IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Have you ever regretted ABXing?, How has it changed your feelings about your stuff?
BearcatSandor
post Nov 3 2010, 21:30
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 147
Joined: 18-May 10
From: Montana, USA
Member No.: 80732



By "stuff" i mean equipment and music?

Have you ever ABXed something and found yourself not enjoying it as much as you did now that you know it's not all you thought it to be? Has the opposite ever happened to you?

I don't have the set up to ABX sound files yet (i'm a Linux user and both options seem to be dead). After participating in this forum for only a few days and reading of others experiences with 24-bit vs 16-bit music i'm now looking at my 24-bit collection of DVD-As, SACDs and 24-bit Studio Master downloads and thinking "..Damn it?" with a bit of confusion. I don't feel as secure with them anymore. I thought i had the 'best' sound i could get which is always a goal for folks like me.

Conversely, i might enjoy my redbook CDs more now as i won't be thinking "well they aren't 24-bit :"( " and i might not be hearing deficits that aren't really there.

I'm not sure how to feel about that.

I'm sure i'm not the only one here who's gone though this. Some of you started out as 'audiofools' too, right? How did you deal with this?

In a sense i'm kinda feeling "No, i don't want to look up ABX testing for loudspeakers. I waited 10 years for just the right pair to come to me and i really don't want to know that my $2.5k Anthony Gallo Acoustic Reference 3.1s are 'the same' as a pair of BestBuy specials." That's a bit of an exaggeration given how different speakers can be ...at least i think it is.

I'm uncertain. Honestly, i think i'm changing quickly and looking for support.

So how did you deal when the ABXing didn't work out how how you hoped it might?

Thanks

edit: Brought it back on-topic a bit.

This post has been edited by BearcatSandor: Nov 3 2010, 21:59


--------------------
Music lover and recovering high end audiophile
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
greynol
post Nov 5 2010, 00:41
Post #2





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



While that may be, this forum requires different criteria from those who claim they can perceive an audible difference.

NB that I am not suggesting that you are making such claims.

Perhaps I missed it somewhere, but when you're talking about peak amplitudes, is this including the ambient noise of the listening area or not? It most certainly makes a difference!


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Josh358
post Nov 5 2010, 01:19
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 4-November 10
Member No.: 85212



QUOTE (greynol @ Nov 4 2010, 18:41) *
While that may be, this forum requires different criteria from those who claim they can perceive an audible difference.

NB that I am not suggesting that you are making such claims.

Perhaps I missed it somewhere, but when you're talking about peak amplitudes, is this including the ambient noise of the listening area or not? It most certainly makes a difference!


I hope I'm not violating the rules of the forum. I came directly to this thread after seeing a post on another forum and these are my first posts here. In any case, no, I'm not making any personal claims. I've never heard noise from a fully digital 16 bit recording played at natural levels, either at home or in the studio, though I'm intrigued enough that when I get my system set up again (it's in the attic while my listening room is renovated) I may try a calibrated experiment. I was just referring to the Meyer-Moran results.

Surprisingly, to me, anyway, Fielder found that the noise of a quiet home listening room was below the threshold of hearing, and that the noise in an average room wasn't far enough above it to mask noise in a recording:

"The level of typical listening-room noise is assessed by two further studies. The first of these, by this author, examines 10 home listening rooms to produce an average noise curve, while the second, by Cohen and Fielder, examines 27 home listening rooms and produces minimum, maximum, and average noise spectra. Since both studies produce similar averages for home listening-room noise, Fig. 6 shows the minimum, average, and maximum noise spectrum levels from only the second study.

"Fig. 6 shows that the average noise spectrum of the home listening rooms surveyed possesses noise levels above 400 Hz that are no higher than 10 dB above the hearing threshold criterion. This, combined with the fact that the listener is able to employ directional clues, means that generally the home listening-room noise has no effect on reducing the dynamic-range requirements. Examination of the minimum noise levels for each one- third-octave frequency point shows that the most quiet home playback conditions have extremely low noise levels in the frequency bands above 2 kHz, critical to the detection of white noise. In this frequency region the lowest room noise situations are at least 10 dB below the hearing acuity curve."

http://www.zainea.com/Dynamic%20range.htm

On the other hand, according to Meyer and Moran, "The background noise level in [the room used for the ABX comparisons] is lower than that in most urban listening rooms: 19 dBA."

