http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/david-parker83/ en Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:54:29 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/images/misc/rss.jpg http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/david-parker83/ http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/david-parker83/mastered-itunes-part-2-268/ Tue, 04 Sep 2012 00:25:29 GMT Since the db levels of the MFIT and ALAC versions are different (MFIT is a tad softer), they need to be matched up for listening comparisons...dang... Since the db levels of the MFIT and ALAC versions are different (MFIT is a tad softer), they need to be matched up for listening comparisons...dang it, this was supposed to be easy. So far there is little to report...the only differences being because of the db level, and now those differences are gone.

One of the benefits of MFIT is the ability to check for clipping, which can be a problem when converting to AAC straight from the CD master. I used iTunes to generate my own 256kbps AAC version of the album. I loaded the tracks into Audacity, well holy shredded sine waves Batman! There was indeed some clipping in my AAC version. But now the good news: the MFIT version shows absolutely no clipping, and this probably explains why the db level was pulled back a tad.


Check out what Apple has to say about MFIT if you haven't already. ]]> david.parker83 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/david-parker83/mastered-itunes-part-2-268/ http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/david-parker83/mastered-itunes-part-1-264/ Sun, 02 Sep 2012 06:17:17 GMT The image below shows a comparison between the MFIT (Mastered for iTunes) and ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Compression) versions of John Mayer's "Queen of California." This is track 1 from his latest album, Born and Raised. MFIT is on top, ALAC is on bottom.

What do you see? To me, the MFIT version is mastered at a slightly lower volume. I can't see any visual evidence that the dynamic range compression is different: since the loudest and softest parts both appear louder on the ALAC version. Hope the image turns out ok. If not, I will upload somewhere else.

]]> david.parker83 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/david-parker83/mastered-itunes-part-1-264/ http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/david-parker83/7digital-com-has-growing-flac-collection-136/ Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:26:18 GMT
http://www.7digital.com/find-music/7...ecommends/flac


From their customer service rep:

"...we plan to add more FLAC content going forward, but currently we only have a few other FLAC releases in our stores. Please visit our dedicated FLAC page for further information and to view our FLAC releases." ]]> david.parker83 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/david-parker83/7digital-com-has-growing-flac-collection-136/ http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/david-parker83/kurt-rosenwinkle-s-reflections-lossless-download-123/ Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:02:28 GMT The February edition of Stereophile includes a review of this album, so I was pleasantly surprised to see that Rosenwinkel's website sells digital copies in Apple Lossless format.

http://www.wommusic.com/shop/categor...Apple-Lossless ]]> david.parker83 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/david-parker83/kurt-rosenwinkle-s-reflections-lossless-download-123/ http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/david-parker83/cambridge-audio-bt100-few-specs-119/ Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:16:33 GMT There doesn't appear to be much information available on the BT100 blu-tooth device, so I asked them for more details. See below for CA's response:

-------------------
The maximum audio resolution supported by the BT100 is 16/48.

The apt-X protocol used is the standard apt-x bluetooth.

However, your music will still be upsampled to 24/384 via the BT100. ]]> david.parker83 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/david-parker83/cambridge-audio-bt100-few-specs-119/ http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/david-parker83/audioengine-d1-versus-dacmagic-116/ Sun, 08 Jan 2012 03:17:35 GMT Image: http://audioengineusa.com/img/ds1/D1_A2%20front.jpg *Intro* I already own three products (A2, A5+, and S8) from Audioengine, so when a...
Intro
I already own three products (A2, A5+, and S8) from Audioengine, so when a visit to their website revealed a new DAC for 169$, it was pretty much a click now and figure out what do with it later situation. Actually, I have a perfectly legit use for it since my office computer's headphone output is buzzy and harsh.

So how exactly is Audioengine delivering for such a low price? In the past, reviewers were confounded by their quality workmanship, which made use of custom parts. Did they take the same approach with this DAC? Not entirely, so far as I can see. On the D1 (and D2), the TI1020B USB controller chip is "widely recognized as the industry standard for higher-end USB audio products" according to Audioengine's website. The SPDIF receiver (CS8416) is the same used in the Schiit Bifrost (see here). And then of course the AKM4396 DAC has been used in countless soundcards as well as the Logitech Transporter and the CEntrance DACmini (and many more).

