ARCHIVED FORUM -- March 2012 to February 2022READ ONLY FORUM
This is the second Archived Forum which was active between 1st March 2012 and 23rd February 2022
koning: Oke', but a beosound 5 who downscaled the 24 bit files made me CRY!
Oke',
but a beosound 5 who downscaled the 24 bit files made me CRY!
After all, most of these files probably were upconverted 16 bit files anyway - so what's the fuzz!
MM
There is a tv - and there is a BV
BeoBoy68:Often Bang & Olufsen don't use last technologies. (Not allways, let's see WISA.)
I’m nearly agreeing with you, except for the case that B&O should support their own products in a way the customer would benefit the most of it.
One reason why audiophile music lovers laugh about B&O.
I’m honestly not missing anything with my BeoLab 5 as standalone product and cannot imagine replacing the speakers anytime soon. Immaculate Wireless Sound (or WiSA) is currently no temptation in my environment. I’m not in favor of higher resolutions at all as I indicated before.
People generally appreciate B&O just for the design and not for technics used.
That I would never say. It is a quite intelligent mix of doable technology with a very sophisticated design approach – far better than what Apple is doing (they’re mostly obsessed with cost and size reduction). I’m less in favor of the post-Lewis design era as I see now that B&O are much more trying to sell than to invent. But that might be the price to pay if we do not want them to disappear.
If you listen to the sound and if you look at the picture, they are amazing.
Well, that’s just the point I was trying to make. B&O should support the sound capacities of their own products better, so selling the BeoSound Essence without a digital output remains a total mystery to me. I can live with 802,11 b/g as the Essence also has an Ethernet option but the lack of an SP/DIF output is unforgivable. That’s no rocket science, you know.
Still Bang & Olufsen keeps an avant-garde spirit.
They might try but are obviously confronted to some serious economic issues. In the past the company lacked some important opportunities and took the right train much too late or not at all. But all this has been discussed here sufficiently and I’m not seeing myself as part of their management. I just want something from them to control my beloved speakers in a more sensual and integrated way.
David Andel: I just want something from them to control my beloved speakers in a more sensual and integrated way.
I just want something from them to control my beloved speakers in a more sensual and integrated way.
What makes you think, that you would be able to control your 'beloved speakers' (the BL5's) in a 'better' way, if the BS Moment had a digital output.
Millemissen:What makes you think, that you would be able to control your 'beloved speakers' (the BL5's) in a 'better' way, if the BS Moment had a digital output.
I wouldn’t want to control them at all by sacrificing the digital sound. Makes no sense to my ears as well as my budget. I’m still astonished that you do not understand this. It’s a bit like B&O forcing you to watch SD material on a HD television set because they do not give you the right cables.
David Andel: Millemissen: What is wrong with the analog (PowerLink) output? That should be obvious. For a digital speaker it means you’re influencing the transmission chain without any need, e. g. additional distortion and a lower signal-to-noise ratio as well as electrical problems with the cables and connections involved resulting in an inevitable loss of sound quality. The less you influence/manipulate the digital signal, the better the output will be. So why investing in a digital speaker in the first place? Many people here are already asking for higher resolutions while the current ones are still not handled well and the higher ones are even overburdening the human ear.
Millemissen: What is wrong with the analog (PowerLink) output?
What is wrong with the analog (PowerLink) output?
That should be obvious. For a digital speaker it means you’re influencing the transmission chain without any need, e. g. additional distortion and a lower signal-to-noise ratio as well as electrical problems with the cables and connections involved resulting in an inevitable loss of sound quality. The less you influence/manipulate the digital signal, the better the output will be. So why investing in a digital speaker in the first place? Many people here are already asking for higher resolutions while the current ones are still not handled well and the higher ones are even overburdening the human ear.
To me this is not obvious.
Converting a digital signal to a (what we can hear) analog signal involves a great deal of 'influencing' in the signal path.
Whether this conversion takes place in an audio device or in a modern digitally based speaker should basicly be indifferent.
