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
Just purchased a pair of Beolab 5's. Currently using them with a Playmaker but I'm anxious to better take advantage of their exceptional quality and connect them to a music source that will provide me with the ultimate in sound quality. I have a large CD collection as well as a very large library of mp3's in iTunes. I was hoping that fellow Beolab 5 owners on the forum can suggest some really good music source options/configurations that will help me get the most out of my speakers. I recall reading about an interesting mac mini configuration, if anyone here has gone that route, or any other streaming options. Would really appreciate your input before I take the next step.
.
Present: BL90, Core, BL6000, CD7000, Beogram 7000, Essence Remote.
Past: BL1, BL2, BL8000, BS9000, BL5, BC2, BS5, BV5, BV4-50, Beosystem 3, BL3, DVD1, Beoremote 4, Moment.
seethroughyou:My dealer said that B&O are working on a new top speaker but he couldn't or wouldn't say more.
Word of caution here in case anyone reads this and thinks they should perhaps pass on a good BL5 deal... Given the current climate of things, I would not expect that B&O are actually going to surpass the BL5, so "new top speaker" could just as well point to a new product with updated electronics that will handle high definition sources, but not necessarily up to the sonic and construction standard of the BL5. All speculation at this point, but given where things are going, it would not surprise me if the halo speaker steps down a notch or two in cost and complexity, or simply capability (think the old transition from the final Penta to the BL1).
Also, Playmaker Mk I handles FLAC.
Well, depending on what you want connected... Connecting a B&O CD player with a digital out (SPDIF) to your BL5's will provide it with the "raw" data from the CD. This is the best option, so you connect both the Powerlink and SPDIF cable.
If you want your setup to be a music library, such as mine, I for example have a Mac Mini filled with thousands of CD's (all ripped to lossless) I have the mini connected to my TV so I get a true "media library".
To take advantage of the "core audio" built into Mac's I have a external sound card (Impact Twin) connected by firewire to my Mac mini. The Impact twin takes over as master clock. (Mac mini has an awful master jitter clock) Impact twin is then connected to my BL5's by the SPDIF cable.
I'm very happy with my setup, the Impact twin and Mac mini was about 1000 euro together. I then control it all with my iPad (that I already had) trough "remote HD" or the itunes remote app.
I'd like an BS5 or BS5 encore, but I find it too limited, I'd have to have the mac mini either way.
Too long to list....
Some great suggestions. Thanks for the quick responses. I like the option of connecting a CD player directly. Will I get the same result if I connect a none B & O CD player, using digital out? Any suggestions for a good, moderately priced CD player that will match up?
I also will consider the mini mac/Impact Twin setup. Sounds like a good option for playing my itunes library.
Any further thoughts would be appreciated.
Some interesting comments regarding a possible new speaker launch or upgrade to the Beolab 5's. Of course, my dealer made no mention of the possibility, which is somewhat understandable. But I must say, it gives me a little cause for concern. I could still return my Beolab 5's and wait it out for a possible new introduction. Would hate to have invested as much as I have and find out in 2 months that there is an updated, superior version available. Also, in reference to getting a "good deal" on the Beolab 5's, I'm curious as to what you would consider to be a good deal in the current economic climate?
A non-B&O cd player will work just as well if it has SPDIF out.
But check your Beolab 5 version, as the early ones must have a B&O master connected in order to work properly. The sync-cable didn't work on the early ones. Ask me why I know.
I use a MacMini running iTunes and Audirvana. Have 95% of my library in AppleLossLess format. From the MacMini i take the USB out to the Cambridge DacMagic Plus for feeding the (analog) Masterlink.
If you are not using a Masterlinksetup, i suggest this: http://www.halidedesign.com/bridge/
With the Halibridge you are able to connect the MacMini directly to the Beolab 5.
