Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jan 3, 2015 14:40:29 GMT
Great. Just using the X1 has slowed down my cd listening tbh. It's just so much more convenient and good files sound fantastic. Getting hold of them is another story though!! Some companies demand very high prices for hi res stuff which imo isn't really justified. It's such a pity that a company like Amazon don't offer albums as CD, hi res and low res. I'm sure the high res might do very well and maybe outstrip CD's. The 24 bit 192 FLACS I'm listening to at the moment are just full and delicious sounding!! I'm becoming more and more converted to these formats if I'm honest. Does anyone know of a good supplier of mainstream stuff? A few places listed here: www.cnet.com/uk/news/top-6-sites-for-buying-flac-music/www.digitaltrends.com/music/best-sites-downloading-hd-music/I've been listening to all 4 of Brahms symphonies today on 24 bit FLAC and its like Radio 3 on steroids. Very large dynamic range, although the recorded volume is low since there really isn't much compression. Way more natural sounding even on DT770. The recordings aren't as harsh in the top end; whether that's a side effect of the resolution or eq'd, but it s extremely good, even from a cheap Fiio dap. I'm not certain if the X1 down converts or whether it plays at proper resolution, but they are damned good. Makes you very aware of testing headphones - so much depends on the quality of recordings used and the source. Even the DT770 sounds pretty sophisticated from FLAC to Polaris. Brahms takes on this enormous sense of power. I see that there are a few x3's on EBay Simon. I reckon £150 which is quite tempting. The worst thing is the prices asked for hi res albums in many cases.
|
|
oldson
extremely active
Posts: 1,678
|
Post by oldson on Jan 3, 2015 18:18:01 GMT
I see that there are a few x3's on EBay Simon. I reckon £150 which is quite tempting. Ian, i almost wish i had not bid on it now. just watched a couple of reviews of the x1 on youtube and i really like the look of it. if only the x3 was the same design. that will teach me for not doing my research first.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jan 3, 2015 18:39:26 GMT
I promise not to bid.
If you set it at around 150, you might win it, but if you went to 140, there's a chance you might not win!!!
I think the x3 is superior in sound perhaps. It's just that for it's price, you can get two x1's so me being a cheap skate, went for the X1. I was really surprised at how good it sounded from the start and also, at the time, one of the versions of the x3 firmware was locking up. Not sure whether that's been fully resolved yet. I haven't had anything amiss with the x1 but I got an even bigger surprise when I put really high resolution files through it.
It just takes off with a huge depth of sound and seems to improve even crappy headphones!! I think with much less compression being used with the hi res stuff, you get a very large dynamic range and it kind of hits you right in the nose when you hear it. Also, headphones seem to really perform well with the differences being minimalised for some reason. Even a bad headphone isn't that bad with high res stuff. My modded k550 and Fostex t40 are just stunning. Hd650 just takes off.
I know that Frans originally said that the x3 interface wasn't as simple since buttons were where you didn't expect them to be. Mind you, I don't find the X1 interface that good. It's just the sound that I like.
I think you'll get more clarity though with the x3 if you win the bid.
I don't think you have a duff player. I know that Frans likes his a lot and I was going to get one, until they released the x1. I thought I'd try it to see if it came close to my old Ipods since I've been desperate to get rid of Itunes. It's better than an IPod so now, I have no Apple gear here any longer. Sold them all.
You'll love it when you hear it, but now with insight, I'd have put a high res file on first in order to hear just what it's capable of. Poor mp3's sound thin and don't place instruments well in the sound. Hi res stuff is spot on and very addictive. (As long as the original has been well recorded too)
Some of the downloads are virtually or as. good as studio quality and I must admit, I listened and heard the same depth and dynamic range that I would hear before all the processing gets done in order to fit music onto a CD.
|
|
oldson
extremely active
Posts: 1,678
|
Post by oldson on Jan 3, 2015 18:53:09 GMT
i would not be without my ipod touch. simple reason is that it lives in the car, and as far as i know, the apple machines are the only ones that can be controlled from the car's head unit. i do not wish to keep disconnecting it to use elsewhere as i am sure the main connector will eventually fail.
i preferred the sound of my old sony dap over the touch but could not control it "hands free" in the car.
my sensible option was to get an x1 and upgrade in the future if i find that i use it enough. then i saw the x3 on ebay and got drawn into a "bidding war"! i hate being outbid ! (sad eh?)
