in Search
Untitled Page

ARCHIVED FORUM -- April 2007 to March 2012
READ ONLY FORUM

This is the first Archived Forum which was active between 17th April 2007 and 1st March February 2012

 

Latest post 12-02-2009 11:01 AM by Electrified. 29 replies.
Page 1 of 2 (30 items) 1 2 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 06-15-2009 3:59 PM

    iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    Anyone able to help with this problem??

    All music from itunes plus copied onto BeoSound 5, but it doesn't sound as good as CDs on BeoSound 9000 in same system. Vocals sound 'hollow', certainly not good.  Anyone able to advise on best way to transfer itunes plus to BeoMaster 5 without compromising sound quality.

    Any help would be greatly appreciated!

  • 06-15-2009 4:45 PM In reply to

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    -deleted post-

  • 06-15-2009 4:46 PM In reply to

    • moxxey
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on 04-14-2007
    • South West, UK
    • Posts 2,360
    • Bronze Member

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    I've found exactly the opposite. Why? iTunes have changed the way they handle their audio tracks, since going DRM-free. Instead of ripping from CD, they are sourced directly from the music publisher and the publisher submits the tracks through the iTunes CMS. As these tracks are created from the original sound source, the quality is far far better than old tracks.

    Indeed, they are better than those on CD - I've bought various recent albums (Depeche Mode 'Sounds of the Universe' is a good example) and the same version from iTunes. Both myself and a music publishing friend thought the iTunes non-DRM tracks were superior to those on CD. The iTunes tracks were more dynamic.

    However.....and this is the big problem. Older tracks will STILL be compressed versions sourced from a CD. Only fairly recent iTunes tracks are sourced directly from the music publisher. So, if you're downloading older albums, the tracks on iTunes will sound worse than those on the original CD.

    My advice is to rip your own tracks from albums before iTunes went DRM-free (last year?) and stick with recent albums from iTunes after it went DRM-free.

  • 06-16-2009 10:48 AM In reply to

    • Puncher
    • Top 10 Contributor
      Male
    • Joined on 03-27-2007
    • Nr. Durham, NE England.
    • Posts 9,588
    • Founder

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    I understand what you're saying but aren't iTunes plus still only 256Kbps compressed *.aac files?

    My concern regarding files ripped specifically by the publisher for use in iTunes, iPods etc. would be that they are specifically EQ'd for portable systems, PC speakers etc. Is there anything published that says these files are suited to full bandwidth, main room systems?

    Personally I would stick to ripping the CD to (any) lossless format, although I haven't as yet experimented with different versions of the same track  as you have.

    Generally speaking, you aren't learning much if your lips are moving.

  • 06-16-2009 11:09 AM In reply to

    • moxxey
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on 04-14-2007
    • South West, UK
    • Posts 2,360
    • Bronze Member

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    Puncher:

    I understand what you're saying but aren't iTunes plus still only 256Kbps compressed *.aac files?

    My concern regarding files ripped specifically by the publisher for use in iTunes, iPods etc. would be that they are specifically EQ'd for portable systems, PC speakers etc.

    But you can argue the same thing about CD mastering? The CD is produced from a mastered audio source. The same source will be used to provide the tracks for the CD and the iTunes store. The tracks and then burned to produce an audio CD for duplication. The mastered tracks will not differ between CD and iTunes store.

  • 06-16-2009 4:52 PM In reply to

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    Thanks for the advice.  I'll try ripping a CD and see if it sounds any better.

  • 06-17-2009 2:57 AM In reply to

    • Puncher
    • Top 10 Contributor
      Male
    • Joined on 03-27-2007
    • Nr. Durham, NE England.
    • Posts 9,588
    • Founder

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    moxxey:

    Puncher:

    I understand what you're saying but aren't iTunes plus still only 256Kbps compressed *.aac files?

    My concern regarding files ripped specifically by the publisher for use in iTunes, iPods etc. would be that they are specifically EQ'd for portable systems, PC speakers etc.

    But you can argue the same thing about CD mastering? The CD is produced from a mastered audio source. The same source will be used to provide the tracks for the CD and the iTunes store. The tracks and then burned to produce an audio CD for duplication. The mastered tracks will not differ between CD and iTunes store.

