imel96

quote: Originally posted by smyle1: OK, I unfortunately had to back out of my offer to Imel, as he lives in Indonesia..Sorry for the confusion....However, I am still interested in selling these speakers...So if there is anyone out there interested, and you live in the United States, please let me know. Thanks Don hehehe, my location's jinx. can't get anything good, if i could, must be expensive. ------------------ imel

quote: Originally posted by smyle1: I am selling the 5-speaker set, 4-satellites and a center channel. They are black, used for less than a year prior to purchasing the RF series. Excellent used condition. A couple of minor scratches from the wall mounting process, but other than that, good to go. Looking for $275 for the set. Any takers... Don any chance i can get a pair of them? ------------------ imel

no relation to other posts. i found it interesting that here (in my country), some people were blaming the central bank for the fall of our currency, because of not putting "in god we trust" marquee on bank notes just like on usd bill. nevertheless, i found no evidence that clerics or priests prefer usd to our own currency. how careless. ------------------ imel

quote: Originally posted by Ray Garrison: This is not true in digital audio. If the processor is reading, or receiving via external connection, the correct data, it still has to decode and convert this data with a degree of time precision and accuracy which is almost impossible to get your head around. Frecency related differences in the conversion timing of *NANOSECONDS* can have a significantly negative impact on the sound quality (both listening and measuring). that i can i understand. what bothers me now it sounds like cd player maker doesn't do it like it's done in computers. i know some jogger's discman has memory to act as buffer. maybe what we need is a cd player with megabytes of memory, separate dac clock, etc. don't you find it strange that computer plays dvd movies without jitter and we're still talking about this? computers have tons of memory for buffer, but cd players have good dedicated dac. and they say dsp should be cheaper. i'm curious, since you're a computer guy, which one would you choose? computer or a cd player? ------------------ imel

i guess it takes an outsider to appreciate the greatness of usa. and i put my money in my mouth (still smiling even when it's down 16% now). i don't know about democrat vs. republic. if mr. greenspan happy, i'm happy. maybe it sucks, but it's worse outside the usa. think of people in two seasons country, where people can be poor enough they don't have to have warm clothing. although, 1 usd == 1 euro, could be a problem. but hey, now i can buy more american stuff! ------------------ imel

quote: Originally posted by mobile homeless: Do you have a system capable of hearing the difference between a digital copy of a copy and the original? Or different types of discs ie Maxell or Memorex? Or a pristine new LP vs a CD? can we, at least, agree that a digital copy is identical with the original one? if we could, we can make progress here. like, maybe the problem isn't at the types of discs, but more at data fetch mechanism failing to correct errors, etc. could it be that some cd players do worse than computer cd drive in reading bits by showing mechanical behavior? ------------------ imel

quote: Originally posted by skonopa: I'll take a crack at this. I could only guess that if the vibrations are limited in the CD/DVD player, it'll allow the laser to track better, thus not as likely to "miss bits" during playback (realize just how small those pits are on the CD, epsecailly on DVDs - does not take much of a vibration to cause the laser to miss one). If a bit is missed, an error correction algoritm has to try to "guess" at the missing bit and fill it in and in some cases, just let it go. In severe cases, the vibrations can cause the laser to lose its place and the device has to "resync" itself, thus the skipping. This is one reason why CD-ROM drives where more expensive than regular CD players in the early days of CD-ROM drives (I tried to develop a device that would let me use my CD player as a CD-ROM device back when CD-ROM devices where still mucho-$$$), the error correction had to be that much better, whereas, for audio, a skipped bit probably would go unnoticed by the listener. More expensive CD players most likely had better electronics to minimize this problem. Now, play it through some high-end speakers and amplifiers and the listener just may noticed the skipped bits. Enter the roller-blocks allowing the CD player to be isolated and dampened from vibrations, allowing the laser to track better and not as likely to miss any bits in the play back material, thus giving the DAC a more complete bitstream, ultimatly allowing a better quality sound to be produced. what year was that? now, i could have a $50 cd-rw, and do perfect backups for data without rollerblocks. maybe we can say that those who got benefit from rollerblock has a very old cd player. by theory, the rollerblocks are impossible for any digital device. i, like others who don't put their raid cabinets on rollerblocks, will not buy into that. someone from seagate said, the dimension of a harddrive is like a jumbo jet flying 1 meter high on a field and counting grass. it was back at the time that harddrive has density less of what dvd has now. no rollerblocks, no error visible to a cpu running at ghz. and my ears only catch few khz. i say no to rollerblocks and calculus. (rayg, lucky me we don't have mathml. i have serious trauma with calculus i found numerical method a relief.) ------------------ imel

