PDA

View Full Version : New audiophile from Australia



sabrehagen
26-02-2013, 14:29
Hi guys and gals!

I'm glad to become part of this community. As a student, I find it very valuable to have people with much bigger budgets and many more years of experience than me who own lots of high end products and are able to compare and review them resulting in my education. It gives somebody like myself who has never really owned a high quality piece of equipment the fast track to some informative empirical and statistical answers :)

I have just purchased my first piece of true audiophile equipment; a Beresford TC-7530 Bushmaster DAC. This, combined with my Bose AE1 headphones should produce a listening experience I have never experienced before. I will be using TOSLINK cables between my PC and my new DAC. It has yet to arrive yet; this is why the tense of this paragraph is in the future! I am concerned however that TOSLINK is not the best possible option. I have purchased a very high end TOSLINK cable, and Stanley Beresford, the creator of the DAC, has recommended this as the best method of achieving the highest sound quality. I believe this is because optical is not prone to RF interference. I worry that my computer may not have quality termination lenses as superior as that of the DAC. I will hopefully be able to work this all out in testing.

I love Steely Dan and Donald Fagen for their exceptional recording techniques and musical genius. The Derek Trucks Band for, well, Derek (the rest of the band is pretty damn alright too!). Dire Straits for Knopfler's tone and melodies and also superb approach to recording.

Well, that's a bit about me, and I look forward to being part of the community!

synsei
26-02-2013, 14:42
Hello Jackson and welcome to AoS. I am using a Bushmaster too and I've found that best results can be obtained using a coaxial digital cable in my system, particularly when playing hires audio files. Don't ask me for any technical reasons to explain this as I really couldn't tell ya, just sounds better to me ;)

John
26-02-2013, 15:06
Welcome to AOS
Great to have you join up

nat8808
27-02-2013, 01:34
What happened to your other thread comparing two flac files?

I'm guessing it was deleted because it linked to some music and Google has a controlling hand over many idependent websites such as this through their google ads revenue system, completely whitewashing the idea of fair use (regardless of Google owning YouTube..). Is that the case?

(and P.S. what WAS the difference between them?)

sabrehagen
27-02-2013, 08:05
You're dead right nat. Unfortunately, but understandably, it had to be removed.

It was a comparison between WAV files and FLAC files as some people seem to think WAV sounds better for some reason despite them both being lossless audio. I wanted to do a blind test and see peoples thoughts when they did not know what they were participating in, rather than ask a question and have them all weigh in with their preconceived ideas. One was a FLAC file, and one was a WAV file with the FLAC extension, but most audio players (if not all that I have encountered) will still decode the file based on header information, not file extension.

Thanks for participating, and sorry I couldn't come through with the results :)



What happened to your other thread comparing two flac files?

I'm guessing it was deleted because it linked to some music and Google has a controlling hand over many idependent websites such as this through their google ads revenue system, completely whitewashing the idea of fair use (regardless of Google owning YouTube..). Is that the case?

(and P.S. what WAS the difference between them?)

MartinT
27-02-2013, 08:10
Hello Jackson and welcome to AoS.

Guys, the reason we withdrew Jackson's music file comparison thread is that the FLAC files sounded to us like they are from a commercial release, which breaks copyright law. Google do not have a 'controlling hand' in AoS, but we are honour bound to keep the site legal.

I think the idea behind the file comparisons is a good one and we don't want members to think that we discourage such an exercise, but it must be done with music that is clearly out of copyright, or self-performed.

stupinder
27-02-2013, 11:20
You're dead right nat. Unfortunately, but understandably, it had to be removed.

It was a comparison between WAV files and FLAC files as some people seem to think WAV sounds better for some reason despite them both being lossless audio. I wanted to do a blind test and see peoples thoughts when they did not know what they were participating in, rather than ask a question and have them all weigh in with their preconceived ideas. One was a FLAC file, and one was a WAV file with the FLAC extension, but most audio players (if not all that I have encountered) will still decode the file based on header information, not file extension.

Thanks for participating, and sorry I couldn't come through with the results :)
Was FLAC 2 the WAV file?

nat8808
27-02-2013, 22:23
Surely it was File 1 ?!

nat8808
27-02-2013, 22:38
Hello Jackson and welcome to AoS.