The D1 ships in a padded box with a gold plated USB cable (mini to USB, 28"). Per usual, a microfiber bag is included, but you'll need to get your own Toslink cable.

Specs and such
Before I get into listening reactions, let me clear up some confusion about the D1's sample rate capabilities (confusion because the guide and the features say both 24/96 and 24/192). The AKM4396 converter chip is capable of handling up to a 192 kHz sample rate and a bit depth of 24 bits. However, the USB controller only supports 24/96. It is not Audio Class 2 compliant. So you will need to use the Toslink input if you want to get 24/192. Because life is funny that way, current Macs (that I've checked) do not support optical output of 24/192 for 2-channel streams. For even the latest Macs, PCM caps out at 24/96 while AC-3 (Dolby) goes up to 16/192 via the digital out. Oh the humanity! But come on now, how much remastered material is out their at 24/192? Unless I see the engineer's comments, don't expect me to throw 18$ at an "audiophile" recording. But that's just me.

So you probably can't get 24/192 unless you use an SPDIF converter box. Some of you will probably have some other workarounds. Do tell!

How does it sound?
After 40 hours, I did some critical listening. I should point out that I'm not an experienced audiophile with golden ears. I am a musician who appreciates good music, and who has read a few books on how to critically evaluate audio equipment. This is my first written review (thanks to CA for motivating me and providing member blogs). Anyways:

Cans: AKG701
Speakers: A2 and A5+
Interconnects: Audioquest Sidewinder, Audioquest Evergreen
Optical: Moshlink Premium mini to Toslink
USB: Audioengine cable, Audioquest Cinnamon


I compared the performance of the D1 optical input alongside the DacMagic input. I also compared the USB inputs side by side. Ughh...unplugging cables between each listening was not making things easy. Then I remembered that I had an RCA female to 3.5mm male adapter. Voila! The A5+ speakers have both an RCA input and a 3.5mm input. Much better.

So I ran two USB cables out of an iMac 2011 (SSD) into both DACs. And ran both DACs into the A5+ speakers. I used Decibel (RAM play and Hog Mode) for high res as well as iTunes for 16/44 and mp3. For whatever reason, Decibel has problems switching the sound source back and forth during playback. Decibel would restart the whole song. Also, after selecting the Audioengine USB output, it would often take about 10 seconds before the sound started coming out. Probably just a quirk with Decibel, who knows. iTunes had no such problem, allowing rapid back and forth switching between the DACs while the songs played. The Mac volume controls are disabled when using the D1 as the output source, which is fine since you would probably want to keep digital volume at 100%.

So how do they compare? The D1 gives the DacMagic a run for its money.

The prominent difference was deep bass (down in the subwoofer zone). The DacMagic is slightly more extended in the bass, and delivers a tiny bit more punchiness. When the subwoofer (the S8) was turned off, they were indistinguishable. The bass extension became most apparent on the opening funkiness that ?estlove and Christian McBride put down on The Philadelphia Experiment, "Call for All Demons." You need to go download this track right now. I'm serious.

The D1 sounds just a slight bit more forward in presentation to me, and also a tad dry (less reverberation and space) next to the DagMagic. On the other hand, there have been times when I felt the DacMagic had a little too much reverb, i.e. ringing around the transients. And yes, I did try out all 3 DacMagic filters while doing comparisons. I prefer the Linear filter for music and the Steep filter for movies.

Other than that, I couldn't discern much difference between the D1 and the DacMagic. On one track, I suspected that the open hi hat was slightly more brassy and lifelike on the DacMagic, but it was an extremely subtle difference. The D1 did great. Even on difficult material like the Bulgarian Women's Choir. Even on albums with tons of sizzling ride cymbal (like Bill Evans, Waltz for Debby), the D1 delivers some seriously accurate sound. Overall, sins of omission are preferable in my book. Granted, my equipment is not the highest resolving stuff out there. Better equipment may reveal more, but only on pains of becoming irrelevant, since you aren't going to stick a USB powered DAC in that system anyways. Of course, that's just my ears. Maybe others will hear much more.

What about the headphone amp? It drove my AKG701s just fine, with plenty of room to spare for volume. I could not detect any sonic differences between the D1 optical and USB inputs.

