mad-user September 2001

mad-user@lists.mars.org

16 participants
16 discussions

24bit Output in WinXP on a MX300
by Geoff 17 Jan '02

17 Jan '02

Has anybody gotten this combo to work? I ask because 24bit output works for MX300 (and I assume all Aureal cards), under WinME. Any help would be great Thanks, Geoff

5 8

one more time
by John van Ommen 26 Sep '01

26 Sep '01

>John van Ommen wrote: > >> >> drive, whereas I listen to MP3 CDs on my laptop almost exclusively. And of >> >> course, a hard drive would have *much* lower jitter than a CD-ROM, because >> >> it's a much more stable mechanism. >> >> >> > >> >Ummmm, ever heard of a thing called a "buffer" .... >> Some output devices are better than others. You may have a buffer, but how >> well does it work? You're not seriously saying you can't hear the >> difference between a low-jitter, well engineered CD player and a $80 Wal >> Mart special? My Harmon Kardon only cost $105 but it clearly sounds better >> than your average CD player. But it doesn't sound as good as my Echo MIA. >> According to the documentation on the modest ($200) Monarchy Audio Digital >> Interface Processor, jitter is reduced by about 90%. And believe me, you >> can hear a difference immediately. One thing that is very interesting about >> this change is that it's not very dependent on your speakers. I've hooked >> up the D.I.P. to Cambridge Audio's $80 set of multimedia speakers and heard >> a notable difference (they have a digital input.) Naturally, the difference >> is even more pronounced on my 'real' speakers. >> > >Yes. But why are you claiming that all CD-ROMs have cheap and nasty buffers, >and that all hard disks have top of the line buffers? The purpose of the buffer is to >remove the instability in the mechanical system, and then the timing of the data >is *only* dependant on the read clock to the buffer itself. >I agree, I can hear the difference between a cheap & expensive player, but it >is not due to jitter. There are many more components after the buffer that are >much easier to stuff up. Actually, it's not that hard drives have a better buffer (thought it's a given they have a MUCH larger buffer.) It's that the hard drive mechanism itself is waaaay more stable, and therefore much less likely to require error correction. And therefore, the data being streamed to the buffer is more stable. >> >> >> Bottom line is that your MAD setup may sound good now, but you'd be amazed >> >> how much better it CAN sound. >> > >> >If you're into maximum quality, why are you even bothering with lossy >> >compression? >> > >> The same reason EVERYONE is into MP3s. You can download them for free off >> the internet!? doh! > >Complete with patch and parrot :) >I have personally found mp3's off the net to be of low quality, usually poorly ripped, >and seldom well encoded, even at a decent bit rate! Very dissapointed with net mp3s. >You only get what you pay for! > I get most of my MP3s off of Usenet, and I find that the ppl who are willing to go to the trouble of posting on Usenet actually take a lot of pride in their RIPs. They even boast about what they used to rip & encode. Not to mention some also rip off of vinyl, which is a lot of work. I used to rip my own MP3s, but after 2-3 years of ripping, I'm finished nearly all of my CDs. >> >> I'm being sincere when I say a good MP3 rig can give CDs a run for their >> money. I'll admit they don't have as much resolution, generally. And CDs >> have more 'air' in the soundstage, due to their superior channel seperation. >> But a lot of the irritating aspects of CD playback such as the timing errors >> and the crummy treble is NOT present in a MP3 that's being played off a hard >> drive on a good (24/96) soundcard. Getting the timing right really makes >> the music 'swing', especially if you're into rhythmically intense music, >> like rock & roll, electronica, or hip-hop. > >A *good* mp3 (rare from the 'net) sounds very good. But even with my bunged >out ears, I can hear the artifacts present in a 160kbps mp3 encoded direct from >a CD. That bitrate is slowly becoming more popular on the 'net, but good >encoding is also required! > >What if you rip a .wav from the CD to the hard disk? Does it sound like the >original... or has the 'jitter' disappeared? > I'd expect that it *would* sound better. But I don't want to offer a opinion until I do a A/B comparison. Generally I play CDs on my CD player, and the MP3s on the PC. Same amp & speakers. I'll copy a wav to HD and see if it sounds better than the original CD, that would be educational. >> >> >PS: CD's are mastered for price, not quality. Check out how many newer CD's have >> >*serious* clipping. All the tubes and monster cables you like won't make your >> >end of the chain fix those ruined links at the start (screw-ups - deliberate or >> >otherwise - during mastering). >> I don't agree that clipping ruins a mix. I've clipped mixes on *purpose*, >> because it can produce a lot of interesting effects. I listen to mostly >> electronic music, so I'm pretty comfortable with outrageous mixing. > >Yes! But mixing for effects is different than mixing for a 'minimum' distortion >master. If the original is not clipped, you can always add clipping later to your >hearts content... but not the other way around :)

1 0

RE: [mad-user] Howdy
by Andrew Burgess 26 Sep '01

26 Sep '01

On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, John van Ommen wrote: > I'm glad to hear that MAD sounds good on your PC. You stated that you were > closer to audio nirvana because you had bypassed the DACs in your SB Live. > While improving DACs is certainly a good thing, note that this doesn't > eliminate what is potentially the biggest problem with digital audio, > jitter. > > A definition of jitter: > http://www.feurio.com/English/faq/faq_vocable_jitter.shtml This is jitter during ripping. Ripping software does mutliple reads of the same data area until it finds its place again to eliminate it. See e.g. the cdparanoia docs. > I have a box that re-clocks the digital signal, a Monarchy Audio Digital > Interface Processor. This seems to restore the pace to music, and also > smooths out the treble. I used to use it with my desktop PC, but found that > their was a greater improvement when I hooked it up to my laptop. This is > primarily because my computer's audio colletions is mostly on my 60gig hard > drive, whereas I listen to MP3 CDs on my laptop almost exclusively. And of > course, a hard drive would have *much* lower jitter than a CD-ROM, because > it's a much more stable mechanism. This is different. The mass storage device of an mp3 file is irrelevent as long as it (and the system) is fast enough to keep the sound card fed (or you get dropouts, BIG gaps of silence). The clocking of the DACs occurs on the soundcard and is dependent on the stability of the soundcard's crystal oscillator. As for what you hear, if you are taking digital output from your laptop and reclocking then you are bypassing the laptops DACs completely. You may be hearing low quality DACs or related D/A hardware on the laptop.

1 0

Howdy
by Kevin Cody Jr 26 Sep '01

26 Sep '01

Mad + mpg321 just became my mp3 playback tool of choice based on output quality alone. FYI, my setup is a dual-boot RH7.1/Win98, with an SB Live and the optical i/o daughtercard, feeding into a JVC RX-1028V A/V deck. Under Linux that optical S/PDIF output seems to be a nearly-transparent passthrough, meaning it isn't mixed. I'm not sure if it's the card or ALSA doing the sample rate corrections. Probably the card. This has yielded what I believe is the cleanest possible pathway for digital audio, because it's using the much higher quality DA's in the JVC stereo unit. I believe that for a digital recording, the only point of significant signal loss is the MP3 encoding and decoding. Thanks to MAD, the vast majority of that is now the encoder. Which leads me to the reason for posting: this implies that much of the perceived fidelity loss of MP3's involves flaws in soundcard DA's getting tickled by something in the MP3 algorithms. I'm available for whatever testing anyone can come up with. Keep up the good work! - Kevin Cody Jr

2 2

RE: [mad-user] Howdy
by John van Ommen 26 Sep '01

26 Sep '01

>> drive, whereas I listen to MP3 CDs on my laptop almost exclusively. And of >> course, a hard drive would have *much* lower jitter than a CD-ROM, because >> it's a much more stable mechanism. >> > >Ummmm, ever heard of a thing called a "buffer" .... Some output devices are better than others. You may have a buffer, but how well does it work? You're not seriously saying you can't hear the difference between a low-jitter, well engineered CD player and a $80 Wal Mart special? My Harmon Kardon only cost $105 but it clearly sounds better than your average CD player. But it doesn't sound as good as my Echo MIA. According to the documentation on the modest ($200) Monarchy Audio Digital Interface Processor, jitter is reduced by about 90%. And believe me, you can hear a difference immediately. One thing that is very interesting about this change is that it's not very dependent on your speakers. I've hooked up the D.I.P. to Cambridge Audio's $80 set of multimedia speakers and heard a notable difference (they have a digital input.) Naturally, the difference is even more pronounced on my 'real' speakers. >> Bottom line is that your MAD setup may sound good now, but you'd be amazed >> how much better it CAN sound. > >If you're into maximum quality, why are you even bothering with lossy >compression? > The same reason EVERYONE is into MP3s. You can download them for free off the internet!? doh! I'm being sincere when I say a good MP3 rig can give CDs a run for their money. I'll admit they don't have as much resolution, generally. And CDs have more 'air' in the soundstage, due to their superior channel seperation. But a lot of the irritating aspects of CD playback such as the timing errors and the crummy treble is NOT present in a MP3 that's being played off a hard drive on a good (24/96) soundcard. Getting the timing right really makes the music 'swing', especially if you're into rhythmically intense music, like rock & roll, electronica, or hip-hop. >PS: CD's are mastered for price, not quality. Check out how many newer CD's have > >*serious* clipping. All the tubes and monster cables you like won't make your >end of >the chain fix those ruined links at the start (screw-ups - deliberate or >otherwise - >during mastering). I don't agree that clipping ruins a mix. I've clipped mixes on *purpose*, because it can produce a lot of interesting effects. I listen to mostly electronic music, so I'm pretty comfortable with outrageous mixing. Owen

