Audio Under Linux Sounds Terrible

[[email protected]]

I'm not sure what is going on with Linux and audio, but there is a
major difference between Linux and Windows playing the same files be it
*.wav or mp3 files.

Using xmms under Linux and foobar under Windows, I can hear a
substantial difference in sound quality between Linux and Windows.

Linux sounds compressed and lifeless and Windows sounds more open and
full sounding.

Any idea why this is happening?

I am using Dynaudio BM15a and a RME soundcard if that matters.

[Geoff]

wrote:
> I'm not sure what is going on with Linux and audio, but there is a
> major difference between Linux and Windows playing the same files be
> it *.wav or mp3 files.
>
> Using xmms under Linux and foobar under Windows, I can hear a
> substantial difference in sound quality between Linux and Windows.
>
> Linux sounds compressed and lifeless and Windows sounds more open and
> full sounding.
>
> Any idea why this is happening?
>
> I am using Dynaudio BM15a and a RME soundcard if that matters.

Maybe it's xmms that is faulty ?

geoff

[Geoff]

Charlie wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:24:31 -0700, simply.lisa wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure what is going on with Linux and audio, but there is a
>> major difference between Linux and Windows playing the same files be
>> it *.wav or mp3 files.
>>
>> Using xmms under Linux and foobar under Windows, I can hear a
>> substantial difference in sound quality between Linux and Windows.
>>
>> Linux sounds compressed and lifeless and Windows sounds more open and
>> full sounding.
>>
>> Any idea why this is happening?
>>
>> I am using Dynaudio BM15a and a RME soundcard if that matters.
>
> I've noticed the same thing.
> It almost seems like Linux is compressing everything.
> I have no idea why this is happening, but you can take any audio file
> and play it under Linux and then either Windows or a Mac and you will
> instantly hear the difference.

Well, if you mention which of dozens of possible distributions, builds,
upgrade levels, drivers, and applications, a Linux expert might be able to
begin to try and track down the problem.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

Charlie > wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:24:31 -0700, simply.lisa wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure what is going on with Linux and audio, but there is a
>> major difference between Linux and Windows playing the same files be it
>> *.wav or mp3 files.

Please. Stop the trolls, right now. Just stop it. There is no reason
to reply to this stuff.

Go away. There's nothing to see here.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Romeo Rondeau]

> Have you ever listened to audio under Linux Scott?
> There is a major difference in quality.
> Yea, I know it sounds impossible, but it exists.
> Try it someday and draw your own conclusions.

I can hear a difference between Winamp and Windows Media Player both of them
on the Windows platform. WMP sounds terrible. I'm sure it's a codec thing.

[Peter Köhlmann]

The racist, liar and software thief Charlie (flatfish) nymshifted:

< snip flatfish droppings >

Oh, oh, "simply.lisa" aka "Charlie" or just "flatfish"