The next time someone wants to seriously improve their computer's sound for under $600, I'm going to recommend a pair of A5+ speakers with the D1. Very impressed by this DAC.

One important thing to note: my reviewing was done with an iMac 2011 and a Macbook Air 2011. With the latest Intel processors (i7 in the iMac, i5 in the Air), it is possible that the adaptive mode USB is less prone to jitter. An older machine (perhaps with lots of background services running) might have performed a little differently. Who knows.

Let me know if you have any questions or corrections. ]]> david.parker83 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/david-parker83/audioengine-d1-versus-dacmagic-116/ http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/david-parker83/new-audiophile-midst-115/ Thu, 05 Jan 2012 04:01:25 GMT Since I've been popping into the forums lately, thought I'd quickly introduce myself. By the way, the member blogs are very cool. I couldn't help myself the other day by posting one (and then this one); but, in the long run, doubt I'll have much to contribute other than the occasional interesting article.

Studying computer information systems in school led me to my current job as a consultant for a small tax software company. What got me into the audiophile hobby wasn't an interest in technology, but jazz. Minoring in jazz studies brought on some challenging homework assignments. We were asked to transcribe (notate the sheet music) for jazz solos by ear. I spent countless hours listening to beautiful music on some pretty bare bones equipment: a pair of Fostex T50RP and my computer's noisy soundcard. I also spent countless hours performing and evaluating live music.

After awhile, I was completely unphased by the occasional fits of buzzing noise in my headphones that signaled the processor doing some extra work. My focus was on notes, rhythms, and chords...hearing them and then writing them down on paper. Long story short, all that hard work gave me a deep appreciation of jazz as an art form, but my actual piano playing has continued to suffer because of some tension in my left arm that required surgery.

After college, I found myself unable to stop analyzing and dissecting music; I had forgotten how to just sit back and enjoy: without constantly projecting my own thoughts and reactions into things...creating a buzzing noise (so to speak) over top of the music because of all the extra mental work. But maybe if the quality of music were actually enjoyable, it might help my situation?

(Begin tangent)
Of course, subjective enjoyment of music is itself a mental process, and obviously would not be possible without some evaluative parameters. ("What are you enjoying right now?" "I'm enjoying the sounds of this grand piano.") However, my experience is that there are some important differences between passive enjoyment and critical listening (of course, there are grey areas in between and different listeners will have different experiences). Learning to recognize them helped me slowly enjoy the music again. For instance, critical listening forces my mind to evaluate the sonic past, present, and future in ways that compromise the pure intake and digestion of the sonic present. I'd really like to see more discussions about how people are listening to their equipment in passive versus critical mode. Maybe there are good tips to share to help other audiophiles calms their nerves and just relax. Learning a little meditation helped me learn to quiet my mind. We're not talking extreme mountain monks here, just a book I found for Kindle called 8 minute meditations or something.
(End tangent)

Anyways, I am on a very tight budget (newly married, school debt, etc). I have a very modest setup but it sounds really great. The more I learn about audio, the better my system sounds. That is what's rewarding about it for me. You study and learn and push yourself to improve your equipment. Then you sit back and have a beer and enjoy all the hard work. Then someone slams a cabinet door and you consider removing a wall and adding on a listening room. Surely the landlord will understand...


Furman PST-8D power conditioner-->iMac 2011 (256 SSD, 1TB HDD for music, 8GB RAM, i7 processor)-->cheapo optical out cable for now-->DacMagic-->Audioquest Sidewinder interconnects-->Audioengine A5+-->DIY speaker cables with MIT terminators ]]> david.parker83 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/david-parker83/new-audiophile-midst-115/ http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/david-parker83/player-software-matters-111/ Tue, 03 Jan 2012 14:50:03 GMT In some threads, the "bits are bits" claim crops up with music server software. After all, why should a 695$ piece of software sound better than iTunes if both can be bit perfect?

Found this paper, and wanted to share in case some haven't seen it.

http://www.amr-audio.co.uk/large_image/MAC%20OSX%20audio%20players%20&%20Integer%20Mode.p df

Other papers here: http://www.amr-audio.co.uk/html/dp777_tech-papers.html ]]> david.parker83 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/david-parker83/player-software-matters-111/