Controlling the iTunes library works well with the remote tool from apple on the iDevices
seethroughyou:Well it's not really speculation what I said as I am quoting the dealer in London. Whether he is speculating is a different issue. He said he heard it in a national dealer meeting but this top speaker could arrive next year or 5 years down the line so don't hold your breath... Finally, I don't agree with you that Beolab 5 can't be surpassed. Everything in engineering can be surpassed with research time and sufficient resources. The last 10 years has seen new drivers with lighter materials with faster reactivity and as we are all agreed its time for DAC upgrade to handle more formats and higher resolution. B&O's statement 10 years ago was to say we can build one of the best sounding and most sophisticated speaker in the world and they did just that. I wouldn't be surprised if they do that again. The engineers probably have a few things they'd like to refine in the successor. Yes, the playmaker can play FLAC but playmaker 2 can't. I don't know if it can play compressed FLAC or uncompressed FLAC (lossless). You'll need to check on that. I agree don't pass up a good deal on a BL5. It's an astonishing speaker and having had a pair from 2004-13 it's one of the best speakers in the world.
Finally, I don't agree with you that Beolab 5 can't be surpassed. Everything in engineering can be surpassed with research time and sufficient resources. The last 10 years has seen new drivers with lighter materials with faster reactivity and as we are all agreed its time for DAC upgrade to handle more formats and higher resolution. B&O's statement 10 years ago was to say we can build one of the best sounding and most sophisticated speaker in the world and they did just that. I wouldn't be surprised if they do that again. The engineers probably have a few things they'd like to refine in the successor.
Yes, the playmaker can play FLAC but playmaker 2 can't. I don't know if it can play compressed FLAC or uncompressed FLAC (lossless). You'll need to check on that.
I agree don't pass up a good deal on a BL5. It's an astonishing speaker and having had a pair from 2004-13 it's one of the best speakers in the world.
The Playmaker 1 can play lossless FLAC. It is the only lossless format that it will play out of the ones it supports. And really, when the BL5s are used in combination with it it's a way to get around the limitation of the internal electronics, basically. At the end of the day the final connection to any loudspeaker is about as analog as it gets. And that's for the small percentage of the population that can even discern the difference. I think it's far too soon to write the BL5 off as an outdated product simply due to its internal decoder.
I did not say that the BL5 could not be surpassed, my comment relates to the current situation and that it is unlikely to be surpassed. We've all seen time and again where a new product is anticipated and then released, with everyone hoping for an even better follow up to a legendary current product and in the end while the new product may have a few notable improvements up its sleeve, the product as a whole is not actually better, and in some cases not even as good as the one it replaced.
seethroughyou:Used Beolab 5 used dating 2010/11 cost about £7500-8000. As for waiting who knows when the successor will come. Could be next year or in few years. If you are just using CD quality music the Beolab 5s will never be obsolete. If you want studio quality high bit rate/sampled rate music then the Beolab 5 is limited and unable to play these unless the music file is downgraded.
As for waiting who knows when the successor will come. Could be next year or in few years.
If you are just using CD quality music the Beolab 5s will never be obsolete. If you want studio quality high bit rate/sampled rate music then the Beolab 5 is limited and unable to play these unless the music file is downgraded.
BL5’s do play tracks at 24/96 or 24/88 level. It won’t accept tracks above that level. Question is, do you really hear a difference between THAT level and 24/192 tracks. And does it apply to all records or only SPECIFIK records? Linn and Naim Music that can be bought in 24/192 (if available) can also be bought in 24/96 formats. I’m sure you hear the difference between a 16/44 CD and a hig-res file on a high-end audio system. Not so sure if you hear difference between different hig-res files. IMO, past 24/96 is just a waste of bandwith.
I think you take audio way too serious... and it will be hard to find a passive speaker with amp in the price range of the BL5’s that sounds better.
DoubleU: seethroughyou:Used Beolab 5 used dating 2010/11 cost about £7500-8000. As for waiting who knows when the successor will come. Could be next year or in few years. If you are just using CD quality music the Beolab 5s will never be obsolete. If you want studio quality high bit rate/sampled rate music then the Beolab 5 is limited and unable to play these unless the music file is downgraded. BL5’s do play tracks at 24/96 or 24/88 level. It won’t accept tracks above that level. Question is, do you really hear a difference between THAT level and 24/192 tracks. And does it apply to all records or only SPECIFIK records? Linn and Naim Music that can be bought in 24/192 (if available) can also be bought in 24/96 formats. I’m sure you hear the difference between a 16/44 CD and a hig-res file on a high-end audio system. Not so sure if you hear difference between different hig-res files. IMO, past 24/96 is just a waste of bandwith. I think you take audio way too serious... and it will be hard to find a passive speaker with amp in the price range of the BL5’s that sounds better.