You have neglected some basic stuff to hide your nymshifting

You lately nymshifted to

Abbie Diaz, Aftab Singh, Allen Cusimano, Allie Perkins, Allison Juergans,
allison_hunt1969, Ana Thema, Anna Banger, anonymous, Archie, Archie Moss
Bunker, Archie Watermann, Baba Booey, Babu Singh, Bill Thomson, Billy
<billy.the.kidd>,bill.gates.loves.me, bison, Bjarne Jensen, BklynBoy,
bonobo magilla, Boyce Mabri, BSEE, Buster, CBFalconer, Charles LeGrand,
Charlie, Choppers McGee, Chris Thomas, Christine Abernathy, Claire Lynn,
Clippy, Clock King, Collie Entragion, Colon Singh, common cold,
compton.plaines_kid, Connie Hines, Corrie, corry.lebeu, Corrie Titlaand,
Cory Dyvik, Curtis Wilson, Dana Bush, dbx_boy, Deadpenguin, Debbie, Devon
Dawson, dismoqualifetch, Donn Carlsbad, Dr.Long John Jones, Elliot
Zimmermann, Elwin Winters, Emmanuel Arias, Fawn Lebowitz, flatfish+++,
foamy, frank boson, Franz Klammer, Fred Simmons, gabriele howorth, Gary
Stewart, GayClod, George Cotton, George Littlefield, Gilbert, Gilbert
Goiter, Gilbert Hochaim, gilligan, Greg Finnigan, Greg Laplante, Hans Kimm,
Harry Hilton, Harvey Fogel, Heather, Heather69, Heather Trax, Heddy
Seafield, hepcat, Hugh Himless, Ishmeal Hafizi, itchy balls, Ivan Mctavish,
IvanaB, Jason, Jeff Szarka, Joe Josephson, John, John Shelton, Jorge
Jorgensen, Jose Lopez, juke_joint, kaptain kaput, Karel Olish, Karla
Snodgress, kathy_krantz, Kendra, Kenny Dugan, Kent Dorfman, Kristen, Kyle
Cadet, L Didio, Laura Shillingford, Le Farter, Le Yammy, Leaking Onion, Leo
Diaz, Les Cramer, Les Turner, Les Walton, Leslie Bassman, Lilly, Lindy,
Linux Exposer, Lisa Shavas, Lisa Cottmann, Lois Hunt, Long, long_tong_ling,
Lukumi Babalu Aye, Luna Lane, Major Mynor, Manny, McSwain, mista
twista,Mogumbo, Moses, Mooshoo Bong Singh, ,
nate_mcspook, okto_pussy, organ.creep, OSS KDE User, Paddy McCrockett,
Patricia, Patty Poppins, percy samson, Peter Gluckman, Peter Kohlmann,
Phil, Phillip Cornwall, phoung, phoung quoak, pickle_pete, **** Clam, Poopy
Pants McGee, Quimby, Quinton Magee, Quizno Backer, Rich, Richard P.
Johnson, Richie, Richie O'Toole, Richie Spano, Robert Strunk,
rothstein_ivan, Sally Vadi, Sammy, Sammy Whalen, Saul Goldblatt, Schlomo
Smykowski, Sharon Cackle, Sharon Hubbasland, Sean, Sean Fitzhenry, Sean
Macpherson, Sewer Rat, sewer_clown, Sherlock Holmes , Schlomo Rabinowitz,
Simon, simply.lisa, sista sledgehammer, slacker.mcspritze, Spammy_Davis,
spanny_davis, Stefan Karstensen, Stephan Simonsen, Stephanie Mannerz,
Stephen, Stephen Olsen, Stephen Townshend, stomach.pump, SuckyB, Sue, sue
quinterra, SunnyB, Susan, Susan Bladder, Susan Lapinski, Susan Wong, Suzi
Wong, Suzie Wong, Swampee, Ted Bennington, Terri Sorensen, The Beaver,
Thorsten, Thorsten Thigpen, Timmy Luncford , Toby Rastus Roosovelt III,
Tomas Bicsak, Tomas Dunton, Tomas Lucatorto, Tori, Tori Wassermann, Torre
Stanslaand, Trace Dennison, Tracee, Traci, trailerpark, Trina Swallows,
Trolly, Trudi Simpkins, Tryxie Lustern, Uday Shankar, victimizedb,
victimizedbyms, Vince Fontain, Vladimir Yepifano, Walter Bubniak, Wang
Mycock, Wasser, wendy, Wendy Duzz, Whizzer, Wilbur J, willy watkins jr,
Willy Wong, Winnie Septos, Wobbles, Yanick Schmuley and zyklon_C.
Plus many, many, many more.
--
Microsoft Windows - The art of incompetence.

[Eeyore]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

> > Have you ever listened to audio under Linux Scott?
> > There is a major difference in quality.
> > Yea, I know it sounds impossible, but it exists.
> > Try it someday and draw your own conclusions.
>
> I can hear a difference between Winamp and Windows Media Player both of them
> on the Windows platform. WMP sounds terrible. I'm sure it's a codec thing.

Very likely.

Graham

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2006-08-23, Charlie > wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:38:50 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Charlie > wrote:
>>>On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:24:31 -0700, simply.lisa wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what is going on with Linux and audio, but there is a
>>>> major difference between Linux and Windows playing the same files be it
>>>> *.wav or mp3 files.
>>
>> Please. Stop the trolls, right now. Just stop it. There is no reason
>> to reply to this stuff.
>>
>> Go away. There's nothing to see here.
>> --scott
>
> Have you ever listened to audio under Linux Scott?

I have. I have played the exact same media
and compressed files from that media almost
simultaneously on both Windows and Linux and seen
none of these ill effects you like to allude to.

This would be the whole "I would rather
use Linux but I am forced to use WinDOS at the
office" problem. So the notion that every single
Linux Zealot here (down to a man) is not
intimately familiar with how BOTH sound under the
same identical conditions is simply assinine.

> There is a major difference in quality.
> Yea, I know it sounds impossible, but it exists.
> Try it someday and draw your own conclusions.

Been "trying" it on a daily basis for
over 10 years now.


