lisa

I very often use headphones when using VLC player and Samplitude DAW software for music and movie playback. Sometimes the volume control sliders don't remain at the levels I've set them previously and I'm only lucky to be quick enough to yank the phones from my ears before any perceived hearing loss occurs. Isn't there by now a high quality and intelligent plug in that prevents headphone levels from ever becoming dangerously high regardless of software volume control settings?

Your audio and video quality experience with JRiver is truly inspiring , but assuming you still use it exactly how can you access scenes from BD movies if JRiver can’t recognize and usefully display the BD’s menu? Also, what IR remote do you use and does it have up, down and sideways buttons for zoom control?

For my new "mid ("mini") tower pc build, I want to use a 5.25" BD drive to play BD movies via https://jriver.com/ Currently, I have free access to Panasonic SW-5584-C and Plextor PX-891SAF BD drives. Of course, with the tower several feet from my ears and with my surround sound system going I wouldn't expect much if any drive noise to be noticeable. However, have you used one or more specific models or brands of BD drives, which were found to consistently produce low mechanical or vibration noise when playing 1080p BD movies? Conversely, which model drives have you found to generate very noticeable noise during BD movie playback? Also do most BD drives get very warm when playing full length BD movies? And/or have you noticed if your tower's case fans run any faster/noisier during BD movie playback? Lastly, do you find that playing (never or rarely burning) BD movies more often on BD drives than playing them on your standalone BD player tends to shorten BD drive life?

I realize this isn’t quite the forum for this question but it’s one of many where I think I might get some answers from experienced users of business laptops with this kind of hardware. I'm very badly overdue for a new laptop; embarrassed to say how old my Sony laptop is. But as I want to absolutely minimize bit errors, it’s sensible to choose ECC memory over non-ECC memory. But ECC RAM is only supported by motherboards supporting Xeon (and some AMD?) processors. However, a noisy laptop is not acceptable, and I’ve read that Xeon based laptops can be noisy. But under all load conditions? I never play games and the most resource hungry tasks would probably be occasionally playing 1080p youtube videos. Most tasks would be downloading youtubes, MS Office, shopping and backing up to a multi drive NAS or server with ECC RAM; Synology or Qnap. I'd like this laptop to last ten years so I don't too much mind paying ~ $2100. for a well built one with a 15" screen that stays very cool and quiet for all the above tasks. Will Xeon/ECC HP G3 thru G7 Zbooks-or identically equipped Lenovo or Dell model laptops-be as quiet as most consumer laptops under these kinds of loads? And will it tend to stay cooler/quieter with discrete graphics on motherboard rather than with Xeon processors with on-chip graphics and enabled? Or does this kind of hardware usually mean a noisier laptop in any case-even when just idling, though hardly the kind of performance one would think those with normal hearing would pay > $2K for.

After just purchasing a brand new pioneer udp-lx500 BD player, I am shocked and absolutely disgusted to learn that the LX500's remote only controls a TV's volume and not the output voltage of the player's analog stereo outputs. Pioneer UDP-LX 500 / 800 Owners Thread (No Price Talk) Not only is this inexcusable oversight a huge inconvenience-as it requires purchasing and installing a preamp, AVR or DAC-but it almost completely negates the benefits of having a high quality stereo DAC (or any DAC) in the player at all, since rather than being able to feed my power amp directly (thereby getting better signaI quality) will have to do via a preamp with a remote volume control. Again, it's all so stupid and inexcusable, not that top model Sony and Panasonic BD players are any better in this regard. My Oppo 95, and probably all Oppo models above it have remote control of the stereo outputs. Indeed, my main reason for buying the LX500 at all was for its full range zoom control-and also for built in DACs good enough to make buying a separate DAC (with a remote) unnecessary or redundant. Searching [ IR remote "passive" stereo attenuator], I've found some with great design and build quality but don't seem especially cost effective for no more than passive unbalanced stereo IR remote attenuation. https://tortugaaudio.com/what-is-a-passive-preamplifier/ Aren't there somewhat less costly Arduino-like solutions which would provide IR remote passive attenuation while not detracting from the player's sound quality, nor loading the power amp inputs? If so, where might I get one pre-built and tested?

