Or trying to discuss something about which there can be no discussion. fr0g is entirely right. But you prefer whatever you prefer, and may not be able to hear differences, that's fine. It doesn't matter weather the argument is circular or rhombus shaped, it's still absolutely correct and if otherwise perfectly intelligent people can't see it then...
So inceredibly tiresome.
I wasn't trying to talk about hifi or anything else. I just thought it was an interesting topic for discussion. You know, like perfectly intelligent people do.
As for it being something you can have no discussion about, I'm fairly sure that Kant or Popper or any other number of scientific philosophers would disagree.
Cambridge Audio StreamMagic 6 | 751BD | 651A | Diamond 9.1 | Minx Xi | Sonos Play:3
Moderator. mail: john.duncan.whf at the mail of g dot com
[Pedantic mode on]
323Kbps is lossy and is not CD quality (1400Kbps), so is not going to be, in any way, better in quality than CD.
You're off by 11.2.
Mac mini > AVI ADM9Ts
Whatever John. What you seem to want to talk about has nothing to do with what fr0g said, which doesn't call for any help from Popper et al.
Thanks for the education, Your Cleverness.
Formerly known as al7478...
HC: Panasonic PXP 42 V20; Panasonic DMP BD35; Humax Foxsat-HDR
Music: Optical out from Asus P7H55-M Motherboard into AVI ADM 9.1 speakers.
"Music will provide the light you cannot resist"
It isn't a response to any argument he was making, no. But he mentioned 'reality' and it got me thinking in a different direction. That's all.
And in matters philosophical, I'm more of a Kant than anything...
It isn't a response to any argument he was making, no. But he mentioned 'reality' and it got me thinking in a different direction. That's all. And in matters philosophical, I'm more of a Kant than anything...
Then I shall do the unprecedented and unreservedly apologise. I probably need to top my fluids up.
That's alright. I could see how, from previous experience, you might think I was picking a fight
I wasn't trying to talk about hifi or anything else. I just thought it was an interesting topic for discussion. You know, like perfectly intelligent people do. As for it being something you can have no discussion about, I'm fairly sure that Kant or Popper or any other number of scientific philosophers would disagree.
We're on mixed mental threads here.
Alec I think gets what I am saying.
There are some things which warrant no discussion as the answer is obvious.
eg... MP3 CANNOT be better than the CD it was ripped from. It's impossible. If someone comes on these forums (or the Teapot enthusiast forum in Zambia) and claims that it sounds better, they *could* be right subjectively, but objectively, from measurements, it is entirely impossible for it to be so.
FM *cannot* be *better* than the CD the music was taken from. It makes no sense, there is no logical reason for it to be so. HOWEVER, given the added distortion involved, it *can* sound different, and where there is a difference there *can*be a preference, and so long as we are talking individual preference, then there is *no* right and wrong.
“Out beyond ideas of wrong and right, there is a field.
I'll meet you there."
Almost completely, yes. A phrase you used set me off on a tangent that I thought was interesting. You may have noticed me do this.
As for 320 vs CD vs FM vs whatever, of course from a technical point of view there can be no argument about their respective qualities. From a subjective point of view, anybody can think what they like.
I guess that - for me at least - radio (particularly BBC radio and even more particularly Radio 4 since I was 17 years-old) carries a lot of 'baggage' with it.
The old televisions and the radiogram (when I was very small in the 1960s) that both had radio built in. Both had valves and large wooden enclosures of course. Also the kitchen radio (that was plugged into a home-made corner enclosure amp/speaker that my father had DIY'ed - probably from a kit some years before - including aerial/antenna on the shed roof).
There was also the car radio (in the Wolseley) that had a large oval speaker set into a wooden surround and was also (almost certainly) valve driven given the car's vintage.
So during my formative years, BBC radio (music from Radio one and two and comedies and 'serials'), ALL emanated from valve driven speakers in large wooden enclosures of one kind or another. So it was all rather 'lush' and smooth and even 'plummy' (as were some of the accents still, at least outside of Radio 1).
The kitchen radio (corner enclosure near ceiling) was replaced during a re-decorate with one of these around the time I was at junior school (I hunted a long time to find a photograph of the exact model) and this became my favourite for a long time. (Lovely tuning scale, lashings of chrome, great sound). I used to love sitting in semi darkness and scanning the frequencies.
Whilst at sixth form college I worked Saturdays at a local hi-fi/TV/radio/records shop and bought (at enormous discount) a gorgeous Roberts R800 radio. Yet again a fantastic sounding, lush, radio with a solid wooden enclosure and a decent amount of chrome! I had that radio for the next 10 years until we replaced it with a Roberts R737 that I had to travel to Harrods to collect in exactly the colour we wanted! (The www was only a few years old and internet shopping hadn't quite yet started.)
Along with stereo FM tuners (from Sony, Yamaha, Rega, Arcam, Naim and now Marantz) radio has always been my most important 'source' and I have an expectation of what it should sound like. (And b@gger the measurements!)
In a perfect world (ok my perfect world) FM would continue forever and I would have a lunking great big Sony ES tuner with loads of lights and polished wood end panels It would feed a factory restored Accuphase (Class A) amp from the same era and speak to me via some big Harbeths in an oak panelled study or library.
I don't care about the measurements, or that the BBC play music from CDs and WAV files (70 - 80 percent of my radio listening is non-musical anyway). Turn off some lights and listen to a well recorded radio play or a live broadcast and it's magical.
TuneIn Radio Pro on my iPhone is rather spiffy (and allows the higher BBC R3 bitrates) and even seems to encourage a bit of 'lushness' that Jazz FM seem to add to their broadcast. (Niiiice...)
DAB is a dog. (Except, for some unaccountable reason, on the Vita R1 Deluxe in the kitchen.)
Freeview radio is better than DAB (and I can record it).
But FM is the King and no amount of Ashleys (with their anti Beeb bias) or fr0gs or oohs will convince me otherwise.
I cannot be argued with on this point in any rational way :-) Even if you are actually right, you will be wrong.
(Exuant with 'Sailing By' playing on a Roberts Radio in the background.)
Marantz M-CR603 + AirPlay • Rega R3 loudspeakers • iPhone 5 • iMac • Apple Airport Extreme 802.11n • Apple iPad Mini • Panasonic TX-L32D25B • Sony BDP-S390 • Ruark Audio R1 Deluxe • Humax HDR-Fox T2
DAB is digitally and dynamically compressed and is therefore horribly compromised, FM is much better by comparison. I won't argue with you on that one.
If you see what I say, then you would realise that I wouldn't want to.
In the same way, I think the best car ever made is the original Mini.
just interrupting the usual WHF thread degeneration into inter-nicene squabbles to report:
Radio 3 FM Late Junction: SUBLIME
Musical Fidelity A3.5 CD, A3.5 int amp and A5 FM/DAB tuner, Monitor Audio GS10s, Chord Chorus 2 and Odyssey 2
I think 2 and a half weeks pause is enough to not worry about interupting
Where were we?
It is worse by a considerable margin but interestingly the dynamic range is the same. The process of DAB strips the PCM (CD quality) signal back to MPEG 1 Layer 2, and its a complex one, after that its padded out with zero's to achieve a dynamic range of 71db.
So what your getting is a signal of 1537 padded out to 2048 which equates to 71db dynamic range which is the same as FM radio but FM is 2048 without the padding. PCM is 32768 giving us 96db.
All we need to do now is convert MPEG's 1537 into db's and we have the answer
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing