|
The Outlaw I linked has a built in DAC and can connect to your PC via USB. Just get the Outlaw and some active speakers.KozmoNaut posted:There a only really one drawback to balanced XLR cables, and that's cost. The connectors are more expensive, the additional electronics to handle the balanced signals add cost, and the cables require an additional conductor. I'm not going to disagree, because I know that balanced cables reduce interference. But in a residential application, you're going to be extremely unlikely to hear the difference in a DBX unless you're running the wires over a flourescent light ballast, or something. KillHour fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Jan 3, 2015 |
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
KillHour posted:The Outlaw I linked has a built in DAC and can connect to your PC via USB. Just get the Outlaw and some active speakers. I couldn't see it from the specs, but if it does that's awesome. quote:I'm not going to disagree, because I know that balanced cables reduce interference. But in a residential application, you're going to be extremely unlikely to hear the difference in a DBX unless you're running the wires over a flourescent light ballast, or something. Which is exactly why I wrote "Is there an audible difference outside of situations with rather long cable runs and/or significant amounts of electronic noise in the environment? No, absolutely not." But it is the technically superior choice. The higher quality of even cheap XLR connectors alone is enough to make the RCA connector look completely ridiculous in any comparison, and they lock, which is very nice. And since I'm connecting two devices where one has both XLR and RCA connections and the other has XLR and nothing else, it would be ridiculous to use anything other than XLR. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jan 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:I couldn't see it from the specs, but if it does that's awesome. I agree that in your case, XLR is the only choice (I use them in my office setup for the same reason). It's not a particularly convenient cable for home use, though. The connector is just too big - equipment would need to be much larger if XLR was the standard. KillHour fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Jan 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I agree that in your case, XLR is the only choice (I use them in my office setup for the same reason). It's not a particularly convenient cable for home use, though. The connector is just too big - equipment would need to be much larger if XLR was the standard. I say bring on the bigger equipment. Every man knows that the size of your home entertainment system is directly proportional to your penis size. I would even begrudgingly accept TRS connectors as a replacement for RCA instead, because even though it's a lovely connector, it's still better than RCA. It's physically smaller in width if you use unbalanced stereo plugs and equal in width for balanced plugs, depth isn't really an issue for most home equipment. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Jan 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I agree that in your case, XLR is the only choice (I use them in my office setup for the same reason). It's not a particularly convenient cable for home use, though. The connector is just too big - equipment would need to be much larger if XLR was the standard. If space is an issue then a TRS 1/4" jack is only marginally larger than an RCA in diameter and maintains balanced connections. I don't really see any reason for unbalanced connections to be used in home audio at all. The margins are clearly large enough to add a fraction of a penny's worth of components.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Okay, so I have a weird and almost certainly terrible jury-rigged computer audio setup - computer audio going through USB to an old and on the fritz fiio E7, which has a 3.5mm to rca cable connecting it to a Sony STR-DE935 receiver from the late 90's, which is itself hooked up to a pair of Micca MB42x speakers. The receiver has S/PDIF inputs (but not my computer). What sort of budget usb DAC/soundcard should I get to use them? I'd like to be able to contemplate the possibility of surround sound on my computer without getting a headache. Chelb fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Jan 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
It's very likely that your motherboard has SPDIF output available, even if there's no connector on the back. A lot of boards just have the bare header and you'll need to connect it to a backplate with a plug if you want to use it. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Jan 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
I was afraid of that. Ah well, something to save up for I guess. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Sorry, I was actually wrong about surround on SPDIF. It will do compressed surround formats such as Dolby Digital and DTS, but it will not do lossless surround formats like Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD. So I would probably check your motherboard for an SPDIF header. If there is one, an SPDIF backplate is less than $10 and you can go digital directly from your PC to your receiver and get surround sound 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:I would even begrudgingly accept TRS connectors as a replacement for RCA instead, because even though it's a lovely connector, it's still better than RCA. It's physically smaller in width if you use unbalanced stereo plugs and equal in width for balanced plugs, depth isn't really an issue for most home equipment. TRS is flimsy as poo poo compared to RCA though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