--
Negligence will never equal intent, no matter how you
attempt to distort reality to do so. This is what separates |||
the real butchers from average Joes (or Fritzes) caught up in / | \
events not in their control.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Peter Köhlmann]

Charlie (flatfish) nymshifted:

< snip >

> I am using PCLinuxOS .93
> Thanks!

We know that you are claiming that, flatfish
--
The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners.

[William Poaster]

This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on Tue, 22 Aug 2006
20:38:50 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Charlie > wrote:
>>On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:24:31 -0700, simply.lisa wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure what is going on with Linux and audio, but there is a
>>> major difference between Linux and Windows playing the same files be it
>>> *.wav or mp3 files.
>
> Please. Stop the trolls, right now. Just stop it. There is no reason to
> reply to this stuff.
>
> Go away. There's nothing to see here. --scott

simply.lisa is a lying troll, & crossposted to rec.audio.pro.

rec.audio.pro now filtered out.

--
I used to like a good joke.
What happened?
I thought there was a better way, so I
stopped using Windows & switched to linux.

[Richard Smol]

wrote:
> I'm not sure what is going on with Linux and audio, but there is a
> major difference between Linux and Windows playing the same files be it
> *.wav or mp3 files.
>
> Using xmms under Linux and foobar under Windows, I can hear a
> substantial difference in sound quality between Linux and Windows.
>
> Linux sounds compressed and lifeless and Windows sounds more open and
> full sounding.
>
> Any idea why this is happening?

My bet is that it's all between the ears. You expect Linux to sound
worse so it does so.

RS

[Scott Dorsey]

flatfish+++ > wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 02:00:11 +0000, Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>
>>> Have you ever listened to audio under Linux Scott?
>>> There is a major difference in quality.
>>> Yea, I know it sounds impossible, but it exists.
>>> Try it someday and draw your own conclusions.
>>
>> I can hear a difference between Winamp and Windows Media Player both of them
>> on the Windows platform. WMP sounds terrible. I'm sure it's a codec thing.
>
>I hear a difference as well.
>It has to be the CODECS.
>I've been using foobar2000 as my player of choice these days.
>Light, simple and very low on resources.

If you're playing an uncompressed .wav file, what is the codec doing
that could possibly change the sound?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Matthias]

Just to let you know :

I followed one of Mike's suggestions to try Linux with audio hardware
and audio applications and downloaded 'Agnula' which claims to be a
Linux distribution for musicians. Mike said, it'll take another six
month to get the distri stable to have a real use of it.

After installing it (without problems, btw., just throwing in the CD and
vooting from CD) on a 1.7 GHz (single CPU) system (256 MB RAM - I might
need more than that) and playing around with it, I am not really happy.
It'll remain a system to play with and to observe the developing of
harddisk-recording with Linux.

Since there is no problem of recording 8 tracks concurrently on (even)
Win95 or an older MAC, I tried to stop all processes, that are not
really needed to make music (like the printing system).

The system often just hung or I wasn't able to switch between the
applications.

I'll try a multiprocessor system later, since the developers say, that
this makes a lot of sense (the GUI is always responsive which is not the
case when sharing GUI and Audio aka 'real-time' appliacations on one
processor).

My conclusion is, that Linux is not yet the way to go if you want to
make music. But it's interesting how it will develop.


Matthias

P.S: Guess I just started my six months ...........

[chrisv]

Charlie wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:24:31 -0700, simply.lisa wrote:
>>
>> I am using Dynaudio BM15a and a RME soundcard if that matters.
>
>I've noticed the same thing.

Talking to yourself, flathead? Pathetic.

*plonk*

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2006-08-23, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> flatfish+++ > wrote:
>>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 02:00:11 +0000, Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>>
>>>> Have you ever listened to audio under Linux Scott?
>>>> There is a major difference in quality.
>>>> Yea, I know it sounds impossible, but it exists.
>>>> Try it someday and draw your own conclusions.
>>>
>>> I can hear a difference between Winamp and Windows Media Player both of them
>>> on the Windows platform. WMP sounds terrible. I'm sure it's a codec thing.
>>
>>I hear a difference as well.
>>It has to be the CODECS.
>>I've been using foobar2000 as my player of choice these days.
>>Light, simple and very low on resources.
>
> If you're playing an uncompressed .wav file, what is the codec doing
> that could possibly change the sound?

Perhaps he is attaching a set of CRAP speakers to the Linux
machine and putting good stuff on the WinDOS box. If you put crap
speakers on any sound systems (even a Bose) then you're going to
get crap out of the whole thing.

