[Chuck Finley]

I bought an Escient music server several years ago when hard drive space was
still relatively expensive. Most of my music on there is encoded at 320 and
192. Reviews of DACs typically discuss how they can improve the sound of CD
quality or hi-rez music, but I'm wondering what effect they would have on
compressed music. Would some kind of up-sampling device have to be added to
the DAC for this? Thanks.

[bob]

On Dec 11, 5:08=A0pm, "Chuck Finley" wrote:
I bought an Escient music server several years ago when hard drive space =
was
still relatively expensive. Most of my music on there is encoded at 320 a=
nd
192. Reviews of DACs typically discuss how they can improve the sound of =
CD
quality or hi-rez music, but I'm wondering what effect they would have on
compressed music. Would some kind of up-sampling device have to be added =
to
the DAC for this? Thanks.

Once an MP3 is made, the loss in sound quality is permanent. No way to
restore it.

That said, most of the time for most listeners, even a 192 kbps MP3
will be indistinguishable from a CD. So you haven't lost as much as
you think you have.

Also, don't read DAC reviews. They're essentially creative writing
exercises.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:47:12 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Dec 11, 5:08=A0pm, "Chuck Finley" wrote:
I bought an Escient music server several years ago when hard drive space was
still relatively expensive. Most of my music on there is encoded at 320 and
192. Reviews of DACs typically discuss how they can improve the sound of CD
quality or hi-rez music, but I'm wondering what effect they would have on
compressed music. Would some kind of up-sampling device have to be added to
the DAC for this? Thanks.

Once an MP3 is made, the loss in sound quality is permanent. No way to
restore it.

That said, most of the time for most listeners, even a 192 kbps MP3
will be indistinguishable from a CD. So you haven't lost as much as
you think you have.

Also, don't read DAC reviews. They're essentially creative writing
exercises.

bob


I disagree with that. DACs differ quite a bit in their sound. If you don't
think they do, then you probably haven't DBT'ed a DAC such as a MSB DAC IV
against a Musical Fidelity V-DAC or a dCS Debussy against a Benchmark DAC1
or a Music Streamer II! They all sound quite different. Especially in the
treble presentation and soundstaging.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:47:12 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Dec 11, 5:08=A0pm, "Chuck Finley" wrote:
I bought an Escient music server several years ago when hard drive space
was
still relatively expensive. Most of my music on there is encoded at 320
and
192. Reviews of DACs typically discuss how they can improve the sound of
CD
quality or hi-rez music, but I'm wondering what effect they would have
on
compressed music. Would some kind of up-sampling device have to be added
to
the DAC for this? Thanks.

Once an MP3 is made, the loss in sound quality is permanent. No way to
restore it.

That said, most of the time for most listeners, even a 192 kbps MP3
will be indistinguishable from a CD. So you haven't lost as much as
you think you have.

Also, don't read DAC reviews. They're essentially creative writing
exercises.

bob

I disagree with that. DACs differ quite a bit in their sound.

They can, as long as you stay clear of well-done bias-controlled tests.

If you don't think they do, then you probably haven't DBT'ed a DAC such as
a MSB DAC IV
against a Musical Fidelity V-DAC or a dCS Debussy against a Benchmark
DAC1
or a Music Streamer II!

I was unaware of such serious technical failings in such expensive hardware.

They all sound quite different.

It is axiomatic that DACs can only sound different if they have serious
technical flaws.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:08:37 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:47:12 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Dec 11, 5:08=A0pm, "Chuck Finley" wrote:
I bought an Escient music server several years ago when hard drive space
was
still relatively expensive. Most of my music on there is encoded at 320
and
192. Reviews of DACs typically discuss how they can improve the sound of
CD
quality or hi-rez music, but I'm wondering what effect they would have
on
compressed music. Would some kind of up-sampling device have to be added
to
the DAC for this? Thanks.

Once an MP3 is made, the loss in sound quality is permanent. No way to
restore it.

That said, most of the time for most listeners, even a 192 kbps MP3
will be indistinguishable from a CD. So you haven't lost as much as
you think you have.

Also, don't read DAC reviews. They're essentially creative writing
exercises.

bob

I disagree with that. DACs differ quite a bit in their sound.

They can, as long as you stay clear of well-done bias-controlled tests.

They differ quite a bit when you DO conduct proper bias-controlled tests. I
would know, having done so.

If you don't think they do, then you probably haven't DBT'ed a DAC such as
a MSB DAC IV
against a Musical Fidelity V-DAC or a dCS Debussy against a Benchmark
DAC1
or a Music Streamer II!

I was unaware of such serious technical failings in such expensive hardware.

Not all of the DACs I mentioned, above, are expensive. The Musical Fidelity
V-DAC, for instance, is only about $300, the Music Streamer II DAC is only
about $350. Certainly the MSB and the dCS are quite costly by comparison. The
fact that inexpensive DACs are, well, let's be kind and just say
"compromised" in their performance, is, basically, my point.

They all sound quite different.

It is axiomatic that DACs can only sound different if they have serious
technical flaws.

And surprise, surprise, the $14,000 MSB DAC IV and and the $11,000 dCS
Debussy DACs DO sound MUCH better than any of the cheap IC-based DAC boxes
(including the $1000 Benchmark DAC1). All of which just reinforces your
comments, above. Cheap DACs DO have, compared to the expensive spread,
"serious technical flaws". In fact, I have found that the only IC DAC chip
that performs substantially better than the "usual suspects" from TI/Burr
Brown and Analog Devices and comes anywhere within a country mile of the
discrete "Ladder DAC" used by MSB or the discrete "Ring DAC" used by dCS is
the ESS 32-bit "SabreDAC". And it still has a long way to go to equal
either, sonically.