Exactly. One must also remember the power of marketing. The 24bit 96khz file is IMHO well enough.
What did you play the 24bit/96 tracks trough?
I have yet to see the results of a properly performed, rigorous double blind test that shows there is a difference between 16/44.1 and any of the "high definition" formats that is the result of the format. Usually what you see are poorly performed listening sessions where there are no controls and no proof the two files are even the same. During the Sony SACD hoopla it was found that there were significant mastering differences between the files, frequency contouring and such going on. Higher bit rates and depth are wonderful for recording, they give you a lot of wiggle room so mistakes in level setting and such are not catastrophic, but mixed down to standard CD resolution for playback.
Remember that the companies hawking high def have a decided commercial interest in reselling you music and selling you new hardware. If you only bought stuff when what you had broke where would that leave them?
I've seen too many people, allegedly golden eared audiophiles, fail to detect between standard CD resolution and MP3s until pretty high compression rates despite their assurances that they can hear the awfulness of compressed formats and run screaming from the room at the mere whiff of an MP3 to have any confidence that anyone can truly hear the differences in high def and CD resolution.
Jeff
I'm afraid I'm recovering from the BeoVirus.
Do any of you play SACD's or DVD-A's through your Beolab 5's? Curious as to the quality of sound versus lossless file downloads.
Jeff: DoubleU: seethroughyou:Used Beolab 5 used dating 2010/11 cost about £7500-8000. As for waiting who knows when the successor will come. Could be next year or in few years. If you are just using CD quality music the Beolab 5s will never be obsolete. If you want studio quality high bit rate/sampled rate music then the Beolab 5 is limited and unable to play these unless the music file is downgraded. BL5’s do play tracks at 24/96 or 24/88 level. It won’t accept tracks above that level. Question is, do you really hear a difference between THAT level and 24/192 tracks. And does it apply to all records or only SPECIFIK records? Linn and Naim Music that can be bought in 24/192 (if available) can also be bought in 24/96 formats. I’m sure you hear the difference between a 16/44 CD and a hig-res file on a high-end audio system. Not so sure if you hear difference between different hig-res files. IMO, past 24/96 is just a waste of bandwith. I think you take audio way too serious... and it will be hard to find a passive speaker with amp in the price range of the BL5’s that sounds better. I have yet to see the results of a properly performed, rigorous double blind test that shows there is a difference between 16/44.1 and any of the "high definition" formats that is the result of the format. Usually what you see are poorly performed listening sessions where there are no controls and no proof the two files are even the same. During the Sony SACD hoopla it was found that there were significant mastering differences between the files, frequency contouring and such going on. Higher bit rates and depth are wonderful for recording, they give you a lot of wiggle room so mistakes in level setting and such are not catastrophic, but mixed down to standard CD resolution for playback. Remember that the companies hawking high def have a decided commercial interest in reselling you music and selling you new hardware. If you only bought stuff when what you had broke where would that leave them? I've seen too many people, allegedly golden eared audiophiles, fail to detect between standard CD resolution and MP3s until pretty high compression rates despite their assurances that they can hear the awfulness of compressed formats and run screaming from the room at the mere whiff of an MP3 to have any confidence that anyone can truly hear the differences in high def and CD resolution.
Jeff,
Thank you, thank you, thank you for your response! There are two words that sum describe the effects you noted: placebo effect.
If I had a specific amount of money to spend on audio hardware, the greatest percentage would go to speakers because that is what is "making" the sound.
I recall that Stereo Review (now Sound & Vision) did a double blind ABX stereo amplifier comparison many years ago. I remember one amp was made in (4) separate components: two mono amps each with its own power supply. Another was a Pioneer (I think) receiver. While I don't have the issue in front of me, I believe the findings were that provided the amps were not overdriven, the listeners could not statistically tell the various amplifiers apart.