Linux with an appropriate speaker solution can generate as
good of a result as you are going to get without seeing an act live.

--
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
|||
/ | \

[Lars Rune Nøstdal]

wrote:
> I'm not sure what is going on with Linux and audio, but there is a
> major difference between Linux and Windows playing the same files be it
> *.wav or mp3 files.

No, there isn't. I'm using FLAC, and the sound is 100% perfect under
Linux - Mp3 is just as good/bad as under Windows.

What I have noticed is that cheapass toy-soundcards and drivers under
Windows sometimes enable alot of effect-crap that might make it _seem_
that the sound is "better" for users with plastic-box-speakers and no
ears whatsoever. These drivers and their software-frontends suck so bad
that it is more or less impossible to disable these nasty
effects/features under Windows.

--
mvh, Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://lars.nostdal.org/

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> I'm not sure what is going on with Linux and audio, but
> there is a major difference between Linux and Windows
> playing the same files be it *.wav or mp3 files.
>
> Using xmms under Linux and foobar under Windows, I can
> hear a substantial difference in sound quality between
> Linux and Windows.

> Linux sounds compressed and lifeless and Windows sounds
> more open and full sounding.


> Any idea why this is happening?

Probably, because Microsoft has put no little effort into making low bitrate
MP3 files sound as good as possible under the latest version of Windows
Media Player.

[Romeo Rondeau]

>>I hear a difference as well.
>>It has to be the CODECS.
>>I've been using foobar2000 as my player of choice these days.
>>Light, simple and very low on resources.
>
> If you're playing an uncompressed .wav file, what is the codec doing
> that could possibly change the sound?

I was talking about mp3's. I would never use either program for something
serious.

[Gubo Dangle]

Lars Rune Nøstdal has brought this to us :
> wrote:
>> I'm not sure what is going on with Linux and audio, but there is a
>> major difference between Linux and Windows playing the same files be it
>> *.wav or mp3 files.
>
> No, there isn't. I'm using FLAC, and the sound is 100% perfect under
> Linux - Mp3 is just as good/bad as under Windows.
>
> What I have noticed is that cheapass toy-soundcards and drivers under
> Windows sometimes enable alot of effect-crap that might make it _seem_
> that the sound is "better" for users with plastic-box-speakers and no
> ears whatsoever. These drivers and their software-frontends suck so bad
> that it is more or less impossible to disable these nasty
> effects/features under Windows.

I've noticed that Linux rarely gets 'proper' support for most
soundcards - all the AC97's (spit) cards under Linux sound terrible
generally - distorting at 80% volume and sounding highly compressed
compared to Windows.

Even with something like a Creative soundcard its a bit of a crap-shoot
as to how good it'll work in Linux.... but having said that Creative
tend to be no better under Windows. :D

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2006-08-23, Arny Krueger > wrote:
> wrote in message
> oups.com
>> I'm not sure what is going on with Linux and audio, but
>> there is a major difference between Linux and Windows
>> playing the same files be it *.wav or mp3 files.
>>
>> Using xmms under Linux and foobar under Windows, I can
>> hear a substantial difference in sound quality between
>> Linux and Windows.
>
>> Linux sounds compressed and lifeless and Windows sounds
>> more open and full sounding.
>
>
>> Any idea why this is happening?
>
> Probably, because Microsoft has put no little effort into making low bitrate
> MP3 files sound as good as possible under the latest version of Windows
> Media Player.

That could certainly account for all of the observations given.

...assuming you take the original troll at his word.

I doubt that any of the Linux users mess with any of that low
bitrate crap.

--

Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire,
is genuinely new: culture, like science and |||
technology grows by accretion, each new creator / | \
building on the works of those that came before.

Judge Alex Kozinski
US Court of Appeals
9th Circuit

[philicorda]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:56:28 -0400, Charlie wrote:


> I'm using a Motu and JBL 6328's.
> Linux sounds awful on this system.

This is due to the fact that the only Motu devices ALSA currently
supports are the MIDI boxes without audio i/o.

I'd imagine that could possibly have some effect on the sound quality.

Try using something with d/a converters and I promise that you will be
amazed by the improvement.