[bob]

On Dec 12, 11:07=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

They differ quite a bit when you DO conduct proper bias-controlled tests.=
I
would know, having done so.

Our previous discussions of listening tests have revealed a that you
have at best an incomplete understanding of what "bias-controlled
test" means. Meanwhile, there have been numerous published reports of
well-documented such tests, and all have come to conclusions very
different from yours. They've found a few, easily explained
exceptions, but by and large humans can't distinguish between DACs
without their eyes.

And surprise, surprise, the $14,000 MSB DAC IV and =A0and the $11,000 dCS
Debussy DACs DO sound MUCH better than any of the cheap IC-based DAC boxe=
s
(including the $1000 Benchmark DAC1).

Yeah, surprise. Lots of people listen with their wallets.

bob

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:08:37 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

It is axiomatic that DACs can only sound different if they have serious
technical flaws.

And surprise, surprise, the $14,000 MSB DAC IV and and the $11,000 dCS
Debussy DACs DO sound MUCH better than any of the cheap IC-based DAC boxes
(including the $1000 Benchmark DAC1).

People say things like that, but of course the scientific evidence is AFAIK
not present and IME probably not forthcoming.

This is a shame, since doing listening tests for the audible flaws of DACs
is a very easy thing to do. They have no appreciable time delays and they
have electrical inputs and outputs.

All of which just reinforces your comments, above. Cheap DACs DO have,
compared to the expensive spread,
"serious technical flaws".

Actually they don't. Not only do many far less expensive DACs lack audible
flaws, they even lack audible flaws when cascaded many times. There are many
scientifically -done listening tests that show this to be true.

DACs are now among the most perfected of all audio components, even when not
costly. They are among the easiest to test scientifically, and also among
the most often tested by scientific means.

Here's just one of many real-world examples:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/aes/

[Rockinghorse Winner[_8_]]

bob writes:

On Dec 11, 5:08=A0pm, "Chuck Finley" wrote:
I bought an Escient music server several years ago when hard drive space =
was
still relatively expensive. Most of my music on there is encoded at 320 a=
nd
192. Reviews of DACs typically discuss how they can improve the sound of =
CD
quality or hi-rez music, but I'm wondering what effect they would have on
compressed music. Would some kind of up-sampling device have to be added =
to
the DAC for this? Thanks.

Once an MP3 is made, the loss in sound quality is permanent. No way to
restore it.

That said, most of the time for most listeners, even a 192 kbps MP3
will be indistinguishable from a CD. So you haven't lost as much as
you think you have.

192? Really? The difference to me is huge. I mean, it's not objectionable
like more compressed music, but it is deficient. Even 320, while better yet,
is still not up to CD quality.

However, if you are listening on an IPod or through a mass market stereo,
you prolly wouldn't notice much difference, it's true.

Terry


Also, don't read DAC reviews. They're essentially creative writing
exercises.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 14:08:58 -0800, Chuck Finley wrote
(in article ):

I bought an Escient music server several years ago when hard drive space was
still relatively expensive. Most of my music on there is encoded at 320 and
192. Reviews of DACs typically discuss how they can improve the sound of CD
quality or hi-rez music, but I'm wondering what effect they would have on
compressed music. Would some kind of up-sampling device have to be added to
the DAC for this? Thanks.

OK. 192 and 320 KBPS are considered essentially "transparent", and , as far
as I can tell 320 actually is transparent to my ears. 192, OTOH, is
essentially transparent ON SPEAKERS, but on headphones, I can hear the
artifacts. They are essentially the same artifacts that I hear at 128 KBPS
and lower (noise bursts accompanying solo percussive sounds such as piano and
acoustic guitar) only much more attenuated and of shorter duration.

I use a Logitech Squeezebox Touch to listen to streaming internet radio (the
only MP3 I listen to. My CDs are ripped using Apple Lossless Compression
(ALCS) on iTunes) and the digital output of that is fed to my 24/192 DAC
through a Sonic Frontiers D2D digital up-converter (to 24/96). Basically, the
difference between the upsampled and non-upsampled MP3 audio is very subtle.
On a direct, blind comparison using the upconverter's bypass switch and a
friend doing the switching while I wear headphones in another room, I can
hear a difference when he switches but I can't honestly say that one sounds
better than the other, just "different", and frankly I can't even tell which
is which. But to the main point, the one I think you are asking, no,
up-sampling does not eliminate any compression artifacts that might be
present. If they're audible before upsampling, they're there after
upsampling. The main thing to remember about upsampling is that it adds NO
new information to a digital bit stream. It's only advantage (if any) is to
move the sampling filter cut-off from 22.05KHz (given 16-bit/44.1 KHz
sampling rate) to 48 KHz (assuming we're upconverting to 96 KHz). There is
still no information above 22.05 KHz in the reconstructed audio signal.

I hope this answers your question.

[Edmund[_2_]]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:08:58 +0000, Chuck Finley wrote:

I bought an Escient music server several years ago when hard drive space
was still relatively expensive. Most of my music on there is encoded at
320 and 192. Reviews of DACs typically discuss how they can improve the
sound of CD quality or hi-rez music, but I'm wondering what effect they
would have on compressed music. Would some kind of up-sampling device
have to be added to the DAC for this? Thanks.

Clever sneaky marketeers forced the whole word with a
speech defect, MP3 is by no means is compression, it is
reduction. This idiocy let to even further speech defects
because now we have to make distinction between
compression -which in all kinds of different branches per
definition IS lossless and the reduction scheme from MP3.
Since MP3 has thrown away data I would not bother to try
to make it better again, the quality is gone forever.
In MP3 language, puncturing a tire is compressing it.