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jan 3, 2015 19:06:00 GMT
I dropped my Touch and smashed it to pieces. Straight after I had a new battery in it as well. Funnily enough, I liked the old Sonys. Nice sounding.
The only thing about this hi res thing is that is it actually because they're hi res, or the master used is a different one? on the recordings I'm listening to, there is a difference in the amount of compression used for sure. Take that same compression away from a lower res file and you'd likely get a similar dynamic. Orchestral music needs a lot of volume because of this. You know how quiet radio 3 sounds? That's because they use less compression than the other stations. Well, this is quieter in the lower passages, but deafening in the louder bits. The dynamic range is way improved.
They have to justify that price somehow and just this simple adjustment would make a lot of difference and so make you feel you were getting your money's worth.
I might get hold of an old Led Zep hi res, since that might be more difficult to tamper with. Then they'd say, oh well.... It's an old recording!!!
|
|
oldson
extremely active
Posts: 1,678
|
Post by oldson on Jan 3, 2015 19:22:53 GMT
at least i am close to getting a player now. once it arrives i will take a trip to "hifiheadphones" who i believe are based in the worthing area. they stock the denon d600 (albeit considerably overpriced ) and the ATH-MSR7. its a 4 hour round trip but will be worth it if i can finally make a choice.
|
|
oldson
extremely active
Posts: 1,678
|
Post by oldson on Jan 3, 2015 19:29:04 GMT
I dropped my Touch and smashed it to pieces. Straight after I had a new battery in it as well. Funnily enough, I liked the old Sonys. Nice sounding. The only thing about this hi res thing is that is it actually because they're hi res, or the master used is a different one? on the recordings I'm listening to, there is a difference in the amount of compression used for sure. Take that same compression away from a lower res file and you'd likely get a similar dynamic. Orchestral music needs a lot of volume because of this. You know how quiet radio 3 sounds? That's because they use less compression than the other stations. Well, this is quieter in the lower passages, but deafening in the louder bits. The dynamic range is way improved. They have to justify that price somehow and just this simple adjustment would make a lot of difference and so make you feel you were getting your money's worth. I might get hold of an old Led Zep hi res, since that might be more difficult to tamper with. Then they'd say, oh well.... It's an old recording!!! i do have a download (24/192) of Eagles - Hotel California album. it does sound amazing when compared to my rip of the cd. But if i crank up the volume on the cd rip, then that sound awesome too. how do i tell if the hi-res version is better or just ramped up volume wise when recorded? maybe this is better discussed elsewhere, but just thought i would mention it.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jan 3, 2015 19:35:53 GMT
Two opposites, Simon. The ad600 is a bass monster and the msr7 will sound quite low in the bass.
Closed portable headphones are a difficult area. I've never really settled with anything well. I use iem's in public, but in the garden, full sized ones.
I know a lot of people aren't keen, but the Sony V6 or mdr7506 are ok for mobile. They have a sharp top end and a rounded bass but they're ok (ish). I haven't been able to find one that I really like tbh.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jan 3, 2015 19:39:10 GMT
That must be one that Alex ripped? I have it too. My downloaded hi res sound similar in bass depth actually. My first thought was ... Wow. Then, I suspected a different master because I have a downloaded mp3 version of the same recording and to my ears, it's more to do with compression on the sound (not the format) and depth of bass has been adjusted in particular. So, I suspect a second mastering session has taken place and it's not really a fair comparison.
|
|
oldson
extremely active
Posts: 1,678
|
Post by oldson on Jan 3, 2015 20:23:29 GMT
That must be one that Alex ripped? I have it too. My downloaded hi res sound similar in bass depth actually. My first thought was ... Wow. Then, I suspected a different master because I have a downloaded mp3 version of the same recording and to my ears, it's more to do with compression on the sound (not the format) and depth of bass has been adjusted in particular. So, I suspect a second mastering session has taken place and it's not really a fair comparison. who is Alex? i got mine from hdtracks (usa) before they became legal in the uk. i just lied about where i lived and it worked ok. have not used the site since as they seemed to wise-up to the loop hole. i have viewed their uk site but am reluctant to buy any other downloads because i do not know enough about the technical side of things. i could end up paying for something that is no different to what i already have. i do rely heavily on what i read from you and the other members(mainly Frans and Javier) on here, to avoid wasting my money. my main problem is , my memory is poor. if i read something i tend to only remember bits of it. then i cant remember where i read it in the first place. this means i sometimes ask the same questions on different threads/forums, which some people find annoying i guess. i dont know much about audio gear technically, i dont know much about computers either. so to have my audio library based on a pc is a "recipe for disaster" i guess. but it beats the hell out of swapping cd's in and out!
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jan 3, 2015 20:47:04 GMT
Oh .... Alex is from RG. He was passing rips he'd done around in order to prove a point concerning power supplies and digital rips and that was one of them. I have the rips he says he did here.
I'm an Internet tart........
I wander around all over the place reading what I can. Then I check out reviews. Read here from Frans........
It's all so hectic!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2015 22:19:55 GMT
Just using the X1 has slowed down my cd listening tbh. It's just so much more convenient and good files sound fantastic. I'm becoming more and more converted to these formats if I'm honest. At the risk of hijacking the thread Ian, this is what I have found since I took the plunge to go completely file-based. Imagine though, that when you finish scrolling on your X3, and choose your album, instead of it coming through your headphones, you hear it through your main hi-fi system in glorious 24/96 or 24/192. How easy it is! How good it sounds! Every single album in your collection available instantly! Since I've gone file-based, this is my daily experience, and I'm genuinely at a loss as to why it's not the default playback system for everyone. Maybe it's taking longer to 'take hold' than I imagined it would. I think it will eventually though. Getting hold of them is another story though!! Some companies demand very high prices for hi res stuff which imo isn't really justified. It's such a pity that a company like Amazon don't offer albums as CD, hi res and low res. I'm sure the high res might do very well and maybe outstrip CD's. The 24 bit 192 FLACS I'm listening to at the moment are just full and delicious sounding!! I mentioned this in another thread Ian, it's OK for someone like i-tunes to offer hi-res, but what if you don't want to get involved in their closed eco-system? Specialist download companies do as you say, provide the service as well but at quite a steep cost I feel. No - I think Amazon, as probably the biggest music-vendor on the planet, is missing a trick here. Just as an aside, I have tried two or three times to tell the difference between 24/96 and 24/192, and to be honest I can't. I don't know whether that's something to do with my Stream Magic up-sampling everything to 24/384, or - as I suspect - there really isn't that much audible difference between them. I believe a greater difference probably exists between better recorded/mastered albums, and those which aren't. Meaning a very well recorded 16/44 could sound better than an indifferently recorded 24/96 or 24/192.
|
|
oldson
extremely active
Posts: 1,678
|
Post by oldson on Jan 3, 2015 22:29:30 GMT
Just using the X1 has slowed down my cd listening tbh. It's just so much more convenient and good files sound fantastic. I'm becoming more and more converted to these formats if I'm honest. At the risk of hijacking the thread Ian, this is what I have found since I took the plunge to go completely file-based. Imagine though, that when you finish scrolling on your X3, and choose your album, instead of it coming through your headphones, you hear it through your main hi-fi system in glorious 24/96 or 24/192. How easy it is! How good it sounds! Every single album in your collection available instantly! Since I've gone file-based, this is my daily experience, and I'm genuinely at a loss as to why it's not the default playback system for everyone. Maybe it's taking longer to 'take hold' than I imagined it would. I think it will eventually though. Getting hold of them is another story though!! Some companies demand very high prices for hi res stuff which imo isn't really justified. It's such a pity that a company like Amazon don't offer albums as CD, hi res and low res. I'm sure the high res might do very well and maybe outstrip CD's. The 24 bit 192 FLACS I'm listening to at the moment are just full and delicious sounding!! I mentioned this in another thread Ian, it's OK for someone like i-tunes to offer hi-res, but what if you don't want to get involved in their closed eco-system? Specialist download companies do as you say, provide the service as well but at quite a steep cost I feel. No - I think Amazon, as probably the biggest music-vendor on the planet, is missing a trick here. Just as an aside, I have tried two or three times to tell the difference between 24/96 and 24/192, and to be honest I can't. I don't know whether that's something to do with my Stream Magic up-sampling everything to 24/384, or - as I suspect - there really isn't that much audible difference between them. I believe a greater difference probably exists between better recorded/mastered albums, and those which aren't. Meaning a very well recorded 16/44 could sound better than an indifferently recorded 24/96 or 24/192. and then there is dsd, i give up!!
