tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post7500758662735436759..comments2023-05-05T12:22:25.731+01:00Comments on The Music For Piano: Test / What's the best sound?Flyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03387103474365100600noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-3627225901289103282012-04-12T17:30:03.619+01:002012-04-12T17:30:03.619+01:00So, best 1 and 4 louder - then 2 and last 3.
1 is ...So, best 1 and 4 louder - then 2 and last 3.<br />1 is best with loudspeaker (Chario bass reflex and Primaluna 2 amp) and 4 is best with headphones. Excuse but this is my simple (and ignorant) opinion. Not tested, not analyzed. Only simple ear. Interesting job. Ale55Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-59445259374847935782012-04-10T15:47:17.652+01:002012-04-10T15:47:17.652+01:00Hearing with Beyer Dynamics Headphones my preferen...Hearing with Beyer Dynamics Headphones my preferences are:<br /><br />1 is best, then 4 - 2- 3 .<br /><br />Thank you for this interesting test and, of course, for all your offers.Dobermannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214724761523340070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-674741202451497552012-04-10T14:22:35.677+01:002012-04-10T14:22:35.677+01:00My headphones are the humble Sony one, don't e...My headphones are the humble Sony one, don't exactly know the type, alas. But prefer the 3. Because it is sounded as if I stand near the piano. More nuance. If i crank up the volume for number 1 and 2, there will be hissing noise in the background. So I don't like that. The number 4 has problem of being too robust. The glitch on 1:04 when he goes up in scale is a bit too pronounced. The number 2 is more enhanced than 1. There is a "buzz" by the deep bass boom on 00:52 on file 2 but not so much on the 1. But i agree that it is a bit anemic. Prefer the 2 better than the 1. Overall, 3 is my preferenceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-76320968122312580702012-04-10T13:32:26.018+01:002012-04-10T13:32:26.018+01:00My choice (from best to worse)
2 - 1 - 4 - 3
Tha...My choice (from best to worse)<br /><br />2 - 1 - 4 - 3<br /><br />Thanks for the whole blog.michelcharleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18154987886114418004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-48696926406902776852012-04-10T12:25:52.052+01:002012-04-10T12:25:52.052+01:00I do not feel the differences over the level.
But ...I do not feel the differences over the level.<br />But for me it's hi quality also the 128 kb/s mp3.beethovennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-70094113628018556242012-04-10T11:38:09.921+01:002012-04-10T11:38:09.921+01:00I undoubtly prefer the file n. 3. Compliments for ...I undoubtly prefer the file n. 3. Compliments for your exciting <br />blog! Mario from ItalyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-47235137098368489472012-04-10T10:20:03.441+01:002012-04-10T10:20:03.441+01:002-4-1-3
IMHO, with ears that are often pleased by...2-4-1-3 <br />IMHO, with ears that are often pleased by Giulini :p<br /><br />Best regards :DTaninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-9244941849897589312012-04-10T05:11:31.157+01:002012-04-10T05:11:31.157+01:00@oxbowox: the files cannot be the same... Even wit...@oxbowox: the files cannot be the same... Even without listening, bit compared 1 & 2 are different, the same with 3 & 4. I use bit compare on Foobar; which is smart enough to find that the same song uncompressed (in WAV) and losslessly compressed (in FLAC) would give the same exact audio bits.Time Flieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02358245032593802509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-23027644906899901432012-04-10T03:51:14.897+01:002012-04-10T03:51:14.897+01:00I could be wrong :) and I don't think I have t...I could be wrong :) and I don't think I have that golden ears. I just love music. But I will try...<br /><br />I prefer no 1<br /><br />Here's what I found: with order of preference (1>4>2>3)<br />1- has better texture and layering than 2. Lots of room to ply with the volume because of softer sound.