Edmund

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 03:35:39 -0800, Edmund wrote
(in article ):

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:08:58 +0000, Chuck Finley wrote:

I bought an Escient music server several years ago when hard drive space
was still relatively expensive. Most of my music on there is encoded at
320 and 192. Reviews of DACs typically discuss how they can improve the
sound of CD quality or hi-rez music, but I'm wondering what effect they
would have on compressed music. Would some kind of up-sampling device
have to be added to the DAC for this? Thanks.

Clever sneaky marketeers forced the whole word with a
speech defect, MP3 is by no means is compression, it is
reduction. This idiocy let to even further speech defects
because now we have to make distinction between
compression -which in all kinds of different branches per
definition IS lossless and the reduction scheme from MP3.
Since MP3 has thrown away data I would not bother to try
to make it better again, the quality is gone forever.
In MP3 language, puncturing a tire is compressing it.

Edmund

While you do have a point, MP3 does meet the digital definition of
compression. I.E., it does allow one to fit a quart of information into the
proverbial pint pot. That it does so by throwing as much as more than 90% of
the signal away is irrelevant to the definition. It is amazing that MP3 music
at 128 or 64 KBPS is even recognizable, though 8^)

[Edmund[_2_]]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:08:09 +0000, Audio Empire wrote:

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 03:35:39 -0800, Edmund wrote (in article
):

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:08:58 +0000, Chuck Finley wrote:

I bought an Escient music server several years ago when hard drive
space was still relatively expensive. Most of my music on there is
encoded at 320 and 192. Reviews of DACs typically discuss how they can
improve the sound of CD quality or hi-rez music, but I'm wondering
what effect they would have on compressed music. Would some kind of
up-sampling device have to be added to the DAC for this? Thanks.

Clever sneaky marketeers forced the whole word with a speech defect,
MP3 is by no means is compression, it is reduction. This idiocy let to
even further speech defects because now we have to make distinction
between compression -which in all kinds of different branches per
definition IS lossless and the reduction scheme from MP3. Since MP3 has
thrown away data I would not bother to try to make it better again, the
quality is gone forever. In MP3 language, puncturing a tire is
compressing it.

Edmund

While you do have a point, MP3 does meet the digital definition of
compression.

That IS the speech defect I am talking about!
If that IS the new definition that definition is plain wrong and
misleading. Never before in no other branch compression ever meant
throwing away data or material.
If you end up with less data ( or gas in another area ) then you did
not "compress" it, then you reduced the data by throwing away data and
information.
I suggested before not to call the MP3 reduction- "compression" because
it isn't. Lets call it what it is and forget this idiotic "Lossy Compression"
which is a contradiction in terminus and "lossless compression", compression
always was lossless per definition and I mean the right definition not the raped one.
Using the proper terms for things makes it easier to understand.

Edmund










I.E., it does allow one to fit a quart of information into
the proverbial pint pot. That it does so by throwing as much as more
than 90% of the signal away is irrelevant to the definition. It is
amazing that MP3 music at 128 or 64 KBPS is even recognizable, though
8^)

[Walt]

On 12/13/2011 7:12 AM, Edmund wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:08:09 +0000, Audio Empire wrote:


While you do have a point, MP3 does meet the digital definition of
compression.

That IS the speech defect I am talking about!
If that IS the new definition that definition is plain wrong and
misleading. Never before in no other branch compression ever meant
throwing away data or material.

Um... it's not exactly "new". The term "compression" for what is
essentially data reduction has been in use since at least the 80s,
perhaps earlier.

So while you have a valid point, it's about three decades too late to
fight this linguistic battle.

//Walt

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Walt wrote:
On 12/13/2011 7:12 AM, Edmund wrote:

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:08:09 +0000, Audio Empire wrote:



While you do have a point, MP3 does meet the digital definition of
compression.

That IS the speech defect I am talking about!
If that IS the new definition that definition is plain wrong and
misleading. Never before in no other branch compression ever meant
throwing away data or material.


Um... it's not exactly "new". The term "compression" for what is
essentially data reduction has been in use since at least the 80s,
perhaps earlier.

So while you have a valid point, it's about three decades too late to
fight this linguistic battle.

Try a lot later than that.

Data reduction techniques have been used in audio for a
long time. And they have been used in music, even "high-
quality" music, for some time as well.

Strictly speaking, techniques such as dBx and Dolby A, Dolby
B and such, are all data-reduction compression techniques.
Their purpose is to attempt to fit as much of the "important"
data into a naroowed-bandwidth channel, be it a transmission
channel or a cassette tape. They all work on the smae principle:
they (physically) discard information which, in the eyes of the
designer, are deemed "insignificant."

And, if you want to play the linguistics game, while still being
technically accurate, the human peripheral auditory system
imposes HUGE amounts of lossy data compression. While it is
possible for the human ear to discern sounds ranging over
a power range in excess of 12 orders of magnitude, it CANNOT
hear, at the same time, two sounds whose level differs by that:
in fact, the instantaneous dynamic range of the peripheral
auditory system is FAR less than that, by many orders of
magnitude. And it does it, through among other things, masking.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

[Edmund[_2_]]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:12:09 +0000, Walt wrote:

On 12/13/2011 7:12 AM, Edmund wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:08:09 +0000, Audio Empire wrote:


While you do have a point, MP3 does meet the digital definition of
compression.

That IS the speech defect I am talking about! If that IS the new
definition that definition is plain wrong and misleading. Never before
in no other branch compression ever meant throwing away data or
material.

Um... it's not exactly "new". The term "compression" for what is
essentially data reduction has been in use since at least the 80s,
perhaps earlier.

So while you have a valid point, it's about three decades too late to
fight this linguistic battle.

I mentioned it at the time too.

