious to know what a PMCD is. Production Master CD? So how is it different from a CD-R?

I'm always wondering about these things...

Thanks in advance
WM
 
Audiophile said:
Well, that explains how to create a PMCD from a software standpoint (e.g. Jam not Toast). But mikeap834 contrasted a PMCD with a CD-R, and to me the term "CD-R" describes only a physical chunk of plastic, and says nothing about what is done to the plastic (like what software is used to burn it). That implies that a PMCD is physically different from a CD-R. Is that wrong?

WM
 
PMCD: is an acronym for a "Pre Master CD", when used for the manufacturing or replication of CD's. The "Master" in which is referred, in manufacturing terms is a "Glass Master"

In this case, they're talking about the allowable BLER (block error rate) on a CD-R which is the PMCD used to make the Master.
Also a consideration is FULL REDBOOK COMPLIANCE! Although the disc may play in consumer players, it may not be suitable as a PMCD.
 
Upsampling and D/As

First of all, I would like to point out that upsampling, while it IS interpolation of new samples from the old ones, is neither a simple and obvious one, nor is the basic nature of the interpolation open to discussion.

To be quite precise, to upsample by, for example, 2x, you insert a 0 between every two samples, and then you low-pass filter the result, in the digital domain, appropriately. The only choice you get is how good of a digital low-pass you make, and how you implement it.

Thus, upsampling DOES perform part of the low-pass filter that is necessary in a D/A converter. You ARE implementing part of the necessary low-pass in the digital domain, making it possible to use a simpler low-pass filter in the final output stage. You're low-pass filtering the new signal (which has a higher "Nyquist frequency" back to the orginal signal's "Nyquist frequency" and leaving a big deal spot with no signal between the two. The analog part of your circuitry can therefore assume that it doesn't have to deal with that stuff)

However, as has been pointed out, every D/A built these days does upsampling as needed. It is much easier to build the low-pass filter you need "mostly" in the digital domain, and "less" in the analog domain.

With any reasonable D/A converter, any upsampling you do outside of it is just going to introduce more rounding errors and whatnot.

Even a really really cheap D/A, as found in the cheapest CD players, is likely to do a pretty good job, simply because doing a decent job isn't any harder than a lousy one. The place where these are likely to fall down is on the analog side. Even a simple low-pass filter can be lousy, and the pre-amp might be as well. The digital side is an off-the shelf chip or design, it's cheap and it does it right.

The upshot of all of this is there's no point in upsampling your digital audio yourself, unless you think your D/A is a crap, which it probably isn't.

Finally, '96Khz sample rate' doesn't add any 'digital artifacts' over 44Khz. You might HEAR them, but that doesn't mean they're there.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.