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

So strictly speaking, their result seems to be applicable only to the quietest listening rooms.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Nov 5 2010, 17:50
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 3534
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 4 2010, 20:19) *
Surprisingly, to me, anyway, Fielder found that the noise of a quiet home listening room was below the threshold of hearing, and that the noise in an average room wasn't far enough above it to mask noise in a recording:


There seems to be a critical missing paragraph in the Fielder paper. It might be titled "Noise in recording Environments".

The paper as presented usecontains an unstated assumption that appears to me to be something like: "The dynamic range requirement for musical playback is irrelevant to noise in the space where the music is recorded."

IME, the space in which the recording is made is actually the weakest link. Large spaces are very expensive to make really quiet, and then you go and spoil the whole thing by putting performers into it. If you add an audience, then its close micing or lotsa noise, mostly both.

I see the Fielder paper as being a justification for HDCD, which we now know failed in the marketplace. IME the reason why is that due to the relatively high levels of noise in spaces used for recording, HDCD like SACD and DVD-A is a solution looking for a problem. It appears that SACD and DVD-A have also failed or are in the later stages of failing in the marketplace.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Josh358
post Nov 5 2010, 22:46
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 4-November 10
Member No.: 85212



QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Nov 5 2010, 11:50) *
There seems to be a critical missing paragraph in the Fielder paper. It might be titled "Noise in recording Environments".

The paper as presented usecontains an unstated assumption that appears to me to be something like: "The dynamic range requirement for musical playback is irrelevant to noise in the space where the music is recorded."

IME, the space in which the recording is made is actually the weakest link. Large spaces are very expensive to make really quiet, and then you go and spoil the whole thing by putting performers into it. If you add an audience, then its close micing or lotsa noise, mostly both.

I see the Fielder paper as being a justification for HDCD, which we now know failed in the marketplace. IME the reason why is that due to the relatively high levels of noise in spaces used for recording, HDCD like SACD and DVD-A is a solution looking for a problem. It appears that SACD and DVD-A have also failed or are in the later stages of failing in the marketplace.


Look again, it is there: Section 4.1, Noise in the Recording Environment.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Nov 8 2010, 14:00
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 3534
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 5 2010, 16:46) *
QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Nov 5 2010, 11:50) *
There seems to be a critical missing paragraph in the Fielder paper. It might be titled "Noise in recording Environments".

The paper as presented usecontains an unstated assumption that appears to me to be something like: "The dynamic range requirement for musical playback is irrelevant to noise in the space where the music is recorded."

IME, the space in which the recording is made is actually the weakest link. Large spaces are very expensive to make really quiet, and then you go and spoil the whole thing by putting performers into it. If you add an audience, then its close micing or lotsa noise, mostly both.

I see the Fielder paper as being a justification for HDCD, which we now know failed in the marketplace. IME the reason why is that due to the relatively high levels of noise in spaces used for recording, HDCD like SACD and DVD-A is a solution looking for a problem. It appears that SACD and DVD-A have also failed or are in the later stages of failing in the marketplace.


Look again, it is there: Section 4.1, Noise in the Recording Environment.


No, data about totally empty rooms is *not* relevant, at least until we start generally making recordings in totally empty rooms. I think there's only one piece of music that could be recorded this way. It was written by John Cage, if memory serves. ;-)

There are also quieter rooms than those. I think one of them is in the Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico. If data is going to be relevant it has to have a useful level of generality.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Josh358
post Nov 8 2010, 17:28
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 4-November 10
Member No.: 85212



QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Nov 8 2010, 08:00) *
No, data about totally empty rooms is *not* relevant, at least until we start generally making recordings in totally empty rooms. I think there's only one piece of music that could be recorded this way. It was written by John Cage, if memory serves. ;-)

There are also quieter rooms than those. I think one of them is in the Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico. If data is going to be relevant it has to have a useful level of generality.


Do you have any reason to believe that the sounds made by the musicians are universally sufficient to mask the dither noise? After all, two of the Meyer-Moran subjects were able to detect the 16 bit noise floor with the peak level set to 115 DB. This despite the listeners' self noise (how's that for a new term?) and the possible presence of others in the room (I don't know enough about the experimental details to know if others were present).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Nov 8 2010, 20:11
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 3534
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 8 2010, 11:28) *
QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Nov 8 2010, 08:00) *
No, data about totally empty rooms is *not* relevant, at least until we start generally making recordings in totally empty rooms. I think there's only one piece of music that could be recorded this way. It was written by John Cage, if memory serves. ;-)

There are also quieter rooms than those. I think one of them is in the Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico. If data is going to be relevant it has to have a useful level of generality.


Do you have any reason to believe that the sounds made by the musicians are universally sufficient to mask the dither noise?


Die to the high levels of generality indicted above ("universally sufficient") the asnwer to the qustion has to be "no".

QUOTE
After all, two of the Meyer-Moran subjects were able to detect the 16 bit noise floor with the peak level set to 115 DB.


As I read it, the paper describes the 16 bit noise floor as that produced by "conventionally dithered digital audio equipment". I take that to mean spectrally *unshaped* dither. Since the 16 bit (or any other) noise floor can and often is shaped to a very large degree with significant subjectively-perceived benefits, the choice of conditions for characterizing 16 bit encoding used in the paper seems to be unfortunate and perhaps even prejudicial.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Josh358
post Nov 9 2010, 01:05
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 4-November 10
Member No.: 85212



QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Nov 8 2010, 14:11) *
As I read it, the paper describes the 16 bit noise floor as that produced by "conventionally dithered digital audio equipment". I take that to mean spectrally *unshaped* dither. Since the 16 bit (or any other) noise floor can and often is shaped to a very large degree with significant subjectively-perceived benefits, the choice of conditions for characterizing 16 bit encoding used in the paper seems to be unfortunate and perhaps even prejudicial.


I assumed it was unshaped as well. Fielder concludes that the dynamic range achievable with shaped dither "is comparable to that needed by consumer end use but does not satisfy the strictest requirements of professional use." This qualified endorsement is I assume a consequence of his very interesting measurements of the dynamic range of consumer loudspeakers, since it seems that the quieter home listening rooms don't limit dynamic range.


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Nov 9 2010, 13:48
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 3534
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 8 2010, 19:05) *
I assumed it was unshaped as well. Fielder concludes that the dynamic range achievable with shaped dither "is comparable to that needed by consumer end use but does not satisfy the strictest requirements of professional use."


Saying that shaped dither "...does not satisfy the strictest requirements of professional use." is a very interesting statement that in retrospect seems to be very hard to justify. Of course the paper was from 1994 - 16 years ago, and we didn't know then what we know now, and by a lot! When I predicted in Y2K that DVD-A and SACD would fail in the marketplace, even I was not 100.00% convinced. Of course now I am. But, its a decade later. So much for my prophet's license! ;-)

QUOTE
This qualified endorsement is I assume a consequence of his very interesting measurements of the dynamic range of consumer loudspeakers, since it seems that the quieter home listening rooms don't limit dynamic range.


It really comes down to what percentage of consumers that you want to satisfy. I suspect that far less than 0.001% of all listeners actually maintain and routinely use a listening environment that is not well-served by 16 bits done well. OTOH 0.001% of all listeners is still thousands of people. But thousands of people don't make a market for mainstream products. There's something very democratic about distribution media - everybody feeds at the same trough.

Reality is that much distributed media has squashed dynamic range that probably disappoints 1% or more of all listeners. If you can't get all media to be made to a standard that doesn't disappoint 1%, then the futility of trying to make a business out of pleasing 0.001% is very clear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Josh358
post Nov 9 2010, 23:52
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 4-November 10
Member No.: 85212



QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Nov 9 2010, 07:48) *
Saying that shaped dither "...does not satisfy the strictest requirements of professional use." is a very interesting statement that in retrospect seems to be very hard to justify. Of course the paper was from 1994 - 16 years ago, and we didn't know then what we know now, and by a lot! When I predicted in Y2K that DVD-A and SACD would fail in the marketplace, even I was not 100.00% convinced. Of course now I am. But, its a decade later. So much for my prophet's license! ;-)


Yeah, I'm not sure what he had in mind when he wrote that. Of course, professional use requires the combination of multiple channels with cumulative noise increases, extra headroom for recording, and consideration of the possibility of future releases into a more technologically demanding environment. Also, a mixer might decide to increase the relative level of a track, in which case the noise of that track would become more audible. Compression can also increase noise level, whether applied in post production or broadcast. Those are all I think arguments for the use of a robust standard in the studio, one which guarantees that in any reasonable use noise is unlikely to be a problem, and I think in general the industry has followed that practice.

I'm not sure why SACD and DVD-A failed. They certainly weren't going to succeed on the basis of HBR recording, which by all accounts leads at best to a very minor sonic improvement. I was present once at a demonstration conducted by a major electronics manufacturer in which listeners were asked to vote their preference, a multichannel surround version, or a higher sampling rate version. With the exception of an engineer who was involved in the design of high rate converters, everyone voted for the multichannel.

IMO, if high resolution and multichannel audio have a future, and I think they do, it's in the form of downloads; discs are dead, even if they don't quite know it yet.

QUOTE
It really comes down to what percentage of consumers that you want to satisfy. I suspect that far less than 0.001% of all listeners actually maintain and routinely use a listening environment that is not well-served by 16 bits done well. OTOH 0.001% of all listeners is still thousands of people. But thousands of people don't make a market for mainstream products. There's something very democratic about distribution media - everybody feeds at the same trough.

Reality is that much distributed media has squashed dynamic range that probably disappoints 1% or more of all listeners. If you can't get all media to be made to a standard that doesn't disappoint 1%, then the futility of trying to make a business out of pleasing 0.001% is very clear.


Interestingly, though, some of the big labels have started releasing high quality vinyl. It's a format, after all, that people can't steal!

My sense of it is that the new downloadable formats offer an opportunity for record companies to offer higher quality versions of their product to paying customers, or to allow a company that specializes in high fidelity recordings to do so. Whether this small market justifies the expense of a remix, I don't know, but I tend to suspect that it does, just as DVD and now Blu Ray sales have apparently been sufficient to finance new film-tape sessions. Certainly, there have been a lot of remixes of varying quality as record companies seek to squeeze new revenue from old material.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Nov 10 2010, 15:00
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 3534
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 9 2010, 17:52) *
Interestingly, though, some of the big labels have started releasing high quality vinyl. It's a format, after all, that people can't steal!


I don't think that anybody seriously sees vinyl as a strategic tool in the war on piracy.

We must remember that music media is a world of style and taste, and what and how some piece of music is released is all about what someone thinks someone else thinks is cool. If the guy down the street releases something on a certain niche medium, just make a few phone calls or send a few emails, the last of which places the press release that you just released something in the same format.

Finally, only about 30 years later, a signficant part of the potential niche market for vinyl seems to be realizing that digitizing does not destroy the unique sound of music on vinyl.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Josh358
post Nov 10 2010, 18:49
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 4-November 10
Member No.: 85212



QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Nov 10 2010, 09:00) *
QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 9 2010, 17:52) *
Interestingly, though, some of the big labels have started releasing high quality vinyl. It's a format, after all, that people can't steal!


I don't think that anybody seriously sees vinyl as a strategic tool in the war on piracy.

We must remember that music media is a world of style and taste, and what and how some piece of music is released is all about what someone thinks someone else thinks is cool. If the guy down the street releases something on a certain niche medium, just make a few phone calls or send a few emails, the last of which places the press release that you just released something in the same format.

Finally, only about 30 years later, a signficant part of the potential niche market for vinyl seems to be realizing that digitizing does not destroy the unique sound of music on vinyl.


The point, which is not mine but a label executive's, was that record companies can make money selling vinyl pressings because they can't be downloaded, not that vinyl disks will somehow eliminate privacy. Surprisingly, , the vinyl niche has been growing, both in number of units shipped and as a percentage of total sales, at a time when CD sales continue to shrink. So it's a profit opportunity for the record companies and they've availed themselves of it, moving back into vinyl even though at 2.1 million units in 2009, vinyl accounts for less than 1% of total sales.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- BearcatSandor   Have you ever regretted ABXing?   Nov 3 2010, 21:30
- - dv1989   QUOTE (BearcatSandor @ Nov 3 2010, 20:30)...   Nov 3 2010, 21:39
|- - BearcatSandor   QUOTE (dv1989 @ Nov 3 2010, 14:39) At the...   Nov 3 2010, 21:45
|- - greynol   QUOTE (BearcatSandor @ Nov 3 2010, 13:45)...   Nov 3 2010, 22:04
|- - dv1989   QUOTE (BearcatSandor @ Nov 3 2010, 20:45)...   Nov 3 2010, 22:17
- - greynol   If it's any consolation, the most common advic...   Nov 3 2010, 21:48
- - mixminus1   Oh, I don't think you should regret buying the...   Nov 3 2010, 22:20
|- - BearcatSandor   QUOTE (mixminus1 @ Nov 3 2010, 15:20) Oh,...   Nov 3 2010, 22:32
||- - mixminus1   QUOTE (BearcatSandor @ Nov 3 2010, 14:32)...   Nov 3 2010, 22:48
|- - Northpack   QUOTE (mixminus1 @ Nov 3 2010, 22:20) I...   Nov 3 2010, 22:39
- - greynol   That's funny, I was thinking the opposite: th...   Nov 3 2010, 22:51
|- - mixminus1   Oh, then you'd positively LOVE these. >:D ...   Nov 3 2010, 23:14
- - mixminus1   ...and now attempting to at least get myself back ...   Nov 3 2010, 23:45
- - Roseval   QUOTE (BearcatSandor @ Nov 3 2010, 22:30)...   Nov 4 2010, 00:22
|- - odigg   I think I had two simultaneous feelings after I st...   Nov 4 2010, 01:29
- - Josh358   QUOTE (BearcatSandor @ Nov 3 2010, 15:30)...   Nov 4 2010, 19:23
|- - greynol   QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 4 2010, 11:23) An ex...   Nov 4 2010, 20:54
||- - Josh358   QUOTE (greynol @ Nov 4 2010, 14:54) QUOTE...   Nov 5 2010, 00:18
||- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 5 2010, 00:18) a sys...   Nov 5 2010, 01:08
||- - Josh358   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 4 2010, 19:08) Tha...   Nov 5 2010, 01:46
||- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 5 2010, 01:46) I...   Nov 5 2010, 08:44
||- - Josh358   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 5 2010, 02:44) ......   Nov 5 2010, 17:38
|- - Porcus   QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 4 2010, 19:23) Thoug...   Nov 23 2010, 14:40
- - hlloyge   Personally, my aac's are now around 160 kbit V...   Nov 4 2010, 21:54
- - greynol   While that may be, this forum requires different c...   Nov 5 2010, 00:41
|- - Josh358   QUOTE (greynol @ Nov 4 2010, 18:41) While...   Nov 5 2010, 01:19
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 4 2010, 20:19) Surpr...   Nov 5 2010, 17:50
|- - Josh358   QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Nov 5 2010, 11...   Nov 5 2010, 22:46
||- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 5 2010, 16:46) QUOTE...   Nov 8 2010, 14:00
||- - Josh358   QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Nov 8 2010, 08...   Nov 8 2010, 17:28
|||- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 8 2010, 11:28) QUOTE...   Nov 8 2010, 20:11
|||- - Josh358   QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Nov 8 2010, 14...   Nov 9 2010, 01:05
|||- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 8 2010, 19:05) I ass...   Nov 9 2010, 13:48
|||- - Josh358   QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Nov 9 2010, 07...   Nov 9 2010, 23:52
|||- - Engelsstaub   QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 9 2010, 17:52) Inter...   Nov 10 2010, 07:27