Edmund

//Walt

[Safiraya]

[dave a]

On 12/13/2011 4:12 AM, Edmund wrote:


That IS the speech defect I am talking about!
If that IS the new definition that definition is plain wrong and
misleading. Never before in no other branch compression ever meant
throwing away data or material.
If you end up with less data ( or gas in another area ) then you did
not "compress" it, then you reduced the data by throwing away data and
information.
I suggested before not to call the MP3 reduction- "compression" because
it isn't. Lets call it what it is and forget this idiotic "Lossy Compression"
which is a contradiction in terminus and "lossless compression", compression
always was lossless per definition and I mean the right definition not the raped one.
Using the proper terms for things makes it easier to understand.

Edmund


So what would you call jpeg? Or mpeg?

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"dave a" wrote in message
...
On 12/13/2011 4:12 AM, Edmund wrote:


That IS the speech defect I am talking about!
If that IS the new definition that definition is plain wrong and
misleading. Never before in no other branch compression ever meant
throwing away data or material.
If you end up with less data ( or gas in another area ) then you did
not "compress" it, then you reduced the data by throwing away data and
information.
I suggested before not to call the MP3 reduction- "compression" because
it isn't. Lets call it what it is and forget this idiotic "Lossy
Compression"
which is a contradiction in terminus and "lossless compression",
compression
always was lossless per definition and I mean the right definition not
the raped one.
Using the proper terms for things makes it easier to understand.

Edmund


So what would you call jpeg? Or mpeg?


Your point is well taken. JPEG and MPEG are examples of lossy compression.
L-Z compressed TIFF is an example of lossless compression of images. I don't
believe there are any common examples of lossless compression of video, but
DV/AVI is far less lossy than MPEG.

[Edmund[_2_]]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:20:52 +0000, dave a wrote:

On 12/13/2011 4:12 AM, Edmund wrote:


That IS the speech defect I am talking about! If that IS the new
definition that definition is plain wrong and misleading. Never before
in no other branch compression ever meant throwing away data or
material.
If you end up with less data ( or gas in another area ) then you did
not "compress" it, then you reduced the data by throwing away data and
information.
I suggested before not to call the MP3 reduction- "compression" because
it isn't. Lets call it what it is and forget this idiotic "Lossy
Compression" which is a contradiction in terminus and "lossless
compression", compression always was lossless per definition and I mean
the right definition not the raped one. Using the proper terms for
things makes it easier to understand.

Edmund


So what would you call jpeg? Or mpeg?

I am sure you know they answer.
So you don't have to ask.
I call it just jpeg and Mpech which means ( pech ) bad luck.

Edmund

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 04:12:44 -0800, Edmund wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:08:09 +0000, Audio Empire wrote:

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 03:35:39 -0800, Edmund wrote (in article
):

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:08:58 +0000, Chuck Finley wrote:

I bought an Escient music server several years ago when hard drive
space was still relatively expensive. Most of my music on there is
encoded at 320 and 192. Reviews of DACs typically discuss how they can
improve the sound of CD quality or hi-rez music, but I'm wondering
what effect they would have on compressed music. Would some kind of
up-sampling device have to be added to the DAC for this? Thanks.

Clever sneaky marketeers forced the whole word with a speech defect,
MP3 is by no means is compression, it is reduction. This idiocy let to
even further speech defects because now we have to make distinction
between compression -which in all kinds of different branches per
definition IS lossless and the reduction scheme from MP3. Since MP3 has
thrown away data I would not bother to try to make it better again, the
quality is gone forever. In MP3 language, puncturing a tire is
compressing it.

Edmund

While you do have a point, MP3 does meet the digital definition of
compression.

That IS the speech defect I am talking about!
If that IS the new definition that definition is plain wrong and
misleading. Never before in no other branch compression ever meant
throwing away data or material.

It's neither new or misleading. the discrimination between "lossy" and
"lossless" compression, means exactly what it says. Lossy compression makes
files smaller by discarding what someone (or something - such as an
algorithm) has decided to be non-essential information. Lossless compression,
OTOH means that the file has been made smaller by using a less verbose coding
scheme of some type. An example of lossless compression would be the ZIP
format on one's PC. If anything were missing on an expanded copy of a ZIP
file of say, Photoshop, would mean that Photoshop would not and could not
run.

If you end up with less data ( or gas in another area ) then you did
not "compress" it, then you reduced the data by throwing away data and
information.

That's why it's called "lossy compression". In gasses, compression is
compression in it's purest form. Nothing is discarded, but the gas has been
processed to take up less volume by eliminating the empty space between gas
molecules. Often this results in the gas becoming a liquid (like with propane
or LNG), but sometimes not. If you merely vent-off a volume of gas to make
the remaining take up less space, that's not compression, that's merely
reducing the volume (like filling a water bottle and letting the excess run
down the drain). Now if you could throw away a certain volume of, say,
propane, and still have the same amount energy in what's left as you did
before the gas's volume was reduced, then that would be an analogy of digital
compression. Remember in audio, we're don't measure the final sound in those
terms. We measure the perception of that sound at our ear/brain interface.
Remember, the file itself (whether it be a digital audio file or a record
groove) is NOT the sound, it is merely a representation of that sound. If
much of the original waveform has been discarded to make the digital file
representing the audio take up less media storage space, and most of the
listening audience doesn't perceive that anything is missing, then whatever
compression scheme was used was successful.

I suggested before not to call the MP3 reduction- "compression" because
it isn't. Lets call it what it is and forget this idiotic "Lossy Compression"
which is a contradiction in terminus and "lossless compression", compression
always was lossless per definition and I mean the right definition not the
raped one.

You are talking apples and oranges. Language is a living thing. The day that
we can't accommodate new meanings for existing words, is the day that the
language starts to die. Might as well go back to Roman-era Latin...

Using the proper terms for things makes it easier to understand.

Understanding context can also help make words easier to understand.

