Just Bought A New Av Receiver - At A Steal!

[bum]

Dude all I can say to you is chill the heck out.
Whilst I may not have a piece of paper that says I know any thing (hell I dropped out of school in yr 11 - schools not my thing). I did work in the industry for a number of years. Throwing around the fact that you have a degree in the pro sound arena wont win you many freinds.

But you trying to undermine what I have said by implying that my knowledge is inaccurate and ill-gained will (reC mag reference)? I raised it because it is relevant to the slur you made against me. And for what it is worth, you're still being a condescending arsehole.

Most of the guys I've worked with bumping in rigs have no formal schooling what so ever.

I never said formal schooling is the best way to learn about pro-audio. The only reason I brought it up was as explained above.

I'm not saying theres anything wrong with having schooling - all im saying is that you shouldnt use it as a "one up" on other people. Heck I still get calls from a mate who did the RMIT course asking me questions when he's stuck - why? cause I have the hands on experience.

I'm clearly not using it to one-up anyone. It is a single reference - if it made you feel belittled I am sorry.

Just like I call him when I have a problem I'm not sure of - our skills and areas of knowledge allow us to compliment one another. I'm sure in time the balance will weigh more in his favour as he will have the theoretical knowledge and will gain the real world experiance.

Then I suggest you do that now because you're really wrong and you're trying to "educate" others with halfarsed rubbish.

Plus I've since basically stepped out of the industry to earn real money and a decent living without the sucky hours.

Throwing around the fact that you make great money wont win you many friends.

By the way I'd suggest in future you dont quote people out of context - it wont win you any freinds.

I quoted NOTHING out of context. In fact, I barely even deleted anything. If you feel I've presented what you posted in a manner that makes you look foolish perhaps it is because you look foolish.

Plus I'm a little confused as to WTF we're arguing. I actually thought we were agreeing? Other than you dont agree with my interpretation of what a compressor does. Which I have to be honest doesnt bother me. What I'm saying and how im writting it and then you are reading and interperating it - it may very well be getting lost in translation due to my poor explaination. Though I hardly see that as a reason to take to me like you did in your previous post.

Here's what we're arguing:
I pointed out that there's two different types of compression and their terms are not interchangeable in the way a few people had been doing in this thread. Then you go on to first admit I'm right, secondly insult my intelligence and assume I have no experience (which you continue to do, just so you know), third you post incorrect info about the other kind of compression (i.e. not the one that is being questioned in the first place - further proving that you do not understand the difference), finally you go on to drop in your experience in a manner like it proves a great deal (as you've accused me of doing with the RMIT thing).

Re the lexicon unit I can see where both of you are coming from. I would assume the lexicon is being used for volume control - ie a passive pre-"amp" which both you and I understand that gain control is a seperate entity to volume or level control we surely can agree that it is easy for someone with out proper understanding to get the two terms confused (no offence Jase)

I've gone on, in private, to explain to Jase that I'm not so sure the Lex is adding much but more that it is just a hell of a lot better than his soundcard. I raised it in the first place because he was suggesting that it makes his MP3s sound better - it is more a case of it not making them sound worse. He knows I think it is a decent set-up. I was just curious as to how he has it set up because I know guys who'd actually run it through the pre-amps thinking it'd make it sound better.

Now I hope we're all cool and can shake hands, kiss and make up cause that seemed to get heated for no reason what so ever.

It seems unlikely on this one issue. But what happens in this thread stays in this thread and I'm sure I'll read something you say about brewing with interest and learn something valuable.

(edit: typos)

 

[3G]

Any suggestions for a single cd player. Around 1 to 2K. NAD maybe looks best value, the more i look into it there are some beautiful English players around

 

[komodo]

3G - NAD make great CD players. Even better if your using them purely as a transport and using an external DAC.
In that price range I would recomend Denon or NAD or Cambridge Audio, there are many others out there but these I have had experiance with and liked. Though I think I would stick with the Denon or the NAD. There are plenty of others in that price range and at the end of the day a lot of its going to come down to asthetics, brand loyalty or awareness and price. They are all great, they all benefit from an external DAC and they all have slightly different characteristics. I would suggest if you can get along to a decent hifi store to have a listen to whats on offer in your price range.

Bum honestly if you think im being condesending I suggest you swallow some concrete and harden the **** up champ. I'm hardly insulting your intellegence meerly discussing a topic. My comments regarding the PC mag weren't directed at you. They were meerly a passing comment meaning that it doesnt matter how many of these guys keep telling us that MP3 are as good to our ears as CD or vinyl we know that they are wrong. If you missed my point and missunderstood me I appologise - not my intention.
My comments regarding money weren't intended to suggest I make a great deal of money (which I don't) all I was saying is that its bloody hard yakka to make good money out side of sales in the pro-audio field and that it involves long hard hours. I'm sure if you've done much large format work youve experianced the joys of working 50 hours in 3 days for a weekend racket - its not a great deal of fun after a few years and unfortunately its not finacially rewarded like it (IMO) should be.