Though not new to CD ripping I’ve only just learned of the importance of using checksums and taking other measures to verify that a CD track was ripped and saved error free. So far, these offer the most understandable explanations and uses of checksum testing. https://www.online-tech-tips.com/cool-websites/what-is-checksum/ https://www.howtogeek.com/363735/what-is-a-checksum-and-why-should-you-care/ I’ve been using https://www.exactaudiocopy.de/ all along. My problem is that I prefer not to rip entire CD albums, typically instead taking time just to rip one or two tracks of my favorite songs from many CDs. Thus, I cannot use the CD album-referenced check sums stored at http://www.accuraterip.com/ to benefit from its error checking of my single CD track extractions. Therefore, I use EAC’s Secure Mode (instead of burst mode) which reads the track twice before ripping, however more bit perfect doing so will make the rip. I then always save to uncompressed WAV files. But how do you know if the data was saved error free? If I understand correctly, unlike WAV, which unfortunately I’ve been using all along to rip my first ~ 120 CD tracks, a CRC number is created inside the FLAC file when it is saved to the hard drive. And (I think) at the same time another CRC number is created in the Windows system log when the file is saved. Then by using one of many available Windows compatible checksum calculators-one using the same logarithm the FLAC file and Windows used to create those CRC numbers-you can (easily?) compare those two CRC numbers. If they prove to be identical then the stored file is error free. If they prove to be different then the data in the saved file is not a bit perfect match of the original data in the FLAC file. Audible consequences, I’ve read, could be anything from one or two clicks or pops to distortion, frequency response (sampling rate) and/or dynamic range (bit depth) losses. In that case, one should try re-ripping the CD track, saving the FLAC and again checksum testing the two CRC numbers. Another checksum failure could mean scratches or smudges on the CD and/or other hardware or software issues. Btw, exactly where do I find the FLAC file’s own CRC number and the CRC number Windows created when it saved the FLAC to HDD? Okay, so far not too abstract, entailed or at all mathematical for newbies here. But what I don’t get is why at various audio forums do I read about more than one algorithm being used for checksum testing? First it was MD5; soon after I read about people using and one or more of those SHA### types, such as https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/forums/audio-hardware.5/ and https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?action=post;board=1.0 Again, I’m a real newbie so please try to reply accordingly. So why is more than one type of algorithm being used? Do you use algorithms other than MD5 and SHA### to compare check sums of CD track rips, and if so why? Assuming that the checksum calculator offers use of more than one algorithm, how do I know which algorithm to use to compare the FLAC file’s CRC number with the Windows CRC number? Please recommend some of the best AND easiest to use checksum calculators for to verify data integrity of FLAC files of CD track rips. Ditto for error checking of Youtube downloads?

This discussion may only serve to reveal my less than complete knowledge of A/V digital signal processing rather than raise questions which audibly or not impact signal quality. However, the concerns raised stem from here. https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/01/linus-torvalds-blames-intel-for-lack-of-ecc-ram-in-consumer-pcs/%3famp=1 The report initially describes and quotes Mr. Torvalds’ contempt for Intel’s refusal to support error correcting ECC memory which apparently impacts his interest with server hardware, computational computing and other non-home theater related tasks. But later discussed are claims, though unspecified, where consumers-presumably home users-can also suffer from non-ECC memory generated errors. Thus, if the lack of ECC memory would leave the computer audiophile vulnerable to errors, however infrequent, in what form would they be? Would they manifest as permanent audible “clicks” during the re-digitizing of music in 24 bit audio and/or when downloaded from stores like https://www.hdtracks.com/ ? Has anyone experienced this? If not perhaps because such errors may be even more noticeable and more frequently occurring from much more common be still respectably sounding 16 bit audio? OTOH, would such errors be more noticeable if downloading or playing 1080p or especially 4K video, though both requiring far more digital bandwidth (e.g. bit depth?) than even 24 bit audio? However, the ears are likely more sensitive than the eyes to digital audio errors. In any case, do AMD brand Ryzen CPUs and motherboards support ECC memory? And which if any other motherboard brands do also? But if so would such consumer desktop systems tend to create more heat induced fan noise than desktops with comparable Intel CPUs and motherboards performing the same kinds of work loads, such as 1080p video editing-and full length movie playbacks via https://jriver.com/overview.html ?

