Computer Audio - which software player?

browellm said:
Thanks for the tip. I don't use itunes,
One small point, I don't think a sample size of two (not had a problem) is statistically significant.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, first you state that it's no good, .......... and then you admit that you don't use it !!!!

Secondly this so-called sample size of two without problems is just as big a mis-construction ......

......... there are over 500 million iTunes users, who have down loaded more than 10 Billion tunes ..........

Maybe this is sufficiently statistically significant for you. :)

JC.
 
Purite Audio said:
You were right about Apple!
VB Keith.
Click to expand...

Thanks Keith, I'm right about a lot of things (modest too :))

We had a lot of fun 3 years ago on the forums when no one in HiFi knew anything about computer music. (some of 'em still don't) :)

I think wanting to use Reference Recordings HRx discs as demo tracks was the start of it for you irrc. :)

JC.
 
dudywoxer said:
by the same token millions eat a big mac every day or two. Doesn't mean they have the best diet.
Click to expand...

This again is a misleading statistic which means nothing.

There is no correlation between iTunes and food.

It's about as relevant as saying petrol/gasoline fuelled cars are no good, and that only two people have commented on a thread in a forum that they have no difficulty using gasoline.

:)

JC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
its just a number thing, you seemed to feel that pointing out how many people used the product suggested it was good. I was merely pointing out the popularity does not mean its good, just that its popular. No other correlation was suggested.
You seem to very quick to assume otherwise.
________
Barbiegirrl
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dudywoxer said:
its just a number thing, you seemed to feel that pointing out how many people used the product suggested it was good. I was merely pointing out the popularity does not mean its good, just that its popular. No other correlation was suggested.
You seem to very quick to assume otherwise.
Click to expand...


Your interpretation is off the mark ......... my post was a response to the question posed as to whether two users reports was statistically important or not.

I cannot see that your remarks about food and diet are relevant to the topic, and only serve to muddy the waters.

We are discussing software media players. Stay focussed. :)

JC.
 
jcbrum said:
Thanks Keith, I'm right about a lot of things (modest too :))

We had a lot of fun 3 years ago on the forums when no one in HiFi knew anything about computer music. (some of 'em still don't) :)

I think wanting to use Reference Recordings HRx discs as demo tracks was the start of it for you irrc. :)

JC.
Click to expand...

It was John, Keith Johnson wrote that their HRX discs were effectively their digital masters, I thought that hearing the 'master' file in your own home must be a good thing,also simultaneously realising how overpriced cd players were and how good and reasonably priced 'pro audio' equipment was.
Many of the major record companies have archived their magnetic tapes onto 24/96 I hope they start to release some of it soon..
Keith.
 
jcbrum said:
Oh dear, first you state that it's no good
Click to expand...

Have you got a quote to support that?


, .......... and then you admit that you don't use it !!!!
Click to expand...

Well, um, to carry on using it, when I don't like it would be quite retarded, wouldn't it?



Honestly, I'm going to duck out of the thread now, the levels of smug, self-satisfied belligerence are too much for me. If you want to google "itunes database corruption" and tell me it doesn't ever happen, be my guest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
browellm said:
Well, um, to carry on using it, when I don't like it would be quite retarded, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

I don't think retarded is an appropriate term in this context. If you did carry on using it you might get to like it, but you are perfectly entitled to express a preference.

It did seem to me though that your declared reason for that preference was un-founded. Nothing at all to do with being retarded. Simply mistaken in the overall scheme of things.


browellm said:
.... Honestly, I'm going to duck out of the thread now, ....
Click to expand...

If that is your preference, then so be it, but I would suggest you retain an open mind on the matter, and you are just as entitled to contribute as anyone else.


browellm said:
......the levels of smug, self-satisfied belligerence are too much for me. If you want to google "itunes database corruption" and tell me it doesn't ever happen, be my guest.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the "guest" invitation but I don't need it. I have said what I think and I consider that my conclusions are supported by the weight of evidence, which is considerable. Not merely on searching out minority cases and then suggesting they are the norm.