What causes the problem(s) is, that in most cases the analog signal is amplified (in the device) before being send - over longer distances - to a speaker.
There is a whole industri benefitting from this issue - producing all sorts of fantastic (snake-oiled) cables etc.
The PowerLink connection however is a low lewel line based connection - and the (original) PL cables and are good shielded.
In addition to the transmission of the sound you get a trigger signal for turning on/off the speakers and the possibility to manage the volumen control inside the BeoLab speakers.
I'd be surpriced if anyone could prove, that this way of connecting a BeoLab 5 speaker should be inferiour to a direct digital connection.
And even if they could, I'd still stick to the PL connection because of the additional benefits.
There is very little known about the signal path inside a BL5 - just some specs about some supported input sound bitdepths and resolutions.
We don't know anything about how the DSP and the ADC/DAC solution in a BL5 works and what it does to the incoming signal.
You might even go further and call this 'influencing' manipulation, since there always are some kind of filters being used, and the sound/the speakers most likely was tuned to what the develloper wanted it to be, when the BL5 was created.
If you know more, please tell!
What we do know, is that the speaker does an excellent job with the sound coming through PL - I haven't heard anyone complain over 'inevitable loss of sound quality'.
The BL5 is the only B&O speaker, that has an spdif connection AND can be controlled (turned on/off, volumen etc) by a Beo4.
But we don't even know whether this control takes place in the digital or the analog domain.
How would you control the volumen of a digitally connected BL5 without a Beo4?
Imo - using the spdif connection only makes sense, if you intend to use the BL5's with a non B&O device as the source.
It was implemented in order to sell this speaker to non-B&O costumers too.
Exactly like with the speakers in the newer range (which have a digital optical input).
I am pretty convinced that the coming BS Moment will have:
1: RJ45-PowerLink connection (otherweise we would not be able to use it with a whole lot of BL speakers).
2: the WiSA connection in order to use the newer BL's wirelessly.
I don't see any needs for a dedicated digital output, since it most likely never would be used with one of the few non-B&O speakers with a digital input - or marketed for this purpose.
This - of course - is only my guess ---- we'll have to wait to find out.
In that case your search for a 'suitable' audio transport for your preferred music sources would go on.
I am not saying that one should not use a digital connection.
But in case of a B&O speaker (the BL5) the loss of the (additional) features of a PowerLink connection does not justify the (yet unproven) gain of sound quality of a digital connection.
If you want a digital connection to a BeoLab, I guess you will have to opt for one of the new speakers using WiSA.
Probably the (long awaited) successor for the BL5 will have this option too.
4 beolab 5, beolab 9, beolab 10, beolab 5000, beolab 8000 mk2, beolab 6002, beolab 3500, beovision 7 55 mk2, 2 beovision 11 46 mk4, beotime, beosound ouverture, beosound essence, beoplay A8, beomaster 900 RG de luxe and the collection continues...
Millemissen:Converting a digital signal to a (what we can hear) analog signal involves a great deal of 'influencing' in the signal path. Whether this conversion takes place in an audio device or in a modern digitally based speaker should basicly be indifferent.
Not at all. The lesser it happens, the better it is. Otherwise we could find endless reasons to do it as often as possible.
What causes the problem(s) is, that in most cases the analog signal is amplified (in the device) before being send - over longer distances - to a speaker. There is a whole industri benefitting from this issue - producing all sorts of fantastic (snake-oiled) cables etc.
The BeoLab 5 can exclude all of them if the transmission chain stays digital. Again, that should be obvious.
I’m sorry, but promoting analogue connections in a digital environment makes no sense, Power Link or otherwise.
In addition to the transmission of the sound you get a trigger signal for turning on/off the speakers and the possibility to manage the volumen control inside the BeoLab speakers. I'd be surpriced if anyone could prove, that this way of connecting a BeoLab 5 speaker should be inferiour to a direct digital connection.
It’s ok to me that you cannot imagine a digital connection will be better. But why should it be done if not necessary? If you do not trust me or my ears, let me quote some other source:
"Comparing analogue and digital inputs, the use of the analogue inputs connection involved a further conversion to digital within the BeoLab 5, and you can hear it. The sound quality was now not to be as clearly etched, the soundstage not as deep, not so highly resolved nor so dynamically involving. [...] The BeoLab 5 worked very well on its analogue input for general purpose use, but the full performance was only attained through the digital connect."
(Hi-Fi News, December 2003, page 21)
I don’t get it. What’s more important in a speaker than its sound?
There is very little known about the signal path inside a BL5 - just some specs about some supported input sound bitdepths and resolutions. We don't know anything about how the DSP and the ADC/DAC solution in a BL5 works and what it does to the incoming signal. You might even go further and call this 'influencing' manipulation, since there always are some kind of filters being used, and the sound/the speakers most likely was tuned to what the develloper wanted it to be, when the BL5 was created.
I’m sorry, but if you try to convince me to prefer an analogue connection over a digital one in combination with an active speaker with digital sound processing and digital amplifiers because the connection would be more comfortable than I’m just the wrong person to discuss with. You can of course always imagine that there's some ghost in every machine making it more suitable or even desirable to use a specific accessory but that’s not my cup of tea.
Take a look at the most basic specifications. The speaker is digital, the connections, the sound processing and the amplification are digital. The analogue entry is for legacy use. If it’s more comfortable for you, then enjoy.
(see the above quote)
The BL5 is the only B&O speaker, that has an spdif connection AND can be controlled (turned on/off, volumen etc) by a Beo4. But we don't even know whether this control takes place in the digital or the analog domain. How would you control the volumen of a digitally connected BL5 without a Beo4?
Currently by copying the infrared signal. It might also be done by using the RS-232 protocol. As you might know, the digital signal input has the priority over the analogue one what does not mean that controlling the speaker via Master Link / Power Link is impossible. I’m not sufficiently aware of the protocol details but this might have been the way it has been done when a BeoLab 5 was connected digitally to a BeoCenter 2.
This is quite an exotic point of view. But if you prefer analogue over digital connections because it’s more comfortable, then you might not want to buy a BeoLab 5 at all.
This is valid for the possibility to control the speaker without any other B&O equipment than an infrared remote control but has nothing to do with its digital capacities. SP/DIF is not an invention for people outside the B&O world. Again, I do not understand your point of view at all.
I’m sorry, but I cannot follow you any longer.
I am pretty convinced that the coming BS Moment will have: 1: RJ45-PowerLink connection (otherweise we would not be able to use it with a whole lot of BL speakers). 2: the WiSA connection in order to use the newer BL's wirelessly. I don't see any needs for a dedicated digital output, since it most likely never would be used with one of the few non-B&O speakers with a digital input - or marketed for this purpose. This - of course - is only my guess ---- we'll have to wait to find out. In that case your search for a 'suitable' audio transport for your preferred music sources would go on.
If you’re right, and this would be very sad, then as a matter of fact this would be my depart from B&O. But I already have a working solution as I told you repeatedly. It only lacks the sensitive approach I once imagined.
I am not saying that one should not use a digital connection. But in case of a B&O speaker (the BL5) the loss of the (additional) features of a PowerLink connection does not justify the (yet unproven) gain of sound quality of a digital connection.
It is proven.
Most certainly not. I’m not in the boat of supporting any new wireless or beocentric standards if the existing ones are fully sufficient.
Probably, yes.
David Andel: I’m sorry, but if you try to convince me to prefer an analogue connection over a digital one in combination with an active speaker with digital sound processing and digital amplifiers because the connection would be more comfortable than I’m just the wrong person to discuss with. .
I’m sorry, but if you try to convince me to prefer an analogue connection over a digital one in combination with an active speaker with digital sound processing and digital amplifiers because the connection would be more comfortable than I’m just the wrong person to discuss with. .
Apart from the fact that I am not trying to convince you, you might be right on that conclusion.
