Airport Express/Streaming Audibility Tests

[jcbrum]

They both sound a bit rough to me. A bit like a vinyl original source.

a/a

 

[jcbrum]

Do you want me to give it another go ? - JC

 

[Joe Petrik]

Thanks for that, Rob.

I downloaded the files this morning but didn't have a chance to listen before heading to work. I'll give then a listen tonight on the computer via cans.

By the way, is there an easy way to convert the files to something that can be burned and played in a CD player? I'd like to compare the files on the system, too.

Joe

 

[RobHolt]

Thanks for that, Rob.

I downloaded the files this morning but didn't have a chance to listen before heading to work. I'll give then a listen tonight on the computer via cans.

By the way, is there an easy way to convert the files to something that can be burned and played in a CD player? I'd like to compare the files on the system, too.

Joe

Hi Joe,

iTunes will burn the files to CD, but they are WAV so any burning software will do it.

 

[RobHolt]

Do you want me to give it another go ? - JC

I only want you to comment on the difference, if you hear one, and then the preference if you have one.

 

[sq225917]

To be honest Rob with all that crackling and stuff and the low resolution it's not a good test track at all.

Obscure on not people will run it through Diffmaker/Audacity, as PR seems to have. All you've done in choosing low res material is make the ear work harder to extract the music from the noise.

 

[RobHolt]

To be honest Rob with all that crackling and stuff and the low resolution it's not a good test track at all.

Obscure on not people will run it through Diffmaker/Audacity, as PR seems to have. All you've done in choosing low res material is make the ear work harder to extract the music from the noise.

Running it through some software analysis is neither here nor there - I'm not seeking to show the files as technically identical.

I'm only interested in what people are hearing - and thank you for posting your earlier comment which is exactly what we want.

People always criticise the choice of music/file.
This is a damned sight better technically than most people will be hearing via their turntables, yet that doesn't prevent them from drawing comparisons and commenting.

But so be it - I'll add another sample later. Limited to a minute since people seem to prefer snippets.

 

[RobHolt]

Anyone struggling with the first tracks can try these.

Same process.
A nice funky and wholly digital track with a wide dynamic range.
1 minute snatch:

A - http://www.mediafire.com/file/binveifhuw0gfkn/New A.wav

B - http://www.mediafire.com/file/y9qb4wev2qfqq65/New B.wav

Have fun

 

[Paul Ranson]

as PR seems to have.

I listened to them and then had a look. As I will do with the new pair.

Paul

 

[Paul Ranson]

And of the latter I prefer A. 1 again.

So, what are we listening to? I wouldn't be surprised if New_B had been through a 48k/44k1 type sample rate conversion. And I wouldn't be surprised to be completely wrong...

Paul

 

[jcbrum]

I'll go fro 3B this time, the rim-shots are better.

Bloody awful tune.

JC

 

[RobHolt]

I'll wait for Simon (SQ) and Joe to have a listen and then reveal all.

 

[RobHolt]

And of the latter I prefer A. 1 again.


Paul

Big preference as well as big difference?

 

[Tenson]

I listened to the second two tracks.

I preferred 'New A' than 'New B'.

As such I have to say '2 - slightly different'

Track B most notably seemed to have a rolled off top end. I'd like to put a disclaimer that I'm completely exhausted though, so my hearing isn't up to much.

 

[sq225917]

I prefer New A, by a considerable margin, much more obvious than the previous samples.

 

[Joe Petrik]

I prefer New A to New B, by a comfortable margin.

I often struggle finding appropriate words to describe what I hear, but that's what we're limited to on a forum so here goes.

New A ââ'¬â€ More lively, dynamic and interesting; sounds like the band is revved.

New B ââ'¬â€ A bit squashed and wooden; sounds like the band wants the gig to end so they can go home to watch Buffy or something; their timing is off.

Stay tuned... I'm listening to Lush A and B next.

Joe

 

[Joe Petrik]

P.S. On Rob's scale ââ'¬â€

1 - the files sound very different
2 - the files sound slightly different
3 - the files sound just perceptibly different
4 - the files sound the same (or you believe they are the same)

ââ'¬â€ I rank the difference between New A and New B as 1.5, so not a night and day improvement, but definitely noticeable and my preference for New A consistently repeatable.

Joe

 

[Joe Petrik]

This is much harder with Lush, but again I prefer A to B for the same reasons I preferred A to B on the New track.

On the Rob scale I rank the difference as 2.5, and I characterize it as a dynamic shading/timing difference, with A being more lively and cohesive.

Joe

 

[Joe Petrik]

So, who won the golden ears prize?

Joe

 

[jcbrum]

Joe, did you think 'New' was technically better than 'Lush' ??

Musically, (not part of the assessment), I much preferred Lush and very much disliked 'New'.

I wonder how much this subconsciously affects one's decisions ??

JC