SperginMcBadposter posted:TRS is flimsy as poo poo compared to RCA though. Only if you're using really super-lovely TRS connectors (especially mini-jack sockets) or stuff that gets built deliberately lovely like every electric guitar ever. All-metal TRS connectors are generally very dependable. It's mostly cheaply-built sockets that cause issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Sorry, I was actually wrong about surround on SPDIF. It will do compressed surround formats such as Dolby Digital and DTS, but it will not do lossless surround formats like Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD. Nope, pretty sure there's no SPDIF on my motherboard. Unless I'm blind. Since I doubt I'd hear any difference between compressed surround formats and lossless ones, that takes me back to my original question. Rollofthedice posted:The receiver has S/PDIF inputs (but not my computer). What sort of budget usb DAC/soundcard should I get to use them? I'd like to be able to contemplate the possibility of surround sound on my computer without getting a headache.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
There should be an SPDIF pin header on your motherboard, according to the specs I can find. You'll need an SPDIF backplate like this to use it: This one is quite inexpensive: http://www.amazon.com/SPDIF-RCA-Plate-Cable-Bracket/dp/B0035J9Z7W The manual for your motherboard should tell you where the pin header is located, and the pinout if it's non-standard. There's even a picture on the Amazon page which shows an MSI pinout
KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Jan 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
ooohhh, I get what you mean now. thanks a bunch!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
The problem with surround over spdif is mainly that most games don't output the compressed formats needed, so you'll only have surround from DVD/BluRay. Some soundcards offer drivers that do live encoding. Search terms for those would either include Dolby Digital Live or DTS Connect/DTS Interactive. Seems to mostly be a couple of Realtek chips and a selection of Creative Labs X-Fi cards. So, unless this is all about watching movies, the bracket doesn't really meet my standard for surround sound without getting a headache. I went through the manual of that board and didn't see a mention of a spdif header anyway, btw. edit: I might be behind the times on all this, so correct me if I'm wrong. edit 2: apparently some cheaper Xonar cards and Diamond Multimedia cards do this too. Flipperwaldt fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Jan 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
With that information in mind, I would probably go for the cheapest available Xonar card with the live surround encoding feature. You won't be using any of the analog features, which is what you usually pay for in the fancier models.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Flipperwaldt posted:The problem with surround over spdif is mainly that most games don't output the compressed formats needed, so you'll only have surround from DVD/BluRay. Some soundcards offer drivers that do live encoding. Search terms for those would either include Dolby Digital Live or DTS Connect/DTS Interactive. Seems to mostly be a couple of Realtek chips and a selection of Creative Labs X-Fi cards. gently caress it! I'll just buy a new receiver with HDMI like normal people do. edit: or xonar card? I guess? I'm confused. All I want is some way to have surround sound, preferably for both games and movies. Chelb fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Jan 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Asus Xonar DSX seems to be the cheapest Xonar card that does DTS Interactive at $66. Note that that is optical spdif, which is hopfully what you need. And it has the 3.5mm-like connector, so you might need to buy the specific optical cable for that. Rollofthedice posted:All I want is some way to have surround sound, preferably for both games and movies. That Xonar card should do it though, on paper. In all my setups, I never went beyond Dolby Pro Logic (which works from a stereo signal) and I never owned a Xonar card, so I can't tell you from experience. Flipperwaldt fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Jan 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
I used a xonar dx before, and came with a small plastic 3.5mm to optical spdif connector you just plugged a normal optical spdif cable into. That's the slightly more expensive 80-90usd card though. It has Dolby Digital Live for 5.1 encoding. If you go xonar then get the Xonar unified drivers. Last I checked asus own drivers for the dx atleast was several years old and not supporting win 64bit at all or win 8.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
The original drivers do support 64bit and Windows 8. I used a Xonar until recently. The unified drivers are the original ones with some assembly fuckery and INF tweaks. Asus initially advertised the Xonar series by claiming not to clone Creative's terrible driver situation. Yet look where we are. Things are switched now, Creative's competent and Asus is not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Creative's competent
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Slightly related, is it me or does this article manage to get compression (in terms of going from studio/WAV to MP3) confused with applying compression on an actual channel of audio, thus relating in a bit of audiophile style nonsense in the middle... http://mic.com/articles/104250/what-the-internet-has-done-to-your-love-of-music . Just seems pretty confused, although there's definitely some truth to what probably caused the article - a mixture between insanely large local or streaming music libraries meaning you're skipping between songs/albums without having to physically take a record off a turntable means it's more common to 'background' music. Although Spotify and similar seem to be more of an alternative to listening to the radio at work, in the car etc. Then there's some truth in the loudness wars and restricting dynamic range... but it's all just a bit of a mess really. No comments on that blog, sadly (for the first time ever really!)