Just wondering, why B&O 11 years after the launch of the BL5 did not go down your digital route with their speakers, audiosystems and tv's.
Could it be, that they see things different than you do?
If you have a full digital (whatever that means) solution already running, what is your problem?
Just install JRiver on your pc and use JRemote on an iPad as the remote - for what more can you ask?
Millemissen:Converting a digital signal to a (what we can hear) analog signal involves a great deal of 'influencing' in the signal path.Whether this conversion takes place in an audio device or in a modern digitally based speaker should basicly be indifferent.
Beoworld app with direct photo upload and emoticons.
@Phil
Theoretically that seems right - but does it matter in the real world....if things are done right.
See my comment above!
Why would B&O still do it this way, if it was 'obvious' that it is wrong?
MM,
If we follow your type of reasoning, you could also ask why would B&O have added a digital connection to the Beolab 5 if analog was just as good.
I do not own Beolab 5 so I can't compare the 2 but I have read a few times, on this forum, people mentioning that the Beolab 5 sounds even better when the digital connection is used.
p.
PhilLondon: MM, If we follow your type of reasoning, you could also ask why would B&O have added a digital connection to the Beolab 5 if analog was just as good. I do not own Beolab 5 so I can't compare the 2 but I have read a few times, on this forum, people mentioning that the Beolab 5 sounds even better when the digital connection is used. p.
1: I already gave a comment on that above.
2: there can be many reasons, why one connection sounds different (you call it better/worse) than the other.
--
After all this begins to sound as if I am against a digital direct connection.
But that is not true - it is not what I intended.
All I am saying is, that the analog PowerLink connection gives a superb result and it has some benefits (more in the area of setting up a casual audio and video sound system).
The lack of a direct digital connection between a coming BS Moment and your speakers (in the actual case the BL5's) should not set you off from buying that sound system - if it in other ways fullfill your needs and wishes. That was and still is my point!
Analog or digital, i could see the station of the Moment on a table near my couch, so i can pick the tablet up, choose a song in a Deezer playlist and send it wirelessly to a pair of BeoLab 18.
Is it realistic ?
Millemissen: Why would B&O still do it this way, if it was 'obvious' that it is wrong? MM There is a tv - and there is a BV.
BeoNut since '75
Steph:Analog or digital, i could see the station of the Moment on a table near my couch, so i can pick the tablet up, choose a song in a Deezer playlist and send it wirelessly to a pair of BeoLab 18. Is it realistic ?
Beosound Stage, Beovision 8-40, Beolit 20, Beosound Explore.
BeoBoy68: Hoping Bang & Olufsen will do the same with Deezer.
Hoping Bang & Olufsen will do the same with Deezer.
I'd rather hope for a platform that let's the user choice his favourite amongst those, which are available in his area.
There will always be some kind of disadvantage having a liason with a specific servive.
@olvisab
I did not read that comment from Geoff - do you still remember, where you did find it?
Of course he is right when pointing out, that a red book quality (16/44.1) can't - and should not - be called 'high def'.
At the moment there is a global trend for lowering the level for what is called 'high def audio'.
Unfortunately there is no unique definitions of, what highdef audio/highres audio is.
At time being there are at least two 'groups' competing how to define highres audio.
That Deezer is calling their coming - 16/44.1/FLAC - Elite service 'high resolution' has clearly to do with marketing.
And this makes me want to avoid them rather than to choose them for a partnership.
High definition audio is more than just serving a 16/44.1 file for a stream or a download.
It is higher bitrate and higher resolution of the delievered file as well as of the original file!
We will have to wait a very long time before we might get a real high definition streaming service, simply because there aren't many recordings with documented real high definition provenance.
That byside - personally I would basically prefer a red book standart based download service - like what WiMP/Tidal offers today.
But the quality of a compressed 320) kpbs audio service like Spotify comes pretty close to it.
If the BS Moment should force me to use one service only, I'll stick to my Playmaker/iPad in order to have a free choice.
As you point out there is no definition of the terms "High Resolution" or "High Definition".
