High quality MP3 players?

[CharlesBlackstone]

Hi all....

Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound quality? I
haven't been pleased with what I've heard. Clean, flat sound...

Thanks....

[Eeyore]

CharlesBlackstone wrote:

> Hi all....
>
> Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound quality? I
> haven't been pleased with what I've heard. Clean, flat sound...

The fundamental problem here is the mp3s themselves. Mp3s 'throw away'
some of the information in order to compress the file. I doubt that any
mp3 player's electronics won't do the format justice.

Whilst the mp3 *decoder* is a fixed standard, the encoders aren't
however so you may get some improvement by using a superior encoder
along with the highest bit rate possible.

Graham

[CharlesBlackstone]

CharlesBlackstone wrote:
> Hi all....
>
> Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound quality? I
> haven't been pleased with what I've heard. Clean, flat sound...
>
> Thanks....


Hi, thanks for the answers. I know about compression, etc., but are
there some MP3 players that, given high enough sample rates, or an
uncompressed file, sounds better than other MP3 players?

There seems to be a dearth of commentary about sound quality of MP3
players.

Thanks.

[Eric Lindsay]

In article >,
Soundhaspriority > wrote:

> In article om,
> "CharlesBlackstone" > wrote:
>
> > Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound quality? I
> > haven't been pleased with what I've heard. Clean, flat sound...
>
> I'm looking to replace my rundown car with a really great Hyundai. I
> haven't been pleased with what I've seen. Anyone know of a Hyundai that is
> superior?

Stop saving files as MP3. Use a player that handles a lossless format,
and put up with the reduced playing capacity (still way better than a
CD). Check Stereophile reviews for players that give reasonable results
with good earphones. The original iPod Shuffle gave good results from
the earphone connector (not much between DAC and socket).

A Hyundia will get you across town just as quick and easily as a Rolls
Royce.

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com

[Eeyore]

CharlesBlackstone wrote:

> CharlesBlackstone wrote:
> > Hi all....
> >
> > Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound quality? I
> > haven't been pleased with what I've heard. Clean, flat sound...
> >
> > Thanks....
>
> Hi, thanks for the answers. I know about compression, etc., but are
> there some MP3 players that, given high enough sample rates, or an
> uncompressed file, sounds better than other MP3 players?

I truly haven't a clue. I've never seen any manufacturer of one use
sound quality as a selling point.


> There seems to be a dearth of commentary about sound quality of MP3
> players.

Because quality isn't their function ?

Graham

[Harry Lavo]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> CharlesBlackstone wrote:
>
>> CharlesBlackstone wrote:
>> > Hi all....
>> >
>> > Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound quality? I
>> > haven't been pleased with what I've heard. Clean, flat sound...
>> >
>> > Thanks....
>>
>> Hi, thanks for the answers. I know about compression, etc., but are
>> there some MP3 players that, given high enough sample rates, or an
>> uncompressed file, sounds better than other MP3 players?
>
> I truly haven't a clue. I've never seen any manufacturer of one use
> sound quality as a selling point.
>
>
>> There seems to be a dearth of commentary about sound quality of MP3
>> players.
>
> Because quality isn't their function ?

I seem to recall that about two years ago either Stereophile or The Abso!ute
Sound had very nice things to say about one of the iPods, the gist being
that it had much better sound quality than any other portable mp3-type
player, especially in the bass. You might wish to check the archives of
those two mags.

[Fleetie]

Well, it's worth remembering that the iPod Nano, not that the OP mentions
their type of MP3 player, does support a lossless compression method.
The file size isn't that good, but at least it's lossless, and I'd
expect the sound quality to be equivalent to that of a CD player;
no reason why it shouldn't be. Presumably all modern iPods offer this option.
Trouble is, as I said, my iPod Nano is the 4GB model, and at 40-odd MB (IIRC)
per song with lossless compression, you don't get much on there.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie

[Harry Lavo]

"Fleetie" > wrote in message
...
> Well, it's worth remembering that the iPod Nano, not that the OP mentions
> their type of MP3 player, does support a lossless compression method.
> The file size isn't that good, but at least it's lossless, and I'd
> expect the sound quality to be equivalent to that of a CD player;
> no reason why it shouldn't be. Presumably all modern iPods offer this
> option.
> Trouble is, as I said, my iPod Nano is the 4GB model, and at 40-odd MB
> (IIRC)
> per song with lossless compression, you don't get much on there.
>
>
> Martin
> --
> M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967
> 110890
> Manchester, U.K.
> http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie

The new Nanos now include an 8GB model.

[Scott Dorsey]

Fleetie > wrote:
>Well, it's worth remembering that the iPod Nano, not that the OP mentions
>their type of MP3 player, does support a lossless compression method.
>The file size isn't that good, but at least it's lossless, and I'd
>expect the sound quality to be equivalent to that of a CD player;
>no reason why it shouldn't be. Presumably all modern iPods offer this option.

You're still stuck with D/A converters and headphone preamps crammed into
a tiny little box and designed to operate with as low power consumption as
possible. I have trouble imagining that somethng that can operate off a
couple NiCd cells is going to sound as good as the Prism converter and Krell
headphone amp, which probably take a total of 500W to run. Of course, you
can't carry them on the bus, but that's another issue.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> CharlesBlackstone wrote:
>
>> CharlesBlackstone wrote:
>> > Hi all....
>> >
>> > Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound quality? I
>> > haven't been pleased with what I've heard. Clean, flat sound...
>> >
>> > Thanks....
>>
>> Hi, thanks for the answers. I know about compression, etc., but are
>> there some MP3 players that, given high enough sample rates, or an
>> uncompressed file, sounds better than other MP3 players?
>
> I truly haven't a clue. I've never seen any manufacturer of one use
> sound quality as a selling point.
>
>
>> There seems to be a dearth of commentary about sound quality of MP3
>> players.
>
> Because quality isn't their function ?
>
> Graham
>
>

netkkkoping ****




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> CharlesBlackstone wrote:
>
>> Hi all....
>>
>> Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound quality? I
>> haven't been pleased with what I've heard. Clean, flat sound...
>
> The fundamental problem here is the mp3s themselves. Mp3s 'throw away'
> some of the information in order to compress the file. I doubt that
any
> mp3 player's electronics won't do the format justice.
>
> Whilst the mp3 *decoder* is a fixed standard, the encoders aren't
> however so you may get some improvement by using a superior encoder
> along with the highest bit rate possible.
>
> Graham
>
>
>

netkkkpping wannabe



Bertie

[AZ Nomad]

On 15 Oct 2006 12:21:08 -0400, Scott Dorsey > wrote:


>Fleetie > wrote:
>>Well, it's worth remembering that the iPod Nano, not that the OP mentions
>>their type of MP3 player, does support a lossless compression method.
>>The file size isn't that good, but at least it's lossless, and I'd
>>expect the sound quality to be equivalent to that of a CD player;
>>no reason why it shouldn't be. Presumably all modern iPods offer this option.

>You're still stuck with D/A converters and headphone preamps crammed into
>a tiny little box and designed to operate with as low power consumption as
>possible. I have trouble imagining that somethng that can operate off a
>couple NiCd cells is going to sound as good as the Prism converter and Krell
>headphone amp, which probably take a total of 500W to run. Of course, you
>can't carry them on the bus, but that's another issue.
hee hee. five hundred watts?

Of course you mean mW...

[Eeyore]

Tim Padrick wrote:

> Losslesss compression? Neither the CD format nor even 24/96 are lossless.
> The compression methods are (audibly) lossless only if you did not have a
> very good sounding audio file to begin with.

You think 24/96 is lossy ?

Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

AZ Nomad > wrote:
>On 15 Oct 2006 12:21:08 -0400, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>>Fleetie > wrote:
>>>Well, it's worth remembering that the iPod Nano, not that the OP mentions
>>>their type of MP3 player, does support a lossless compression method.
>>>The file size isn't that good, but at least it's lossless, and I'd
>>>expect the sound quality to be equivalent to that of a CD player;
>>>no reason why it shouldn't be. Presumably all modern iPods offer this option.
>
>>You're still stuck with D/A converters and headphone preamps crammed into
>>a tiny little box and designed to operate with as low power consumption as
>>possible. I have trouble imagining that somethng that can operate off a
>>couple NiCd cells is going to sound as good as the Prism converter and Krell
>>headphone amp, which probably take a total of 500W to run. Of course, you
>>can't carry them on the bus, but that's another issue.
>
>hee hee. five hundred watts?
>
>Of course you mean mW...

No. Input current on the Prism is about two amps. It gets pretty warm while
in normal use. I think the idle input current on the 5W Krell amp is something
in the two-amp range as well. That's about typical. I'm assuming 110V power
here.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore > wrote:
>Tim Padrick wrote:
>
>> Losslesss compression? Neither the CD format nor even 24/96 are lossless.
>> The compression methods are (audibly) lossless only if you did not have a
>> very good sounding audio file to begin with.
>
>You think 24/96 is lossy ?

I think he is, in a somewhat less than coherent and direct way, referring to
converter issues.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Eeyore]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> >Tim Padrick wrote:
> >
> >> Losslesss compression? Neither the CD format nor even 24/96 are lossless.
> >> The compression methods are (audibly) lossless only if you did not have a
> >> very good sounding audio file to begin with.
> >
> >You think 24/96 is lossy ?
>
> I think he is, in a somewhat less than coherent and direct way, referring to
> converter issues.

I reckon today's 24 bit converters ought to be good enough for the job.

Graham

[AZ Nomad]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:56:28 -0500, Tim Padrick > wrote:


>"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
...
>> On 15 Oct 2006 12:21:08 -0400, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Fleetie > wrote:
>>>>Well, it's worth remembering that the iPod Nano, not that the OP mentions
>>>>their type of MP3 player, does support a lossless compression method.
>>>>The file size isn't that good, but at least it's lossless, and I'd
>>>>expect the sound quality to be equivalent to that of a CD player;
>>>>no reason why it shouldn't be. Presumably all modern iPods offer this
>>>>option.
>>
>>>You're still stuck with D/A converters and headphone preamps crammed into
>>>a tiny little box and designed to operate with as low power consumption as
>>>possible. I have trouble imagining that somethng that can operate off a
>>>couple NiCd cells is going to sound as good as the Prism converter and
>>>Krell
>>>headphone amp, which probably take a total of 500W to run. Of course, you
>>>can't carry them on the bus, but that's another issue.
>> hee hee. five hundred watts?
>>
>> Of course you mean mW...

>Losslesss compression? Neither the CD format nor even 24/96 are lossless.
>The compression methods are (audibly) lossless only if you did not have a
>very good sounding audio file to begin with.

You have no concept of mp3 compression. It is completely different than
analog audio compression.

If you put a digital audio stream through a lossless mp3 compression algorithm,
it is indeed totally lossless. The digital data coming out is *exactly* the
same as the data going in.

[AZ Nomad]

On 15 Oct 2006 13:26:43 -0400, Scott Dorsey > wrote:


>AZ Nomad > wrote:
>>On 15 Oct 2006 12:21:08 -0400, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>>>Fleetie > wrote:
>>>>Well, it's worth remembering that the iPod Nano, not that the OP mentions
>>>>their type of MP3 player, does support a lossless compression method.
>>>>The file size isn't that good, but at least it's lossless, and I'd
>>>>expect the sound quality to be equivalent to that of a CD player;
>>>>no reason why it shouldn't be. Presumably all modern iPods offer this option.
>>
>>>You're still stuck with D/A converters and headphone preamps crammed into
>>>a tiny little box and designed to operate with as low power consumption as
>>>possible. I have trouble imagining that somethng that can operate off a
>>>couple NiCd cells is going to sound as good as the Prism converter and Krell
>>>headphone amp, which probably take a total of 500W to run. Of course, you
>>>can't carry them on the bus, but that's another issue.
>>
>>hee hee. five hundred watts?
>>
>>Of course you mean mW...

>No. Input current on the Prism is about two amps. It gets pretty warm while
>in normal use. I think the idle input current on the 5W Krell amp is something
>in the two-amp range as well. That's about typical. I'm assuming 110V power
>here.

Are you seriously argueing that a headphone amp needs five hundred watts?
What planet are you from?

[AZ Nomad]

On 15 Oct 2006 13:27:53 -0400, Scott Dorsey > wrote:


>Eeyore > wrote:
>>Tim Padrick wrote:
>>
>>> Losslesss compression? Neither the CD format nor even 24/96 are lossless.
>>> The compression methods are (audibly) lossless only if you did not have a
>>> very good sounding audio file to begin with.
>>
>>You think 24/96 is lossy ?