[flatfish+++]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:26:49 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2006-08-23, Arny Krueger > wrote:
> wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>> I'm not sure what is going on with Linux and audio, but
>>> there is a major difference between Linux and Windows
>>> playing the same files be it *.wav or mp3 files.
>>>
>>> Using xmms under Linux and foobar under Windows, I can
>>> hear a substantial difference in sound quality between
>>> Linux and Windows.
>>
>>> Linux sounds compressed and lifeless and Windows sounds
>>> more open and full sounding.
>>
>>
>>> Any idea why this is happening?
>>
>> Probably, because Microsoft has put no little effort into making low bitrate
>> MP3 files sound as good as possible under the latest version of Windows
>> Media Player.
>
> That could certainly account for all of the observations given.
>
> ...assuming you take the original troll at his word.
>
> I doubt that any of the Linux users mess with any of that low
> bitrate crap.

Sarcasm on:

Of course not.

Why would Linux users like you for example want to poison that *great*
Bose system you speak of, JEDIDIAH, with a low bitrate audio file.

"Perhaps he is attaching a set of CRAP speakers to the Linux
machine and putting good stuff on the WinDOS box. If you put crap
speakers on any sound systems (even a Bose) then you're going to
get crap out of the whole thing."

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/bcfd5248193326c2?hl=en&



Yep, the Linux zealot is right on the money once again.

Why would anyone want to use Dynaudio or JBL when they can use a Bose
system?

Sarcasm off:

[philicorda]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:04:14 -0700, Lars Rune Nøstdal wrote:

>
> wrote:
>> I'm not sure what is going on with Linux and audio, but there is a major
>> difference between Linux and Windows playing the same files be it *.wav
>> or mp3 files.
>
> No, there isn't. I'm using FLAC, and the sound is 100% perfect under Linux
> - Mp3 is just as good/bad as under Windows.

As long as a SPDIF loopback under Linux is bit accurate, I trust the
same soundcard's converters are getting the right data. With the few cards
I've tried it works ok.

>
> What I have noticed is that cheapass toy-soundcards and drivers under
> Windows sometimes enable alot of effect-crap that might make it _seem_
> that the sound is "better" for users with plastic-box-speakers and no
> ears whatsoever. These drivers and their software-frontends suck so bad
> that it is more or less impossible to disable these nasty
> effects/features under Windows.

Some people like that kind of thing. Other people just want a master
volume control. Ain't choice great?

Unfortunately the same thing is happening with low end soundcards as
happened with (win)modems.

As computers get faster manufacturers are removing as many hardware
features as possible and replacing them with software emulation. So we get
fixed 48K sample rate and src in software. No more hardware sample
playback, eq's, effects, dolby decoding etc.

It's possible that the people hearing a difference between Linux and
Windows on low end sound cards are hearing different software sample
rate converters. I'm not sure the noise floor on them will be low enough
for it to make much difference.

[GreyCloud]

flatfish+++ wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:26:49 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>
>>On 2006-08-23, Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>
> wrote in message
oups.com
>>>
>>>>I'm not sure what is going on with Linux and audio, but
>>>>there is a major difference between Linux and Windows
>>>>playing the same files be it *.wav or mp3 files.
>>>>
>>>>Using xmms under Linux and foobar under Windows, I can
>>>>hear a substantial difference in sound quality between
>>>>Linux and Windows.
>>>
>>>>Linux sounds compressed and lifeless and Windows sounds
>>>>more open and full sounding.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Any idea why this is happening?
>>>
>>>Probably, because Microsoft has put no little effort into making low bitrate
>>>MP3 files sound as good as possible under the latest version of Windows
>>>Media Player.
>>
>> That could certainly account for all of the observations given.
>>
>> ...assuming you take the original troll at his word.
>>
>> I doubt that any of the Linux users mess with any of that low
>>bitrate crap.
>
>
> Sarcasm on:
>
> Of course not.
>
> Why would Linux users like you for example want to poison that *great*
> Bose system you speak of, JEDIDIAH, with a low bitrate audio file.
>
> "Perhaps he is attaching a set of CRAP speakers to the Linux
> machine and putting good stuff on the WinDOS box. If you put crap
> speakers on any sound systems (even a Bose) then you're going to
> get crap out of the whole thing."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/bcfd5248193326c2?hl=en&
>
>
>
> Yep, the Linux zealot is right on the money once again.
>
> Why would anyone want to use Dynaudio or JBL when they can use a Bose
> system?
>
> Sarcasm off:
>

:-( The sarcasm on this one flew right over my head.
???

--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?