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:The original drivers do support 64bit and Windows 8. I used a Xonar until recently. The unified drivers are the original ones with some assembly fuckery and INF tweaks. Asus initially advertised the Xonar series by claiming not to clone Creative's terrible driver situation. Yet look where we are. Things are switched now, Creative's competent and Asus is not. Woah. If I can have good drivers for my X-Fi in Windows 8 64 bit, I might have to stick it back in my computer (probably won't or can't).
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Not sure how it applies to the EMUx0Kx chipsets, since their new cards have something new.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Slightly related, is it me or does this article manage to get compression (in terms of going from studio/WAV to MP3) confused with applying compression on an actual channel of audio, thus relating in a bit of audiophile style nonsense in the middle... http://mic.com/articles/104250/what-the-internet-has-done-to-your-love-of-music . Just seems pretty confused, although there's definitely some truth to what probably caused the article - a mixture between insanely large local or streaming music libraries meaning you're skipping between songs/albums without having to physically take a record off a turntable means it's more common to 'background' music. Although Spotify and similar seem to be more of an alternative to listening to the radio at work, in the car etc. Then there's some truth in the loudness wars and restricting dynamic range... but it's all just a bit of a mess really. No comments on that blog, sadly (for the first time ever really!) Christ, that article is a complete mess. It's rare you see that much unwitting naivety outside of a first year pol-sci student enthusiastically telling anyone he meets how to fix things. He reads Not making it up. And yes, he's confusing dynamic range compression with compressed audio formats. Khablam fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Not to mention that even if that Yahoo Answer was correct, CD audio is 1411 kbps and thus superior to vinyl 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
Khablam posted:And yes, he's confusing dynamic range compression with compressed audio formats. What grates most is the title of the article. Nothing he writes or quotes or refers to implies that scientist have found there's only one way to listen to music. Surely the implication of saying listening to streaming is less emotionally captivating is that there are at least two different ways of listening to music. That the streaming way is (morally) worse is just an idea that the author wants to convince us of, not something the scientists have said. He also quotes the Spotify data saying streamers skip around 50% of the songs that come up to support his conclusion that people have gotten short attention spans, while the data suggests people skip more when they're paying more attention to the music. Also, we don't have skipping data of other media than streaming services, so it's impossible to say all the skipping is part of a bad evolution of people not wanting to pay attention. For all we know, Spotify's algorithms are just pretty bad at serving us what we want to hear and probably people mostly don't bother skipping around on vinyl because it's such a hassle, not because the music is so much more engaging to them. I mean, I don't know, but it's all at least equally plausible. The article is full of poo poo like that. Start with an emotional conclusion, go in search of an out of context quote that, well, in some circumstances, might support that conclusion, but really objectively doesn't one way or the other or effectively contradicts it. Tie together with unrelated stuff that fits with your idea that everything was better in the good old days. Slap a clickbaity title on it that is factually wrong. Bad, bad, bad writing, more than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 11:44
|
|
|
Flipperwaldt posted:I'm not getting that. Sure, he quotes someone who says people sometimes try to compensate for the supposed blandness "inherent" in mp3 compression with dynamics compression to try to captivate the listener and then jumps back and forth between the two types. But he never asserts or strongly implies both are one and the same, as far as I can see. Doesn't make clear that they are different things either, of course. I think he is conflating the two! quote:Many music professionals have also discussed this lack of connection, and they blame the dwindling quality of audio files for it. When record companies digitally convert recorded music, which consumes a ton of data in its original form, they turn it into the much smaller MP3 format. The loudness war stuff is about dynamic range compression, which is intentionally making things consistently loud and powerful, and happens at the mixing and mastering stages. It ain't got gently caress all to do with making MP3s, and it sure as hell isn't a side effect of 'this compressing process'