>I think he is, in a somewhat less than coherent and direct way, referring to
>converter issues.

He hasn't the slightest clue of what mp3 compression is.

[Tim Padrick]

"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
...
> On 15 Oct 2006 12:21:08 -0400, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>
>
>>Fleetie > wrote:
>>>Well, it's worth remembering that the iPod Nano, not that the OP mentions
>>>their type of MP3 player, does support a lossless compression method.
>>>The file size isn't that good, but at least it's lossless, and I'd
>>>expect the sound quality to be equivalent to that of a CD player;
>>>no reason why it shouldn't be. Presumably all modern iPods offer this
>>>option.
>
>>You're still stuck with D/A converters and headphone preamps crammed into
>>a tiny little box and designed to operate with as low power consumption as
>>possible. I have trouble imagining that somethng that can operate off a
>>couple NiCd cells is going to sound as good as the Prism converter and
>>Krell
>>headphone amp, which probably take a total of 500W to run. Of course, you
>>can't carry them on the bus, but that's another issue.
> hee hee. five hundred watts?
>
> Of course you mean mW...

Losslesss compression? Neither the CD format nor even 24/96 are lossless.
The compression methods are (audibly) lossless only if you did not have a
very good sounding audio file to begin with.

"CharlesBlackstone" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Hi all....
>
> Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound quality? I
> haven't been pleased with what I've heard. Clean, flat sound...

The best approach is to determine for sure that it's the mp3 coding that's
responsible for the unpleasing sound. Can you play .wav files on your mp3
player? If so, load one of those and see how it sounds. If it still
doesn't sound good--even with wav files--then it's the player not the lossy
compression that's at fault.

Find a player that sounds good uncompressed. Then is soon enough to
experiment with mp3.

Norm Strong

[Mr Fox]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:39:26 GMT, AZ Nomad
> wrote:

>
>You have no concept of mp3 compression.


An Do you?

It is completely different than
>analog audio compression.
>
>If you put a digital audio stream through a lossless mp3 compression algorithm,
>it is indeed totally lossless. The digital data coming out is *exactly* the
>same as the data going in.


Tell me;' what mp3 compression algorithms are completely lossless?

[Sander deWaal]

AZ Nomad > said:


>>>>You're still stuck with D/A converters and headphone preamps crammed into
>>>>a tiny little box and designed to operate with as low power consumption as
>>>>possible. I have trouble imagining that somethng that can operate off a
>>>>couple NiCd cells is going to sound as good as the Prism converter and Krell
>>>>headphone amp, which probably take a total of 500W to run. Of course, you
>>>>can't carry them on the bus, but that's another issue.


>>>hee hee. five hundred watts?

>>>Of course you mean mW...


>>No. Input current on the Prism is about two amps. It gets pretty warm while
>>in normal use. I think the idle input current on the 5W Krell amp is something
>>in the two-amp range as well. That's about typical. I'm assuming 110V power
>>here.


>Are you seriously argueing that a headphone amp needs five hundred watts?
>What planet are you from?



Is this a Nelson Pass design, perhaps? ;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Mr Fox]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:56:28 -0500, "Tim Padrick"
> wrote:

>"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
...
>> On 15 Oct 2006 12:21:08 -0400, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Fleetie > wrote:
>>>>Well, it's worth remembering that the iPod Nano, not that the OP mentions
>>>>their type of MP3 player, does support a lossless compression method.
>>>>The file size isn't that good, but at least it's lossless, and I'd
>>>>expect the sound quality to be equivalent to that of a CD player;
>>>>no reason why it shouldn't be. Presumably all modern iPods offer this
>>>>option.
>>
>>>You're still stuck with D/A converters and headphone preamps crammed into
>>>a tiny little box and designed to operate with as low power consumption as
>>>possible. I have trouble imagining that somethng that can operate off a
>>>couple NiCd cells is going to sound as good as the Prism converter and
>>>Krell
>>>headphone amp, which probably take a total of 500W to run. Of course, you
>>>can't carry them on the bus, but that's another issue.
>> hee hee. five hundred watts?
>>
>> Of course you mean mW...
>
>Losslesss compression? Neither the CD format nor even 24/96 are lossless.
>The compression methods are (audibly) lossless only if you did not have a
>very good sounding audio file to begin with.
>


Don't be shy-= speak in an authoritative manner if you know wat yr
talking about, Dilbert.

[Scott Dorsey]

AZ Nomad > wrote:
>
>Are you seriously argueing that a headphone amp needs five hundred watts?
>What planet are you from?

I'm not saying it needs it, but I'm saying it sure does sound good and
it measures pretty damn well too. Yes, it's overkill for the job but
there's nothing wrong with that. The constant attempt to cut every corner
possible in attempts to make things more cheap and more portable is not
beneficial to sound quality.
--scott

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

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Tim Padrick wrote:
>
>> Losslesss compression? Neither the CD format nor even 24/96 are
>> lossless. The compression methods are (audibly) lossless only if you
>> did not have a very good sounding audio file to begin with.
>
> You think 24/96 is lossy ?
>
> Graham


Fjukkwit know nothing



bertei

[Jenn]

In article >,
Signal > wrote:

> "CharlesBlackstone" > wrote:
>
> >Hi all....
> >
> >Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound quality? I
> >haven't been pleased with what I've heard. Clean, flat sound...
> >
> >Thanks....
>
>
> I forgot about the iPod Shuffle. This is alleged to have the best
> sound quality.

Even if true, it seems like it would be a pain in the arse to use.

[AZ Nomad]

On 15 Oct 2006 14:40:24 -0400, Scott Dorsey > wrote:


>AZ Nomad > wrote:
>>
>>Are you seriously argueing that a headphone amp needs five hundred watts?
>>What planet are you from?

>I'm not saying it needs it, but I'm saying it sure does sound good and
>it measures pretty damn well too. Yes, it's overkill for the job but
>there's nothing wrong with that. The constant attempt to cut every corner
>possible in attempts to make things more cheap and more portable is not
>beneficial to sound quality.

Not only that, but you can use it to heat a medium sized room.
****, my amp for my main speakers doesn't need 500W even at 40-50% efficiency.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Tim Padrick wrote:
>
>> Losslesss compression? Neither the CD format nor even
>> 24/96 are lossless. The compression methods are
>> (audibly) lossless only if you did not have a very good
>> sounding audio file to begin with.
>
> You think 24/96 is lossy ?

Remember that in the eyes of an analog bigot, 24/96 is "lossy" compared to
the "infinite resolution" and "infinite bandwidth" of analog. Back in the
real world, as soon as music storage is involved, the bandwidth and
resoluation of analog is very much less than that of good digital, even the
"lowly" of the CD.

[Arny Krueger]

"CharlesBlackstone" > wrote
in message
ups.com
> Hi all....
>
> Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound
> quality? I haven't been pleased with what I've heard.
> Clean, flat sound...

There have long been a number of portable digital players that supported
uncompressed, lossless digital formats, including the same digital format as
the CD. The iPod and my "ancient" Creative Labs Nomad Jukebox fit into that
category. Any digital player that supports 44/16 .wav format files, and many
can, is able to store audio CDs with zero loss of informtion.

In terms of sound quality, the next major area of shortcoming of portable
digital players relates to the maximum amplitude that their headphone jacks
can provide. Most of them are hard put to deliver much more than a 1 volt
RMS signal to an 8 ohm load. I mention 8 ohms because there are a number of
headphones and earphones that have impedances speced in the 12-16 ohm range,
and some may go slower within the audio range. These output power
limitations are often a response to legal requirements.

There are two circumventions to this problem. One is to pick "professsional"
equipment that can legally avoid some consumer safety regulations.

Another somewhat bulkier and inconvenient approach is to augment the output
of the headphone jack of a consumer digtial player with an external
amplifier. This amplifier should have a gain of from 6 to 12 db and provide
a maximum output of from 2 to 5 volts RMS into an 8-16 ohm load.

I don't personally know of any equipment that would meet all of these specs,
but it seems like it should exist.

I do see a number of web sources for headphone amplifiers that have the
potential to meet these specs.

I still have that Creative Labs Nomad Jukebox loaded with about 20 gigabytes
of .wav files, and it has a more robust headphone jack than most.

I've also had pretty good luck powering the low-priced but really pretty
clean "Boostaroo" with an external 5 volt power supply for added dynamic
range.

I don't know if it would be an optimial solution, but if I had to replace my
Nomad Jukebox tomorrow, I might be tempted to try a M-Audio Microtrack
digital recorder/player. Unfortunately its headphone jack is speced to be a
little on the weak side (under 1 volt), so an external headphone amp would
still be required.

[CharlesBlackstone]

Soundhaspriority wrote:
> In article om,
> "CharlesBlackstone" > wrote:
>
> > Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound quality? I
> > haven't been pleased with what I've heard. Clean, flat sound...
>
> I'm looking to replace my rundown car with a really great Hyundai. I
> haven't been pleased with what I've seen. Anyone know of a Hyundai that is
> superior?
>
> Get it, jerkoff?
>
> Bob Morein



Jerkoff? Did something I said upset you? Taken your meds today?
Enjoy your life....

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg steps up to lead a Tolerance Prayer.

> an analog bigot

How was church today, Arnii?

I hope you told your pastor that you alienated yet another Kroopologist.
That should earn you some points toward your Satanic Merit Badge.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" > wrote in message

> "CharlesBlackstone" >
> wrote:
>
>> There seems to be a dearth of commentary about sound
>> quality of MP3 players.
>
> Google "Rightmark" and the name of the player you are
> interested in. There is some stuff out there.

IME good advice.

FWIW I also second Paul's comments about the iPod - the headphone jack has a
fairly weak output, but with a suitable booster and a good load of
uncompressed audio files, it can provide pretty good sound.

[CharlesBlackstone]

Eeyore wrote:
> CharlesBlackstone wrote:
>
> > CharlesBlackstone wrote:
> > > Hi all....
> > >
> > > Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound quality? I
> > > haven't been pleased with what I've heard. Clean, flat sound...
> > >
> > > Thanks....
> >
> > Hi, thanks for the answers. I know about compression, etc., but are
> > there some MP3 players that, given high enough sample rates, or an
> > uncompressed file, sounds better than other MP3 players?
>
> I truly haven't a clue. I've never seen any manufacturer of one use
> sound quality as a selling point.
>
>
> > There seems to be a dearth of commentary about sound quality of MP3
> > players.
>
> Because quality isn't their function ?
>
> Graham

Heh, yeah, however, MAudio uses some software (sorry, forgot the name)
developed by (sorry, forgot their name too) that is supposed to give
good sound, and they promote that. On the MP3 group it's touted. Also,
some manufacturers use the Wolfson audio chips, that are supposed to be
a better chip set. But some of those are obsolete. The previous Nano
used them. I don't think the new ones use them or at least the same
ones. But, I have no experience with these.

Thanks much....

[CharlesBlackstone]

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > CharlesBlackstone wrote:
> >
> >> CharlesBlackstone wrote:
> >> > Hi all....
> >> >
> >> > Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound quality? I
> >> > haven't been pleased with what I've heard. Clean, flat sound...
> >> >
> >> > Thanks....
> >>
> >> Hi, thanks for the answers. I know about compression, etc., but are
> >> there some MP3 players that, given high enough sample rates, or an
> >> uncompressed file, sounds better than other MP3 players?
> >
> > I truly haven't a clue. I've never seen any manufacturer of one use
> > sound quality as a selling point.
> >
> >
> >> There seems to be a dearth of commentary about sound quality of MP3
> >> players.
> >
> > Because quality isn't their function ?
>
> I seem to recall that about two years ago either Stereophile or The Abso!ute
> Sound had very nice things to say about one of the iPods, the gist being
> that it had much better sound quality than any other portable mp3-type
> player, especially in the bass. You might wish to check the archives of
> those two mags.

Thanks much, I will. Used to be a Stereophile reader....