[yttrx]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy flatfish+++ > wrote:

> Sarcasm on:
>
> Of course not.
>
> Why would Linux users like you for example want to poison that *great*
> Bose system you speak of, JEDIDIAH, with a low bitrate audio file.
>
> "Perhaps he is attaching a set of CRAP speakers to the Linux
> machine and putting good stuff on the WinDOS box. If you put crap
> speakers on any sound systems (even a Bose) then you're going to
> get crap out of the whole thing."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/bcfd5248193326c2?hl=en&
>
>
>
> Yep, the Linux zealot is right on the money once again.
>
> Why would anyone want to use Dynaudio or JBL when they can use a Bose
> system?
>

As I've mentioned before, I run a very small studio type pro-gear setup
here, which includes Genelec active monitors:

http://www.genelec.com/products/8040a/8040a.php

A Mackie DFX-6 mixer:

http://www.mackie.com/products/dfx6/index.html

A Behringer Ultragraph Pro FBQ1502:

http://www.behringer.com/FBQ1502/index.cfm?lang=ENG

and an M-Audio Delta 1010LT:

http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/Delta1010LT-main.html


And I've run it all under both windows xp and ubuntu linux.
And here's what I have to say:

With identical codecs, windows and linux sound exactly the
same.

That said, the best codec for mp3s is the LAME ACM codec, and you
can use it on any operating system you want.

More information concerning the topic of this thread is here:

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/mp3-128/results.html




-----yttrx



--
http://www.yttrx.net

[Tom Wilson]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:19:21 -0400, flatfish+++ wrote:

> Bose blows.
> No highs, no lows, must be Bose.
> etc.....
>
> Bose are excellent at marketing and very little else.

Cerwin Vegas for people with more money than sense.

Give me Polk Audio over Bose any day of the week.

--
Tom Wilson: Who hasn't posted here since 2002 and
sees that nothing really has changed :)

[yttrx]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Wilson > wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:19:21 -0400, flatfish+++ wrote:
>
>> Bose blows.
>> No highs, no lows, must be Bose.
>> etc.....
>>
>> Bose are excellent at marketing and very little else.
>
> Cerwin Vegas for people with more money than sense.
>
> Give me Polk Audio over Bose any day of the week.
>

I'll take Infinity over Polk, and B&W over Infinities.

If we're just spending money here that is.

Hell, if we're just spending money, I'll take these:

http://www.stereoexchange.com/catalogue/product.cfm/hurl/id=273/subcategoryid=32




-----yttrx



--
http://www.yttrx.net

[AZ Nomad]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:36:22 -0400, Tom Wilson > wrote:


>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:19:21 -0400, flatfish+++ wrote:
>
>> Bose blows.
>> No highs, no lows, must be Bose.
>> etc.....
>>
>> Bose are excellent at marketing and very little else.

>Cerwin Vegas for people with more money than sense.

>Give me Polk Audio over Bose any day of the week.

Bose are for people with no sense at all. Take the speakers out
of a TV set, wrap them in two dollar plastic cubes, and then sell
them for a thousand dollars. Don't forget to include a twenty watt amp,
and a subwoofer built around a 4" driver that only produces one frequency.
Add twenty dollars worth of marketing hype and you've got bose.

[yttrx]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy flatfish+++ > wrote:

> How do you like the 8040?
> I haven't heard them, but I have heard the 8050's and like them a lot.
>

Theyre incredible. I auditioned dozens of monitors a while back, and
kept coming back to the 8040s because of their size and accuracy. And
as you know, monitors (particularly powered monitors) like very much
to be played loud. These things could break a rib. :)

However, they're not for very quiet use, again being monitors. Their
frequency rolloff is a bit more pronounced at very low sound pressures,
particularly on the low-end, so that's something to keep in mind. Luckily
my apartment has concrete walls.

> I'm using a set of Event ASP8's and also a pair of Adam S2a.
> I use a set of KrK's for my "boombox compatibility" testing.
>

Ah, nice. If you're already using gear like that, the expense of
Genelecs isnt horribly higher, though my 8040s were a pretty big
chunk of change. And you won't have an easy time finding them in
the states---I got mine after I'd auditioned them at a pro-gear
place that it turns out was out of them--at the stereo exchange
here in NYC.

>
>> A Mackie DFX-6 mixer:
>>http://www.mackie.com/products/dfx6/index.html
>
> I have a Soundcraft Ghost
> http://www.soundcraft.com/product_sheet.asp?product_id=144
>

Sweet. I certainly don't need anything that extensive for my
current home use, and the mackie was actually a really great
deal. Plus, you can stomp on it and it won't break.

>
> I'm using the original Delta 1010 on one system and a Delta 66 on the
> other.
>

I was using the audiophile 192, but I found its linux support lacking.