     

    OK - but the iTunes plus file is still a "lossy" version compared to the CD.

    Generally speaking, you aren't learning much if your lips are moving.

  • 06-17-2009 9:51 AM In reply to

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    moxxey,

    i just need to correct this whole issue.

    the studio does record the track on multiple channels - these are then put into a WAV file master copy. the WAV lossless master copy is then used by the CD pressing plant to burn CDs and distributed to servers for distribution via itunes, spotify etc...

    but the a CD is mathematically lossless and uncompressed form. it is a mathematical clone of the studio master file whereas the itunes plus is a compressed from the master with a considerable loss of data so itunes plus will never ever be anywhere near as good as a lossless format... the act of making it mp3 from a WAV loses data bigtime in the algorithm. 

     

  • 06-17-2009 3:17 PM In reply to

    • moxxey
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on 04-14-2007
    • South West, UK
    • Posts 2,360
    • Bronze Member

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    seethroughyou:

    but the a CD is mathematically lossless and uncompressed form. it is a mathematical clone of the studio master file whereas the itunes plus is a compressed from the master with a considerable loss of data so itunes plus will never ever be anywhere near as good as a lossless format...

    Not always seethroughyou. It depends on how the player reads the CD, processes the data and then ouputs this to your speakers. In a digital format, it's much easier for a computer to process the file and, as a result, a well engineered and fairly uncompressed digital track can sound as good if not better than the track from a CD.

    I think you misunderstand my point though: what I was saying is that the original iTunes tracks were sourced as a much-compressed digital file taken from a retail CD. These days the digital track is sourced directly from the publisher. These tracks are FAR superior to the old pre-DRM tracks and sound much more dynamic when played through my BS5.

    If I take a recent CD and compare it to the same track sourced post-DRM via iTunes, the iTunes track sounds very impressive. Long gone are the days where they were a far poorer version than playing a CD. They are a good balance between size and audio quality. Yes, you can be anal and record a lossless file from a CD, but those differences are minimal and your BS5 drive will be soon filled.

  • 06-17-2009 3:27 PM In reply to

    • Puncher
    • Top 10 Contributor
      Male
    • Joined on 03-27-2007
    • Nr. Durham, NE England.
    • Posts 9,588
    • Founder

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    Agree that the 256Kbps files are much better than the DRM 128Kbps files however I'm wary that a 256Kbps compressed file generated from the same source material as a CD can sound better.

    Everyone needs to make their own choice regarding HD space/quality when building their music library. My view is, as HD space is so cheap these days, doing it as lossless isn't a hardship and means they never have to do it again (until everything is recorded and released in high-def audio).

    Generally speaking, you aren't learning much if your lips are moving.

  • 06-17-2009 5:54 PM In reply to

    • Stan
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 04-17-2007
    • Posts 593
    • Gold Member

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    Slightly off topic, but I recently I downloaded an old album from Amazon (early 70s BeBop Delux), and was quite pleasantly surprized by the sound quality.  I believe that it was 256kbps.  It *did* sound better than many of my home ripped mp3s (usually use Lame at the "normal" setting which is roughly 256kbps).  Maybe my ears were playing tricks, but I don't mind tricks that make my music sound better to me. Smile There were short "gaps" between songs that flow together on the LP, but oh well...

    I do agree with Puncher for the most part (lossless means you'll never have to rip again) - anything new I generally rip in lossless.  The 256kbps that I already have I'll get to if/when I decide it's necessary.

    Stan

  • 06-19-2009 6:27 PM In reply to

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    Puncher:

    I understand what you're saying but aren't iTunes plus still only 256Kbps compressed *.aac files?

    My concern regarding files ripped specifically by the publisher for use in iTunes, iPods etc. would be that they are specifically EQ'd for portable systems, PC speakers etc.

    moxxey:

    But you can argue the same thing about CD mastering? The CD is produced from a mastered audio source. The same source will be used to provide the tracks for the CD and the iTunes store. The tracks and then burned to produce an audio CD for duplication. The mastered tracks will not differ between CD and iTunes store.