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jan 3, 2015 22:30:10 GMT
Yes, I agree Jeff. In the recordings I've been listening to, an enormous amount of care has been taken over the production. Really, that should be the norm, but unfortunately, it often isn't and attitudes towards MP3 doesn't help. It's really easy to blame the format.
I suspect I'm hearing the quality in the production of these recordings, not just the resolution. They certainly 'sound' smoother and the dynamic range is enormous. They haven't got a lot of compression on them, which means you need more power to get the average volume up, but when the band or orchestra let rip, by God, you know it.
The two biggies for me have been the tonal balance and how it doesn't seem to matter so much which headphone I use. The dynamic range has been expanded, probably due to lack of compression.
These two things could still be produced virtually on another format I think. The compression thing may be difficult though, so dynamics will end up being squashed a bit perhaps.
Maybe time for me to get a player for home?
The biggest difficulty is getting the hi res files of the music you want. If I could buy Shpongles output at a reasonable price. I'd definitely get all of their albums in hi res. it would be stunning. And even some of YELLO's output.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jan 4, 2015 10:19:17 GMT
And then there is dsd, i give up!!
Dsd is a strange one, I think. It's kind of 'old' technology although it does work well. It was invented to overcome problems with analogue to digital converters really and is probably more 'analogue' sounding itself
Modern converters are so much better nowadays that it's not really necessary to have dsd. (Although I guess many wouldn't agree with that) 192 KHz 24 bit is very good and dsd might struggle to keep up. They are pretty much studio quality really although I am suspicious about some of the expensive releases and rereleases of CDs and whether we are in fact, hearing the benefits of such a high resolution or whether the master has been tweaked to make it 'sound' better.
So many releases seem to be cobbled together nowadays, so they've opened up a market for improved sound, which could be a great ruse for hi res companies. Take a bit more care over balancing and mixing of the sound and so produce a new master, which could be perceived as having more detail.
I still wonder whether our brains/ears are that fast. But that has been the cause of so much aggro on hi fi forums in the past that it's almost become taboo.
It's an important subject for music lovers since we are determining the future of music storage. If we get it wrong, then the music becomes defunct, like old 78 recordings. The problem now is though, that many bands of old are historical records of the development of western pop music and to lose them because of the formats is kind of damaging our heritage in a way.
Of course, we can always upgrade and rescue them to be converted into a new format but how many of us (like me) get distracted on modern equipment by tape hiss from old albums and find the dynamics squashed? That causes me to even avoid my own stuff!! (Like the plague)
Then again, I was listening to Glenn Gould yesterday. His recordings are old, mono, hissy with him grunting like a pig, but I still love the music he made. They lack audio depth nowadays but there is something so magical about his performances that gets you away from the original relatively poor audio recording.
How high in bit rate do we need to go though? I love the hi res recordings that I have, but comparing them to lower res copies ....... How much more detail am I getting in reality? I find that difficult to answer and because I do, I might well be accused of being deaf. The ultimate insult from hi fi nerds, which also means you must be stupid. How I hate that kind of snobbery. However, if it's the result of a remaster, then I agree, they're much better. I'm not absolutely convinced it's the number of bits though or even the format.
I am puzzled to this day, how I picked out the 'correct' samples 100% from Alex' samples. However, I did download one in hi res from the Internet in order to compare with his rip. I couldn't tell them apart. My current collection of hi res music is also similar sounding to his rips. They have the exact same depth. So the depth of sound he gets from CDs to me is exactly the same as the high res downloads I get in 192 24 bit. He's getting them from CD so there is no upscaling, which is why I question just how much extra detail I am hearing on a 192 24, when I can't tell them apart from a CD rip to a hi res format. My feeling is that I am not hearing this extra detail in the huge files in reality. I am very sensitive to 'tonal' difference though, which is how I was picking them out; not any added detail.
Of course, it's always been THE test for hi fi people. Telling a 320 MP3 from high res or cd. It is difficult. A remastered 320 MP3 is going to sound good as well, but very often, their source is a crappy master for the CD market with lots of added compression in order to make it loud. So are we comparing a poor recording with a better master I the case of hi res, and so we think hi res is massively better?
I think the best thing is to not get too hung up about it really.
Sorry ....... Me thinking out loud. Been doing a lot of listening to hi res files recently!!!
|
|