I'll accept criticism for being forthright and outspoken, but belligerence is not on my agenda.

JC.
 
I've never had iTunes go tits up.
On one occasion I got some duplicate entries appearing but that was quickly sorted.
Seems a well designed and stable bit of software to me, and so it should be given the $$$ and many thousands of man hours spent on it by Apple.
 
Purite Audio said:
It was John, Keith Johnson wrote that their HRX discs were effectively their digital masters, I thought that hearing the 'master' file in your own home must be a good thing .......
Click to expand...

Ah yes, :) I remember spending about £60 specially importing a RR HRx disc, to find out what format it was in, just to advise you it was nothing exceptional just a data dvd with audio files on it in 24/176.4 format. I remember telling you they played fine on a MacBookPro using an IEEE1394 interface, and all that mumbo jumbo about £1500 sound cards in specially constructed PC's was just the problems with XP and the need for something faster as an digital output than USB 1.

I reckon the 176.4 sampling rate is suspiciously like up-sampled 44.1, (4x), but maybe that's just my cynical view. :)

I still maintain that the perceived audio quality is not primarily determined by the sampling rate, but is almost wholly dependant on the excellence or otherwise of the skill of the recording engineer.

In replay only situations 16/44.1 fully meets requirements for very high quality re-production and the file sizes are conveniently small. After all many people are happy with vinyl, which is the equivalent of approx 12bit 32kHz, but with special extra distortions (tracking speed and geometry) added.

However for recording purposes 24 bit is essential, - headroom, mixing, etc, and I do not believe anything is required beyond 96kHz sampling rate.

If that is the case there seems little point in down-sampling to 16/44.1 except to create smaller files. You might just as well release 24/96 versions for hifi consumers, if they can play the format and accommodate the file sizes.

In short, it's not about sound quality, 16/44.1 is fine and so is 24/96, but they have different uses.

JC.
 
I agree a good recording trumps everything, however I have a friend a composer for film scores who works with 24/192 every day and he is adamant there is a noticeable drop in quality when he compresses the files down to 44.1.
Keith.
 
Ha Ha, " I have a friend " ................. is often a synonym for " it's really me, but I don't want to admit it " :) ........ particularly with the acquisition of unfortunate afflictions. :)

However, ......

Perhaps your friend is very proud of his fine work, and fine equipment, and the fine financial rewards it all brings, ........ and has convinced himself of the need for it. :)

JC.
 
No it really is just a friend who writes predomiantly film scores, sometimes a pipe is just a pipe.
 
p.s.

I have a friend, well an acquaintance actually, who will tell you that nothing comes close to vinyl LP's and all this digital replay and iPods are a joke by comparison :) He uses old Epos loudspeakers btw :)

p.p.s

I have another friend, who owns and runs one of the most important UK companies that designs and manufacturers their own DACs, pre and power amps, and loudspeakers, with outstanding success and customer support. He upgraded the spec of their products to accommodate 24/192 aficionados, but will tell you it doesn't make any discernible difference to the sound quality from available music tracks. I expect you can guess who that is. :)

p.p.p.s. In the wav v mp3 test, which Rob recently ran on this forum, flatpopely (an experienced listener) stated that he actually preferred the compressed lower bit rate version of the music to the uncompressed wav.

In short it all depends on what the listener convinces himself he wants to hear ........

....... all the way from vinyl ....... thro' mp3's ...... to high bit rate 24/192 stuff.

imo of course :)

JC.
 
I have a creative soundblaster Audigy 2 soundcard and listen on Logitech z4 speakers.

I use WinAmp for playing and have a 1tb drive which i have all my artists in seperate folders for easy reference. :)
 
however I have a friend a composer for film scores who works with 24/192 every day and he is adamant there is a noticeable drop in quality when he compresses the files down to 44.1.
Click to expand...
I find that when I convert 96k to 44k1 something is lost. 48k sounds fine though.

I guess the AVI crowd mileage may vary.

Paul
 
96 into 44.1 don't go.

How big are the problems of non-integer downsampling (or upsampling for that matter)?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top