Some of you guys (possibly all) are using the term "compression" incorrectly. Compression of audio relates to dynamic range (compression of the actual peaks and troughs (so to speak) of the soundwaves). When you're talking about compression and MP3s all you are talking about is data compression - this cannot be heard. The faults in MP3s are to do with the format's inability to reproduce higher frequencies (upper level dependant on sampling rate but none go as high as that which can be reproduced).

This is where you lost me. Not once was dynamic range compression talked about until you brought it up. As such no one was using the terms interchageably. You then went on to suggest that "data" compression of MP3 files cant be heard. Which I disagreed with because I dont think you explained propperly that you were meaning that we cant hear data compression only the side effects. Honestly I dont know enough about the subject so I'm naturally not gunna go slinging poo as to weather compression itself can be heard. As such all I did was suggest that yes we can hear the "effects" of audio file compression. Which it turns out we both agree - just that you have a further knowledge of the topic. I do still stand by the fact that MP3's do have a compressed dynamic range also (along with a limited frequency range), you only need to look up the red book specs for CDs and compare against the dynamic range of an MP3.

As for my comments regarding dynamics compression - an expander is simply a reverce compressor. Hence why what they do is also called upwards compression. Sure its a contradiction in terms - but its a term often used. So again your right - so once again we are agreeing just using different terms. Essentially a compressor is a limiter, ok so its not a finite limit like a true limiter, but its still limiting or restricting the ampliture past the threshold. Where as a limiter is more a "brickwall compressor". Now tell me how my information I've posted that a compressor (in its most common use) is used to regulate [dynamic] amplitude is incorrect? I'm happy to be proven wrong but so far all you've done is call me a liar and a condesending asshole without properly then going on to explain why im incorrect.

 

[bum]

We can look look at the Red Book specs if you like. Let's, shall we! There is NO mention of dynamics in the Red Book Code because it is the bit rate that sets the dynamic range (beyond what is set by the program material). It is the same deal with MP3s - the reason the dynamics are effected is due to the limitations of the format - NOT the data compression. You cannot hear errorless (in layman's terms - there's pretty much no such thing as errorless MP3 decoders, but that is beside the point) data compression (not referring to lossless).

Here, I'll try to better illustrate what I'm saying about not being able to hear data compression: ok, you accept that there is no such thing as audible digital audio, right? By this I mean that audio cannot be reproduced digitally. So, we have an analogue source which we have turned into ones and zeros - but this file is very, very large. It is impractical at this size. What can we do to it to make it more practical? What we can do is treat the ones and zeros (it is not music at this point, it is just a bunch of on or off, yes or no options - no different from any other information on a computer) like the numbers that they are and create an equation that can be applied to these ones and zeros to reduce the number of them but still have their value be the same (not entirely dissimilar to converting 4/16 into 1/4 to make it more manageable). So we now have a smaller file but in order to use it we must apply the formula in reverse to make it the same as it was in the beginning (in this instance music recording). You cannot hear this. CAN NOT. What you can hear is the limitations of the format which are present BEFORE the compression occurs. When we turn these ones and zeros back into music we find there is a difference between a "natural" sound source and the digitally reproduced signal - this occurs with CD too (your chosen reference point), the only difference is that one format faces more limitations than the other. You cannot hear data compression like you keep asserting. Yes, you can hear a difference between CD and MP3 - that is because there is a difference between CD and MP3.

All the above is, of course, not taking bad compression codecs into account - but you don't say that CDs are awful because one guy used a bad microphone one time, do you?

I did not call you a liar, I said you were wrong - I'm sure you believe it completely. And will continue to no matter what.

Bum honestly if you think im being condesending I suggest you swallow some concrete and harden the **** up champ.

This is pretty hilarious. I'm sure you do not know why.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

because it is the bit rate that sets the dynamic range

WRONG....WRONG...WRONG


Bite rate ( sample rate ) will determine your ultimate freq range...ie how high ypu can go

Dynamic range ( the difference between the loudest sound point and the softest ) is determined by the word length of the DAC PCM

IE if you have a 44.1khz sample rate with an 8 bit PCM you get less dynamic range than if you used a 16 or 32bit PCM word

44.1k@8bits gives you 352.8k/bit stream
44.1k@16bits gives a 705.6k/bit stream ( this is the current CD standard)
44.1k@32bits gives a 1411.2k/bit stream

The sample rate has to be double the highets frequency that you wish to convert

If you increases the sample rate , you top end ( treble ) would become clearer and if you increased the PCM bit rate you would have greater levels between loud and soft



















In telephony , they use 8khz sample rate with 8 bit word, giving you a bandwidth of 64K/b...the minimum required for high quality speech transmission ( 300hz to 3.4Khz )....hence forth, you cant run VOIP on dialup, and this is also why basic ISDN services are 64kb

 

[bum]

Slow down with the caps there, fella. Sample rate and bit rate (also bit depth) are different. Not subtly different. They are completely different axis on the graph representing the audio. While this doesn't make them opposites it might as well. Wordlength is set by bit rate, pretty much. Otherwise, what you say is correct but has nothing to do with what I'm saying (edit - except that it does explain why MP3 sounds worse than CD, which I haven't really gone into).