[CharlesBlackstone]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Fleetie > wrote:
> >Well, it's worth remembering that the iPod Nano, not that the OP mentions
> >their type of MP3 player, does support a lossless compression method.
> >The file size isn't that good, but at least it's lossless, and I'd
> >expect the sound quality to be equivalent to that of a CD player;
> >no reason why it shouldn't be. Presumably all modern iPods offer this option.
>
> You're still stuck with D/A converters and headphone preamps crammed into
> a tiny little box and designed to operate with as low power consumption as
> possible. I have trouble imagining that somethng that can operate off a
> couple NiCd cells is going to sound as good as the Prism converter and Krell
> headphone amp, which probably take a total of 500W to run. Of course, you
> can't carry them on the bus, but that's another issue.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Thanks. Well, you CAN carry them on the bus.....but it would be a bit
awkward... :-)

[CharlesBlackstone]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "CharlesBlackstone" > wrote
> in message
> ups.com
> > Hi all....
> >
> > Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound
> > quality? I haven't been pleased with what I've heard.
> > Clean, flat sound...
>
> There have long been a number of portable digital players that supported
> uncompressed, lossless digital formats, including the same digital format as
> the CD. The iPod and my "ancient" Creative Labs Nomad Jukebox fit into that
> category. Any digital player that supports 44/16 .wav format files, and many
> can, is able to store audio CDs with zero loss of informtion.
>
> In terms of sound quality, the next major area of shortcoming of portable
> digital players relates to the maximum amplitude that their headphone jacks
> can provide. Most of them are hard put to deliver much more than a 1 volt
> RMS signal to an 8 ohm load. I mention 8 ohms because there are a number of
> headphones and earphones that have impedances speced in the 12-16 ohm range,
> and some may go slower within the audio range. These output power
> limitations are often a response to legal requirements.
>
> There are two circumventions to this problem. One is to pick "professsional"
> equipment that can legally avoid some consumer safety regulations.
>
> Another somewhat bulkier and inconvenient approach is to augment the output
> of the headphone jack of a consumer digtial player with an external
> amplifier. This amplifier should have a gain of from 6 to 12 db and provide
> a maximum output of from 2 to 5 volts RMS into an 8-16 ohm load.
>
> I don't personally know of any equipment that would meet all of these specs,
> but it seems like it should exist.
>
> I do see a number of web sources for headphone amplifiers that have the
> potential to meet these specs.
>
> I still have that Creative Labs Nomad Jukebox loaded with about 20 gigabytes
> of .wav files, and it has a more robust headphone jack than most.
>
> I've also had pretty good luck powering the low-priced but really pretty
> clean "Boostaroo" with an external 5 volt power supply for added dynamic
> range.
>
> I don't know if it would be an optimial solution, but if I had to replace my
> Nomad Jukebox tomorrow, I might be tempted to try a M-Audio Microtrack
> digital recorder/player. Unfortunately its headphone jack is speced to be a
> little on the weak side (under 1 volt), so an external headphone amp would
> still be required.



Thanks for the great answer, Arny. Well, there's always Headroom's
stuff, but this is for my cycling workout and I'm not keen on carrying
the amp (though it would attach to the bike....hm....). I also carry
my current Samsung YP-u1 around my neck all day, and it wouldn't work
there. But I'm intrigued by your mention of "professional" equipment. I
have been perusing MP3 stuff on the web for a while and haven't seen
mention of such. Seems kinda antithetical to the whole idea of MP3.

[Jenn]

In article om>,
"CharlesBlackstone" > wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "CharlesBlackstone" > wrote
> > in message
> > ups.com
> > > Hi all....
> > >
> > > Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound
> > > quality? I haven't been pleased with what I've heard.
> > > Clean, flat sound...
> >
> > There have long been a number of portable digital players that supported
> > uncompressed, lossless digital formats, including the same digital format as
> > the CD. The iPod and my "ancient" Creative Labs Nomad Jukebox fit into that
> > category. Any digital player that supports 44/16 .wav format files, and many
> > can, is able to store audio CDs with zero loss of informtion.
> >
> > In terms of sound quality, the next major area of shortcoming of portable
> > digital players relates to the maximum amplitude that their headphone jacks
> > can provide. Most of them are hard put to deliver much more than a 1 volt
> > RMS signal to an 8 ohm load. I mention 8 ohms because there are a number of
> > headphones and earphones that have impedances speced in the 12-16 ohm range,
> > and some may go slower within the audio range. These output power
> > limitations are often a response to legal requirements.
> >
> > There are two circumventions to this problem. One is to pick "professsional"
> > equipment that can legally avoid some consumer safety regulations.
> >
> > Another somewhat bulkier and inconvenient approach is to augment the output
> > of the headphone jack of a consumer digtial player with an external
> > amplifier. This amplifier should have a gain of from 6 to 12 db and provide
> > a maximum output of from 2 to 5 volts RMS into an 8-16 ohm load.
> >
> > I don't personally know of any equipment that would meet all of these specs,
> > but it seems like it should exist.
> >
> > I do see a number of web sources for headphone amplifiers that have the
> > potential to meet these specs.
> >
> > I still have that Creative Labs Nomad Jukebox loaded with about 20 gigabytes
> > of .wav files, and it has a more robust headphone jack than most.
> >
> > I've also had pretty good luck powering the low-priced but really pretty
> > clean "Boostaroo" with an external 5 volt power supply for added dynamic
> > range.
> >
> > I don't know if it would be an optimial solution, but if I had to replace my
> > Nomad Jukebox tomorrow, I might be tempted to try a M-Audio Microtrack
> > digital recorder/player. Unfortunately its headphone jack is speced to be a
> > little on the weak side (under 1 volt), so an external headphone amp would
> > still be required.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the great answer, Arny.

It WAS a great answer, IMV.

> Well, there's always Headroom's
> stuff, but this is for my cycling workout and I'm not keen on carrying
> the amp (though it would attach to the bike....hm....). I also carry
> my current Samsung YP-u1 around my neck all day, and it wouldn't work
> there. But I'm intrigued by your mention of "professional" equipment. I
> have been perusing MP3 stuff on the web for a while and haven't seen
> mention of such. Seems kinda antithetical to the whole idea of MP3.

[CharlesBlackstone]

George M. Middius wrote:
> The Krooborg steps up to lead a Tolerance Prayer.
>
> > an analog bigot
>
> How was church today, Arnii?
>
> I hope you told your pastor that you alienated yet another Kroopologist.
> That should earn you some points toward your Satanic Merit Badge.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> "Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
> A. Krooger, Aug. 2006




Hey George, I don't know you, but I'm glad of it.

[George M. Middius]

CharlesBlackstone said:

> > The Krooborg steps up to lead a Tolerance Prayer.

> > > an analog bigot

> > How was church today, Arnii?

> > I hope you told your pastor that you alienated yet another Kroopologist.
> > That should earn you some points toward your Satanic Merit Badge.

> Hey George, I don't know you, but I'm glad of it.

Apparently you don't know the Krooborg either. ;-)




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Eeyore]

Signal wrote:

> Mr Fox > wrote:
>
> Who the **** are you "Mr Fox" (yeah riiiight) and why are you posting
> with my email address?

Loads of ppl use that email address.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > AZ Nomad > wrote:
> > >
> > >Are you seriously argueing that a headphone amp needs five hundred watts?
> > >What planet are you from?
> >
> > I'm not saying it needs it, but I'm saying it sure does sound good and
> > it measures pretty damn well too. Yes, it's overkill for the job but
> > there's nothing wrong with that. The constant attempt to cut every corner
> > possible in attempts to make things more cheap and more portable is not
> > beneficial to sound quality.
>
> Any headphone solution using even fifty watts, let alone five hundred,
> is obvious insanity.
> I doubt it sounds any better than a good DAC and purpose designed
> headphone amp such as the one in the Benchmark.

I don't think for one second he meant it seriously !

That Prism unit is 8 channels anyway. And the Krell is more than a headphone
amp.

Graham

[CharlesBlackstone]

Bob Cain wrote:
> CharlesBlackstone wrote:
> > Soundhaspriority wrote:
> >> In article om,
> >> "CharlesBlackstone" > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound quality? I
> >>> haven't been pleased with what I've heard. Clean, flat sound...
> >> I'm looking to replace my rundown car with a really great Hyundai. I
> >> haven't been pleased with what I've seen. Anyone know of a Hyundai that is
> >> superior?
> >>
> >> Get it, jerkoff?
> >>
> >> Bob Morein
> >
> >
> >
> > Jerkoff? Did something I said upset you? Taken your meds today?
> > Enjoy your life....
> >
>
> There is a real Bob Morein who is a pretty good guy and doesn't post
> in this abusive fashion. The wingnut responsible for the above
> doesn't like Bob so he uses his identity (and his father's) to post
> things that will make Bob look bad if you don't know what's going on.
> After a just a bit you can tell the difference at a glance. Ignore
> the wingnut.
>
>
> Bob
> --
>
> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
>
> A. Einstein


Thanks for cluing me in. What's wrong with people? Oh well, at least
it's not real life. What if people let their real selves hang out in
real life, like they do here? Would be pretty intolerable.....

[Phread]

"CharlesBlackstone" > wrote in message oups.com...
>
> Bob Cain wrote:
>> CharlesBlackstone wrote:
>> > Soundhaspriority wrote:
>> >> In article om,
>> >> "CharlesBlackstone" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound quality? I
>> >>> haven't been pleased with what I've heard. Clean, flat sound...
>> >> I'm looking to replace my rundown car with a really great Hyundai. I
>> >> haven't been pleased with what I've seen. Anyone know of a Hyundai that is
>> >> superior?
>> >>
>> >> Get it, jerkoff?
>> >>
>> >> Bob Morein
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Jerkoff? Did something I said upset you? Taken your meds today?
>> > Enjoy your life....
>> >
>>
>> There is a real Bob Morein who is a pretty good guy and doesn't post
>> in this abusive fashion. The wingnut responsible for the above
>> doesn't like Bob so he uses his identity (and his father's) to post
>> things that will make Bob look bad if you don't know what's going on.
>> After a just a bit you can tell the difference at a glance. Ignore
>> the wingnut.
>>
>>
>> Bob
>> --
>>
>> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
>>
>> A. Einstein
>
>
> Thanks for cluing me in. What's wrong with people? Oh well, at least
> it's not real life. What if people let their real selves hang out in
> real life, like they do here? Would be pretty intolerable.....
>

Everyone'd be wearing, and using, six guns like they did a hundred +
years ago. And a lot of the blowhards on the newsgroups wouldn't be
around any more. They'd be up on boot hill. Where they belong.

Fred

[roughplanet]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...

AZ Nomad > said:

>>>>>You're still stuck with D/A converters and headphone preamps crammed
>>>>>into a tiny little box and designed to operate with as low power
>>>>> >>>>>consumption as possible. I have trouble imagining that somethng
>>>>>that can >>>>>operate off a couple NiCd cells is going to sound as good
>>>>>as the Prism >>>>>converter and Krell headphone amp, which probably
>>>>>take a total of 500W >>>>>to run. Of course, you can't carry them on
>>>>>the bus, but that's another issue.

>>>>hee hee. five hundred watts?
>>>>Of course you mean mW...

>>>No. Input current on the Prism is about two amps. It gets pretty warm
>>>while
>>>in normal use. I think the idle input current on the 5W Krell amp is
>>>something
>>>in the two-amp range as well. That's about typical. I'm assuming 110V
>>> >>>power here.

>>Are you seriously argueing that a headphone amp needs five hundred watts?
>>What planet are you from?

> Is this a Nelson Pass design, perhaps? ;-)

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

ruff

[Eric Lindsay]

In article >,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> Fleetie > wrote:
> >Well, it's worth remembering that the iPod Nano, not that the OP mentions
> >their type of MP3 player, does support a lossless compression method.
> >The file size isn't that good, but at least it's lossless, and I'd
> >expect the sound quality to be equivalent to that of a CD player;
> >no reason why it shouldn't be. Presumably all modern iPods offer this option.
>
> You're still stuck with D/A converters and headphone preamps crammed into
> a tiny little box and designed to operate with as low power consumption as
> possible. I have trouble imagining that somethng that can operate off a
> couple NiCd cells is going to sound as good as the Prism converter and Krell
> headphone amp, which probably take a total of 500W to run. Of course, you
> can't carry them on the bus, but that's another issue.
> --scott

If the DACs and pre-amps are increasingly small surface mount devices,
then what additional problem does a tiny little box make? In particular,
if a larger box is likely to solve a problem, then what is this problem?
The major problem I see at the moment is that the headphone socket is
now too large for the rest of the device (hearing aids point to one
solution for that).

Typical headphones are producing well over 100 dB per mW, so there is
little problem with using batteries. Except the obvious one of ear
damage via excessive SPL. Indeed, there is a setting in iPods to help
prevent that. The 10-20 hour working life between battery charges seems
to indicate that neither sound levels nor battery capacity are problems.
So who needs to be restricted to a noisy mains power supply?

Anyone asking about an MP3 player is certainly asking about portability.
If you are at home, you can use a computer as a source, and use a
headphone amplifier if you like, or even a custom external DAC.