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Sadly, the author of that article probably hasn't given this a tenth of the thought/knowledge people have spent on it this page alone, he just wanted to sit in his rocking chair and rant at "dem kids can't pay attention and they compressionin' mah music all bad!!", and he probably even got paid for it. Is mic.com some crappy clickbait garbage dump? Cause that article/title sure indicates it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
I hadn't heard of the site until my friend linked it on Facebook, and then my brain started doing backflips while trying to read it. You guys have dug into it way more than I did because once things stop making sense, I struggle to keep reading - I get the same problem with TV Tropers, Bitcoin artists and sovereign citizens. It's like a self protect system to stop me accidentally making myself dumber. Currently embroiled in a discussion that's remained pretty civil on Facebook when a friend shared an article (knowing it would cause many comments) where the articles main tagline is Vinyl's Great, But It's Not Better than CDs. Click/argue bait for sure, but I think it's got a point - CDs are great quality, but they've been left behind in my opinion because MP3 is essentially the same thing but without taking up physical space. Cassettes and vinyl have nostalgia and people like the sound from their turntable and that's great. A chap came in and said straightforwardly that 'MP3s sound like poo poo' and that CD is far better. I've shown him a 1/4096 sample zoom in Ableton of a CD he claims is far better sounding than a 256kbit MP3 rip he has, in my example I used the FLAC and the V0 and it's really, really goddamned hard to see the difference and event though I don't have the environment to properly ABX test I cannot hear any difference whatsoever between the two. I'm trying to get him to send me the MP3 he says is so shocking, and is claiming it's not bias or anything... but there has to be *something*. I doubt his hearing is so good that a good MP3 encode sounds 'poo poo' compared. It's not 1996, we're not using Fraunhofer II to encode to 112kbit and I think people just like believing something that isn't true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Currently embroiled in a discussion that's remained pretty civil on Facebook when a friend shared an article (knowing it would cause many comments) where the articles main tagline is Vinyl's Great, But It's Not Better than CDs. Click/argue bait for sure, but I think it's got a point - CDs are great quality, but they've been left behind in my opinion because MP3 is essentially the same thing but without taking up physical space. Cassettes and vinyl have nostalgia and people like the sound from their turntable and that's great. But having physical form is one of the things CDs have over MP3s and the like. People like to own an object, they like their music to have a tangible form with artwork, something that exists and can be part of a ritual, even if it just involves putting a disc into the player. It's all part of the appeal of vinyl and cassette - if people just wanted the sound of those they could record and encode them digitally too, job done. But sometimes people like to faff around and have a collection of things they can interact with
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:I think he is conflating the two! Reading it like that, "this compressing process" refers to "the much smaller MP3 format" and nothing else. As in: he thinks mp3 compression strips away distinctiveness (because omg so much of the data is dropped and filled back in by non-creative computers!!!1!). And he thinks people foolishly try to use dynamics compression to compensate and re-attract all the potential listener attention that was lost during the mp3 conversion. Could go either way, really. The writer is big enough of an idiot anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Flipperwaldt posted:He also quotes the Spotify data saying streamers skip around 50% of the songs that come up to support his conclusion that people have gotten short attention spans, Put that mechanism in a USB controller and you'd make a mint.