    There is nothing superior about the latest iTunes Plus media files (or any other counterpart 256 kbps audio files).  To say you can get better quality from less information is sort of "CSI stuff" Smile   You will all agree, mathematically that is impossible.  Now, on the audio mastering and the perception aspect of some... yes, most audio files streamed or downloaded are EQ'd to suit the device or target audience.  If the impression you get extra bass or treble translates in "extra dynamic" that's where we lose focus of the argument.  

    The other thing to keep in mind is signal bandwidth, namely, how capable is your system in reproducing a higher resolution signal such as a lossless file or the actual CD?  What is the weakest link in your system (a cable, a speaker, the CPU)?  To answer that I will use an analogy: many of us using B&O systems particularly have experienced a better picture quality for SD signals (such as normal DVD) compared to HD signals (such as HD TV broadcast) or even Full HD (such as Blu-ray sourced from a PlayStation).  The reason that is is due to various factors in the system setup (or maturity of the equipment if non-B&O) which impede on output quality.  So, IMO it is certainly not the source file which auto-magically improves the output resolution / quality but rather the ability of your system to better process a lower-resolution signal (sometimes less CPU and data transfer required equates to lesser transfer loss and a better more mature output signal) or, in some cases the perception of the audience (who may like more bass, less treble imposed on them by the "audiomaster"etc).    

     

  • 06-20-2009 5:02 PM In reply to

    • moxxey
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on 04-14-2007
    • South West, UK
    • Posts 2,360
    • Bronze Member

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    dkresz:

    There is nothing superior about the latest iTunes Plus media files (or any other counterpart 256 kbps audio files). 

    Does anyone actually READ through a forum discussion before giving their opinion?

    No-one said that, as a rule, the new iTunes Plus audio tracks are now 'better' or more 'superior' to those from CD (ie. a lossless digital computer version). However, they are definitely far superior to the old DRM-based tracks that you used to get from iTunes and were ripped from CD. The new tracks are now sourced from the original audio master, from the publisher and are therefore far superior to the old tracks.

    On a sidenote though, lossless audio tracks are ONLY good if the source CD is mastered correctly. I can grab many of my CDs from 1988 through to 1998 - when a lot of CDs were mastered poorly - and take lossless versions of these tracks. Those lossless tracks are just a waste of large drive space (12 lossless tracks can take 600MB of hard drive space). Who in their right mind would create a lossless digital track from an average 1990 CD?

     

  • 06-20-2009 6:59 PM In reply to

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

     

    moxxey:

     

    No-one said that, as a rule, the new iTunes Plus audio tracks are now 'better' or more 'superior' to those from CD (ie. a lossless digital computer version). However, they are definitely far superior to the old DRM-based tracks that you used to get from iTunes and were ripped from CD. The new tracks are now sourced from the original audio master, from the publisher and are therefore far superior to the old tracks.

    Ok, let's break this down:

    - old tracks from iTunes were DRM-protected 128 Kbps and of very limited quality; thus, mainly targeted for your average sound system (one would hope non-B&O) or portable device.

    - the new iTunes Plus tracks were introduced in May 2007, they were now DRM-free and at 256 Kbps, 30c extra per track and available for selective (EMI) albums;  let's agree these were now "far superior" to earlier tracks (i.e twice the resolution of pre-existing tracks and twice or more the quality due to direct sourcing from the audiomaster).

    - as of April 2009, all songs are now available in the iTunes Plus format ranging from 0.69c to $1.29 and are pretty good value.

    Got it!  And I hope that was not the basis for B&O to "restrict" the old BeoMedia1 (BM5's predecessor) to 196 Kbps playback but that's a separate argument for another forum at another time...

    moxxey:

    As these tracks are created from the original sound source, the quality is far far better than old tracks. Indeed, they are better than those on CD - I've bought various recent albums (Depeche Mode 'Sounds of the Universe' is a good example) and the same version from iTunes. Both myself and a music publishing friend thought the iTunes non-DRM tracks were superior to those on CD. The iTunes tracks were more dynamic.