[Edmund[_2_]]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:45:05 +0000, Audio Empire wrote:

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 04:12:44 -0800, Edmund wrote (in article
):

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:08:09 +0000, Audio Empire wrote:

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 03:35:39 -0800, Edmund wrote (in article
):

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:08:58 +0000, Chuck Finley wrote:

I bought an Escient music server several years ago when hard drive
space was still relatively expensive. Most of my music on there is
encoded at 320 and 192. Reviews of DACs typically discuss how they
can improve the sound of CD quality or hi-rez music, but I'm
wondering what effect they would have on compressed music. Would
some kind of up-sampling device have to be added to the DAC for
this? Thanks.

Clever sneaky marketeers forced the whole word with a speech defect,
MP3 is by no means is compression, it is reduction. This idiocy let
to even further speech defects because now we have to make
distinction between compression -which in all kinds of different
branches per definition IS lossless and the reduction scheme from
MP3. Since MP3 has thrown away data I would not bother to try to make
it better again, the quality is gone forever. In MP3 language,
puncturing a tire is compressing it.

Edmund

While you do have a point, MP3 does meet the digital definition of
compression.

That IS the speech defect I am talking about! If that IS the new
definition that definition is plain wrong and misleading. Never before
in no other branch compression ever meant throwing away data or
material.

It's neither new or misleading. the discrimination between "lossy" and
"lossless" compression, means exactly what it says.

I am sure you understand that this addition -lossy vs lossless- is a
result of the misleading term "compression" for something that isn't
compression but reduction.

Lossy compression
makes files smaller by discarding what someone (or something - such as
an algorithm) has decided to be non-essential information. Lossless
compression, OTOH means that the file has been made smaller by using a
less verbose coding scheme of some type. An example of lossless
compression would be the ZIP format on one's PC. If anything were
missing on an expanded copy of a ZIP file of say, Photoshop, would mean
that Photoshop would not and could not run.

You got it!

If you end up with less data ( or gas in another area ) then you did
not "compress" it, then you reduced the data by throwing away data and
information.

That's why it's called "lossy compression". In gasses, compression is
compression in it's purest form. Nothing is discarded, but the gas has
been processed to take up less volume by eliminating the empty space
between gas molecules. Often this results in the gas becoming a liquid
(like with propane or LNG), but sometimes not. If you merely vent-off a
volume of gas to make the remaining take up less space, that's not
compression, that's merely reducing the volume (like filling a water
bottle and letting the excess run down the drain). Now if you could
throw away a certain volume of, say, propane, and still have the same
amount energy in what's left as you did before the gas's volume was
reduced, then that would be an analogy of digital compression.

Indeed and physics say that is simply not possible, neither in gas nor
data files.

Remember
in audio, we're don't measure the final sound in those terms. We measure
the perception of that sound at our ear/brain interface. Remember, the
file itself (whether it be a digital audio file or a record groove) is
NOT the sound, it is merely a representation of that sound. If much of
the original waveform has been discarded to make the digital file
representing the audio take up less media storage space, and most of the
listening audience doesn't perceive that anything is missing, then
whatever compression scheme was used was successful.

No if the input file is different that the output file, it is not
compression.


I suggested before not to call the MP3 reduction- "compression" because
it isn't. Lets call it what it is and forget this idiotic "Lossy
Compression" which is a contradiction in terminus and "lossless
compression", compression always was lossless per definition and I mean
the right definition not the raped one.

You are talking apples and oranges. Language is a living thing. The day
that we can't accommodate new meanings for existing words, is the day
that the language starts to die. Might as well go back to Roman-era
Latin...

I do know that language is a living thing, and by all means change the
meaning of words to make it more clear for everyone.
Do NOT change the meaning of words to make it more complicated or misleading.

So let us audio lovers all use the proper terms from now on and hopefully
in a few years from now everyone forgot the stupid term Lossy compression
which is a contradiction in terminus, and use "reduction" or "lousy compression"
for reduction schemes.


Using the proper terms for things makes it easier to understand.

Understanding context can also help make words easier to understand.

You know very well I do understand the context perfectly.


Edmund

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Chuck Finley" wrote in message
...
I bought an Escient music server several years ago when hard drive space
was
still relatively expensive. Most of my music on there is encoded at 320
and
192.

Shouldn't be a problem.

Reviews of DACs typically discuss how they can improve the sound of CD
quality or hi-rez music,

Generally, false claims. Audiophile myths. Dreams, not actualities.
Blatantly false sales pitches. The results of sighted evaluations.

but I'm wondering what effect they would have on compressed music.

No less false.

Would some kind of up-sampling device have to be added to the DAC for
this?

Up sampling, other than that which happens implicitly in modern DACs in
order to facilitate digital filtering, is yet another audiophile myth.

[Safiraya]

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:07:13 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Chuck Finley" wrote in message
...
I bought an Escient music server several years ago when hard drive space
was
still relatively expensive. Most of my music on there is encoded at 320
and
192.

Shouldn't be a problem.

Reviews of DACs typically discuss how they can improve the sound of CD
quality or hi-rez music,

Generally, false claims. Audiophile myths. Dreams, not actualities.
Blatantly false sales pitches. The results of sighted evaluations.

Not exactly true. While I agree that most DACs that are constructed using IC
converters sound so much alike that the differences (if any) are trivial,
high-end DACs using discrete, proprietary circuitry not only can sound better
than the mass-produced IC chip-based DACs, but they sound significantly
different from one another. These differences manifest themselves mostly as
differences in top-end musicality and sound-staging. The better the DAC, the
more real the top-end sounds, strings, even percussion such as high-hats,
take on a sheen and a realism that one generally only hears live. This is
hardly subtle, and in a DBT is jaw-droppingly and statistically apparent.

but I'm wondering what effect they would have on compressed music.

No less false.