I'm not quite sure if this is the appropriate forum for this post, though I know at least one member here who's very tech experienced on video post-production work, and has generously shared his expertise. So here we go: I’ve managed to narrow my choices down to two motherboards: The ASUS Z97-A and theGigabyte GA-Z97X-UD5H ]. However, I hope that any and all here might help me to decide between them-OR any other motherboard that you would strongly recommend instead. I do no gaming at all, so a frequently overclocked, multi-CPU/GPU machine is hardly in order. However, my new pc build must be capable of performing certain other tasks extremely well. Thus, overall system cost is not a serious factor: CRITERIA-IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE: Cool & Quiet operation for true high end audiophile grade two channel stereo music serving. Legacy PCI Slot: As you probably know, very few Z97 chipset models include the legacy PCI slot. But I need it for my M-Audio 2496 sound card. Unlike all other popular DAW software, due to Avid’s long-standing, shall I say, proprietary aggressiveness, only their (M-Audio built) hardware, such as this card, contains the drivers to run my old Pro Tools version 7.4.2 DAW platform. And the recent Pro Tools upgrade now including software-based drivers, allowing the DAW to run on any audio hardware interface is hardly worth the >$300. in my case. DC Supply Noise Rejection: Because my M-Audio card’s SPDIF output and one of the motherboard’s USB ports will feed a very high end external audio DAC (i.e. Berkeley Berkeley Audio Design Product 2, Lavry, Wadia, et al), the motherboard’s DC supply circuitry must have very low noise, superior RF and EMI rejection and excellent voltage regulation. Of course, the chosen system power supply (i.e. Corsair, Seasonic, et al) must of necessity also exhibit the same low electrical noise performance. System must have the CPU and GPU power for encoding and rendering movie length DVD and 1080p BluRay video at competitive speeds, via Sony Vegas Pro 13 ( Vegas Pro 13 Overview ) Likely system parts: Intel Haswell 4790S (possibly 4790K) CPU( Haswell (microarchitecture) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Desktop_processors ), ASUS Radeon R9 270 DirectCU II OC graphics card (AnandTech | Home 7503/the-amd-radeon-r9-270x-270-review-feat-asus-his/15 ) to feed my EIZO HD2442 monitor. Nanoxia DS-1 case( AnandTech | Nanoxia Deep Silence 1 Case Review: You Asked For It, You Got It ), Sony BWU-500S BD burner, Plextor PX-760 DVD burner, Seagate Constellation ES ST500NM0011 HDD (main system drive running Windows 8.1) and an SSD (Hitachi, Samsung, WD, et al) running Windows XP SP2 for Pro Tools 7.4.2 and Serato Pitch n Time Pro plug-in. Btw, while I do have some technical knowledge (i.e. applying the proper amount of thermal paste between the CPU and the board’s heatsink plate), I’m have a local service shop do all that, install Windows and set up the BIOS for the cool and quiet power management and other functionality I may need, as detailed below. IMPORTANT: Would both Over AND Underclocking the Right Haswell CPU be my Best Option? [ In any case, please know that for video rendering tasks in Sony Vegas, the chosen Haswell CPU’s on-chip HD 4600 graphics will (through the chosen motherboard) feed my Dell “source” monitor, while the ASUS R9 270 card will feed my EIZO “output” monitor. ] Would Cool & Quiet operation for high end audio plus reasonably fast 1080p video encoding/rendering (via Sony Vegas Pro 13) be asking too much of the same tower desktop pc? Attempting to achieve this end, my first choice was the Haswell 4790S processor. Would its 65W TPD, 4 core/8 thread, 3.2 GHz normal/4.0 GHz turbo specs make it the best choice for me? But because I don’t have quite enough knowledge to determine this on my own-but from what I’ve read on overclocking, underclocking (Underclocking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )-and the capabilities of select motherboards to provide this functionality-I’ve also considered whether I’d be better off choosing the Haswell 4790 or the overclockable 4790K CPU. Again, I only know so much on the subject, so please point out any fallacies in the following scenarios: OPTION 1: Running the 4790S CPU at its normal 3.2 GHz, it can easily handle any task with any audio software I’d ever use. And when running Sony Vegas Pro 13 for 1080p video encoding, the motherboard’s BIOS can be preset to enable the 4790S CPU’s 4.0 GHz Turbo mode, when it detects that higher work load. Turbo mode gets the encoding job done faster, albeit with consequent higher power consumption and heat. OPTION 2: Running at its 4.0 GHz normal speed, the overclockable 4790K CPU is clearly overkill for my audio and everyday tasks. And the idle and/or normal speed power consumption of this 88W TPD processor would probably be way more than that of the 65W TPD 4790S. Evidently, not a CPU for a “cool and quiet” pc. But what if the 4790K could be underclocked-and “undervolted” by the motherboard down to the 4790S’s 3.2 GHz normal speed and voltage, depending on the given work load? 1.) If the ASUS Z97-A and/or the Gigabyte GA-Z97X-UD5H can do this, would it insure that the 4790K’spower consumption and heat dissipation will be no higher than that of the 4790S when running at 3.2 GHz? 2.) If yes, then when ONLY WHEN I am encoding and rendering 1080p video in Sony Vegas, the 4790K will be (manually or automatically?), reclocked or “revolted” to its normal ranges, thereby enabling its 4.4 GHz Turbo speed to handle the heavier load? On the other hand, would choosing the 4790K over the 4790S be a practical, cost effective choice (i.e. fan noise and heat) only if the 4790K were overclocked and “overvolted” to run above its 4.4 GHz Turbo speed; say, more like 4.9 GHz or so, for video encoding jobs? Would 4.9 GHz over a “part-time” overclocked 4790K versus the 4790S’s 4.0 GHz Turbo speed be enough of a video encoding timesaver to justify the heat and power consumption from this “part-time” overclocking? All things considered for high end audio playback serving and 1080p video encoding/rendering in one pc, should I choose the 4790K or the 4790S? If you suggest going with the 4790K, then between the ASUS Z97-A and the Gigabyte GA-Z97X-UD5H, which, if either board, might be substantially better board for both over and underclocking (and “volting”) this CPU? Once again, please feel free to recommend any other motherboard with impressively rapid 1080p encoding in Sony Vegas, a PCI slot and very low DC, RF and EMI noise rejection. Thank you.