If using the portable player while travelling, sound quality is going to
be compromised in any case. Planes, trains and automobiles are noisy
environments, totally unlike a well designed listening room. If walking,
there is traffic noise. It is probably no coincidence that popular music
now seems to have as little as 6 dB between the average sound level and
the peaks. It is used under lousy listening circumstances. I don't
bother to try to listen to classical music on a portable player -
traffic drowns the quiet passages (unless you have the volume right up).
Popular music suits portable players a lot better in typical use.

Looking at Apple comments on iTunes, it seems to me that there is now
more mention of using Lossless sound formats. The Macintosh internal
support is there for 24 bit operation at higher frequencies than CD.
Doing your own conversion of LPs and CDs may be the only options
available now, while SACD and DVD-A do not permit copies. However
mastering on a computer lets you choose not to work at 16 bit 44.1kHz.

I wonder what people will be complaining about when the top portable
players accept 24 bit sound, and have 24 bit DACs?

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: "Signal" > wrote in message
:
: > "CharlesBlackstone" >
: > wrote:
: >
: >> There seems to be a dearth of commentary about sound
: >> quality of MP3 players.
: >
: > Google "Rightmark" and the name of the player you are
: > interested in. There is some stuff out there.
:
: IME good advice.
:
: FWIW I also second Paul's comments about the iPod - the headphone jack has a
: fairly weak output, but with a suitable booster and a good load of
: uncompressed audio files, it can provide pretty good sound.
:

Well, with a Tascam HD-P2, 10GB .85" Toshiba drives or solid state
memory cards that fit comfortably in your shirt pocket, seems a better
solution for Robert, altogether, is now available

Rudy
recycling

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: "Eeyore" > wrote in
: message
: > Tim Padrick wrote:
: >
: >> Losslesss compression? Neither the CD format nor even
: >> 24/96 are lossless. The compression methods are
: >> (audibly) lossless only if you did not have a very good
: >> sounding audio file to begin with.
: >
: > You think 24/96 is lossy ?
:
: Remember that in the eyes of an analog bigot, 24/96 is "lossy" compared to
: the "infinite resolution" and "infinite bandwidth" of analog. Back in the
: real world, as soon as music storage is involved, the bandwidth and
: resoluation of analog is very much less than that of good digital, even the
: "lowly" of the CD.
:
Utter nonsense, of course.
analog 76 cm tape with dolby SR will ourperform cd by a wide margin

even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw.

fact
check
Rudy

[Laurence Payne]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:56:28 -0500, "Tim Padrick"
> wrote:

>Losslesss compression? Neither the CD format nor even 24/96 are lossless.
>The compression methods are (audibly) lossless only if you did not have a
>very good sounding audio file to begin with.

Eh?

[Arny Krueger]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message


> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Remember that in the eyes of an analog bigot, 24/96 is
>> "lossy" compared to the "infinite resolution" and
>> "infinite bandwidth" of analog. Back in the real world,
>> as soon as music storage is involved, the bandwidth and
>> resoluation of analog is very much less than that of
>> good digital, even the "lowly" of the CD.

> Utter nonsense, of course.
> analog 76 cm tape with dolby SR will ourperform cd by a
> wide margin

Not at all.

Here's a spec sheet for what I believe is Dolby's most recent SR hardware:

http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/131_pa_sp_0403_740_Spec.pdf

Rudy, your challenge is to document your implicit claim of more than 96 dB
unweighted dynamic range, Frequency response 5-20 KHz +/- 0.1 dB or better,
nonlinear distortion better than 96 dB down, and level tracking within 0.1
dB or better.

What the spec sheet does say is that improvement in single bands of up to 12
dB are possible.

> even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
> did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw.

Those would be highly-weighted numbers, achieved over relatively narrow
frequency bands, with relatively poor level tracking and order-of-magnitude
poorer control over frequency response in the ranges where the ear is most
sensitive, or senitive at all.

See the above specs for the CD format and compare to what you can achieve
with companded analog tape. Companded analog tape can't offer unweighted
dynamic ranage, the lack of coloration and level tracking that we take for
granted with the CD format.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Signal wrote:
>
>> Mr Fox > wrote:
>>
>> Who the **** are you "Mr Fox" (yeah riiiight) and why
>> are you posting with my email address?
>
> Loads of ppl use that email address.

This sort of confusion is pretty common with Paul Dormer, AKA "Signal".

[Jack]

Soundhaspriority wrote:
> "CharlesBlackstone" > wrote:
>
>>Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound quality? I
>>haven't been pleased with what I've heard. Clean, flat sound...

Have you listened to Apple's Lossless format
available into iTunes?

The Lossless files are obviously bigger than 256
kbps AAC, so your battery life will be reduced.

Personally, 256 kbps is an acceptable compromise
between file size and audio quality. For serious
listening sessions at home, I prefer to listen to
the original CD on a proper hi-fi.

You need to replace the standard iPOD earphones
with decent headphones like Sennheisers' mobile
models.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eric Lindsay" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> Fleetie > wrote:
>>> Well, it's worth remembering that the iPod Nano, not
>>> that the OP mentions their type of MP3 player, does
>>> support a lossless compression method.
>>> The file size isn't that good, but at least it's
>>> lossless, and I'd
>>> expect the sound quality to be equivalent to that of a
>>> CD player;
>>> no reason why it shouldn't be. Presumably all modern
>>> iPods offer this option.
>>
>> You're still stuck with D/A converters and headphone
>> preamps crammed into
>> a tiny little box and designed to operate with as low
>> power consumption as possible. I have trouble imagining
>> that somethng that can operate off a couple NiCd cells
>> is going to sound as good as the Prism converter and
>> Krell headphone amp, which probably take a total of 500W
>> to run. Of course, you can't carry them on the bus, but
>> that's another issue. --scott
>
> If the DACs and pre-amps are increasingly small surface
> mount devices, then what additional problem does a tiny
> little box make?

Trouble is that the boxes are getting so tiny. The one thing that has to fit
in the box that is a constant battle is the battery.

IME analog devices running at really low current levels and really low
voltages tend to be noisy and nonlinear. By modern standards 5 volts and 1
mA is huge.

Cell phones are currently being implemented with "headphone amps" that are
really crappy by audio standards, to keep the power levels way down.

> In particular, if a larger box is likely
> to solve a problem, then what is this problem?

Convenience, and a engineering law I've never seen documented. This
engineering law goes something like this: If you can make it smaller,
ultimately you can make it cheaper. The basic idea is that once you've
worked in all of the efficiencies in production and operation that you can,
size and weight matter the most.

> The major
> problem I see at the moment is that the headphone socket
> is now too large for the rest of the device (hearing aids
> point to one solution for that).

Interesting point.

> Typical headphones are producing well over 100 dB per mW,
> so there is little problem with using batteries.

Agreed, the real stumbling blocks are regulatory.

> Except the obvious one of ear damage via excessive SPL.

One problem here is that ear damage is a function of bout loudness and time.
An audiophile listening to wide dynamic range music with occasional very
short peaks of 110 dB and average levels of 80 dB is probably not going to
hurt his ears. A typical consumer listening to the highly-compressed
so-called music that is endemic today at a steady 110 dB, is going to hurt
his ears.

> Anyone asking about an MP3 player is certainly asking
> about portability. If you are at home, you can use a
> computer as a source, and use a headphone amplifier if
> you like, or even a custom external DAC.

Cords are not fun. I have several 25 foot headphone cords and they are a
hassle.

> If using the portable player while travelling, sound
> quality is going to be compromised in any case.

Compromise is what I think we are trying to avoid.

> Planes,
> trains and automobiles are noisy environments, totally
> unlike a well designed listening room. If walking, there
> is traffic noise. It is probably no coincidence that
> popular music now seems to have as little as 6 dB between
> the average sound level and the peaks. It is used under
> lousy listening circumstances. I don't bother to try to
> listen to classical music on a portable player - traffic
> drowns the quiet passages (unless you have the volume
> right up). Popular music suits portable players a lot
> better in typical use.

Relevant points. The dynamic range control hardware seems to be ideally
placed in the player. It seems to me to make sense to tie the dynamic range
control hardware to maximum level limiting to protect the listener's ears
while allowing more natural wide-dynamic-range music to be played with
higher peak levels.

> Looking at Apple comments on iTunes, it seems to me that
> there is now more mention of using Lossless sound
> formats.

Even highly portable mass storage is getting to be cheap and small. Right
now extremely portable mass storage in the 8 GB range seems to be practical.
I'm seeing 8 GB devices around $100. 1 GB can hold about 25 songs, so 8 GB
can hold 200. That seems to be enough for maybe a weeks worth of listening.
Based on past experience with MP3 CDs, I'd say that 200 songs can provide a
fairly non-boring week of fairly extensive listening. You then reload over
the weekend, which again seems reasonable for a music lover.

> The Macintosh internal support is there for 24
> bit operation at higher frequencies than CD.

AFAIK both PCs and Macs support just about any format of audio data storage
you can comprehend. 32 bit floating point offers just under 1,000 dB dynamic
range which seems to be more than enough. That all said, actually making and
listening to 16 bit recordings that exploit even 15 bits is beyond the
current SOTA when listening and recording enviroments are considered, and
they must be considered.


> Doing your
> own conversion of LPs and CDs may be the only options
> available now, while SACD and DVD-A do not permit copies.

Actually SACD and DVD-A media can be copied at will, with very high quality,
in real time, but you have to go through the analog domain to do it.
Relatively inexpensive analog converters with > 100 dB dynamic range are
readily available. They go way beyond real world limitations that we are
unable to do much about at this time, and probably won't ever surmount.

> However mastering on a computer lets you choose not to
> work at 16 bit 44.1kHz.

Yes, computers can do all sorts of things if you can come up with the
real-world interfaces and data. But if 16/44 were the relevant problem with
high quality portable listening, we'd be in audio nirvana.

> I wonder what people will be complaining about when the
> top portable players accept 24 bit sound, and have 24 bit
> DACs?

They already do have portable players with "24 bit converters" - 24/96 - see
the M-Audio Microtrack. But, don't try to look under the covers too closely,
as the real world will intrude.

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
:
:
: > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
: > ...
:
: >> Remember that in the eyes of an analog bigot, 24/96 is
: >> "lossy" compared to the "infinite resolution" and
: >> "infinite bandwidth" of analog. Back in the real world,
: >> as soon as music storage is involved, the bandwidth and
: >> resoluation of analog is very much less than that of
: >> good digital, even the "lowly" of the CD.
:
: > Utter nonsense, of course.
: > analog 76 cm tape with dolby SR will ourperform cd by a
: > wide margin
:
: Not at all.
:
: Here's a spec sheet for what I believe is Dolby's most recent SR hardware:
:
: http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/131_pa_sp_0403_740_Spec.pdf
:

no, actually it says the unit is based on SR noise reduction circuitry
not intended for that :)
so can't see the relevancy here.

: Rudy, your challenge is to document your implicit claim of more than 96 dB
: unweighted dynamic range, Frequency response 5-20 KHz +/- 0.1 dB or better,
: nonlinear distortion better than 96 dB down, and level tracking within 0.1
: dB or better.
:
: What the spec sheet does say is that improvement in single bands of up to 12
: dB are possible.
:
: > even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
: > did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw.
:
hm, isn't 30 > 20 that's an easy one, Arn
"nonlinear distortion better than 96 dB down"
red herring if ever there was one.
that is, in reference to a max output signal,
steadily increasing at lower and lower levels, eh ?

: Those would be highly-weighted numbers, achieved over relatively narrow
: frequency bands, with relatively poor level tracking and order-of-magnitude
: poorer control over frequency response in the ranges where the ear is most
: sensitive, or senitive at all.
:
believe me, AKG ck1+c451 recordings of some Zildjan cymbals,
using a dbx150 encoding/decoding do give rather splendid results
as i found out, wayyy back in the 80's.

: See the above specs for the CD format and compare to what you can achieve
: with companded analog tape. Companded analog tape can't offer unweighted
: dynamic ranage, the lack of coloration and level tracking that we take for
: granted with the CD format.
:
R.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Signal" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "CharlesBlackstone" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There seems to be a dearth of commentary about sound
>>>> quality of MP3 players.
>>>
>>> Google "Rightmark" and the name of the player you are
>>> interested in. There is some stuff out there.
>>
>> IME good advice.
>>
>> FWIW I also second Paul's comments about the iPod - the
>> headphone jack has a fairly weak output, but with a
>> suitable booster and a good load of uncompressed audio
>> files, it can provide pretty good sound.

> Well, with a Tascam HD-P2, 10GB .85" Toshiba drives or
> solid state memory cards that fit comfortably in your
> shirt pocket, seems a better solution for Robert,
> altogether, is now available

Hmm, cutting to the chase and checking the spec sheet

http://www.tascam.com/Products/HDP2/HD-P2_Eng_1_00.pdf

we see that it is rated at 55 mW into a 32 ohm load. Back of the envelope
says that this means about 4 volts rms output.

It also puts out 0.5 watts in 16 ohm speakers which is about 2.8 vrms.
This is pretty bodacious by iPod standards!

This would then would be an example of a professional device that takes
advantage of its professional status to provide a more usable headphone
jack.

Street price is about $1,000. Ouch! Oh well, you may get what you pay for.

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
:
: > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
: > ...
: >> "Signal" > wrote in message
: >>
: >>> "CharlesBlackstone" >
: >>> wrote:
: >>>
: >>>> There seems to be a dearth of commentary about sound
: >>>> quality of MP3 players.
: >>>
: >>> Google "Rightmark" and the name of the player you are
: >>> interested in. There is some stuff out there.
: >>
: >> IME good advice.
: >>
: >> FWIW I also second Paul's comments about the iPod - the
: >> headphone jack has a fairly weak output, but with a
: >> suitable booster and a good load of uncompressed audio
: >> files, it can provide pretty good sound.
:
: > Well, with a Tascam HD-P2, 10GB .85" Toshiba drives or
: > solid state memory cards that fit comfortably in your
: > shirt pocket, seems a better solution for Robert,
: > altogether, is now available
:
: Hmm, cutting to the chase and checking the spec sheet
:
: http://www.tascam.com/Products/HDP2/HD-P2_Eng_1_00.pdf
:
: we see that it is rated at 55 mW into a 32 ohm load. Back of the envelope
: says that this means about 4 volts rms output.
:
: It also puts out 0.5 watts in 16 ohm speakers which is about 2.8 vrms.
: This is pretty bodacious by iPod standards!
:
: This would then would be an example of a professional device that takes
: advantage of its professional status to provide a more usable headphone
: jack.
:
: Street price is about $1,000. Ouch! Oh well, you may get what you pay for.
:
yep.
how weird, that the first posting was vav Robert, some 6 months ago or so,
who responded rather peculiar in this thread
...... ~famous grateful death tune fading out ~>-

R.

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore > wrote:
>
>That Prism unit is 8 channels anyway. And the Krell is more than a headphone
>amp.

No, I still have the older 2-channel Prism, as well as the old 2-channel
DREAM A/D.

And the Krell was SOLD as a headphone amp. Although I'll say that it will
drive a pair of LS 3/5as to reasonable listening levels. Then again, the
line output of the original Great River preamp will drive the LS 3/5a to
reasonable levels....
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Eric Lindsay > wrote:
>If the DACs and pre-amps are increasingly small surface mount devices,
>then what additional problem does a tiny little box make? In particular,
>if a larger box is likely to solve a problem, then what is this problem?

First of all, you are now _stuck_ using these increasingly small surface
mount devices... your choices for components are much more limited and
discrete stuff is out of the question. With traces all jammed together,
capacitive coupling becomes a big issue and PC board layout has to be a lot
more careful to keep digital junk from leaking into the analogue lines.

>The major problem I see at the moment is that the headphone socket is
>now too large for the rest of the device (hearing aids point to one
>solution for that).

Not to mention that the sockets break off all the time.

>Typical headphones are producing well over 100 dB per mW, so there is
>little problem with using batteries. Except the obvious one of ear
>damage via excessive SPL. Indeed, there is a setting in iPods to help
>prevent that. The 10-20 hour working life between battery charges seems
>to indicate that neither sound levels nor battery capacity are problems.
>So who needs to be restricted to a noisy mains power supply?

Yes, but the sound quality suffers. Yes, you can get amazingly good
efficiency using those little class-D amplifiers. The only problem
is that they don't sound good. Now, if you're on the subway, they may
be completely acceptable, but that's the difference between gear designed
for critical listening and gear intended for use on the subway.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>Here's a spec sheet for what I believe is Dolby's most recent SR hardware:
>
>http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/131_pa_sp_0403_740_Spec.pdf
>
>Rudy, your challenge is to document your implicit claim of more than 96 dB
>unweighted dynamic range, Frequency response 5-20 KHz +/- 0.1 dB or better,
>nonlinear distortion better than 96 dB down, and level tracking within 0.1
>dB or better.
>
>What the spec sheet does say is that improvement in single bands of up to 12
>dB are possible.

I can't do 96 dB unweighted, but I can do 84 dB A-weighted with SR on the
ATR-100 at 15 ips, and if you can tell the difference between that and 96,
I'll buy you a beer.

30 ips might give you better numbers but I find the quality of the noise
is more annoying.

The major difference in terms of measured specifications is the flutter,
which can be amazingly low in the digital world. On the ATR-100 you can't
hear anything that sounds like flutter, but you can hear a blending of
instruments that is probably the result of low level flutter issues.

>See the above specs for the CD format and compare to what you can achieve
>with companded analog tape. Companded analog tape can't offer unweighted
>dynamic ranage, the lack of coloration and level tracking that we take for
>granted with the CD format.

It comes damn close, though. But again, at a severe cost.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[drichard]

OK, I can't let this pass without commenting, especially since you've
described your post as a "Fact check".

I never heard of anything remotely close to 100 db dynamic range with
the old Teac machines and DBX. 80db was typical, 85 db on a good
machine. That's especially true because you need to lower the levels to
get any transient response. And the frequency response was not very
accurate. DBX compression magnifies any frequency response errors in
the machine by a 2:1 ratio, which was very significant on the Teac
machines. (The 80-8 had a 3db head bump at 60hz, which became a 6db
bump when using DBX. Godawful.) And the dynamic response was anything
but snappy. I'm not sure if a measure of "slew rate" could be applied
to noise reduction, but recordings using DBX often sounded "mushy", and
tests for transient response showed why.

I had a Teac multitrack with DBX back in the day, also a couple of
casette decks with DBX. I eventually stopped using DBX, and found other
ways to minimize the tape hiss on my multitrack. And I used Dolby on
the cassette decks.

The CD format, when used properly, is far, far better than any old Teac
machine with DBX. I don't have Dolby SR, so I can't comment on that.

Dean


>Ruud Broens wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> : "Eeyore" > wrote in
> : message
> : > Tim Padrick wrote:
> : >
> : >> Losslesss compression? Neither the CD format nor even
> : >> 24/96 are lossless. The compression methods are
> : >> (audibly) lossless only if you did not have a very good
> : >> sounding audio file to begin with.
> : >
> : > You think 24/96 is lossy ?
> :
> : Remember that in the eyes of an analog bigot, 24/96 is "lossy" compared to
> : the "infinite resolution" and "infinite bandwidth" of analog. Back in the
> : real world, as soon as music storage is involved, the bandwidth and
> : resoluation of analog is very much less than that of good digital, even the
> : "lowly" of the CD.
> :
> Utter nonsense, of course.
> analog 76 cm tape with dolby SR will ourperform cd by a wide margin
>
> even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
> did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw.
>
> fact
> check
> Rudy

[Arny Krueger]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>> Remember that in the eyes of an analog bigot, 24/96 is
>>>> "lossy" compared to the "infinite resolution" and
>>>> "infinite bandwidth" of analog. Back in the real
>>>> world, as soon as music storage is involved, the
>>>> bandwidth and resoluation of analog is very much less
>>>> than that of good digital, even the "lowly" of the CD.
>>
>>> Utter nonsense, of course.
>>> analog 76 cm tape with dolby SR will ourperform cd by a
>>> wide margin
>>
>> Not at all.
>>
>> Here's a spec sheet for what I believe is Dolby's most
>> recent SR hardware:
>>
>> http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/131_pa_sp_0403_740_Spec.pdf
>>
>
> no, actually it says the unit is based on SR noise
> reduction circuitry not intended for that :)
> so can't see the relevancy here.

That leaves:

http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/127_m.br.0104.363onesheet.pdf

"Typical Obtainable Dynamic Range SR: 90–95 dB" at 38 cm/s (15 ips) tape
speed.
Not exactly CD-quality, especially given that weighting used for the
measurement is not specified. Probably A-weighted.
Also, the level tracking errors can be up to 1 dB, whch is vastly more than
CD format.
>> Rudy, your challenge is to document your implicit claim
>> of more than 96 dB unweighted dynamic range, Frequency
>> response 5-20 KHz +/- 0.1 dB or better, nonlinear
>> distortion better than 96 dB down, and level tracking
>> within 0.1 dB or better.

>>> even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal
>>> tape, did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz
>>> bw.

Looking at current DBX models, this seems typical:

http://www.tascam.com/Products/414mkII/Porta_414mkII_manual.pdf

"Recorder Section

Record Channel: 4-track single direction
Noise Reduction: dbx* Type II
Overall Frequency Response:
40 Hz to 10 kHz, ±3 dB (wihtout dbx)

Overall Signal-to-Noise Ratio: 85 dB
(at 1 kHz, ref. to 3% THD, “A” weighted,
with dbx)
Total Harmonic Distortion (THD): 2.0%
(at 1 kHz, nominal input level, with dbx)"

All vastly inferior to CD format.

[Eeyore]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> >
> >That Prism unit is 8 channels anyway. And the Krell is more than a headphone
> >amp.
>
> No, I still have the older 2-channel Prism, as well as the old 2-channel
> DREAM A/D.
>
> And the Krell was SOLD as a headphone amp.

It was ? LOL !

> Although I'll say that it will
> drive a pair of LS 3/5as to reasonable listening levels. Then again, the
> line output of the original Great River preamp will drive the LS 3/5a to
> reasonable levels....

Hmm....

Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>Looking at current DBX models, this seems typical:
>
>http://www.tascam.com/Products/414mkII/Porta_414mkII_manual.pdf

Uhh.... this machine is kind of different than a studio recorder.
Like a Ford Escort is kind of different than a Mack truck...
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> And the Krell was SOLD as a headphone amp.
>
>It was ? LOL !

It was. It has since been discontinued, but it's a baby compared with
the regular Krell amps. Five watts RMS output, and that's pretty
conservatively rated, very solid class A output stage, and it'll drive
a dozen Grado SR-60s in parallel without a problem.

>> Although I'll say that it will
>> drive a pair of LS 3/5as to reasonable listening levels. Then again, the
>> line output of the original Great River preamp will drive the LS 3/5a to
>> reasonable levels....
>
>Hmm....

Hell, I remember mixing consoles with 6V6 output stages that could swing
10W into a 600 ohm load as being considered "about average" for broadcast
work. How our standards have dropped these days....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger > wrote:

>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>

>> even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
>> did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw.

>> Looking at current DBX models, this seems typical:
>>
>> http://www.tascam.com/Products/414mkII/Porta_414mkII_manual.pdf

> Uhh.... this machine is kind of different than a studio
> recorder. Like a Ford Escort is kind of different than a
> Mack truck... --scott

Note that the OP said "consumer Teac with DBX onboard". Using a piece of
low-end studio equipment seems relevant, no?

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>>
>
>>> even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
>>> did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw.
>
>>> Looking at current DBX models, this seems typical:
>>>
>>> http://www.tascam.com/Products/414mkII/Porta_414mkII_manual.pdf
>
>> Uhh.... this machine is kind of different than a studio
>> recorder. Like a Ford Escort is kind of different than a
>> Mack truck...
>
>Note that the OP said "consumer Teac with DBX onboard". Using a piece of
>low-end studio equipment seems relevant, no?

I think he was referring to a 2-track Teac machine and not a 4-track cassette.
The difference is pretty substantial.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

AZ Nomad > writes:

> Are you seriously argueing that a headphone amp needs five hundred watts?
> What planet are you from?