What is no less false? He's asking if a stand-alone DAC will help MP3 files
sound better. The answer, of course, is no. Any compression artifacts audible
before up-converting or playing through a mega-buck DAC, will be there after,
as well. The damage is done, there is no "fixing" it after the fact.

Would some kind of up-sampling device have to be added to the DAC for
this?

Up sampling, other than that which happens implicitly in modern DACs in
order to facilitate digital filtering, is yet another audiophile myth.

This seems to be a common reaction of people who have limited experience in
this area.

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:07:13 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
"Chuck Finley" wrote in message
...
I bought an Escient music server several years ago when hard drive space
was
still relatively expensive. Most of my music on there is encoded at 320
and
192.
Shouldn't be a problem.

Reviews of DACs typically discuss how they can improve the sound of CD
quality or hi-rez music,
Generally, false claims. Audiophile myths. Dreams, not actualities.
Blatantly false sales pitches. The results of sighted evaluations.

Not exactly true. While I agree that most DACs that are constructed using IC
converters sound so much alike that the differences (if any) are trivial,
high-end DACs using discrete, proprietary circuitry not only can sound better
than the mass-produced IC chip-based DACs, but they sound significantly
different from one another. These differences manifest themselves mostly as
differences in top-end musicality and sound-staging. The better the DAC, the
more real the top-end sounds, strings, even percussion such as high-hats,
take on a sheen and a realism that one generally only hears live.


Sorry, but this simply defies common sense. All those completely different made
integrated DACs (they differ in their high level designs, algorithms, filters,
etc) sound the same and measurement show they should. Everyone should expect
that they're simply transparent -- if very different designs sounds converge to
just the one sound, one would expect the convergence is to some predesigned
sound -- and all manufactureres claim that "predesigned sound" is simply being
neutral. Measurements of those devices show the same -- that they are just neutral.

And then some butique discrete component devices (with all the problems of
discrete components like uneven heating) are claimed to all sound different from
both all those integrated things as well as from one another. And sound better.
Better than completely neutral?

This is
hardly subtle, and in a DBT is jaw-droppingly and statistically apparent.

Sorry, but all published DBTs show otherwise. And in the case of that one test
you failed to show that there was anything statistically aparent. We only can go
with what you have disclosed about that test, and from what you have disclosed
there is no statistical siginificance (as tehre were serious flaws wrt statistics).

[...]
rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 05:57:35 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:07:13 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
"Chuck Finley" wrote in message
...
I bought an Escient music server several years ago when hard drive space
was
still relatively expensive. Most of my music on there is encoded at 320
and
192.
Shouldn't be a problem.

Reviews of DACs typically discuss how they can improve the sound of CD
quality or hi-rez music,
Generally, false claims. Audiophile myths. Dreams, not actualities.
Blatantly false sales pitches. The results of sighted evaluations.

Not exactly true. While I agree that most DACs that are constructed using
IC
converters sound so much alike that the differences (if any) are trivial,
high-end DACs using discrete, proprietary circuitry not only can sound
better
than the mass-produced IC chip-based DACs, but they sound significantly
different from one another. These differences manifest themselves mostly as
differences in top-end musicality and sound-staging. The better the DAC,
the
more real the top-end sounds, strings, even percussion such as high-hats,
take on a sheen and a realism that one generally only hears live.


Sorry, but this simply defies common sense. All those completely different
made
integrated DACs (they differ in their high level designs, algorithms,
filters,
etc) sound the same and measurement show they should. Everyone should expect
that they're simply transparent -- if very different designs sounds converge
to
just the one sound, one would expect the convergence is to some predesigned
sound -- and all manufactureres claim that "predesigned sound" is simply
being
neutral. Measurements of those devices show the same -- that they are just
neutral.

And then some butique discrete component devices (with all the problems of
discrete components like uneven heating) are claimed to all sound different
from
both all those integrated things as well as from one another. And sound
better.
Better than completely neutral?

This is
hardly subtle, and in a DBT is jaw-droppingly and statistically apparent.

Sorry, but all published DBTs show otherwise. And in the case of that one
test
you failed to show that there was anything statistically aparent. We only can

go
with what you have disclosed about that test, and from what you have
disclosed
there is no statistical siginificance (as tehre were serious flaws wrt
statistics).

[...]
rgds
\SK


You realize that this is your opinion and I have mine. Mine is a result of
many DBTs between different DACs to which I've been privy. This stuff is so
easy to hear, that in a recent DBT between a Benchmark DAC1 and a dCS
Debussy, everyone on the listening panel was able to pick out the differences
between the two an average of better than 9 out of 10 tries. Everyone agreed
that the Debussy was far more musical than the Benchmark - and we came to
that conclusion before we even knew what the two DUT even were! The
Benchmark, which is based on an IC DAC (a Burr-Brown, IIRC - but I could be
misremembering), sounded somewhat dull and homogenous by comparison to the
Debussy, lacking in finesse, realism and image specificity. I realize that
conventional wisdom says that an IC DAC from AD, Crystal, ESS or Burr-Brown
should be "transparent", but if transparent vs non-transparent (according to
you that would be the cost-is-no-object discrete designs) yields poorer sound
on the former, and richer, fuller and more lifelike sound with the latter,
then I'll take the latter every time.

[jwvm]

On Dec 13, 7:47=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

snip

Not exactly true. While I agree that most DACs that are constructed using=
IC
converters sound so much alike that the differences (if any) are trivial,
high-end DACs using discrete, proprietary circuitry not only can sound be=
tter
than the mass-produced IC chip-based DACs, but they sound significantly
different from one another.

You will find that it is much harder to get uniform performance from
electronics using discrete parts compared to using integrated
circuits. The tolerance requirements are much harder to meet and
maintain with discrete components. Indeed, there is good reason to
believe that discrete converters will sound different from each other
since component tolerances will be much poorer.