<br />4- to my ears is similar to no 1 with shifted up amplitude. Since it is louder, it gives a little room for volume play in my amp. And sometimes (maybe the effect of volume pot no linearity or my amp linearity) it sounds mor congested than no 1.<br />2- smoother/rounder at the expense of less texture and layering<br />3- to my ears is similar to no 2 with shifted up amplitude. So the effect of making it louder is even highlight the problem in no 2<br /><br />The weakness softer sounding track (like 1) is that sometimes the noise floor of my amp becoming more obvious because I have to cranck up the volume. But I choose this noise rather than the other weakness. If I have better amp with lower noise floor, then it should not be problematic anymore.<br /><br />Note: I test Dynamic Range on all track, they seem consistently give me DR11. Which mean track 3 and 4 are shifted up (about 6dB; not linearly gain amplified) digitally OR track 1 and 2 are shifted down.<br /><br />Note2: I load the tracks to Audacity. Despite the amplitudes difference 1,2 to 3,4, visually they look very similar.<br /><br />Note3: I use 3 kinds of equipment to test. No 1 is obvious with any of my equipment. But the other tracks lack-ness seems only shown up with better equipment.<br />a. Lenovo T500 notebook -> cheap creative headset directly<br />b. Lenovo T500 notebook -> Tiny Tube DAC (modified with cap removal and OPA2209 buffer before the TPA6120A opamp power chip) -> Grado HF2<br />c. Lenovo T500 notebook -> PCM2706 USB to SPDI/F converter -> Monica II (TDA1545A NOS DAC without active gain stage, just Blackgate coupling cap) -> DIY Tripath TK2050 -> Hifiman/HeadDirect HE5LE<br /><br />Note4: Could you please share this beautiful music as well... :)Time Flieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02358245032593802509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-66040654177724057552012-04-10T03:38:51.660+01:002012-04-10T03:38:51.660+01:00No.1 is the natural beautiful soundNo.1 is the natural beautiful soundAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-49406902366226659872012-04-10T02:32:57.670+01:002012-04-10T02:32:57.670+01:00I prefer track 1 the best.
And after reading all t...I prefer track 1 the best.<br />And after reading all the comments, I went back and listened to all the tracks again, and still I would choose track 1.Froglitanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-60961462682323259392012-04-10T01:00:15.256+01:002012-04-10T01:00:15.256+01:00Hi Fly
Credit to you. I run a second test and make...Hi Fly<br />Credit to you. I run a second test and make focus on dynamics instead of high pitch. So if this is 16bit I*m on my knees!!!<br /><br />oxbowoxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-17265172185551676542012-04-10T00:19:33.691+01:002012-04-10T00:19:33.691+01:00@oxbowox: Interesting that you felt none were los...@oxbowox: Interesting that you felt none were lossless. I didn't check before, but I checked the files with Audiochecker and got the following results:<br /><br />AUDIOCHECKER v2.0 beta (build 457) - by Dester - opdester@freemail.hu<br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />-=== DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE! ===-<br /><br />Path: ...\TEST<br /><br />1 -=- 1.wav -=- CDDA (100%)<br />2 -=- 2.wav -=- CDDA (85%)<br />3 -=- 3.wav -=- CDDA (62%)<br />4 -=- 4.wav -=- CDDA (100%)<br /><br />Summary 86.75% CDDA<br /><br />219706836<br /><br />Audiochecker is sometimes tripped up by solo piano recordings, usually claiming the source lossy when it is actually lossless.Mellowdawghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04904074580232589460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-67354079889978303742012-04-10T00:15:52.490+01:002012-04-10T00:15:52.490+01:00Hummm...(?!?) All the same? It's better to use...Hummm...(?!?) All the same? It's better to use headphones :)<br /><br />Psst! They are WAV files (16-Bit Stereo 44,100Hz)... Not bad :)There are much worse ...Flyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03387103474365100600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-14319925654518449032012-04-09T22:50:42.974+01:002012-04-09T22:50:42.974+01:00Ok
Fired up my ELS 63 No headphone here