About that for a Koss Electrostatic. Pair of 600W Crowns made a good
headphone amp. as long as you didn't have to move them ;)

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote:
>> >
>> >That Prism unit is 8 channels anyway. And the Krell is more than a
>> >headphone amp.
>>
>> No, I still have the older 2-channel Prism, as well as the old
>> 2-channel DREAM A/D.
>>
>> And the Krell was SOLD as a headphone amp.
>
> It was ? LOL !
>
>> Although I'll say that it will
>> drive a pair of LS 3/5as to reasonable listening levels. Then again,
>> the line output of the original Great River preamp will drive the LS
>> 3/5a to reasonable levels....
>
> Hmm....
>
> Graham
>
>

fjukkkwit netttkp



Bertie

[Ruud Broens]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
: Arny Krueger > wrote:

: >> Uhh.... this machine is kind of different than a studio
: >> recorder. Like a Ford Escort is kind of different than a
: >> Mack truck...
: >
: >Note that the OP said "consumer Teac with DBX onboard". Using a piece of
: >low-end studio equipment seems relevant, no?
:
: I think he was referring to a 2-track Teac machine and not a 4-track cassette.
: The difference is pretty substantial.

yep.
Rudy

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

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
> : "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> :
> : > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> : > ...
> : >> "Signal" > wrote in message
> : >>
> : >>> "CharlesBlackstone" >
> : >>> wrote:
> : >>>
> : >>>> There seems to be a dearth of commentary about sound
> : >>>> quality of MP3 players.
> : >>>
> : >>> Google "Rightmark" and the name of the player you are
> : >>> interested in. There is some stuff out there.
> : >>
> : >> IME good advice.
> : >>
> : >> FWIW I also second Paul's comments about the iPod - the
> : >> headphone jack has a fairly weak output, but with a
> : >> suitable booster and a good load of uncompressed audio
> : >> files, it can provide pretty good sound.
> :
> : > Well, with a Tascam HD-P2, 10GB .85" Toshiba drives or
> : > solid state memory cards that fit comfortably in your
> : > shirt pocket, seems a better solution for Robert,
> : > altogether, is now available
> :
> : Hmm, cutting to the chase and checking the spec sheet
> :
> : http://www.tascam.com/Products/HDP2/HD-P2_Eng_1_00.pdf
> :
> : we see that it is rated at 55 mW into a 32 ohm load. Back of the
> envelope
> : says that this means about 4 volts rms output.

I get 1.34v. 4v peak-to-peak would yield something close to 55mW.

Norm

[Lorin David Schultz]

Soundhaspriority > wrote:
>
> I always knew [bizarre ramblings snipped]


To whoever actually wrote all that nonsense:

Stop it. Please? The rest of us don't care.

Just take your ****in' meds, PLEASE.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>
>>>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>
>>>> even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal
>>>> tape, did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz
>>>> bw.
>>
>>>> Looking at current DBX models, this seems typical:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.tascam.com/Products/414mkII/Porta_414mkII_manual.pdf
>>
>>> Uhh.... this machine is kind of different than a studio
>>> recorder. Like a Ford Escort is kind of different than
>>> a Mack truck...
>>
>> Note that the OP said "consumer Teac with DBX onboard".
>> Using a piece of low-end studio equipment seems
>> relevant, no?
>
> I think he was referring to a 2-track Teac machine and
> not a 4-track cassette. The difference is pretty
> substantial. --scott

However, Rudy made a very substantial performance claim:

"even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw."

Part of this claim would then be kinda magical because AFAIK open-reel metal
tape was never a significant factor in the market. IOW, Rudy's claim is
based on media that has been unobtanium for a long time, if it was ever
really on the open market. And as we know, just putting metal tape in a tape
machine does not make the whole tape machine golden.

Secondly, the performance of DBX is partially limited by the fact that it is
based on companding, and making companders with > 95 dB dynamic range is a
bit of a trick itself, particularly in home audio-grade equipment.

Thirdly, DBX trades off both static and dynamic level-tracking for dynamic
range, so it is not an audible win-win situation.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message

> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Signal" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> "CharlesBlackstone" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There seems to be a dearth of commentary about sound
>>>>>>> quality of MP3 players.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Google "Rightmark" and the name of the player you are
>>>>>> interested in. There is some stuff out there.
>>>>>
>>>>> IME good advice.
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW I also second Paul's comments about the iPod -
>>>>> the headphone jack has a fairly weak output, but with
>>>>> a suitable booster and a good load of uncompressed
>>>>> audio files, it can provide pretty good sound.
>>>
>>>> Well, with a Tascam HD-P2, 10GB .85" Toshiba drives or
>>>> solid state memory cards that fit comfortably in your
>>>> shirt pocket, seems a better solution for Robert,
>>>> altogether, is now available
>>>
>>> Hmm, cutting to the chase and checking the spec sheet
>>>
>>> http://www.tascam.com/Products/HDP2/HD-P2_Eng_1_00.pdf
>>>
>>> we see that it is rated at 55 mW into a 32 ohm load.
>>> Back of the envelope says that this means about 4 volts
>>> rms output.
>
> I get 1.34v. 4v peak-to-peak would yield something close
> to 55mW.

Thanks for the correction.

Te back of the envelope dropped a leading zero for power.

Online calculator:

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-ohm.htm

[John Atkinson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
Rudy made a very substantial performance claim:
> "even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
> did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw."
>
> Part of this claim would then be kinda magical because AFAIK
> open-reel metal tape was never a significant factor in the market.

Note the tense usage in Rudy's post: "did," ie, it is stated
implicitly that this was in the past when, presumably, metal-based
open-reel tape was available.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Eeyore]

John Atkinson wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
> Rudy made a very substantial performance claim:
> > "even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
> > did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw."
> >
> > Part of this claim would then be kinda magical because AFAIK
> > open-reel metal tape was never a significant factor in the market.
>
> Note the tense usage in Rudy's post: "did," ie, it is stated
> implicitly that this was in the past when, presumably, metal-based
> open-reel tape was available.

I don't recall there being any TBH.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> John Atkinson wrote:
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> Rudy made a very substantial performance claim:
>>> "even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal
>>> tape,
>>> did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw."
>>>
>>> Part of this claim would then be kinda magical because
>>> AFAIK open-reel metal tape was never a significant
>>> factor in the market.
>>
>> Note the tense usage in Rudy's post: "did," ie, it is
>> stated implicitly that this was in the past when,
>> presumably, metal-based open-reel tape was available.
>
> I don't recall there being any TBH.

It may have been a lab test, or something that was demoed privately but it
never made it to the market.

It is my understanding that the benefits of metal analog tape go down as the
track width and speed go up.

[drichard]

Hi Arny

Obviously metal tape was available in the cassette market, and many
cassette decks of the time offered DBX. There were several Teac decks
with DBX built in. I assumed that's what Rudy was referring to, and why
I replied with my comments about DBX in that format. I had an outboard
unit and tried using it with my 2-track too, but it never sounded good
to me.

Over time, I grew to hate DBX. I finally stopped using it. I used
Dolby-C on a Fostex B-16 and on my cassette decks, and was much
happier. But, even so, I never felt it compared to the sound quality
that digital and CD offer.

Dean


Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>
> > Arny Krueger > wrote:
> >> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
> >>
> >>>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>
> >>>> even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal
> >>>> tape, did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz
> >>>> bw.
> >>
> >>>> Looking at current DBX models, this seems typical:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.tascam.com/Products/414mkII/Porta_414mkII_manual.pdf
> >>
> >>> Uhh.... this machine is kind of different than a studio
> >>> recorder. Like a Ford Escort is kind of different than
> >>> a Mack truck...
> >>
> >> Note that the OP said "consumer Teac with DBX onboard".
> >> Using a piece of low-end studio equipment seems
> >> relevant, no?
> >
> > I think he was referring to a 2-track Teac machine and
> > not a 4-track cassette. The difference is pretty
> > substantial. --scott
>
> However, Rudy made a very substantial performance claim:
>
> "even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
> did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw."
>
> Part of this claim would then be kinda magical because AFAIK open-reel metal
> tape was never a significant factor in the market. IOW, Rudy's claim is
> based on media that has been unobtanium for a long time, if it was ever
> really on the open market. And as we know, just putting metal tape in a tape
> machine does not make the whole tape machine golden.
>
> Secondly, the performance of DBX is partially limited by the fact that it is
> based on companding, and making companders with > 95 dB dynamic range is a
> bit of a trick itself, particularly in home audio-grade equipment.
>
> Thirdly, DBX trades off both static and dynamic level-tracking for dynamic
> range, so it is not an audible win-win situation.

[Ruud Broens]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
:
:
: John Atkinson wrote:
:
: > Arny Krueger wrote:
: > Rudy made a very substantial performance claim:
: > > "even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
: > > did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw."
: > >
: > > Part of this claim would then be kinda magical because AFAIK
: > > open-reel metal tape was never a significant factor in the market.
: >
: > Note the tense usage in Rudy's post: "did," ie, it is stated
: > implicitly that this was in the past when, presumably, metal-based
: > open-reel tape was available.
:
: I don't recall there being any TBH.
:
: Graham
:
It was branded as EE tape.
Tascam 38, using Ampex 456 tape, had a s/n of 68 dB,
with type I dbx about 100 dB (weighted)
ok, slight exag., fr was 2 dB down 30 Hz - 23 kHz,
ironically the consumer machines that *did* use EE (metal)
tape made it to 27 kHz iirc (that's mid 80's, eh)

of course, you're free to set the dbx ref level where you want
it, so trade some of that range for lower distortion and better
fr at high levels by recording at modest levels is what one does.

the real discussion, however, should be about Arny's
implicit belief, that better adherence to some set technical
standard means we get better reproduction !

is this true ? is virtually flat 5Hz to 20 kHz
brickwall filtered above
better then some deviation from flat but
*no brick wall*

saying yes would be largely a technical answer,
but , of course, the significant answer has to come
from the final judge, the listeners perceptive system

some thoughts,
Rudy

[Eeyore]

Ruud Broens wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> : John Atkinson wrote:
> : > Arny Krueger wrote:
> : > Rudy made a very substantial performance claim:
> : > > "even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
> : > > did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw."
> : > >
> : > > Part of this claim would then be kinda magical because AFAIK
> : > > open-reel metal tape was never a significant factor in the market.
> : >
> : > Note the tense usage in Rudy's post: "did," ie, it is stated
> : > implicitly that this was in the past when, presumably, metal-based
> : > open-reel tape was available.
> :
> : I don't recall there being any TBH.
> :
> : Graham
> :
> It was branded as EE tape.
> Tascam 38, using Ampex 456 tape, had a s/n of 68 dB,
> with type I dbx about 100 dB (weighted)
> ok, slight exag., fr was 2 dB down 30 Hz - 23 kHz,
> ironically the consumer machines that *did* use EE (metal)
> tape made it to 27 kHz iirc (that's mid 80's, eh)
>
> of course, you're free to set the dbx ref level where you want
> it, so trade some of that range for lower distortion and better
> fr at high levels by recording at modest levels is what one does.
>
> the real discussion, however, should be about Arny's
> implicit belief, that better adherence to some set technical
> standard means we get better reproduction !
>
> is this true ? is virtually flat 5Hz to 20 kHz
> brickwall filtered above
> better then some deviation from flat but
> *no brick wall*
>
> saying yes would be largely a technical answer,
> but , of course, the significant answer has to come
> from the final judge, the listeners perceptive system

Plenty of ppl found dbx objectionable though.

Incidentally British Grove Studios London has a 1" 2 track ATR 100 ! I'll
bet that's good just as it stands.

Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore > wrote:
>John Atkinson wrote:
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> Rudy made a very substantial performance claim:
>> > "even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
>> > did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw."
>> >
>> > Part of this claim would then be kinda magical because AFAIK
>> > open-reel metal tape was never a significant factor in the market.
>>
>> Note the tense usage in Rudy's post: "did," ie, it is stated
>> implicitly that this was in the past when, presumably, metal-based
>> open-reel tape was available.
>
>I don't recall there being any TBH.

Aside from digital open-reel tapes, there really wasn't any commercially
available. SOME folks in the late nineties did actually use the digital
tapes for analogue audio; an ATR-100 will JUST BARELY bias them up properly
and there is ukubillion dB of headroom.

My assumption was that he was talking about EE tapes, which were actually
a chromium dioxide formulation (and actually capable of less S/N than
many of the professional American and European oxide types of the era).
--scott

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

[Jenn]

drichard wrote:
> Hi Arny
>
> Obviously metal tape was available in the cassette market, and many
> cassette decks of the time offered DBX. There were several Teac decks
> with DBX built in. I assumed that's what Rudy was referring to, and why
> I replied with my comments about DBX in that format. I had an outboard
> unit and tried using it with my 2-track too, but it never sounded good
> to me.
>
> Over time, I grew to hate DBX. I finally stopped using it. I used
> Dolby-C on a Fostex B-16 and on my cassette decks, and was much
> happier. But, even so, I never felt it compared to the sound quality
> that digital and CD offer.
>
> Dean

I still have a Teac DBX cassette deck that I bought in the 80s. It
sounded so bad using DBX out of the box that I thought that perhaps it
was broken or callibrated incorrectly. I took it to the Teac service
center in SoCal (City of Commerce?) and they cheked it out, reporting
that it was working perfectly. I liked the Dolby C much more.