>> And I've run it all under both windows xp and ubuntu linux. And here's
>> what I have to say:
>>
>> With identical codecs, windows and linux sound exactly the same.
>
> I agree.
> Something is wrong with the OP's system.
>

I think so too. By all rights, they should sound precisely the same.




-----yttrx



--
http://www.yttrx.net

[yttrx]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy flatfish+++ > wrote:

>>
>> Hell, if we're just spending money, I'll take these:
>>
>> http://www.stereoexchange.com/catalogue/product.cfm/hurl/id=273/subcategoryid=32
>
>> -----yttrx
>
> Holy ****!!!
>
> Looks like those Dominator speakers in that Ruthless People movie!!
>

I've had the great pleasure of auditioning them live at the stereo
exchange, and I'll tell you...

They sound even better than they look.

I could actually hear chairs creaking in an orchestra, a cellist (I think)
dropping a bow, and I've never heard my favorite rendition of the allegro
of the fourth movement of beethoven's ninth sound like that. I daresay
it's better than being there.




-----yttrx



--
http://www.yttrx.net

[The Ghost In The Machine]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, yttrx
>
wrote
on Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:40:01 GMT
>:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Wilson > wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:19:21 -0400, flatfish+++ wrote:
>>
>>> Bose blows.
>>> No highs, no lows, must be Bose.
>>> etc.....
>>>
>>> Bose are excellent at marketing and very little else.
>>
>> Cerwin Vegas for people with more money than sense.
>>
>> Give me Polk Audio over Bose any day of the week.
>>
>
> I'll take Infinity over Polk, and B&W over Infinities.
>
> If we're just spending money here that is.
>
> Hell, if we're just spending money, I'll take these:
>
> http://www.stereoexchange.com/catalogue/product.cfm/hurl/id=273/subcategoryid=32
>

Evidently these are for those individuals who like the "LOUD"
part of a loudspeaker. :-)

(Not to mention impressively expensive.)

>
> -----yttrx
>


--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.

[Tim Smith]

In article >, flatfish+++ wrote:
>
> Bose are excellent at marketing and very little else.

Aren't they pretty good at public address systems? I recall reading about
some company, which I think was Bose, that had very good software for
modeling how a proposed public address system would sound, so that they
could figure out where to place the speakers so that they would be audible
all over the space that needed to be covered, without interfering with each
other.

--
--Tim Smith

[Romeo Rondeau]

> I think the long gone Coke/Pepsi/Dr Pepper (I don't remember) festival in
> NYC was using Bose and from my somewhat foggy memory, they were flying a
> ton of 802's over the crowd and it sounded decent.
>
> They must have had one hell of a rack of power amps though because Bose
> not only suck, but they consume power like mad to get decent SPL.

I saw Three Dog Night several years ago, they were running a BIG stack of
Bose 802's, sounded phenomenal. Who woulda guessed?

[Jim]

Once upon a midnight dreary, while The Ghost In The Machine pondered weak
and weary over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore...:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, yttrx
> >
> wrote
> on Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:40:01 GMT
> >:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Wilson > wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:19:21 -0400, flatfish+++ wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bose blows.
>>>> No highs, no lows, must be Bose.
>>>> etc.....
>>>>
>>>> Bose are excellent at marketing and very little else.
>>>
>>> Cerwin Vegas for people with more money than sense.
>>>
>>> Give me Polk Audio over Bose any day of the week.
>>>
>>
>> I'll take Infinity over Polk, and B&W over Infinities.
>>
>> If we're just spending money here that is.
>>
>> Hell, if we're just spending money, I'll take these:
>>
>>
http://www.stereoexchange.com/catalogue/product.cfm/hurl/id=273/subcategoryid=32
>>
>
> Evidently these are for those individuals who like the "LOUD"
> part of a loudspeaker. :-)
>
> (Not to mention impressively expensive.)
>
>>
>> -----yttrx
>>
>
>

Give me a set of these:
http://www.audioreview.com/cat/speakers/floorstanding-speakers/b-and-w/PRD_119136_1594crx.aspx

I did have a cutout of an Italian granite* cabinet with 10 bass drivers, 8
midrange and 3 tweeters (and a 3kW amp!) from an audio magazine from around
2000, that had a pricetag of only £10k each. The above site details a
speaker that retails for a quarter million USD(!!) per cabinet on another
page, but having actually /heard/ a set of B&W Nautilus in action, I've got
to say, there is no other speaker. Top of any audiophile's list of things
to own before you die.

