Vincent - Sorry for going slightly off-topic here, but do you know of any PC Video cards that have HDMI IN and OUT.
Flac
- Thread starter Vincent Kars
- Start date
Thank you Vincent! Looking at the link and going to check it out.
EDIT: Forgive my ignorance, but will this card then allow me to plug-in a standalone Blu-ray player for viewing on a HDCP-capable monitor?
I don't about the latest Amarra version, but in a earlier version they added some bass and lower midrange to the playback. In other words some EQ. And people were raving of how much better bass response they got with Amarra. Especially fun considering the fact that most of these audiophiles find EQ to be a curse.
Amarra admitted this later and have changed it in later versions.
About flac vs wav I've conducted some blindtests and so far I've been able to distinguish them to my surprise, but i haven't testet enough to say anything for certain yet. I haven't had the time and effort to do more testing lately.
Amarra admitted this later and have changed it in later versions.
About flac vs wav I've conducted some blindtests and so far I've been able to distinguish them to my surprise, but i haven't testet enough to say anything for certain yet. I haven't had the time and effort to do more testing lately.
Hi
I read Amirm last post about his expereinces with Foobar 2000 and I wish I could conjure the moderate and humble tone Amirm manages to inject in his posts despite his vast knowledge of the subject of PC music. I could extend the same to Vincent Kars if this were a compliment ...
I have not compared Amarra with iTunes. I must say however that for along time I was convince that iTunes was inferior to Foobar ... with wav, until I took my time to listen to them in a somewhat blind situation with headphones and a friend manning the iPad/remote control. There were no differences in my tests that I could perceive. I wasn't able to pinpoint which player was playing .. once level were matched not a difference that I could put a finger on.
That is my experience those of other members may differ. I must however say that most of the recollection of the superiority of one player over another involves sighted tests. No means were taken to minimize the biaes of placebo effects. An audiophile does have to go through all the loops to convince himself that a certain product is different , yet if that means saving $1000 for software we may need tobe cautious IMO... I would also point toward Born last post
Caveat emptor
I read Amirm last post about his expereinces with Foobar 2000 and I wish I could conjure the moderate and humble tone Amirm manages to inject in his posts despite his vast knowledge of the subject of PC music. I could extend the same to Vincent Kars if this were a compliment ...
I have not compared Amarra with iTunes. I must say however that for along time I was convince that iTunes was inferior to Foobar ... with wav, until I took my time to listen to them in a somewhat blind situation with headphones and a friend manning the iPad/remote control. There were no differences in my tests that I could perceive. I wasn't able to pinpoint which player was playing .. once level were matched not a difference that I could put a finger on.
That is my experience those of other members may differ. I must however say that most of the recollection of the superiority of one player over another involves sighted tests. No means were taken to minimize the biaes of placebo effects. An audiophile does have to go through all the loops to convince himself that a certain product is different , yet if that means saving $1000 for software we may need tobe cautious IMO... I would also point toward Born last post
...in a earlier version they added some bass and lower midrange to the playback. In other words some EQ. And people were raving of how much better bass response they got with Amarra. Especially fun considering the fact that most of these audiophiles find EQ to be a curse.
Caveat emptor
My bridge is isolated. I verified that before I bought it
Just to add also the Halide bridge seems to be gavlanic isolated as well but how well this is done could be debated, ironic these two bridges are well isolated but many of the USB DACs out there seem not to be (take Ayre QB9 as an example of one that is).
Still the Audiophileo seems a more advanced design.
Cheers
Orb
You made me think of testing how well they are isolated some day. Shouldn't be hard to measure its performance while trying different PCs.....
Would be interesting to do.
The tricky part I guess is seeing the interaction with downstream pre-int amp as this is also critical for whether noise/etc becomes noticable.
One of the journalists comments on this with his experience where changing his reference component to a Bryston (his alternative) resolved noise issues that the USB product allowed through.
So I guess some may argue on a technical point is the USB product at fault or not if downstream amps make it audible
My view is that in an ideal world all products should be well isolated, but if not the ones further upstream should be 1st to reduce such issues occuring.