It generally only describes the sampling rate and frequency. I don't see this as being any guarantee that the sound will be "good". HOW it is done is more important.
I much prefer the old term "High Fidelity" which just means the sound coming out of the system is as near as possible to the sound/signal going in.
And lets face it no amount of Analog, Digital, upscaling, oversampling, bit switching, transformation, compression, decompression or what ever can turn a crap piece of music into something worth listening to.
Besides that I wouldn't judge a streaming provider by the technical quality of the music alone but rather by the artistic quality of the music offered.
Just my 2(€)cents
regards
Tim
Millemissen:@olvisab I did not read that comment from Geoff - do you still remember, where you did find it? High definition audio is more than just serving a 16/44.1 file for a stream or a download. It is higher bitrate and higher resolution of the delievered file as well as of the original file! We will have to wait a very long time before we might get a real high definition streaming service, simply because there aren't many recordings with documented real high definition provenance.a tv - and there is a BV.
Thanks for that!
I totally agree with Geoff, that it should rather be called 'standart definition'....
We should be very precise about that - or we will very soon not be able to tell people, what the difference to real high definition is.
Those, who aren't much interested in these differences, might easily come to the conclusion, that anything that is not compressed (MP3 or alike) must be 'high definition audio'.
@Tim/ngnear
As I wrote above:
"It is higher bitrate and higher resolution of the delievered file as well as of the original file!"
'Real high definition' starts by the recording, the mixing and the mastering.
We need some definitions of how things has to be done during the recording, mixing and mastering.
A 'highres/highdef' label/sticker on a file, you buy (download or stream), does not say much about the origin of the file - or not enough.
That is why the old term 'High Fidelity' doesn't help much here. In your intrepetation of it, it only descibes something about the capacities of a music system - not of the files (or their provenance).
The discussion on 'high resolution' came up with the fact, that B&O apparantly will team up with Deezer for the coming BeoSound.
My task in my posts was to (try to) clear up the terms being used.
I am sure this is necessary, whether you are B&O user/lover or you (still) prefer other gear - high, (ultrahigh) or low levelled.
It has never been the approach of B&O to mingle with the socalled audiophile scene. The B&O products (as Barry writes) balances a lot of factors of modern use of media and the hardware needed for it.
People with an audiophile background (and wishes for what B&O should or should not do) are often disappointed.
Some of them may learn that B&O has always focussed on sound quality, but that they never were obsessed by it. They always saw it in a context with other important factors. Some of these people turn into B&O lovers (and users) after having lived with one or more B&O products for a while.
As a long time B&O user/lover I defintely agree with Barry too.
I was listening to different ALAC 24bit 96Khz music files I had the opportunity to download from Linn Records courtesy of their Christmas promo "24 Bits of Christmas". All compared are exactly same specs.
Audibly, they are very different as some recordings are like "taking place in your room" while some others not at all impressive on same amplifier/loudspeaker set. Streamed from my Mac Mini.
So I wonder... ...we discuss here bits and bytes, while even with same tech specs bad recording remains... ...well, unimpressive. Which makes me think, that whatever B&O does (and other manufacturers of course) - it still comes back to the record itself. Or?
And again, all these equally-specified files were coming from one single source with so much difference I was able to hear it easily on average Sony AV receiver + low-midrange Jamo speakers. I really think that the "source" is the issue, and not HW standards.
The pbthal & Dr. robert vinyl rips 24/96
elephant:I too have similar experiences with LINN's samples -- some are truly the best of the best, and others are average The Essence of B&O is discretion in design and life
AnalogPlanet: I was listening to different ALAC 24bit 96Khz music files I had the opportunity to download from Linn Records courtesy of their Christmas promo "24 Bits of Christmas". All compared are exactly same specs. Audibly, they are very different as some recordings are like "taking place in your room" while some others not at all impressive on same amplifier/loudspeaker set. Streamed from my Mac Mini. So I wonder... ...we discuss here bits and bytes, while even with same tech specs bad recording remains... ...well, unimpressive. Which makes me think, that whatever B&O does (and other manufacturers of course) - it still comes back to the record itself. Or?
Of course it - mostly - comes back to the record (recording) itself.
There are several different explanations for the above.
1: The 'bad sounding' - the original file was an old analog tape recording - maybe even sourced from a second or third analog copy - and afterwards upconverted to 24/96.
These do not contain any information, that would justify making a 24/96 file from them. You would hear the same from a standart/cd/16/44.1 version.
2: The 'better sounding' - the source was actually a modern 24/96 or 192 recording.
3: In both cases - they could have been bad or good recorded/mixed and/or mastered.
4: you heard all files with the standart settings of your Mac - unless you manually changed the sound output in the MIDI setup in the Sound Settings pane to 24/96, or had a plugin for switching settings on the fly installed.
In that case you unconsciously would have down-converted all files to 16/44.1 (or 48) - and even the 'real 24/96' files would have been outputtet at the lower resolution.
If you streamed via AirPlay, you would have heard down-converted 16/44.1 versions of all of the files - since this is part of the standart streaming protocol of AirPlay.
Comparing files/resolutions is a delicate matter
Am I the only one here that does not even understand what
16/44.1
24/96
192
48
means?
Everyone often quotes these but they mean diddly squat (nothing to me).
Can someone please inform my feeble brain :-)
Thanks in advance.
Millemissen:Just wondering, why B&O 11 years after the launch of the BL5 did not go down your digital route with their speakers, audiosystems and tv's.
This is quite a legitimate question.
This absolutely could be the case but there are also historical and technical explanations. They might for example never have imagined the success story of Apple and their digital audio devices. B&O might have thought that Microsoft would win a then not at all foreseeable market with their own solutions they (B&O) then could license and include into their systems, e. g. mobile players and non-mobile sound systems. In the past the management of B&O apparently was not willing to change its Microsoft-centric view of things, while there was some sort of paradigm shift going on. They just missed the opportunity and also suffered of Apples then non-existing interest to share.
I thought I was explaining this already several times but I realize you want to have even more details. I wanted a more homogeneous, sensitive B&O-like approach and hoped B&O would follow the digital path they opened up themselves with the BeoLab 5. I thought they would integrate the digital audio experience much more into their product line than they afterwards ever did. You know, I did not only buy those speakers in a shop for listening to them, I also wrote quite a long article about the BeoLab 5 in a Macintosh magazine explaining how I was using them together with a Mac Pro, a digital wireless headphone from Philips and a more or less complicated infrared control system (IRTrans/iRedTouch). I really really believed B&O would appreciate how the Apple community was embracing them as those two worlds apart belonged together in my eyes at that time. I was quite wrong then as others have already told at this place.
I’m still deeply disappointed how bad the BeoLab 5 was integrated into their own systems. As a matter of fact I absolutely also wanted to buy a television set from B&O but finally gave up, when I read this. I felt nearly as exotic as an owner of the BeoLab 5 as I felt as a former user of a NeXTdimension in a NeXTcube (and I suffered financially quite heavily for having bought both of them). Well, being a design as well as a technology amateur often comes with a hefty price tag. But believe me, my one-way love story with B&O most probably will come to an end soon.
It's not what I want. And I’m not (and never will be) using a computer running Windows. How were you able to integrate their complete lack of esthetics into your B&O scenario?
Aussie Michael: Everyone often quotes these but they mean diddly squat (nothing to me). Can someone please inform my feeble brain :-)
i could - ir at least could try to.
But - as I am in need of spare time - I suggest you start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth
or here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3tfly9mKhY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://www.tonmeister.ca/main/textbook/intro_to_sound_recordingch9.html#x33-5870008
And welcome to a life-long study
Since s/pdif was also added to BL20 it seems the digital path is not forgotten. I wonder if BL20 applies the same "auto-sensing" as BL5 or how does it work?
+1 on s/pdif out on the Moment. I will use it if integrates seamlessly with existing speaker groups on beosystem 4.