*By granite, I don't mean formica laminate on MDF. I do mean, carved from a
single block of Italian black granite or white marble (these things are
built to order) and weighing well over four hundred pounds a cabinet. These
are not toy speakers.

I suppose for now I'll make do with my JBL floorstanders, my AR7 bookshelf
monitors and the Cambridge subwoofer. And the Diamond Loudmouse I 2.1 set
on my bike.
--
http://dotware.co.uk
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change
something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.
- R. Buckminster Fuller

[Scott Dorsey]

Tim Smith > wrote:
>In article >, flatfish+++ wrote:
>>
>> Bose are excellent at marketing and very little else.
>
>Aren't they pretty good at public address systems? I recall reading about
>some company, which I think was Bose, that had very good software for
>modeling how a proposed public address system would sound, so that they
>could figure out where to place the speakers so that they would be audible
>all over the space that needed to be covered, without interfering with each
>other.

You're referring to the Bose Modeller, which was some of the first raytracing
software out there. It actually worked pretty well (and it could be used to
model radiation patterns of other speakers, not just Bose products), but it
was fairly expensive and limited. It's since been pretty much superseded
by more modern raytracing systems like EASE.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2006-08-23, GreyCloud > wrote:
> flatfish+++ wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:26:49 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 2006-08-23, Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>>
> wrote in message
oups.com
[deletia]
>>> ...assuming you take the original troll at his word.
>>>
>>> I doubt that any of the Linux users mess with any of that low
>>>bitrate crap.
>>
>>
>> Sarcasm on:
>>
>> Of course not.
>>
>> Why would Linux users like you for example want to poison that *great*
>> Bose system you speak of, JEDIDIAH, with a low bitrate audio file.

Using Unix is about demanding quality. The fact that Linux can
be had for free rather than the $400 than Solaris x86 used to go for is
just a bonus.

>>
>> "Perhaps he is attaching a set of CRAP speakers to the Linux
>> machine and putting good stuff on the WinDOS box. If you put crap
>> speakers on any sound systems (even a Bose) then you're going to
>> get crap out of the whole thing."

It's amazing what car audio salesmen will try and perpetrate
on poor unsuspecting customers who ask for ipod integration options.

>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/bcfd5248193326c2?hl=en&
>>
>>
>>
>> Yep, the Linux zealot is right on the money once again.
>>
>> Why would anyone want to use Dynaudio or JBL when they can use a Bose
>> system?
>>
>> Sarcasm off:
>>
>
>:-( The sarcasm on this one flew right over my head.
> ???
>


--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[GreyCloud]

flatfish+++ wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:55:58 -0600, GreyCloud wrote:
>
>
>>flatfish+++ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:26:49 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 2006-08-23, Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
> wrote in message
oups.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not sure what is going on with Linux and audio, but
>>>>>>there is a major difference between Linux and Windows
>>>>>>playing the same files be it *.wav or mp3 files.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Using xmms under Linux and foobar under Windows, I can
>>>>>>hear a substantial difference in sound quality between
>>>>>>Linux and Windows.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Linux sounds compressed and lifeless and Windows sounds
>>>>>>more open and full sounding.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Any idea why this is happening?
>>>>>
>>>>>Probably, because Microsoft has put no little effort into making low bitrate
>>>>>MP3 files sound as good as possible under the latest version of Windows
>>>>>Media Player.
>>>>
>>>> That could certainly account for all of the observations given.
>>>>
>>>> ...assuming you take the original troll at his word.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt that any of the Linux users mess with any of that low
>>>>bitrate crap.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sarcasm on:
>>>
>>>Of course not.
>>>
>>>Why would Linux users like you for example want to poison that *great*
>>>Bose system you speak of, JEDIDIAH, with a low bitrate audio file.
>>>
>>>"Perhaps he is attaching a set of CRAP speakers to the Linux
>>>machine and putting good stuff on the WinDOS box. If you put crap
>>>speakers on any sound systems (even a Bose) then you're going to
>>>get crap out of the whole thing."
>>>
>>>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/bcfd5248193326c2?hl=en&
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yep, the Linux zealot is right on the money once again.
>>>
>>>Why would anyone want to use Dynaudio or JBL when they can use a Bose
>>>system?
>>>
>>>Sarcasm off:
>>>
>>
>>:-( The sarcasm on this one flew right over my head.
>>???
>
>
> Bose blows.
> No highs, no lows, must be Bose.
> etc.....
>
> Bose are excellent at marketing and very little else.
>
>

I know Bose is expensive, but didn't know that their audio range was
that poor.
I never owned Bose, so wouldn't know.


--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?