One dirty test I guess is touching the outer shell of the USB jacket - one of their writers could cause audible noise that way.
Let us know how you get on.
Cheers
Orb
Theoretically, all of the air molecules in the room you're in could gather themselves into a corner, just by chance, leaving you in big trouble.
But it's exceedingly unlikely and there are other far more likely things to worry about.
Ditto there being a real audible difference betweem FLAC (or other lossless compressed) and WAV playback. Might happen, theoretically, but it's probably placebo. This is just another non-issue that places like computeraudiophile stir up. Amir's paragraph about placebo effect should have been the *first* thing to read about this.
Or maybe this instead:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=79056&view=findpost&p=691525
Sasully in terms of biases one important other that comes to mind and I keep forgetting its name (JA reminded me once on SP) is when one makes a change you then automatically think it will be different and then feel there could be a difference, which ofcourse skews results or causes confliction/confusion in noting perceptible changes.
Not necessarily disagreeing just adding.
Cheers
Orb
Not necessarily disagreeing just adding.
Cheers
Orb
I am not sure where to put my first post. As i see the "diference" in ..... is relevant to my very basic quest and hope will get some patient replies/comments.
1. I have ripped a few Redbook CD to FLAC losless (44.1/16 res) and saved on an external HD. When I play the FLAC track (via USB to Onkyo TXNR609 receiver) it does not sound as good as the same track on the CD played through Cambridge Audio 650BD and the same receiver/speaker system.
2. Is the FLACK file from the HD inferior because (A) the ripping drive LG HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GMA-4020B (about 5-7 years old) is not good enough-DbPoweramp used for ripping (B) the data transfer from the HD via USB to the Receiver is degrading or (D) the Receiver is not reproducing the full resolution? Although the receiver does have 192/24 DACs and CD/SACD/DVD-A played on CA650BD through the Receiver sounds very good.
As you have dbPoweramp check the ripping report.
It will generate a confidence report (AccurateRip).
You might try to rip a couple of ‘popular’ CDs.
This will tell you if there is anything wrong in the ripping process
A DAC might be 24/192 but this says nothing about the input.
A lot of devices today do have a USB audio input but often implemented on the cheap with a simple of the shelf chipset.
However this chipsets do allow for 16/48 in general so it is not a resolution problem.
Some of these chipsets can generate substantial input jitter.
Some measurements can be found here: http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/USB.html
As the receiver is DLNA compliant you might try the following
- Hook it up to the home network
- Have the same FLAC on a Win7 PC with media sharing enabled
This should allow you to use streaming over the network and as a consequence bypass the USB input.
Check if you hear a difference between streaming and USB.
Connect the CD player to the receiver analog and digital if possible.
This will tell you something about the differences between the DAC of the CD player and the DAC of the receiver
It will generate a confidence report (AccurateRip).
You might try to rip a couple of ‘popular’ CDs.
This will tell you if there is anything wrong in the ripping process
A DAC might be 24/192 but this says nothing about the input.
A lot of devices today do have a USB audio input but often implemented on the cheap with a simple of the shelf chipset.
However this chipsets do allow for 16/48 in general so it is not a resolution problem.
Some of these chipsets can generate substantial input jitter.
Some measurements can be found here: http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/USB.html
As the receiver is DLNA compliant you might try the following
- Hook it up to the home network
- Have the same FLAC on a Win7 PC with media sharing enabled
This should allow you to use streaming over the network and as a consequence bypass the USB input.
Check if you hear a difference between streaming and USB.
Connect the CD player to the receiver analog and digital if possible.
This will tell you something about the differences between the DAC of the CD player and the DAC of the receiver
Last edited:
Vincent,
Thanks.
I am not very well up on all the transfer process and AD/DAC/USB etc conversions and I need time to readup and digest.
The comparison track is U2 Joshua Tree Where the streets have no name. The dbPoweramp shows an accurate (14) and other tracks some are 15 and 16.
What I find is that the FLAC played from my Seagate Black Armor external hard drive directly connected to the Receiver's USB input,bass seems a little muddled and the trebble not as clear- in general less detailed onerall.