quote: Originally posted by Mallett: Question from above in the thread: I use extraction software to extract CD's to WAV. My understanding is that no transcoding is involved and the soundcard is bypassed, just a header change in the files. This seems to be born out in the output, which sounds significantly better than my CD player (which is not exactly audiophile grade). you're right. i need to clarify. what i meant was that, _if_ you had to convert to .wav first, then you must be recording audio signal from the soundcard, which is not the case. soundcards receive audio signal from a cd drive through audio cable. there's no transcoding need to just copy a cd. all kind of data (including audio) can be read through data interface. it's just that to read audio tracks, "we" need to use different method. that's why windows explorer can't just copy some tracks. ------------------ imel

quote: Originally posted by Super_BQ: Not all PC CD Writers are the same. I have not seen any software that uses the DIGITAL data stream of an audio CD (mostly because most PC cd-roms don't have a digital out interface THAT IS UTILIZED in the computer - interfaced with the sofware). Nevertheless, this is where you get the loss in sound quality as the digital does NOT stay in digital form. Rather it gets converted to a file format (.WAV) and when the cd writing software writes it to the blank CD - then it goes through another conversion process. But at the end of the day, you're probably not going to hear the difference in sound quality compared to a professional stand alone cd writer that writes in from digital to digital (no ADC or DAC in the chain). just a little news. on new windows system, go to device manager and check your cd drive properties. there's an option to read cdda digitally, ie. if you unplug the audio cable from your cd drive and leave the ide cable, it will sound better (no cheap d/a converter). you even could turn on error correction option there for better sound from damaged discs. and no, the proggies don't convert audio data to .wav to copy a cdda. otherwise you can't copy a cdda without a sound card. ------------------ imel

quote: Originally posted by KAiN64: Right now I am 17 and in school. But my school will be over on June 21. But for the summer, I was thinking of getting some small job that would earn me some money that I could add to the home theater I will hopefully have. Do you have any recommendations to where I should go? Should I try an A/V store or something? before going out for money, reading kyosaki's "rich dad poor dad" might be inspiring. it's about smart ways to get money. ------------------ imel This message has been edited by imel96 on 06-19-2002 at 11:23 AM

quote: Originally posted by boa12: to clarify, i'm using a regular old sony dvd-video player, but these higher bit rates are w/ this new dts 96/24 disk that can be played on a regular dvd-video player such as my sony. it's dts 96/24 for both pcm & 5.1, though in 5.1 the bit rates are more like 1508kbps. this is something new from dts - 96/24 Not in mlp for pcm nor 5.1. (though it does also have a high resolution/mlp track). what i've been wondering - w/ these new type w/ 96/24 for a dvd-video player, what or how much am I really missing from not getting a dvd-audio player (besides stereo 192/24 capability)? oh, so i was shooting the wrong duck. but i can say this: you said the bitrate for 96/24 5.1 is 1508kbps. 96khz * 24 bits * 6 channels = 13824kbps that makes the compression ratio 13824/1508 = 9:1 dvd-a has 2:1 compression ratio, but that's lossless. to make a fair comparison, assume dts also done some lossless compression in the process, at worst, with dvd-a's 2:1 ratio. now dts vs. dvd-a is 4.5:1. i do believe that some clever guy can do excellent 4.5:1 lossy compression. i did some check some time ago about having a good music source. i found dts, dd-ac3, dvd-a, hdcd, xrcd, and sacd. my best bet is hdcd. for other source, i have to wait for you guys, the us market, to decide on a format. if european agree at about the same time, hopefully, i could have whatever it'll be, here not so long after. so that's, what, 2 years for you and 3 years for me from now? ------------------ imel