With the end of the Window XP security updates, among other factors, I needed to take some time to replace my ancient tower pc, with one the runs either an Intel Ivy Bridge 4 or 8 core or the latest Haswell 4 core processor. To minimize fan and/or electrical noise, the better choice appears to be the low power versions of the processors Ivy Bridge (List of Intel Xeon microprocessors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) E5-2630 v2 (6 core, 2.6GHz, LGA2011 socket, 80w), E5-2630L v2 (6 core, 2.4GHz, LGA2011 socket, 60w), E5-2428L v2 (8 core, 1.8GHz, LGA1356 socket, 60w)-or the new Haswell (List of Intel Xeon microprocessors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) E3-1285L v3 (4 core, 3.1GHz, LGA1150 socket, 65w) and Haswell (microarchitecture) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia i7-4770S(4 core, 3.1GHz, LGA1150 socket, 65w), and i7-4770R (4 core, 3.2GHz, LGA1150 socket, 65w). My chief priority will always be audio signal quality (i.e. editing of uncompressed wav files of music CD tracks for playback via USB or a balanced AES card feeding a high performance external DAC). But I also would like to eventually use this computer for DVD as well as more demanding BluRay movie disc editing. Though presently having no hands on experience and minimal knowledge of computer video editing, I do know that the most time consuming phase of the process is recompression of the edited video back into the BluRay movie disc format. Depending on the software and hardware resources, recompression could take anywhere from 45 minutes to well over 90 minutes. So I thought that a new pc with one of the above six or eight core model processors and 16GB of RAM, together with the right software apps, might significantly reduce BD compression time-perhaps to as little as 30 minutes. Again, however, my primary concern is audio quality. Therefore, compared to the ubiquitous dual core processors, could using four, six or eight core Ivy Bridge or the new Haswell four core processors somehow pose any degree of risk to audio quality, in one or more ways? And, of course, of particular interest would be any related incidents involving any of the specific (low power) processors listed above, and/or desktop boards they were used in. Before I make this computer purchase, any advice or referrals would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

According to http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/3...vs-mp4-quality and http://www.h3xed.com/web-and-interne...80p-720p-1080p adding “&hd=1” , “&hd=18” and/or “&hd=22” to the end of a YouTube file’s URL code, will access the HD version of the file (which by default uses a better quality audio codec and/or a higher bit rate), if such a file version was created and uploaded. But what is a video embedder? How does it differ from the player at YouTube’s and/or Vimeo’s site? Is there a particular player/embedder that I can download (free or not) which, among other things, can be set to also automatically locate the HD or HQ (> 128kbps and/or lower loss codec) version of the file on the web-even it’s no longer posted at YouTube? If yes, please suggest one. Is there a way to enable that embedder or player so that it always grabs the HD or HQ file first-and so eliminate the need to add the above suffixes to the URL? I typically use Firefox. Excuse the possibly dumb question but are all browsers the same or might one somehow provide wider access to these HD or HQ version files? Or are there special HD or video quality browser settings?

Thanks. XBMC or MediaInfo should do the job.