CD is played on Cambridge Audio 650BD via 1.4 HDMI into Receiver.
I don't know how many stages of processing goes on from (A) CD player to Receiver and out as audio (B) EHD to USB to Receiver and out as audio.
Is the Receiver doing the AD conversion in both these cases in exactly the same way?
William
Thanks.
I am not very well up on all the transfer process and AD/DAC/USB etc conversions and I need time to readup and digest.
The comparison track is U2 Joshua Tree Where the streets have no name. The dbPoweramp shows an accurate (14) and other tracks some are 15 and 16.
What I find is that the FLAC played from my Seagate Black Armor external hard drive directly connected to the Receiver's USB input,bass seems a little muddled and the trebble not as clear- in general less detailed onerall.
CD is played on Cambridge Audio 650BD via 1.4 HDMI into Receiver.
I don't know how many stages of processing goes on from (A) CD player to Receiver and out as audio (B) EHD to USB to Receiver and out as audio.
Is the Receiver doing the AD conversion in both these cases in exactly the same way?
William
Both USB and HDMI are digital so the DAC in the receiver is doing the work.
HDMI has a bad reputation in audio (very jittery)
This might explain why the treble most of all is affected.
http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/HW/Connect/HDMI_connect.htm
Any other way to connect the CD player? SPDIF or analog?
HDMI has a bad reputation in audio (very jittery)
This might explain why the treble most of all is affected.
http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/HW/Connect/HDMI_connect.htm
Any other way to connect the CD player? SPDIF or analog?
Hi
Well he seems to prefer the HDMI to the USB connection. I must say this is nota really valid comparison as the circuits and processing paths are very different. I would suggest Laz to try the following:
Make a CD out of the FLAC files and compare on the same CD player through the same receiver HDMI input. Hardly scientific but a start. Yoru current methodology introduces too many variables: Receiver USB interface could be sub-optimal for example or inferior to HDMI interface in this particular receiver .. Lot more stuff, I'll leave it to Vincent.
Well he seems to prefer the HDMI to the USB connection. I must say this is nota really valid comparison as the circuits and processing paths are very different. I would suggest Laz to try the following:
Make a CD out of the FLAC files and compare on the same CD player through the same receiver HDMI input. Hardly scientific but a start. Yoru current methodology introduces too many variables: Receiver USB interface could be sub-optimal for example or inferior to HDMI interface in this particular receiver .. Lot more stuff, I'll leave it to Vincent.
Vincent,
Yes- I meant to say I "preferred" the CD to FLAC and wanted to determine if there could be a technical reason for it or was it just my perception. I will try to catch up on the technical stuff eventually! I am having to learn and happy for the opportunity.
Frantz,
I will try to burn a CD and A/B the two as soon as I am able to. I must make it clear that I am talking about which one I "preferred" and not necessarily which is technically "superior/inferior". I bought the TXNR because it has a USB input and could play up to 96Khz/24 bit FLAC files straight from my EHD (which I took to the music store and tried it out-I had started ripping CDs to this by then after having taken a long time to decide to use FLAC).
When I report back the A/B test (I can't say when), I hope the technically sonic superiority can be discussed further.
William
Yes- I meant to say I "preferred" the CD to FLAC and wanted to determine if there could be a technical reason for it or was it just my perception. I will try to catch up on the technical stuff eventually! I am having to learn and happy for the opportunity.
Frantz,
I will try to burn a CD and A/B the two as soon as I am able to. I must make it clear that I am talking about which one I "preferred" and not necessarily which is technically "superior/inferior". I bought the TXNR because it has a USB input and could play up to 96Khz/24 bit FLAC files straight from my EHD (which I took to the music store and tried it out-I had started ripping CDs to this by then after having taken a long time to decide to use FLAC).
When I report back the A/B test (I can't say when), I hope the technically sonic superiority can be discussed further.
William
I think 0 is still compression. Try yourself. The compression level 0 allows the fastes deconding time.
Best
Pico
I think that the most important reason why to support FLAC is decoding speed. This is especially important for hirez files... think about 24bit/192Khz.
Pico
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |