Alice Wonder

I like it over there, but they are very hard core about claims made without proper testing. That's actually what I like about it over there. That doesn't mean subjective tests and opinions without ABX testing is worthless to me, just that over there, when there is a claim it almost always is backed up with objective testing.

I usually listen to music while doing other things, meaning I'm moving around. Surround sound really doesn't have much of a benefit for that type of listening.

My Ogg Vorbis do sound the same as my CD's OK no, I haven't actually ABX'd them but at q5 on my equipment, if there is a difference it isn't one I notice (between flac and ogg). On better equipment I might. The low quality (q1) I make for my portable player I can hear the difference but the space saving is worth it and with aoTuV vorbis encoder it's actually pretty good and I doubt with my ear buds it matters - I don't buy expensive ear buds because I have a tendency to damage them. I'm epileptic, it can't be helped.

It's a python ripper, extremely slow but it checks the md5sum of the rip against AccurateRip database.

It's a static web page being served with apache (CentOS 6.x 64-bit hosted at linode) - the magic is done with jQuery (JavaScript library).

CentOS 6.x (64-bit) Rip to wav using morituri - RepoView: Repoview Archive to flac -8 and tag Encode to Ogg q5 for lan streaming and q1 for portable player For ogg I use libvorbis-aotuv - RepoView: Repoview

Hello all, I'm working on an HTML5 / jQuery jukebox player. It does not use plugins like flash / java. It requires an HTML5 browser which basically means it works in just about any graphical browser except IE 6/7/8 but it does work in IE9. There's known issue in Opera related to SVG control buttons (bug report has been filed) and there's a known issue in Safari for iOS (at least on my iPod, don't know if exists on iPad) but I think I may be able to work around that via JS - I just haven't yet. It's RWD (though that needs a lot of work) meaning if you shrink browser horizontally the player adapts. Buttons are oversized on a desktop but in production a smaller maximum width can be specified so that doesn't happen. Anyway I'm very eager for feedback. HTML5 JukeBox There are no advertisements or other commercial crap. Again I appreciate any feedback.

One possible argument for HD audio is that the mastering may be better. Take the recent Grateful Dead HD offering. I have no idea whether it is quality or not, but for CD release I believe there has been two digital masters - one in the 90s when digital mastering was still somewhat new and then a remaster in 2003 I believe when digital mastering had matured. The current HD mastering may be better because the market is not general consumer but the audiophile community. So the mastering may be better simply because they took that into consideration when making it. While it may not be possible to ABX the HD audio from the HD audio downsampled to red book, the mastering itself may be better than previous digital mastering and the only way to get it is to purchase the HD content. They may not offer the same mastering in redbook because that would compete with the higher prices they charge for HD.

From 24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed He references AES E-Library » Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback and points out: I just can't ignore the scientific method. Furthermore -

I'm a programmer with a passion for the sciences, especially physics and biology. I like to see claims backed up with reproduce-able tests. It's just the way I'm wired I suppose. I have not seen reproduce-able tests that show > 44.1kHz sampling can be ABX'd against 44.1kHz. It should be easy to generate such a test using computer generated tones if it is real. I haven't seen them though.

That may be the case, but if that's the case, that then answers the question as to why HD audio isn't taking off. If people can't hear the difference, why are they going to pay for the difference? If it requires a major investment in audio equipment to hear the difference, most people I suspect have other priorities with their finances. But mathematically, I can't see how it would make a difference anyway.

What the hell? I'm 39 and I generally don't steal music. Most of my music collection is various Flamenco, some Bluegrass, some americana / blues rock, some hard rock (Rush - I love Rush) The only music I "steal" are amateur taper concert bootlegs - I have a thing for Bob Dylan and Eric Clapton bootlegs. But seriously, what the hell? Where do you get off insulting someone because they are expressing a view that is different than yours?

That's possible, but I can't hear it. And that may be why HD took off in video but not audio. When computer screens were 800x600 - upsampling SD content to view full screen wasn't that bad. But as monitor resolution increased, the amount of upscaling needed to watch full screen also increased so you either had fuzziness or had to watch in a small window. That's is precisely why I bought a Thinkpad T520 instead of a MacBook Pro - I needed a Blu*ray drive because when I ride grayhound I like to watch movies but Apple doesn't have Blu*ray drives and with SSD reducing disk space, huge digital media files are not what I want to fill the disk with. But DVD upscaling looks bad so I need HD content. But with audio, physical dimensions of things like screen don't matter. Buying better newer audio equipment isn't going to make your CDs sound worse like higher resolution screens on laptops and TV's do. So there is no need to go with HD audio. But really, testing I've personally done, I can't hear the difference. Maybe it is my equipment, I can't rule that out, but I'm not going to spend a bunch of money on better audio equipment just to find out if *maybe* it makes a difference. Especially since I'm entering my 40s next year so I'm going to be losing high end anyway and that's the only place I can possibly see a higher sampling rate making a difference.

That's possible, none of my cables cost over $3,000 so maybe I'm just not properly equipped to hear the difference. In which case, again, why pay for what I can't hear?

My personal opinion is because HD audio is snake oil. 12bit is enough for most music, 16bit is enough for all music. 44.1kHz sample rate is high enough for the sensitivity of the human ear. I believe in double blind tests. I have yet to find a "high resolution" audio that I can distinguish from 16bit 44.1kHz downsample. Maybe it is just me, but I've not seen ABX tests that others have done either. Doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I haven't seen them. So why waste the disc space for extra sampling and higher bit rate if my ears don't benefit? Some good reads on the subject: 24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed 24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!