||||- - Josh358   QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Nov 10 2010, 01:27) ...   Nov 10 2010, 17:20
||||- - BearcatSandor   QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 10 2010, 09:20) QUOT...   Nov 10 2010, 18:00
||||- - Josh358   QUOTE (BearcatSandor @ Nov 10 2010, 12:00...   Nov 10 2010, 18:54
|||- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 9 2010, 17:52) Of co...   Nov 10 2010, 14:19
|||- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 9 2010, 17:52) Inter...   Nov 10 2010, 15:00
|||- - Josh358   QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Nov 10 2010, 09...   Nov 10 2010, 18:49
||- - krabapple   QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Nov 8 2010, 08...   Nov 17 2010, 18:19
|- - krabapple   QUOTE I see the Fielder paper as being a justifica...   Nov 17 2010, 18:15
- - DigitalMan   Interesting OP Did ABX after ripping to LAME 256kb...   Nov 5 2010, 02:06
- - Canar   I have never regretted ABXing. Double-blind testin...   Nov 5 2010, 02:20
- - BearcatSandor   I appreciate all of these posts. I'm still de-...   Nov 5 2010, 03:00
|- - Josh358   QUOTE (BearcatSandor @ Nov 4 2010, 21:00)...   Nov 5 2010, 03:51
|- - greynol   QUOTE (BearcatSandor @ Nov 4 2010, 19:00)...   Nov 5 2010, 04:23
|- - Engelsstaub   QUOTE (BearcatSandor @ Nov 4 2010, 21:00)...   Nov 5 2010, 07:13
||- - knutinh   QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Nov 5 2010, 07:13) I...   Nov 5 2010, 08:20
||- - Engelsstaub   QUOTE (knutinh @ Nov 5 2010, 02:20) QUOTE...   Nov 6 2010, 06:29
||- - dv1989   QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Nov 6 2010, 05:29) I...   Nov 6 2010, 11:10
||- - googlebot   QUOTE (dv1989 @ Nov 6 2010, 12:10) What y...   Nov 6 2010, 11:39
|- - dv1989   QUOTE (BearcatSandor @ Nov 5 2010, 02:00)...   Nov 5 2010, 23:53
- - greynol   No worries. I think the fear that transcoding is ...   Nov 5 2010, 07:42
|- - Josh358   QUOTE (greynol @ Nov 5 2010, 01:42) No wo...   Nov 5 2010, 17:32
|- - greynol   QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 5 2010, 09:32) Has a...   Nov 5 2010, 18:34
|- - Josh358   QUOTE (greynol @ Nov 5 2010, 12:34) QUOTE...   Nov 5 2010, 22:00
|- - greynol   QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 5 2010, 14:00) Which...   Nov 6 2010, 21:07
|- - Josh358   QUOTE (greynol @ Nov 6 2010, 15:07) QUOTE...   Nov 6 2010, 23:50
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 6 2010, 17:50) Elect...   Nov 8 2010, 14:17
|- - Josh358   QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Nov 8 2010, 08...   Nov 8 2010, 19:32
- - simonh   I wonder whether lossy will formats distributed ov...   Nov 5 2010, 08:52
- - Takla   The only damage I've caused by abx testing has...   Nov 5 2010, 16:07
- - DigitalMan   After a humbling fail on ABX with MP3 at 192kbp/s ...   Nov 6 2010, 05:33
- - dv1989   Yeah, I may have overgeneralised. I think I meant...   Nov 6 2010, 11:56
- - Meeko   Never regretted learning that my hearing isn't...   Nov 11 2010, 15:18
- - Onebeforezod   The weird thing for me was that I really could tel...   Nov 25 2010, 02:36
|- - greynol   QUOTE (Onebeforezod @ Nov 24 2010, 17:36)...   Nov 25 2010, 02:42
|- - Onebeforezod   QUOTE (greynol @ Nov 24 2010, 17:42) QUOT...   Nov 26 2010, 10:37
- - analog scott   QUOTE (greynol @ Nov 25 2010, 03:42) QUOT...   Nov 25 2010, 20:55
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (analog scott @ Nov 25 2010, 14:55)...   Nov 25 2010, 22:38
- - greynol   Your ABX report saying you can tell the difference...   Nov 27 2010, 03:22
|- - mjb2006   QUOTE (greynol @ Nov 26 2010, 19:22) Your...   Nov 29 2010, 22:53
- - Wombat   QUOTE (greynol @ Nov 27 2010, 04:22) Your...   Nov 27 2010, 03:29
- - BearcatSandor   QUOTE (Wombat @ Nov 26 2010, 19:29) QUOTE...   Nov 29 2010, 21:50


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th April 2014 - 17:50