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:But having physical form is one of the things CDs have over MP3s and the like. People like to own an object, they like their music to have a tangible form with artwork, something that exists and can be part of a ritual, even if it just involves putting a disc into the player. It's all part of the appeal of vinyl and cassette - if people just wanted the sound of those they could record and encode them digitally too, job done. But sometimes people like to faff around and have a collection of things they can interact with Yeah I didn't want to write a wall of text, but I completely agree - at the moment CDs seem to have a 'mass produced and common' feel to them, there's nothing special and vinyl seems to be the 'I want to own an actual product' replacement. Whether it's the large artwork, the belief of better sound quality (which is all depending on release), the nostalgia, the joy of putting something on a platter and hearing the pops and clicks before the song starts... that's where I am anyway. Vinyl collection of my favourite records (plus a few hundred that most people would think are garbage that I keep separate), and MP3s of everything new I want to listen to and try out first. CDs may go through a similar revival at some point in the next 10 years. Not for me though personally I don't think, in the same way people like VHS but I never really want to touch one ever again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
^^^ It's a shame digipaks didn't really take off, those were always my favourite. Less 'here's a generic plastic case' and more of a cool tactile thing, like vinyl sleevesFlipperwaldt posted:I'm totally reading "The volume is then jacked up" as "People then choose to jack up the volume". Not as "Part of the algorithm is jacking the volume up". Nah he literally goes from 'compressing to MP3 strips data and "distinctiveness"' to saying it's compensated for by brick wall limiting everything a la the loudness war (with infographic references!), which you can't do just by turning up your volume knob on the end product. He just has no idea what he's talking about, he's plucking stuff he's heard about from the air, and arranging it into some assbackwards narrative of cause and effect baka kaba fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
God I got to stop discussing this, because it doesn't matter one bit. But I'm not implying the people jacking the volume up would necessarily be the end users with their volume knob, nor that it would be applied after the mp3 compression. It would be the producers of music that have come to learn that their past music was stripped of its distinctiveness by mp3 compression and start to pro-actively dynamically squeeze the hell out of their new music. The "then" then means "this (loudness war) also has started to happen since the introduction of the mp3 file format, as a consequence of what it (mp3 compression) does to music". This, as a reading of what he meant, makes sense to me. But really, never mind, because it could and might as well be the other thing and assbackwards narrative of cause and effect definitely applies to all the rest of the article anyway. vvvv True. Flipperwaldt fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Well I mean the loudness race has been going on for decades, long before MP3 or whatever was the primary way of listening to the music being produced, it was more about getting noticed (especially on the radio) and limiting the amount of room networks have to apply their own signature sonic compression (giving everything they play a particular sound). He's just got a tale to tell, that's all!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Flipperwaldt posted:The "then" then means "this (loudness war) also has started to happen since the introduction of the mp3 file format, as a consequence of what it (mp3 compression) does to music". I thin that's a pretty possibility of the argument, however I don't think it's really true. I don't think environment has changed too much where people listen to music - at work, at home, portable (walking, buses etc), it's just the technology available means choice and size of collection plus ease. So from that perspective you don't need to change how the music sounds, because nothings changed there. This is the waveform comparison I showed the guy on Facebook earlier for the discussion we were having. This is taken from Ableton at 4096 samples, so we're talking fractions of a second. The top is FLAC and the bottom is V0 encoded from a CD I believe.  (TIMG because it's about 1,500px wide). There's tiny, tiny differences but that could be down to them not coming from the same exact source (I had to sync them by hand a little bit). But it's enough to say there's no major difference between CD and MP3 when it comes to what actually comes out of the speakers, so there's zero reason for MP3 being more popular now to change how a record is mastered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Stop comparing waveforms or FFTs. It's called psychoacoustics for a reason. The human ear sucks and audio compression exploits this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:I thin that's a pretty possibility of the argument, however I don't think it's really true. Mainly because the loudness war started earlier (and continues today) for other reasons, but also because mp3 compression by definition sucking the life out of music is completely fabricated audiophile lore based on third hand misunderstandings. Also, huh, a correction was made to the article today, admitting just that: quote:Correction: Jan. 9, 2014
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 19:38
|
|