1 0

RE: [mad-user] Howdy
by John van Ommen 26 Sep '01

26 Sep '01

RE: [mad-user] Howdywww.soundchaser.com I may have paid $200, I can't remember. Last weekend I noticed that CompUSA is stocking a 24/96 manufactured by Creative. It was well under $100, but I have no idea if it's a quality item. The MIA is killer. Also, I am definitely *not* one of those wackos who thinks he can hear a difference between different kinds of speaker cable and interconnect. But the MIA has these giant 1/4" inch connectors that are absolutely beefy, and I definitely observed a noticeable improvement in sound quality when I swapped out the interconnects between my MIA and my amp. This is the first time I've ever noticed an improvement in sound based on such a small change. BTW, I didn't buy the new interconnects because I was trying to 'tweak' my system. I actually bought them because the interconnects I was using with the MIA originally were grafted together, as it's hard to find a 1/4" to RCA cable. I found these at Guitar Center, they're very nice. -----Original Message----- From: Yura Kloubakov [mailto:yura@opmr.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 3:00 PM To: John van Ommen Subject: RE: [mad-user] Howdy Hi John, I wonder where did you get Echo Mia for $150 from. The best price I was able to find is $190 at "The Midi-Store". Thanks, Yura. -----Original Message----- From: mad-user-admin(a)lists.mars.org [mailto:mad-user-admin@lists.mars.org]On Behalf Of John van Ommen Sent: September 25, 2001 16:56 To: Kevin Cody Jr Cc: mad-user(a)lists.mars.org Subject: RE: [mad-user] Howdy I'm glad to hear that MAD sounds good on your PC. You stated that you were closer to audio nirvana because you had bypassed the DACs in your SB Live. While improving DACs is certainly a good thing, note that this doesn't eliminate what is potentially the biggest problem with digital audio, jitter. A definition of jitter: http://www.feurio.com/English/faq/faq_vocable_jitter.shtml I have a box that re-clocks the digital signal, a Monarchy Audio Digital Interface Processor. This seems to restore the pace to music, and also smooths out the treble. I used to use it with my desktop PC, but found that their was a greater improvement when I hooked it up to my laptop. This is primarily because my computer's audio colletions is mostly on my 60gig hard drive, whereas I listen to MP3 CDs on my laptop almost exclusively. And of course, a hard drive would have *much* lower jitter than a CD-ROM, because it's a much more stable mechanism. One of the big problems with the SB Live is that it outputs a 16bit, 48khz signal. So it's doing some really weird resampling in real time, even with 44.1khz audio. I used to use a SB Live, but I found that a cheap $40 Maxi Sound Fortissimo sounded better when using the SPDIF output. The Fortissimo lasted about a year, but I replaced it four months ago with a Echo Mia, which has 24/96 output. For $150, the Echo Mia sounds stellar. Even without a outboard DAC or any kind of re-clocking or upsampling, it sounds excellent. In some respects, I find that MP3s played on the 24bit Echo Mia actually sound superior to CDs played on my Harmon Kardon CD player. Must have something to do with the low jitter and the exceptional DACs in the MIA. Amplification is tubes. Bottom line is that your MAD setup may sound good now, but you'd be amazed how much better it CAN sound. John P.S. If I can find a few minutes, I'm going to try upsampling a CD to 24/96 bit wavs using Cool Edit 2000, compress the wavs, then play the 24/96 MP3s through the MIA. That should really give my CDs a run for their money. Another thought is to do something similar with the audio track of a DVD. -----Original Message----- From: mad-user-admin(a)lists.mars.org [mailto:mad-user-admin@lists.mars.org]On Behalf Of Kevin Cody Jr Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 1:02 PM To: mad-user(a)lists.mars.org Subject: [mad-user] Howdy Mad + mpg321 just became my mp3 playback tool of choice based on output quality alone. FYI, my setup is a dual-boot RH7.1/Win98, with an SB Live and the optical i/o daughtercard, feeding into a JVC RX-1028V A/V deck. Under Linux that optical S/PDIF output seems to be a nearly-transparent passthrough, meaning it isn't mixed. I'm not sure if it's the card or ALSA doing the sample rate corrections. Probably the card. This has yielded what I believe is the cleanest possible pathway for digital audio, because it's using the much higher quality DA's in the JVC stereo unit. I believe that for a digital recording, the only point of significant signal loss is the MP3 encoding and decoding. Thanks to MAD, the vast majority of that is now the encoder. Which leads me to the reason for posting: this implies that much of the perceived fidelity loss of MP3's involves flaws in soundcard DA's getting tickled by something in the MP3 algorithms. I'm available for whatever testing anyone can come up with. Keep up the good work! - Kevin Cody Jr