[Scott Dorsey]

Ruud Broens > wrote:
>It was branded as EE tape.

EE tape was a chrome formulation, not metal. This was part of the whole
wacky Japanese consumer concept of making tape formulations with standard
bias levels, so that folks could drop a tape onto a machine with no adjustments.
First there was a standard JIS format tape, then as technology improved,
they came out with JIS-EE tape.

>Tascam 38, using Ampex 456 tape, had a s/n of 68 dB,
>with type I dbx about 100 dB (weighted)
>ok, slight exag., fr was 2 dB down 30 Hz - 23 kHz,
> ironically the consumer machines that *did* use EE (metal)
>tape made it to 27 kHz iirc (that's mid 80's, eh)

In fact, the JIS-EE tapes actually didn't have any higher operating level
than 456. And I question ALL of those response numbers. I would be very
skeptical of anyone getting 23 KHz response out of a Trashcan 38 and even
more skeptical of any of the consumer machines having any usable response
above 20 KHz. The heads are the limiting factor here. Not to mention
that most of those consumer machines were runnng at 7.5ips or lower and
had doubtful azimuth stability.

On the other hand, my ATR-100 is down 3 dB at 35 KHz with Quantegy 406.
The top end corner on ANY tape machine is going to be set by the head gap
width and the bias frequency, and this is more important than the tape
in most cases. However, the high frequency noise floor is related to the
tape formulation.

>the real discussion, however, should be about Arny's
>implicit belief, that better adherence to some set technical
>standard means we get better reproduction !

That's not necessarily a bad belief. However, the problem is that you need
to pick the right technical standards. The Japanese notion of standardizing
on a tape formulation so that consumers would never have to align their
recorders meant that most people wound up with misaligned recorders and
it also caused development of higher output tape formulations to stagnate
in Japan.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore > wrote:
>
>Incidentally British Grove Studios London has a 1" 2 track ATR 100 ! I'll
>bet that's good just as it stands.

There are an increasing number of these and it's becoming a popular mastering
format. ATR Services Company makes the capstan and stack retrofits, while
Flux Magnetics makes the heads.

Frankly, the idea gives me the willies. The thing I love the most about the
ATR-100 is the extreme azimuth stability... after years of junky machines
like the Ampex 350 whose azimuth changes if you look at it hard, the ATR-100
is just rock solid. Quadrupling the track width so the azimuth error becomes
four times as bad seems like a way to keep it from being so rock-solid.
--scott

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message

> "Eeyore" > wrote
> in message ...
>>
>>
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> Rudy made a very substantial performance claim:
>>>> "even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal
>>>> tape,
>>>> did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw."
>>>>
>>>> Part of this claim would then be kinda magical because
>>>> AFAIK open-reel metal tape was never a significant
>>>> factor in the market.
>>>
>>> Note the tense usage in Rudy's post: "did," ie, it is
>>> stated implicitly that this was in the past when,
>>> presumably, metal-based open-reel tape was available.
>>
>> I don't recall there being any TBH.
>>
>> Graham

> It was branded as EE tape.

Whazzat?

> Tascam 38, using Ampex 456 tape, had a s/n of 68 dB,
> with type I dbx about 100 dB (weighted)
> ok, slight exag., fr was 2 dB down 30 Hz - 23 kHz,
> ironically the consumer machines that *did* use EE (metal)
> tape made it to 27 kHz iirc (that's mid 80's, eh)

OK, so you've basically vacated most of your claim.

> of course, you're free to set the dbx ref level where you
> want it, so trade some of that range for lower distortion
> and better fr at high levels by recording at modest
> levels is what one does.

Nothing like comparable to the CD format.

> the real discussion, however, should be about Arny's
> implicit belief, that better adherence to some set
> technical standard means we get better reproduction !

That would be something that you made up, Rudy.


> is this true ? is virtually flat 5Hz to 20 kHz
> brickwall filtered above
> better then some deviation from flat but
> *no brick wall*

Absolutely. 1 dB variation in the midband is audibly *big*, compared to
the effects of a well-designed 500 dB/octave low pass @ 22 KHz.

> saying yes would be largely a technical answer,

Well, it is also very practical.

Since Jenn likes to be critical of my samples, I'd be willing to add some
items to my pcabx web site to demo level and FR differences, if she would
provide a copyright-free .wav file that she thought was appropriate, for me
to base them on.

> but , of course, the significant answer has to come
> from the final judge, the listeners perceptive system

Thanks for mentioning the big hole in your numbers-only based assertions,
Rudy.

[Ruud Broens]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
:
:
: Ruud Broens wrote:
:
: > "Eeyore" > wrote in message
: > : John Atkinson wrote:
: > : > Arny Krueger wrote:
: > : > Rudy made a very substantial performance claim:
: > : > > "even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
: > : > > did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw."
: > : > >
: > : > > Part of this claim would then be kinda magical because AFAIK
: > : > > open-reel metal tape was never a significant factor in the market.
: > : >
: > : > Note the tense usage in Rudy's post: "did," ie, it is stated
: > : > implicitly that this was in the past when, presumably, metal-based
: > : > open-reel tape was available.
: > :
: > : I don't recall there being any TBH.
: > :
: > : Graham
: > :
: > It was branded as EE tape.
: > Tascam 38, using Ampex 456 tape, had a s/n of 68 dB,
: > with type I dbx about 100 dB (weighted)
: > ok, slight exag., fr was 2 dB down 30 Hz - 23 kHz,
: > ironically the consumer machines that *did* use EE (metal)
: > tape made it to 27 kHz iirc (that's mid 80's, eh)
: >
: > of course, you're free to set the dbx ref level where you want
: > it, so trade some of that range for lower distortion and better
: > fr at high levels by recording at modest levels is what one does.
: >
: > the real discussion, however, should be about Arny's
: > implicit belief, that better adherence to some set technical
: > standard means we get better reproduction !
: >
: > is this true ? is virtually flat 5Hz to 20 kHz
: > brickwall filtered above
: > better then some deviation from flat but
: > *no brick wall*
: >
: > saying yes would be largely a technical answer,
: > but , of course, the significant answer has to come
: > from the final judge, the listeners perceptive system
:
: Plenty of ppl found dbx objectionable though.
:
: Incidentally British Grove Studios London has a 1" 2 track ATR 100 ! I'll
: bet that's good just as it stands.
:
: Graham
:
cool...the running costs, though..
even on that modest 38, a demo costing several dollars a minute,
80's dolares, that is,
nowadays pennies to do that onto a HD
kids don't know how lucky they are :-)

Rudy

[hank alrich]

John Atkinson wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
> Rudy made a very substantial performance claim:
> > "even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
> > did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw."
> >
> > Part of this claim would then be kinda magical because AFAIK
> > open-reel metal tape was never a significant factor in the market.
>
> Note the tense usage in Rudy's post: "did," ie, it is stated
> implicitly that this was in the past when, presumably, metal-based
> open-reel tape was available.

I dare you to put that 30 Khz up on a scope and take a look.

--
ha

[Ruud Broens]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
: Ruud Broens > wrote:
: >It was branded as EE tape.
:
: EE tape was a chrome formulation, not metal. This was part of the whole
: wacky Japanese consumer concept of making tape formulations with standard
: bias levels, so that folks could drop a tape onto a machine with no
adjustments.
: First there was a standard JIS format tape, then as technology improved,
: they came out with JIS-EE tape.
:
: >Tascam 38, using Ampex 456 tape, had a s/n of 68 dB,
: >with type I dbx about 100 dB (weighted)
: >ok, slight exag., fr was 2 dB down 30 Hz - 23 kHz,
: > ironically the consumer machines that *did* use EE (metal)
: >tape made it to 27 kHz iirc (that's mid 80's, eh)
:
: In fact, the JIS-EE tapes actually didn't have any higher operating level
: than 456. And I question ALL of those response numbers. I would be very
: skeptical of anyone getting 23 KHz response out of a Trashcan 38 and even
: more skeptical of any of the consumer machines having any usable response
: above 20 KHz. The heads are the limiting factor here. Not to mention
: that most of those consumer machines were runnng at 7.5ips or lower and
: had doubtful azimuth stability.
:
: On the other hand, my ATR-100 is down 3 dB at 35 KHz with Quantegy 406.
: The top end corner on ANY tape machine is going to be set by the head gap
: width and the bias frequency, and this is more important than the tape
: in most cases. However, the high frequency noise floor is related to the
: tape formulation.
:
: >the real discussion, however, should be about Arny's
: >implicit belief, that better adherence to some set technical
: >standard means we get better reproduction !
:
: That's not necessarily a bad belief. However, the problem is that you need
: to pick the right technical standards. The Japanese notion of standardizing
: on a tape formulation so that consumers would never have to align their
: recorders meant that most people wound up with misaligned recorders and
: it also caused development of higher output tape formulations to stagnate
: in Japan.
: --scott
: --
: "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Not much wrong with that ATR, for sure ;-)
I didn't measure those numbers, this is afaik what the
factory documentation spec's were.

analog tape could be pushed further,
dsp controlled biasing, anyone ?

but 24bits/96 kHz digital recording is more practical, a lot cheaper,
and just about as good as it needs to be.
Rudy

[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message

> John Atkinson wrote:
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> Rudy made a very substantial performance claim:
>>> "even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal
>>> tape,
>>> did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw."

>>> Part of this claim would then be kinda magical because
>>> AFAIK open-reel metal tape was never a significant
>>> factor in the market.

>> Note the tense usage in Rudy's post: "did," ie, it is
>> stated implicitly that this was in the past when,
>> presumably, metal-based open-reel tape was available.

> I dare you to put that 30 Khz up on a scope and take a
> look.

Last time I looked at even just 15 KHz coming off a supposedly very good
15ips tape machine, it had major amounts of amplitude modulation. 30 KHz
could only be dicier.

Compare this to digital - rock solid.

[Eeyore]

Ruud Broens wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> : Ruud Broens wrote:
> : > "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> : > : John Atkinson wrote:
> : > : > Arny Krueger wrote:
> : > : > Rudy made a very substantial performance claim:
> : > : > > "even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
> : > : > > did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw."
> : > : > >
> : > : > > Part of this claim would then be kinda magical because AFAIK
> : > : > > open-reel metal tape was never a significant factor in the market.
> : > : >
> : > : > Note the tense usage in Rudy's post: "did," ie, it is stated
> : > : > implicitly that this was in the past when, presumably, metal-based
> : > : > open-reel tape was available.
> : > :
> : > : I don't recall there being any TBH.
> : > :
> : > : Graham
> : > :
> : > It was branded as EE tape.
> : > Tascam 38, using Ampex 456 tape, had a s/n of 68 dB,
> : > with type I dbx about 100 dB (weighted)
> : > ok, slight exag., fr was 2 dB down 30 Hz - 23 kHz,
> : > ironically the consumer machines that *did* use EE (metal)
> : > tape made it to 27 kHz iirc (that's mid 80's, eh)
> : >
> : > of course, you're free to set the dbx ref level where you want
> : > it, so trade some of that range for lower distortion and better
> : > fr at high levels by recording at modest levels is what one does.
> : >
> : > the real discussion, however, should be about Arny's
> : > implicit belief, that better adherence to some set technical
> : > standard means we get better reproduction !
> : >
> : > is this true ? is virtually flat 5Hz to 20 kHz
> : > brickwall filtered above
> : > better then some deviation from flat but
> : > *no brick wall*
> : >
> : > saying yes would be largely a technical answer,
> : > but , of course, the significant answer has to come
> : > from the final judge, the listeners perceptive system
> :
> : Plenty of ppl found dbx objectionable though.
> :
> : Incidentally British Grove Studios London has a 1" 2 track ATR 100 ! I'll
> : bet that's good just as it stands.
> :
> : Graham
> :
> cool...the running costs, though..
> even on that modest 38, a demo costing several dollars a minute,
> 80's dolares, that is,
> nowadays pennies to do that onto a HD
> kids don't know how lucky they are :-)

Luckily British Grove doesn't have the same kind of financial worries as some
do.

Scott may be interseted to know they also have 7 Prism ADA-8XRs.

Graham

[Harry Lavo]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Ruud Broens > wrote:
>>It was branded as EE tape.