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Wordlength is set by bit rate, pretty much


WHAT.....

Wordlength is set, your sample rate can change, but not the PCM wordlength

 

[bum]

Wordlength is not set. You can have 8-bit, 16-bit, 24-bit, etc. The wordlength of PCM is set but that is because it is a standard. MP3 is not PCM.

Again, make sure you're right if you're gonna start with the caps.

 

[bonj]

But the wordlength in any particular stream is set. Yes different streams can have different word lengths, but it is not dynamically changable within the stream.

 

[bum]

Actually I take that back - wordlength is variable in PCM too.

Apologies to all.

 

[bum]

But the wordlength in any particular stream is set. Yes different streams can have different word lengths, but it is not dynamically changable within the stream.

Then what is a VBR Mp3?

Besides, I don't think anyone is talking about that. If it looks like I am point me to it so I can clarify my intent.

 

[bonj]

Then what is a VBR Mp3?

Yes you may be right there...

 

[bonj]

Either way, my untrained ears simply cannot detect artifacts at 320Kbps, 128 is a different story, but even at 192 I don't detect many. I'm already a beer snob, I don't want to be a snob in all areas of my life h34r:

 

[bum]

I'm gonna agree with you there (although I'm not a beer snob - but I am working on it!). None of my MP3s even go up 320kb/s - I only listen to them on earbuds. What's the point?

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Bum...are you changing this debate to MP3 now....which is a bit different to when you started..

Bonj is right, wordlength cannot be dynamically changed. When I say the wordlength does not change, I do mean that you can have different wordlengths depending on your application, but once you choose it, it cant be changed..

Agree MP3 is different to PCM...as MP# is a way of removing information from the orriginal recording to allow the song to be squeezed into an MP3 player..

Hence forth MP3 is lossy where as PCM ( and FLAC ) provides and ( almost ) exact replica of the original music

 

[bum]

I'm pretty sure we were all talking about MP3s in the beginning of this exchange. And I hope that maybe someone else will notice how hard I'm trying not to get bogged down in the details of MP3. There are so many instance earlier where I would have been able to drop such information into earlier posts. We're at this point now because of your screaming, remember?

PCM is a very, very long way from being an exact replica. But yes most people can't tell the difference and even the few who can accept it is probably good enough. (please no one bring vinyl into this!)

 

[bonj]

PCM is a very, very long way from being an exact replica. But yes most people can't tell the difference and even the few who can accept it is probably good enough. (please no one bring vinyl into this!)

But you'd have to admit that PCM can be very close to an exact replica. It all just depends on your sample rate and word-length... a long enough word to enable close to the full dynamic range, and the sample rate high enough to very closely approximate the original wave... at that quality, it may as well be exact. I personally can't tell the difference between CD quality 44.1KHz and DVD 48KHz samples. It's only down at around 32KHz that I can start to notice a difference.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Vinyl with a nice tube amp always sounds nice and soft..

Much better pure digital recordings with Harsh transistor amps..

MMm...shall we step into why a valve ( and MOSFET ) amps sound softer that Silicon transisto amps..


I was not screaming...but you have pointed out that I was right in some respects ..

 

[bum]

Typing in caps is screaming on the internet. It implies high volume and anger. I am not making this up.

I'm pretty sure I also pointed out that the things you were right about had pretty much nothing to do with the discussion.

But you'd have to admit that PCM can be very close to an exact replica. It all just depends on your sample rate and word-length...
a long enough word to enable close to the full dynamic range, and the sample rate high enough to very closely approximate the original wave... at that quality, it may as well be exact.

Sure, it is possible, but I guess I'm talking about commerically available comsumer stuff here - even high-end stuff. CD quality is not the same. Having said that, I think CDs are fine. Was just making a point.

I personally can't tell the difference between CD quality 44.1KHz and DVD 48KHz samples. It's only down at around 32KHz that I can start to notice a difference.

Yeah, I'd be the same on the stuff in my loungeroom. In fact I definitely am the same on the stuff in my loungeroom because I don't bother having good shit in it. Why spend thousands colouring the stuff I want to listen to? If anyone wants to, cool, I genuinely hope they enjoy it. As for DVD sounds (movies, not DVD-Audio (are they even still produced?)) I just watch them through the TV speakers - they're basically MP3s for christ's sake.

 

[pokolbinguy]

As for DVD sounds (movies, not DVD-Audio (are they even still produced?)) I just watch them through the TV speakers - they're basically MP3s for christ's sake.

I don't really understand all the stuff that has been floating around in this thread but if you are only watching dvds utilising the stereo speakers of your tv you are missing out big time...nothing quite like a movie in DTS or in the new DTS master or what ever it is called...mmmm movies