2 1

MAD plug-in for Winamp 0.13.1b-pre1
by Rob Leslie 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

Here is a new pre-release version of the MAD plug-in for Winamp: http://www.mars.org/home/rob/proj/mpeg/mad-plugin/in_mad-0.13.1b-pre1.zip This pre-release has two significant changes, one of which affects sound quality. Note well: THIS VERSION OF THE PLUG-IN PRODUCES DIFFERENT SOUNDING OUTPUT THAN PREVIOUS VERSIONS. This pre-release uses a new, experimental, dithering algorithm to address the dithering deficiencies of previous versions. It may (hopefully) sound better, or it may not. Please listen to it carefully and post your feedback, positive or negative. The other change is a new "Streaming" checkbox in the configuration, to enable or disable streaming support. If you prefer to use another plug-in with better streaming support (http/ftp), you can uncheck this while still leaving the MAD plug-in enabled for normal files. Cheers, -- Rob Leslie rob(a)mars.org

2 4

24 bit output in Win2K/XP....Success at last.....:))
by Hitesh Patel 22 Sep '01

22 Sep '01

Hello all, After numerous attempts at trying to get the Mad plugin to work at 24 bit resolution in Win2K with my Audiophile 2496, I am happy to report that it works perfectly due to the "Wrapper" that Ian Scott was kind enough to point me to. The only issues are: 1. The "wrapped" device name does not show up in Winamp. Actually it does, as a blank entry. Simply select the blank entry. The horrible static/buzz sound that all but drowned out the music was caused by the DSP plugin I was using. Once I disabled this, it worked fine. A real Duh,,,,.... Thanks again to Ian Scott, and to Rob Leslie. Hitesh Patel

3 3

Bug in v0.13.1a?
by Ross Tregaskis 15 Sep '01

15 Sep '01

Check this one out. I'm using Winamp v2.76: 1) Install 0.13.1a, and switch from Nullsoft to this (by removing the MP3;MP2;MP1 list in it). 2) Do an ADD FILE. Note that MP3s don't come up under "supported types", and you have to scroll down the "Files of type:" box to locate them. 3) Disable 0.13.1a and switch back to Nullsoft. Do an ADD FILE, and the MP3s appear. 4) Remove MP3 from the Nullsoft decoder only, and enable MAD. Guess what: not under supported types. It appears that SUPPORTED FILES works with the Nullsoft decoder on this account; and that MAD doesn't work with it properly. It's worked OK with previous MAD versions, however. Hope a workaround can be found (or whatever I'm doing wrong, of course), -- Ross Tregaskis / <r.treg(a)spamhunter.co.uk>

1 0

Dropouts when trying to stream audio still present
by George Pantazopoulos 15 Sep '01

15 Sep '01

Hey, Rob Glad to see a new version of MAD is here! However, I'm still having the same problem when trying to stream 128k mp3's off of mp3.com. a 1/2 to 1 second dropout occurs for every 15-20 seconds of playing time. I'm on a cable modem and this does not happen when I use the default decoder. Any ideas? Thanks, George Pantazopoulos

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

mad-user September 2001