quote: Originally posted by boa12: thanks imel. but my sony dvd-video player displays 4608kbps when i play this pcm 96/24 disk w/ the digital connection. seems to be off a decimal here. what? cmiiw, you have a 96/24 stereo dvd-a disc, a dvd-a player, and a dvd video player (the sony), right? if that's the case, and you're playing through a digital connection from the dvd-a player to the sony, then it'd make sense: - 2304kbps is the bit rate the dvd-a getting, which is the compressed data bit rate. - dvd-video player can't _decompress_ mlp data, so it only receives pcm data which is uncompressed mlp from the dvd-a player. that makes twice as much data received by dvd-video player, of uncompressed mlp, that's 4608kbps (or 562KBps, like i said). ------------------ imel

quote: Originally posted by boa12: so if i'm running at a sampling rate of 96k w/ 24bit material, does dvd-audio at 96/24 run at still higher bit rates (iow, is it less lossy?), or does it sound more dynamic because of thing(s) other than higher bit rates (given the same quality dacs)? maybe i don't understand english that well, but i can answer the above par. but first, mlp isn't less lossy, it's lossless, no loss whatsoever. if you dig more on the net, you'll find that the mlp has 1:2 compression ratio. with that information we could find the bit rate: (for 96/24 stereo) 96khz * 24bits * 2channel / 2 = 2304kbps just to confuse you more, computer engineers would rather say it 281KBps, at least i would. now compare that to cdda's 172KBps, not a big leap huh? it's bigger, the comparation should count for the compression, which makes it 562KBps vs. 172KBps. so dvd-a should sound 3.27 times better than cdda, that is if you're a mathematician or an engineer. of course, dvd-a can go much higher than that. does it sound better, you'll be the judge. but what i really want is a company like klipsch would put up a laser in front of a khorn diapraghm and measure its movement. if it move differently for different recording quality, than it'll sure sound differently. ------------------ imel

quote: Originally posted by boa12: maybe this can help - someone on another said that dts runs at higher bit rates because it's less efficient. what are the variable in this "efficiency" formula? algorithm. but don't confuse efficiency with lossiness. dts is more lossless from higher bit rates and efficiency. ------------------ imel

<trooper> Higher bit rates, such as 75kbps, just means more information/less data compression. DTS is a higher bit rate because it uses less compression (vs. DD). CDs are limited to a theoretical 22.05kHz and standard DD/DTS DVDs are limited to 24kHz. </trooper> lets remove doubts and confusions. first paragraph is about bit rate and the second is about max freq. best is just to give cdda numbers: bit rate: 16-bit * 44k sample rate * 2 channel = 1411200bps or 1411.2kbps or 172 KBps 172KBps is the base factor for cdrom drive, so a 2x cd drive has 344KBps max transfer rate. from nyquist's theorem the highest freq available from 44khz signal rate is 22.05kHz. 16-bit/24-bit differs in a lot like in amount of color showed on a computer monitor. more bits, more colors. i don't know why they're not doing hdcd for computer monitors, that way maybe we could see 20-bit colors with 16-bit memory use, no? the bits should form a sound wave form, like a sound wave. i'm not sure, but at least in .au signed format, the bytes 0 1 0 -1 0 1 0 in 44khz should make a 11khz tone with the lowest sound level. 1 -1 1 -1 1 should make a 22khz tone. to make a 11khz tone for one second, write 010-1 11000 times and feed them to a dac. i've never seen direct stream digital (dsd), sony claims it has different encoding. ------------------ imel