Guys, the reason we withdrew Jackson's music file comparison thread is that the FLAC files sounded to us like they are from a commercial release, which breaks copyright law. Google do not have a 'controlling hand' in AoS, but we are honour bound to keep the site legal.

I think the idea behind the file comparisons is a good one and we don't want members to think that we discourage such an exercise, but it must be done with music that is clearly out of copyright, or self-performed.

Should be covered by fair usage - to use the song for a demonstration purpose, to demonstrate the different files.

Can we link to YouTube videos of copyright material?

--

I do understand though that Google have in the past threatened to ban forums from using Google AdSense, both this and other hifi forums, for needledrops citing copyright reasons without any regard to discerning whether its use falls under fair usage or not - would take too many man hours and be too costly apply the law justly.

Which is ironic given that YouTube (Google) is still in a legal battle with Viacom over whether YouTube is actively involved in mass copyright infringement.

So forums just have to silently go along with it or loose revenue that keeps them going.. or do things differently.

But that's not for this thread I feel...

Rothchild
28-02-2013, 20:06
You're dead right nat. Unfortunately, but understandably, it had to be removed.

It was a comparison between WAV files and FLAC files

Thanks for participating, and sorry I couldn't come through with the results :)

It was a good test, thanks for sharing what you'd done, it would also explain why there was no difference whatsover between the files.

sabrehagen
28-02-2013, 21:30
Was FLAC 2 the WAV file?


Surely it was File 1 ?!

FLAC 1 was the WAV file, and FLAC 2 was the original FLAC! :)

Andrei
03-03-2013, 23:12
Hello Jackson and welcome to AoS. I am using a Bushmaster too and I've found that best results can be obtained using a coaxial digital cable in my system, particularly when playing hires audio files. Don't ask me for any technical reasons to explain this as I really couldn't tell ya, just sounds better to me ;)

I have tried toslink, co-axial, and usb. I prefer co-axial, especially if you get a good silver cable. If I understand the issue correctly; co-ax does not need to convert the signal to light and then reconvert it back to electrical.

MartinT
04-03-2013, 08:42
If I understand the issue correctly; co-ax does not need to convert the signal to light and then reconvert it back to electrical.

That's not the issue, Andrei. The difference between co-ax and optical is their high frequency characteristics (co-ax better preserves the waveform edges) and the fact that optical suffers from much more jitter over its length than co-ax due to group delay.

Andrei
05-03-2013, 03:33
That's not the issue, Andrei. The difference between co-ax and optical is their high frequency characteristics (co-ax better preserves the waveform edges) and the fact that optical suffers from much more jitter over its length than co-ax due to group delay.

So is this why some toslink connections only go to 96khz?

MartinT
05-03-2013, 06:42
Yes indeed, Toslink is only rated up to 24/96.

sabrehagen
11-03-2013, 22:39
Yes indeed, Toslink is only rated up to 24/96.

Hmmm...my Bushmaster is rated to 24/192 with Toslink. Could that be a misprint?

Given that coax is prone to RF interference, and I'm using a computer so there is probably plenty of that, is there a way to reduce this interference on the cable?

MartinT
11-03-2013, 22:54
The Bushmaster is rated to 24/192 and, provided you use good quality glass Toslink cable and keep it short, you'll get away with it. Doesn't change the fact that Toslink was never designed for such speeds.

sabrehagen
11-03-2013, 23:07
The Bushmaster is rated to 24/192 and, provided you use good quality glass Toslink cable and keep it short, you'll get away with it. Doesn't change the fact that Toslink was never designed for such speeds.

Right, well I'm using Stanley's own Toslink 1m cable, so I should be fine. All I need now is some 192KHz audio! Any idea of some music that was produced in that format?

Stratmangler
11-03-2013, 23:38
Right, well I'm using Stanley's own Toslink 1m cable, so I should be fine. All I need now is some 192KHz audio! Any idea of some music that was produced in that format?

The Bushmaster's optical receivers might be capable of 192KHz, but it ain't necessarily so with your source.
Welcome to the Forum, btw :cool:

MartinT
12-03-2013, 23:55
Any idea of some music that was produced in that format?

https://www.hdtracks.com/

sabrehagen
14-03-2013, 23:54
https://www.hdtracks.com/

Thanks Martin!