    This is the bit I was trying to tackle in my previous post BTW.  I have this same album, I bought it last month.  I have compared it (and many others) against my prior album versions downloaded via iTunes Plus.  I have also compared them against AAC lossless (i.e. MPEG-4 Audio Lossless Coding supported by MACs and not officially supported by BM5 but installed the codec nonetheless) and WMA Lossles (i.e. Windows Media lossless - currently supported by BM5).  Outcome:

    1. WMA Lossless - best output sound.

    2. AAC Lossless - second best but inferior to 1.

    3. AAC 256 Kbps (from iTunes Plus) - good value, easy to source but inferior to 2.

    4. AAC 128 Kbps, MP3 128 Kbps et al - poor quality, in conflict with B&O equipment or an audiophile-like setup.

    As for  older recordings, I am not sure you can put a time bracket around it but if you feel lower resolution tracks sourced directly from the original audio master are superior to tracks ripped of the original CD, fine, I'd go with that (but not necessarily under the premise there's not enough disk space - that constraint is so easy and cheap to remove nowadays).  BTW, I did not get my friends to listen to the comparision tests above for the simple reason I don't trust them Smile  Many things get in the way unless the tests are blind.

     

     

  • 06-22-2009 1:51 PM In reply to

    • Puncher
    • Top 10 Contributor
      Male
    • Joined on 03-27-2007
    • Nr. Durham, NE England.
    • Posts 9,588
    • Founder

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    dkresz:

    .......................................This is the bit I was trying to tackle in my previous post BTW.  I have this same album, I bought it last month.  I have compared it (and many others) against my prior album versions downloaded via iTunes Plus.  I have also compared them against AAC lossless (i.e. MPEG-4 Audio Lossless Coding supported by MACs and not officially supported by BM5 but installed the codec nonetheless) and WMA Lossles (i.e. Windows Media lossless - currently supported by BM5).  Outcome:

    1. WMA Lossless - best output sound.

    2. AAC Lossless - second best but inferior to 1.

    3. AAC 256 Kbps (from iTunes Plus) - good value, easy to source but inferior to 2.

    4. AAC 128 Kbps, MP3 128 Kbps et al - poor quality, in conflict with B&O equipment or an audiophile-like setup.

    ............................. 

    If both 1. & 2. are lossless conversions, to what do you attribute the apparent superiority of the wma lossless file?

    Surely, for one codec to give different results to the other, it would suggest that at least one codec is modifying the content and therefore it will be different to the wav file from which it originated and so cannot claim to be lossless ..................... or am I missing something?

    Generally speaking, you aren't learning much if your lips are moving.

  • 06-22-2009 6:42 PM In reply to

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    puncher:

    If both 1. & 2. are lossless conversions, to what do you attribute the apparent superioity of the wma lossless file?

    Primarily, on a blind test - comparing the same song at the same (lossless) resolution on the BM5.  I encourage you to do the same.

    Now to the speculative part: one is (mainly) Mac and the other is Windows? The codecs have diiferent encryption / decryption algorithms that are affected by the platform?  BM5, being Windows XP Embedded, may be fine-tuned for WMA and WAV playback ?  It will be interesting to re-run the same comparison test when the BM5 / BS5 software gets upgraded to officially support AAC lossless...

  • 06-23-2009 3:07 AM In reply to

    • Puncher
    • Top 10 Contributor
      Male
    • Joined on 03-27-2007
    • Nr. Durham, NE England.
    • Posts 9,588
    • Founder

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    OK - I can't say I'm convinced - if there is a difference it says one codec (likely the aac) isn't truly lossless, I don't think the hardware has any effect.

    As you say, it will be interesting to retest if/when the BM5 officially supports alac.

    Generally speaking, you aren't learning much if your lips are moving.

  • 06-23-2009 4:51 AM In reply to

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    Puncher:

    OK - I can't say I'm convinced - if there is a difference it says one codec (likely the aac) isn't truly lossless, I don't think the hardware has any effect.

    I can assure you there is a difference.  I have tested this both on the BM1 and BM5/BS5 (under an audiophile-like setup: i.e. using high-end Shunyata Research power conditioning and cables).  In terms of proving that one codec isn't truly "lossless", I am not sure the fact either codec is mathematically calculated to be lossless (and advertised as such) it actually means it is lossless in terms of its end-to-end reproduction (I believe that was the thrust of this entire thread, namely, could we agree on whether you can compare or choose b/w an actual CD vs. a 256 Kbps media file sourced from the audiomaster etc? although, to some extent we were comparing 'apples' and 'oranges' given one was actually tested on the BS9000 and one on the BS5 respectively).

    What it would imply though is, there are more "obstacles" encountered by an AAC file played on a Windows-based media player (B&O player in this instance) than there is for a WMA encrypted file.  If you'd like, it's like trying to listen to the "same" CD but with different software versions uploaded to the same digital drive unit.  The results don't have to be identical (the media source is virtually the same but the decoding / playback software is different).  Do the test I say (preferably, when the AAC lossless codec gets supported by the BS5 software).

     

  • 06-23-2009 1:44 PM In reply to

    • Stan
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 04-17-2007
    • Posts 593
    • Gold Member

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    Personally, I'm skeptical about this whole thread... 

    Are the record companies *really* re-mastering audio files for the digital age?  I find this highly doubtful unless it's something that can be accomplished automatically, and even an automated remastering still costs money for computing power and IT folks to make it happen.  Why would a money grubbing record company spend any money on improving the audio sound for run of the mill downloads (i.e. not marketed and priced as "audiophile") when the "general public" has demonstrated that they don't really care about high quality audio?

    Does an mp3 ripped from a CD sound any different than an mp3 ripped from "the original audio master"?  I assume the audio master is a higher resolution than a CD so,  I suppose, this one could hold a little water.  An mp3 from a quality source does sound better than an mp3 from a crappy source.  However, is the difference *so* great between a CD and the original audio master that they can still be heard after being compressed to 256kbs?  Could it be that you're just hearing the difference between 128kbs DRM and 256kbs non-DRM, and the actual source doesn't really matter...  Also wouldn't a poor sounding CD also have a poor sounding master?  Or have the record companies remastered all of their recordings so people get better sounding compressed mp3s (we're talking about the same company that released the poor CD to begin with... why are they getting audio quality religion just now)?

    Does a lossless WMA sound better than a lossless AAC?  Lossless is lossless.  Plenty of people have performed tests where WAV -> WMA -> WAV (or AIFF -> ALC -> AIFF) results in bit-for-bit identical files before and after.  I have read that folks have studied the digital output of the airport express (which uses apple lossless compression for the wireless transmission) and found it to provide bit-for-bit identical rendition of the source.  The contention here seems to be that, for playback, something different is happening.  A full bit-for-bit rendition of the original source is not making it to the DAC.  Once again, there's a window of possibility here, but, again, I'm doubtful.  If the codec can produce a bit-for-bit copy to the disk (WAV->WMA->WAV), why not to the DAC?  I guess the one possibilty is that the ALC codec on Windows may not be 100% lossless.  I have no experience with this codec, but if Apple created it (or licensed it), it seems very doubtful - why would Apple allow their high-end proprietary audio format to sound worse on windows?  Is this a strategy to sell more Macs?  I'm not buying it...  then again, I've not done a direct comparision...

    Oh well, we all hear things differently (even when it's the same)...

    Stan

     

  • 06-23-2009 5:32 PM In reply to

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    Stan, agree with what you say... that was the gist of my comments also.  In short, the AAC 256 Kbps - no matter where sourced from - are inferior to AAC lossless (just to keep things simple).  But I need to make this point again, lossless is not lossless.  There are so many factors at play here besides the advertisement of a mathematical algorithm.  Digital information is subject to 'loss of data' due to transport (hence the term: bit error rate).  Transport could mean: a digital drive, software used, DAC, bandwidth of the cables and their insulation against electrical / magnetic interference etc.  I don't' intend for this thread to extend even further (say, around a digital vs. analogue argument and data buffering & error correction etc) but, in summary, people should buy and listen to what they like and most enjoy.  Perception could be a good thing stopping us up over-analyzing things...  