These differences manifest themselves mostly as
differences in top-end musicality and sound-staging. The better the DAC, =
the
more real the top-end sounds, strings, even percussion such as high-hats,
take on a sheen and a realism that one generally only hears live. This is
hardly subtle, and in a DBT is jaw-droppingly and statistically apparent.

These are audiophile terms that are impossible to measure and have not
been demonstrated to actually be reliably perceptible in credible
double-blind tests.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:07:13 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Chuck Finley" wrote in message
...
I bought an Escient music server several years ago when hard drive space
was
still relatively expensive. Most of my music on there is encoded at 320
and
192.

Shouldn't be a problem.

Reviews of DACs typically discuss how they can improve the sound of CD
quality or hi-rez music,

Generally, false claims. Audiophile myths. Dreams, not actualities.
Blatantly false sales pitches. The results of sighted evaluations.

Not exactly true. While I agree that most DACs that are constructed using
IC
converters sound so much alike that the differences (if any) are trivial,
high-end DACs using discrete, proprietary circuitry not only can sound
better
than the mass-produced IC chip-based DACs, but they sound significantly
different from one another.

Reliable proof?

The skeptical members of this forum should form a consortium to offer a
signficiant cash reward for reliable proof.

After all, it worked for the Great James Randi! AFAIK, no cable snake oil
artist or reviewer has ever even tried to collect the million dollars.

Given that we have "mass produced IC chip based DACs" with upwards of 130
dB worth of dynamic range...

Furthermore, it is possible to assemble networks of chip-based DACs with
virtually any desired amount of dynamic range, given that dynamic range
improves by 3-6 db every time the number of networked chips doubles.

We are allowed to network lot of chip-based DACs to equal the great expense
of these DACs with discrete proprietary circuitry.

Furthermore, the so-called discrete circuit DAC are actually based on custom
or off-the-shelf chipd because the only way to get the resistive components
of a so-called discrete DAC to track sufficiently well is to put many
critical parts on the same chip.

[Mr. Finsky[_2_]]

On Dec 14, 6:37=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message

...



Reliable proof?

The skeptical members of this forum should form a consortium to offer a
signficiant cash reward for reliable proof.

After all, it worked for the Great James Randi! =A0AFAIK, no cable snake =
oil
artist or reviewer has ever even tried to collect the million =A0dollars.


I do recall reading that various audiophile writers have attempted to
test the Great James Randi and collect the million smackers. The
problem is that Randi avoided all contact with anyone trying to do a
test. Randi is wonderful about publicity but appears to avoid a
confrontation that might cost him money or demonstrate that he may be
as big a phony as his "magician" targets.

Personally, I know I can hear the difference between mass market junk
and "audiophile" gear. I do think that the law of diminishing returns
exists in the audiophile world. The improvements obtained by spending
more money become small, once you have reached a certain price point.

I examined and tested the difference between 192 .wma files and a aiff
files ripped through iTunes. The difference was quite minor. However,
the cost of hard drives is so low that saving space is not worth the
potential problems. Besides, ripping CD's through dbpoweramp to FLAC
is loads of fun and flexibility.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 04:03:00 -0800, Mr. Finsky wrote
(in article ):

On Dec 14, 6:37=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message

...



Reliable proof?

The skeptical members of this forum should form a consortium to offer a
signficiant cash reward for reliable proof.

After all, it worked for the Great James Randi! AFAIK, no cable snake oil
artist or reviewer has ever even tried to collect the million dollars.


I do recall reading that various audiophile writers have attempted to
test the Great James Randi and collect the million smackers. The
problem is that Randi avoided all contact with anyone trying to do a
test. Randi is wonderful about publicity but appears to avoid a
confrontation that might cost him money or demonstrate that he may be
as big a phony as his "magician" targets.

Personally, I know I can hear the difference between mass market junk
and "audiophile" gear. I do think that the law of diminishing returns
exists in the audiophile world. The improvements obtained by spending
more money become small, once you have reached a certain price point.

Unfortunately, when much of this stuff is subjected to a so-called
"bias-controlled" test (like a DBT or ABX test) in a lot of cases, these
differences disappear. In other words, the guy who, an hour ago, swore that
he could hear the difference between mass-market junk and "audiophile" gear,
couldn't tell which was which once he could no longer see what it was that he
was listening to in a DBT or ABX test. I know that this is fact in cables.
Cheap, throw-away RCA interconnects, for instance, sound no different from an
expensive multi-hundred (or even multi-thousand) dollar interconnect in a
double-blind test AND, they even measure EXACTLY the same. But people still
insist that they can hear the difference and the expensive cables always
sound better than the cheap ones! However once subjected to a DBT, suddenly
these cables sound exactly the same.

Recently I've been involved with group of other recording engineers and
recording enthusiasts in DBTs of DACs, What we have found is that essentially
all DACs built using IC D-to-A converters sound so much alike that in a blind
test, nobody could tell (most of the time) that the people conducting the
tests had switched from one converter to another! What we found was that a
$300 Musical Fidelity V-DAC sounded identical to a $1000 Benchmark DAC1, and
that the Benchmark sounded identical to a $1400 Antelope Zodiac +! Later we
contrasted the Antelope Zodiac + with a $6000 Weiss DAC202, and could not
tell the difference between them in any statistically significant way,
either. When we contrasted these IC-based DACs against cost-is-no-object
discrete component designs from MSB and dCS, for instance, we found it quite
trivial to tell the difference between the two expensive DACs and their
cheaper IC-based competition. Those who post here and believe that everything
sounds the same because electronics for audio is a "mature technology"
discredit this notion by stating that IC-based DACs HAVE to better than
discrete component units because it's easier to control the variables in an
integrated circuit design than it is to control them in a design built-up of
discrete components. They also say that the IC DACs are transparent, and that
this has been proven because some testers have daisy-chained DACs and ADCs
together and compared the results with only one conversion, this proving that
modern DACs add nothing to the sound.