>>snip>

>>Tascam 38, using Ampex 456 tape, had a s/n of 68 dB,
>>with type I dbx about 100 dB (weighted)
>>ok, slight exag., fr was 2 dB down 30 Hz - 23 kHz,
>> ironically the consumer machines that *did* use EE (metal)
>>tape made it to 27 kHz iirc (that's mid 80's, eh)
>
> In fact, the JIS-EE tapes actually didn't have any higher operating level
> than 456. And I question ALL of those response numbers. I would be very
> skeptical of anyone getting 23 KHz response out of a Trashcan 38 and even
> more skeptical of any of the consumer machines having any usable response
> above 20 KHz. The heads are the limiting factor here. Not to mention
> that most of those consumer machines were runnng at 7.5ips or lower and
> had doubtful azimuth stability.
>

Scott, I rarely take issue with you, but for years I owned a semi-pro, two &
four track 7.5-15ips Teac 7030SL (very similar to the Tascam). I also owned
factory playback Ampex calibration tapes (this was when I was running a
portable 440B and a Revox AII as well), and years ago plotted the playback
calibration, then used a test tone generator to plot record/playback
frequency response. It was pretty much as Rudy states....down two db at 30
and 23khz at 7.5ips. At 15ips the figures changed to an amazing 40 and
27khz. IIRC, this was done using BASF high output / low noise tape which
was my standard back then.

BTW, I also did charts for the 4070 reversible home machine that I still use
in my audio system...and got only slightly poorer high frequency response at
7.5ips...down 2db at 20khz. At 3-3/4ips its response was down 2db at 14khz.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>Last time I looked at even just 15 KHz coming off a supposedly very good
>15ips tape machine, it had major amounts of amplitude modulation. 30 KHz
>could only be dicier.

And this, in short, is the main difference between a "very good" machine
and tape and "excellent" machines and tape.

The poor slitting on 456 makes it VERY hard to get a good 16KC azimuth
pattern... it just bounces around. GP9 seems to be slit a lot better but
the old BASF tapes had slitting far more accurate than anything Quantegy
ever did.
--scott

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

[Peter Wieck]

CharlesBlackstone wrote:

> Hey George, I don't know you, but I'm glad of it.

Charles,

"Commander" George is a sockpuppet put on for the specific and only
purpose of sniffing up Mr. Kreuger's behind. It has nothing to offer
otherwise past or future and is best ignored entirely. On the face of
it, the activity is futile, the invective childish and the results
dubious. But it does give the "Commander" a reason to exist even as a
puppet... sadly it has no other.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[mrlefty]

>
> Secondly, the performance of DBX is partially limited by the fact that it
> is based on companding, and making companders with > 95 dB dynamic range
> is a bit of a trick itself, particularly in home audio-grade equipment.
>
> Thirdly, DBX trades off both static and dynamic level-tracking for dynamic
> range, so it is not an audible win-win situation.

when listening to audio with dbx encoding, especially music with wide
dynamics, you can hear "ghosting" as the passeges get louder and softer. I
would almost rather have less dynamic range and tape hiss than the ghosting
artifact.

[Eeyore]

mrlefty wrote:

> > Secondly, the performance of DBX is partially limited by the fact that it
> > is based on companding, and making companders with > 95 dB dynamic range
> > is a bit of a trick itself, particularly in home audio-grade equipment.
> >
> > Thirdly, DBX trades off both static and dynamic level-tracking for dynamic
> > range, so it is not an audible win-win situation.
>
> when listening to audio with dbx encoding, especially music with wide
> dynamics, you can hear "ghosting" as the passeges get louder and softer. I
> would almost rather have less dynamic range and tape hiss than the ghosting
> artifact.

The classic defect of wideband compansion.

Dolby gets round it by applying it selectively and in limited amounts. 4 bands
in the original pro-audio A version.

Graham

[Harry Lavo]

"mrlefty" > wrote in message
t...
> >
>> Secondly, the performance of DBX is partially limited by the fact that it
>> is based on companding, and making companders with > 95 dB dynamic range
>> is a bit of a trick itself, particularly in home audio-grade equipment.
>>
>> Thirdly, DBX trades off both static and dynamic level-tracking for
>> dynamic range, so it is not an audible win-win situation.
>
> when listening to audio with dbx encoding, especially music with wide
> dynamics, you can hear "ghosting" as the passeges get louder and softer.
> I would almost rather have less dynamic range and tape hiss than the
> ghosting artifact.

All this was known "back in the day".....that's why DBX never really took
off. Lots of pumping and artifacts...and Dolby was there with many fewer
problems. This was one case where the better technology won.

[paul packer]

On 17 Oct 2006 08:06:37 -0700, "Jenn" >
wrote:


>I still have a Teac DBX cassette deck that I bought in the 80s. It
>sounded so bad using DBX out of the box that I thought that perhaps it
>was broken or callibrated incorrectly. I took it to the Teac service
>center in SoCal (City of Commerce?) and they cheked it out, reporting
>that it was working perfectly. I liked the Dolby C much more.
>

Ditto. Dolby C worked a treat, as did HX Pro (not noise reduction) at
improving high frequency response, the bug-bear of cassette. The 3
head Yamaha I had was actually very good, but still not a patch on
minidisc once the latter had got to the Atrac 4 level.

[exp(j*pi/2)]

Bob Cain wrote:

snip....snip

> There is a real Bob Morein who is a pretty good guy and doesn't post
> in this abusive fashion. The wingnut responsible for the above
> doesn't like Bob so he uses his identity (and his father's) to post
> things that will make Bob look bad if you don't know what's going on.

Sounds a lot like the impersonation tactics used by Bob Cain to defame
Gary Sokolich.

[CharlesBlackstone]

Soundhaspriority wrote:
> "CharlesBlackstone" wrote:
> > Bob Cain wrote:
> >> CharlesBlackstone wrote:
> >>> Soundhaspriority wrote:
> >>>> In article om,
> >>>> "CharlesBlackstone" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound quality? I
> >>>>> haven't been pleased with what I've heard. Clean, flat sound...
> >>>> I'm looking to replace my rundown car with a really great Hyundai. I
> >>>> haven't been pleased with what I've seen. Anyone know of a Hyundai that is
> >>>> superior?
> >>>>
> >>>> Get it, jerkoff?
> >>>>
> >>>> Bob Morein
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jerkoff? Did something I said upset you? Taken your meds today?
> >>> Enjoy your life....
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for cluing me in. What's wrong with people? Oh well, at least
> > it's not real life. What if people let their real selves hang out in
> > real life, like they do here? Would be pretty intolerable.....
>
> I always knew Crazy Robert Morein was, well, "crazy". A crackpot. A
> nutbasket. Two burgers short of a Big Mac. Fudged in the head. You know,
> "cuckoo" <insert ring around the ear gesture>. Ever since Crazy Bob turned
> into Mark David Chapman and started believing he was me, and signing his
> messages with my name, I became convinced this guy was a "lunatic among
> lunatics" on Usenet, never mind just RAO!
>
> http://photosbysylvan.fotopic.net/c1070076.html
> http://photosbysylvan.fotopic.net/c1070076.html
> http://photosbysylvan.fotopic.net/c1070076.html
>
> Then, I didn't understand how a 7phd degreed physicist, audio engineer, film
> director, member of SAG and the IEEE, could possibly have the time to spend
> every waking moment of every waking day, turning his entire life into one
> long mad "soundhaspriority" obsession campaign. Of course, by the same
> token, I couldn't understand how Robert and others can believe that Dr.
> Richard Graham, a London psychiatrist for adolescent behaviour, family man
> and mathematics professor, who has announced that he's too busy to edit his
> own newsletters and does not post on usenet, could possibly be me, posting
> all these messages on RAO every day. But apparently, Robert and Ludovic
> Mirabel and Shovels and Walt and Steven Sullivan and Powell can all somehow
> understand this, and find Crazy Bob quite credible in his assumption that I
> must be Graham, simply because we both used the phrase "soundhaspriority"
> (along with a few thousand other people in the world... but who's
> counting?).
>
> Given the fact that I was always able to predict that Robert Morein would
> jump on nearly every one of my messages within minutes of me posting it, no
> matter what time of day or night, its clear this crazy usenet freak did not
> have an actual job (if this crackpot doesn't respond to this message within
> 24 hours, call a mortician. Because it can only mean he's dead). I guess
> when you're living in a mental institution as Crazy Bob must be, time is
> basically all you have.
>
> I received a letter from his old friend Brian McCarty today (reprinted
> below), and what he says about Robert is a lot more credible than
> anything Crazy Bob has ever said about him, me or anything, really.
> Considering Robert Morein's obsessive agenda to libel and defame an
> innocent man (Richard Graham) who has never posted here, it is Crazy
> Bob himself who I find personifies "purposeless evil", as he calls it.
> So now, the tale of "Crazy Bob Morein" is even clearer. As pathological
> liars go, Morein makes Arny look like Mother Teresa. Morein is the
> biggest bull****ter I've ever seen in the history of this newsgroup. He
> doesn't know the meaning of sincerity or integrity. He does however,
> know the meaning of "mad obsessive net stalker and delusional usenet
> career troll". (How do you define a "career troll"? 7 years straight of
> Crazy Bob obsessively netstalking people, with a promise of at least 7
> more, pretty much does it).
>
> THE BACKGROUND on Crazy Bob's (Robert Morein) Pathology:
>
> Mark David Chapman, for those unaware, is the obsessive madman
> responsible for shooting and killing John Lennon, who was a popular
> figure who courted not an insignificant amount of controversy in his
> public life. Chapman started out liking Lennon and The Beatles, but
> later felt Lennon was a "phony", and sold out his ideals. He felt that
> by killing Lennon, it would allow him to take Lennon's place.
>
> Morein started out liking me, but now feels that I am a "phony", and a
> sell-out. I've also been informed that Morein recently acquired a gun
> license, and a handgun. Should I be worried that Crazy Bob will fly to
> London to shoot Dr. Richard Graham (who he thinks is me), in order to
> become Dr. Graham? Robert took a public vow recently to harass me
> wherever I post on Usenet. As we have seen previous to that, Robert has
> publicly admitted harassing the real Dr. Graham's colleagues at his
> places of work at NHS and Priory, and as I have learned, our Crazy Bob
> also harassed and threatened Graham's wife and Graham himself, at
> around 3 in the morning, a couple of weeks ago.
>
> It's disturbing enough that Robert Morein thinks he's me and posts under my
> identity, but apart from hawking "morphic green *** cream", Crazy Bob has
> now taken to signing his messages "Love, SHP". I'm worried that if Crazy Bob
> is not physically on his way to London to shoot and kill Dr. Graham, a
> completely innocent party to all of this, he's already half way there
> 'mentally'. It didn't take much to get Chapman on a plane from Hawaii to NY,
> after all. If I ever find out that Crazy Bob Morein bought a copy of Catcher
> In The Rye, then I'll be afraid for Dr. Graham's life and will definitely be
> taking action against this crazy crackpot that you've got on your group!
>
> The truth behind Robert Morein's crazy bulldoody:
>
> You should be aware that the vast bulk of "incidents" cited by Morein
> in his email to you (below) are either fictional, or were done by
> Morein himself, I don't really know. At least some of the harassment
> of others on usenet was done in order to justify his attacks on me, and
> the email bombing and other internet harassment techniques he cites
> were also done to me at the same time he was doing it to others.
> Funnily, he tried his telephone schtick on my closest friends in LA,
> who laughed in his face. He soon stopped that tactic. Virtually every
> "fact" he posts about me is false, from my height and size to my
> location and history.
>
> The "fake endorsement" items he talks about ARE true, and putting them
> up on a website kept him occupied for months trying to chase down every
> item and "warn" these people. Chick Corea's manager and I are old
> friends, and we had a good laugh about it - Morein left literally two
> dozen messages at his office, insisting that he needed to personally
> discuss the matter with Chick Corea! His grasp of fantasy vs reality is
> so poor, you can get him to dance like a chimp with just a little
> creative thinking. His major downfall is the internet, which for him
> is his only reality, not understanding that it has little reflection on
> reality. His letters to the Australian business regulators go into
> their Robert Morein "crackpot" file, which I asked them to keep so that
> Australian immigration can deny him a visitor's visa should he ever ask
> for one. He's on the same kind of "watch" list as all terrorists.
>
> It is notable that his stalking is confined to those overseas, who he
> apparently believes won't go to Pennsylvania and kick his ass -
> assuming that anyone even cares. I wish he was actually part of the
> pro audio community, he'd then be at conferences with me like the AES
> in Paris next month, and be easy to hunt down. Stories he tells about
> "doing business with proxies" are just hot air - this is a guy that has
> accomplished nothing in his life including business, where a modicum of
> sanity is generally a prerequisite. His parents should be ashamed of
> themselves for not kicking him out of their palatial home long ago.
> Perhaps they knew he was incapable of coping in the real world, and
> thought they were doing him a favor.


Good lord, son. You just spent half your night witing a usenet post
nobody will read.