  • 06-23-2009 6:16 PM In reply to

    • Stan
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 04-17-2007
    • Posts 593
    • Gold Member

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    I think what you're saying is pretty reasonable (especially when it comes to listening to what you like).  However, if bit rate errors were a factor, then computer programs would crash far more often than they do - or maybe this is Microsoft's excuse Smile.  For every "bit error rate", there's an "bit error detection and correction" algorithm.  If not, digital technology just wouldn't work.  I'll accept that bits can get lost in the DAC (who's to know, it's being converted to analog), but not that bits are routinely lost and not corrected in the digital side of the computer.

    Stan

  • 06-24-2009 3:15 AM In reply to

    • Puncher
    • Top 10 Contributor
      Male
    • Joined on 03-27-2007
    • Nr. Durham, NE England.
    • Posts 9,588
    • Founder

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    If we accept that a computer can open a *.zip or *.rar file without any errors and all data contained in that file is as it was before being compressed why do we consider there to be some special "hoodoo" in a compressed audio file that means that "lossless is not lossless" - I find this incredible!

    There are many tests elsewhere on the net that show that the digital data recovered from a lossless audio file (flac, alac, or wma) is bit perfect when compared to the original source. There are also tests where the analogue audio files generated from the original CD and from playback of a lossless codec through the same soundcard/dac are subtracted - the result is, in essence, single-bit noise i.e. the analogue waveforms were identical.

    Of course people can choose to believe or disbelieve, this sublect will continue to run and run across audio forums throughout the net however for all the tests I've seen that show lossless is lossless, I can't find any that stand up to scientific scrutiny that show lossless isn't.

    Hifi mains cords anyone?

    Generally speaking, you aren't learning much if your lips are moving.

  • 06-24-2009 5:25 AM In reply to

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

     

    I promised to myself I won’t get drawn into this type of argument but here it is Smile  Audio or video information is transfered to a digital media at a certain resolution and speed (bit rate per second and sampling rate).  This concept applies to time domain based signals, mostly those intended to be received in real-time by a consumer (such as voice-over IP or digital mobile phones).  A ZIP file opened on a computer does not fit in this category 1. because it is not a time-based source of data and 2. because it can be error-checked and error-checked and error-checked as long as it takes for the hourglass on the computer to disappear (we should all be accustom to this scenario as long as you have used a computer before).  The other misconception around digital data transfer being lossless is prompted by the internet.  Most people think if you send a file from A to B (such as an email) it will be received by the recipient as it was intended by the source (hence, a perfect transfer).  That assumption actually proves to be correct.  There are a series of network protocols those computer geeks invented (such as TCP/IP) which prevent the data from being lost or degraded.  That concept could even be extended to wireless protocols (such as data transfer between two Airport Express routers).  But, back to the key point, in these scenarios data does not have to be transfered in real-time!  You wait for it, it gets re-sent now and then, it gets buffered and sometimes it even disappears in the “cloud” of hardware and software that exists between the two parties in concern.  In the AV world the concept of buffering (due to size limits and time-boxing) faces constraints for real-time data reproduction and it is also affected by the different OSs (Windows, Mac, Linux etc) as adopted by different brands of digital sources.  B&O happens to use Windows XP Embedded for their media player dubbed BS5.  Lossless is lossless at the source, that is, the disk in your hand, the piece of data stored on your hard-drive (FLAC, WMA or AAC whatever it may be).  Once it leaves the media it goes through a process of: decoding for playback (different codecs, despite the fact of being both lossless, have different latency between source encoding and playback and can achieve the status of lossless at different bit rates BTW, which may have an impact on buffering?), transfer via well insulated high conductivity cables or lower quality cables (subject to one’s setup), conversion from digital to analogue (via a low quality or high quality DAC), and so forth.  Over-buffering or interference results in bit / packet data drops (to ensure the signal is still presented in real-time).  That results ina lower resolution output, or color degradation, or contrast loss etc. The transport process is definitively lossless (unless it uses network-based  protocols and the buffer is large enough for the streamed data signal)!  