No 1 and ...Ok<br />Fired up my ELS 63 No headphone here<br /><br />No 1 and No 2 are the same file<br />No 3 and No 4 are the same file<br /><br />The only difference between the 4 files are gain, so all 4 files are the same.<br /><br />All files are the the same source, but more important... none are lossless my ears tell me. <br /><br />Regards<br />oxbowoxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-47158301956056645952012-04-09T21:36:18.122+01:002012-04-09T21:36:18.122+01:00Iká, a minha preferencia é 2-3-4-1
abraços. obriga...Iká, a minha preferencia é 2-3-4-1<br />abraços. obrigadoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-75824650611578422852012-04-09T21:19:08.447+01:002012-04-09T21:19:08.447+01:00Gostei dos 1 e do 2,pois ha pouco chiado,o som do ...Gostei dos 1 e do 2,pois ha pouco chiado,o som do 3 e do 4 é melhor mas tem chiados.raifhaddadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16582434688787848697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-90962381252221589362012-04-09T19:57:49.074+01:002012-04-09T19:57:49.074+01:002=1>3>42=1>3>4Miguelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00460560305415978145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-76911083590462682622012-04-09T19:44:47.899+01:002012-04-09T19:44:47.899+01:00Hola Fly,
mis impresiones son:
Sampler 1. Game b...Hola Fly,<br /><br />mis impresiones son:<br /><br />Sampler 1. Game bajo, mucho aire.<br /><br />Sampler 2. + game; más presencia y el piano se carga a la derecha, y se aprecia mayor reverberancia de la sala.<br /><br />Sampler 3. game alto, frecuencia alta,mayor presencia frontal, menor respuesta de frecuencia baja, menos dinámico.<br /><br />Sampler 4. game mediano.<br /><br />Me quedo con el 4 - 2 -;kikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09652642265825736215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-70270620945072880202012-04-09T19:03:42.458+01:002012-04-09T19:03:42.458+01:002>3>1>42>3>1>4Lenynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-58215747253974897222012-04-09T17:27:37.028+01:002012-04-09T17:27:37.028+01:00Fantastic! You are amazing. I'm very impressed...Fantastic! You are amazing. I'm very impressed with how you responded, in some cases with great competence and professionalism.Flyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03387103474365100600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-83616208471418916282012-04-09T17:16:27.244+01:002012-04-09T17:16:27.244+01:00Using Sony Studio Monitor headphones:
Nos 1 &...Using Sony Studio Monitor headphones:<br /><br />Nos 1 & 2 sound dramatically different from 3 & 4. My guess is that 3 & 4 were re-equalized with heavier mid-range emphasis. I can usually get this effect with any recording by using "Loudness" eq settings. Though initially more impressive, they lead to listener fatigue in short order.<br /><br />Order of preference: <br />No. 2. It has a nice sense of "air" around it and the channels sound well-balanced to me.<br /><br />No. 1 isn't bad, but I prefer the balance in 2.<br /><br />No. 3 has the middle-heavy equalization but I find the soundstage coherent though slightly "middle channel" weighted.<br /><br />No. 4 is the worst- slightly tubby equalization and too much left channel emphasis.<br /><br />Your "taste test" was a brilliant idea!anagyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974662136608440560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-15490960534677942702012-04-09T16:58:28.831+01:002012-04-09T16:58:28.831+01:00I'm going with no.3.I'm going with no.3.lipatti_rohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11397650215057413554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-69443077280037382102012-04-09T14:52:41.003+01:002012-04-09T14:52:41.003+01:00El número 3.
Aprovecho la ocasión para agradecerte...El número 3.<br />Aprovecho la ocasión para agradecerte toda la belleza que compartes con nosotros. Espero que puedas seguir haciéndolo todavía por mucho tiempo. Gracias.<br /><br />LluísAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2832396688563906252.post-87583068079466571332012-04-09T13:55:16.149+01:002012-04-09T13:55:16.149+01:00El número 3). Saludos.El número 3). Saludos.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com