Audio quality of music is my main concern when downloading from YouTube (and Vimeo, which I only just discovered). But am I wrong or are there relatively few A/V file viewers? Can you recommend a program that displays an audio or video file’s container (i.e. FLV, MP4, Quicktime, AVI, Matroska, WebM), its audio codec (i.e. AC-3, AAC, ALAC, ALS, FLAC, Vorbis, TwinVQ, BSAC, MPEG1 thru-4, SLS, Audio Lossless Coding, MPEG-4 DST, H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, Windows Media Audio, Wavpack) and bit rate (from 60 up to at least 192Kbps)? Since transcoding (i.e. file converting) is said to produce somewhat lossy results, I don’t require any software featuring those utilities, all other features being equal. Storage space is sufficiently cheap enough for archiving larger HQ or HD files in their original format. Free or not doesn’t matter, so long as it reliably displays all popular containers (Comparison of container formats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) , the lossy and lossless audio codecs found in them (Comparison of audio formats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and the lowest to the highest bit rates in files found on YouTube, Vimeo and HDTracks.com.

If there's a magnetically shielded, Class AB powered speaker with no bigger footprint than the Focal CMS50s but with hands down better sound, please tell me before I buy these! Even if twice their price, I won’t mind. I need a pair of very small (11.75” x 8” x 8”) audiophile quality powered speakers just for enjoying my CDs and FLAC file downloads. They should have a superb midrange, airy, natural highs (not bright or hissy) and a properly defined bottom. But I'd gladly sacrifice low end depth and character for the other two IF there's an absolutely first class 8” to 11" powered sub that fits the CMS50s (or your suggested better speaker) as seamlessly as a $500. glove. Magnetically shielded too, please. Of course, I considered the Focal powered sub but I have a bias (yes a pun) against digital amplifiers. So which, if any, speaker (s) better meets all my criteria than the CMS50s? And what sub (s)? Please advise ASAP!

Has anyone auditioned the Focal CMS65s and the Dynaudio Focus 110As? I can't find any dealers in NYC or Long Island who carries both; it's especially impossible to hear a demo of the 110As anywhere. Googling [dynaudio focus 110a vs focal cms65 ] was no help either. And because I may want to buy two pairs of these not too inexpensive speakers, a side-by-side` comparison-if not with my ears, then at least by those of a few others-is very important. Please advise.

I thought this might be the page for making this happen on the demand side-since Dolby Labs has yet to return my inquiries. This was my last post, which I made today at http://www.dolby.com/about/contact_us/contactus.aspx NOTE: For the Topic field I scrolled to PC Marketing Support): [[ Dolby Headphone and/or Dolby Virtual Speaker are apparently not available as standalone software-but would in any case be far more marketable as Windows XP-compatible DAW platform plug-ins. Ideally, these Audiosuite or VST compatible Dolby plug-ins would put stereo .wav files (i.e. ripped CD tracks) user created with ProTools, Wavelab or Samplitude into Headphone or Virtual Speaker wrappers (?)-but with simple enough file structures to be handled by Pentium 4 3.6GHz processors during playback. Alternately, along with these two software plug-ins might be a Dolby DSP card containing an onboard chip, thereby taking most or all work off the pc’s processor. Once placed in wrappers, these .wav files would retain their Dolby Headphone/Virtual speaker effects, yet also be fully amenable to user added pitch and/or time effects by ProTools’ Serato PnT plug-in (or Wavelab’s or Samplitude’s DURAC or Elastic Audio utilities) during playback, via a conventional stereo sound card (i.e. M-Audio 192 card) to drive a pair of headphones and/or one pair of powered speakers. Finally, for high def playback, these Dolby wrapped + user pitch/time Fxs stereo .wav files could also be outputted intact via SPDIF to any high end external DAC. This would greatly increase hardware compatibility since all Dolby encode/decode Fxs processing is done in the pc, ahead of the external DAC (and even ahead of the sound card’s onboard DAC). Trust me, this is what LOTS of computer audiophiles want (check us out at http://www.computeraudiophile.com http://forums.m-audio.com/index.php http://support2.magix.net/boards/samplitude/index.php?act=idx http://www.steinberg.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=47 http://www.head-fi.org/ http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/ http://www.digital-inn.de/forum271/ et al). Why not try to make it all happen this year? ]] What do you think of Dolby Headphone and Virtual speaker? If you really enjoy what you may have experienced, do you think my software and/or DSP card approach will fly with the people at Dolby?