What I have found is that IC-based DACs do is to homogenize the audio and
then preserve that homogenization through repeated conversions. I say that
because, compared to the dCS Debussy and the MSB DAC-IV, that's what IC-based
DACs all sound like - homogenized!

Now with amps, some sound better than others. I have a pair of Behringer
A-500 power amps. They're cheap ($200 for about 160 Watts/channel) and they
sound fine....... until you A/B them against a Krell S-300i! (150
Watts/Channel) then, even in a DBT, the Krell shows what it is made of. It
sounds much cleaner, much more musical with better dynamic contrasts, and
better sound-staging. Many of these improvements aren't immediately apparent,
and some only show-up with certain kinds of program material and certain
signal conditions, but they ARE there and do show-up in DBTs. In fact there
are certain circumstances where ALL amplifiers sound different from one
another, even similar amps. This comes down to things like power supply
design, but these differences do exist, and usually the audiophile gear
outperforms the cheap, mass market gear, even if they have similar specs (the
everything-sounds-the-same crowd is going howl at this statement!).

I examined and tested the difference between 192 .wma files and a aiff
files ripped through iTunes. The difference was quite minor. However,
the cost of hard drives is so low that saving space is not worth the
potential problems. Besides, ripping CD's through dbpoweramp to FLAC
is loads of fun and flexibility.

FLAC and Apple Lossless both seem pretty flawless.

[Edmund[_2_]]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:37:27 +0000, Arny Krueger wrote:

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:07:13 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article
):

"Chuck Finley" wrote in message
...
I bought an Escient music server several years ago when hard drive
space was
still relatively expensive. Most of my music on there is encoded at
320 and
192.

Shouldn't be a problem.

Reviews of DACs typically discuss how they can improve the sound of
CD quality or hi-rez music,

Generally, false claims. Audiophile myths. Dreams, not actualities.
Blatantly false sales pitches. The results of sighted evaluations.

Not exactly true. While I agree that most DACs that are constructed
using IC
converters sound so much alike that the differences (if any) are
trivial, high-end DACs using discrete, proprietary circuitry not only
can sound better
than the mass-produced IC chip-based DACs, but they sound significantly
different from one another.

Reliable proof?

The skeptical members of this forum should form a consortium to offer a
signficiant cash reward for reliable proof.

After all, it worked for the Great James Randi!

You did? if you see him again say Hi to him, I love that man :-)

Edmund

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:07:13 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Chuck Finley" wrote in message
...
I bought an Escient music server several years ago when hard drive space
was
still relatively expensive. Most of my music on there is encoded at 320
and
192.

Shouldn't be a problem.

Reviews of DACs typically discuss how they can improve the sound of CD
quality or hi-rez music,

Generally, false claims. Audiophile myths. Dreams, not actualities.
Blatantly false sales pitches. The results of sighted evaluations.

Not exactly true. While I agree that most DACs that are constructed using
IC
converters sound so much alike that the differences (if any) are trivial,
high-end DACs using discrete, proprietary circuitry not only can sound
better
than the mass-produced IC chip-based DACs, but they sound significantly
different from one another.

How can these significant differences arise? We already know that the better
chip DACs are highly sonically transparent, which is to say that you can
pass audio through them many times without causing any reliably-detectible
audible difference. If we hypothesize the existance of some more sonically
accurate component, then the audible differences that it creates must be
even smaller and even less audible.

These differences manifest themselves mostly as
differences in top-end musicality and sound-staging. The better the DAC,
the
more real the top-end sounds, strings, even percussion such as high-hats,
take on a sheen and a realism that one generally only hears live. This is
hardly subtle, and in a DBT is jaw-droppingly and statistically apparent.

How can there be more realism than there is in a signal that
indistinguishable from the origional signal?

but I'm wondering what effect they would have on compressed music.

No less false.

What is no less false?

I'm talking about the audiophile myth that ADC quality can be improved
beyond that which we already achieve with reasonably-priced chips that are
demonstrably sonically transparent, even when cascaded over more than a
dozen repeated conversions.

He's asking if a stand-alone DAC will help MP3 files
sound better. The answer, of course, is no. Any compression artifacts
audible
before up-converting or playing through a mega-buck DAC, will be there
after,
as well. The damage is done, there is no "fixing" it after the fact.

On that we can agree.

Would some kind of up-sampling device have to be added to the DAC for
this?

Up sampling, other than that which happens implicitly in modern DACs in
order to facilitate digital filtering, is yet another audiophile myth.

This seems to be a common reaction of people who have limited experience
in
this area.

The idea that upsampling could possibly make a improvement is a mystical
belief that sufficient education in how digital audio works can easily
dispel.

That's what information theory says, and that is what suitable experiments
and listening tests can demonstrate.

Once you sample a signal, upsampling can add no more information or relevant
detail. It only spreads the same information across more samples.

[Rockinghorse Winner[_8_]]

"Chuck Finley" writes:

I bought an Escient music server several years ago when hard drive space was
still relatively expensive. Most of my music on there is encoded at 320 and
192. Reviews of DACs typically discuss how they can improve the sound of CD
quality or hi-rez music, but I'm wondering what effect they would have on
compressed music. Would some kind of up-sampling device have to be added to
the DAC for this? Thanks.

My outboard DAC improves all my digital music. It's effects on low
resolution MP3's and streaming audio is variable. It definitely adds some
'thickness' to the Internet radio I listen to, making it less objectionable.
However on particularly bad MP3 transfers it can magnify it's defects.

In sum, I would say, a decent DAC, preferably with variable filters that you
can switch in and out would be a pretty good investment if you listen to a
lot of MP3's.

Terry