    Hence my earlier point: you could experience a better system throughput with lower resolution media files than you could experience with higher resolution files (as some have pointed out in this thread unless the perception factor plays an additional role which certainly clouds the entire argument).  Hence the preference of AAC 256 Kbps over a full resolution CD / WAV.  It depends on the weakest link in your system.  If the system is capable to consume the full resolution signal in real-time there is no doubt the output will be superior to the lower resolution source.  But that is not that easy to achieve and many home theatre setups out there have not reached that ideal capability.  Hence the reservation of B&O going Full HD / Blu-ray too early (despite all the marketing hype stating you can do that with little money).  The technology is not mature enough to support that "lossless" type of playback unless you pay the big bucks to upgrade or improve it.  Two source files being lossless (and with different encoding algorithms) doesn't translate to identical playback!  

     

  • 06-24-2009 10:10 AM In reply to

    • Stan
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 04-17-2007
    • Posts 593
    • Gold Member

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

     

    I don't think we're beating a dead horse quite yet so I'm going to respond. 

    First, I think you have a typo...  "The transport process is definitely lossless (unless  it uses network-based protocols... )".  I'm pretty sure that you mean "lossy" (the opposite of lossless) since the rest or your statement talks about the effects of losing data (lower resolution, color degradation, etc.).

    Secondly, I agree with most of your facts, just not all of your conclusion.  To paraphrase (and please correct me if I'm misinterpreting your words), your point is that because AV is "real-time", you can lose data because the algorithms/transport run out of time or buffer space to do appropriate error correction.  This may be true with high resolution video such as Blu-Ray as rather intensive processing is required, and perhaps this is why you changed the subject more toward video.

    However, I disagree that these factors have any impact on audio (at least the 2 channel CD resolution audio within a self contained system like the BS5) because, with today's hardware, the processing and data volume required for audio decoding is miniscule.  For example, my 1.42GHz PPC MacMini can convert a 4 minute audio ALC to AIFF in ~15 secs.  Only a very poorly designed system could not handle 15 secs of processing spread across 4 minutes of audio playback.  Even though this is "real-time", as you can see, there is plenty of time to drain buffers, deal with codec latencies, do error correction... and this is far from a state of the art computer... it was criticized as "slow" even when it was brand new Smile.  Yes, codecs can have different latencies, but, for CD audio, they're all well within the hardware's tolerance.

    Stan

  • 06-24-2009 4:29 PM In reply to

    Re: iTUNES PLUS SOUNDS POOR ON BEOSOUND 5...

    Stan:

    First, I think you have a typo...  "The transport process is definitely lossless (unless  it uses network-based protocols... )".  I'm pretty sure that you mean "lossy" (the opposite of lossless) since the rest or your statement talks about the effects of losing data (lower resolution, color degradation, etc.).

    Yes, good pick-up (someone's paying some attention to these threads). Smile

    Stan:

    Secondly, I agree with most of your facts, just not all of your conclusion.  To paraphrase (and please correct me if I'm misinterpreting your words), your point is that because AV is "real-time", you can lose data because the algorithms/transport run out of time or buffer space to do appropriate error correction.  This may be true with high resolution video such as Blu-Ray as rather intensive processing is required, and perhaps this is why you changed the subject more toward video.

    Pretty much.  And yes, the issue (bit error rate) is more evident as the data transfer rates increase for AV-based signals (Blu-ray, SACD, DVD-Audio etc)... I have no doubt, however, that CDs (PCM that is) faces this problem also (especially for a low-end computer -such as the BM5).  Not so much due to the bandwidth aspect of the "transport" but for all the other factors in between (e.g. poor cabling leading to interference or inferior socket-based contact, master clock of the DAC).  Why would audiophiles, even for CD playback, pay $20,000 for a separate master clock unit?  "The master clock controls the accuracy of the sample frequency in a DAC.  While audio interfaces do have an on-board clock, often these clocks either are not as stable as most of us would like, or they don’t have sufficient distribution."

    I'm running out of juice on this one but, as I have stated, I encourage you all to do your own tests (being skeptical is not a bad thing, being wrong is a different matter Smile

     

     

     

Page 1 of 2 (30 items) 1 2 Next >