D
+5 goes to Jeff
Ah, you know... A little B&O here, a little there
Well, you may be fooling yourself, or you may not. The larger point, outside the lack of validity of sighted tests vs. double blind is, how do you know that any differences you hear are due to the encoding scheme? Unless you have proof that the exact same file was used to source each sample, you know nothing about why the two tracks sound different. The people selling high def have no reason, either consciously or unconsciously, to make the high def file sound the same, and there are innumerable ways to make them different. A tweak to relative loudness or freq contouring, a bit of difference in dithering here, a bit of truncation there...Not all of which might be deliberate.
If you take a good high def file, and then have a neutral and skilled party decimate it to 16/44.1, then you can begin to get a handle on it. Until then it's apples and garden gnomes. I hate to keep harping on it, but the whole SACD thing still stands as a stark example of this kind of shenanigans.
You could validly and reliably hear a difference, but why? If you ever get a chance, watch a show called Penn and Teller's Bulls1t. The episode about organic produce, the taste testing, is very instructive. People rated the organic banana better than the normal one even when both samples were cut from the same, normal banana!
Jeff: Well, you may be fooling yourself, or you may not. The larger point, outside the lack of validity of sighted tests vs. double blind is, how do you know that any differences you hear are due to the encoding scheme? Unless you have proof that the exact same file was used to source each sample, you know nothing about why the two tracks sound different. The people selling high def have no reason, either consciously or unconsciously, to make the high def file sound the same, and there are innumerable ways to make them different. A tweak to relative loudness or freq contouring, a bit of difference in dithering here, a bit of truncation there...Not all of which might be deliberate. If you take a good high def file, and then have a neutral and skilled party decimate it to 16/44.1, then you can begin to get a handle on it. Until then it's apples and garden gnomes. I hate to keep harping on it, but the whole SACD thing still stands as a stark example of this kind of shenanigans. You could validly and reliably hear a difference, but why? If you ever get a chance, watch a show called Penn and Teller's Bulls1t. The episode about organic produce, the taste testing, is very instructive. People rated the organic banana better than the normal one even when both samples were cut from the same, normal banana!
Even a decent Audio editor such as Adobe Audition can be used to do a decent job of downscaling a high-def recording to CD quality. You can then use a software ABX comparator such as that built into Foobar (n.b. I haven't tried it myself) to attempt a blind test on yourself. I'm sure there are other comparators than could be used.
Of course we would then have to be honest about publishing the results!
Ban boring signatures!
Yes. If they didn't no one would buy the more expensive download or upgrade their equipment to handle the "high def" formats.
Stan: Yes. If they didn't no one would buy the more expensive download or upgrade their equipment to handle the "high def" formats.
Agreed, but there's more than one way this happens. This way is overt and marketing based, the other falls under a thing called "noble cause corruption." If you truly believe what you're doing is better for everyone, and this theme runs from politics to greens to whatever, it's easy to rationalize such behaviors being for the greater good, even of you're not being mercenary about it. Also, when producing the high def tracks, well, since these are supposed to be perfect it won't hurt if I just touch up The mix a little, just to show how good this is, or to subconsciously fail to work as hard on the standard def track, why take the time to decimate it perfectly, that's a lot of work for something inferior.
People can do things like this for a variety of unconscious or conscious, deliberate reasons.
Ive seen it in data analysis, it's something everyone, including myself, has to be on guard against. If you have some data that doesn't fit the theory you truly believe to be right, that you've worked so hard on, it's all too easy to call the data outliers and rationalize why you should throw it out. The late, great Richard Feynman spoke eloquently on this subject at length, he always said the person trying hardest to disprove your theory should be you.
Jeff:The late, great Richard Feynman spoke eloquently on this subject at length, he always said the person trying hardest to disprove your theory should be you
A great man - just beginning to read "The Strange Theory of Light and Matter"............ sorry for disrupting/diverting the thread!
His autobiographies, Surely You Must Be Joking Mr. Feynman, and What Do You Care What People Think, are also great. There is a pretty good movie about him, Infinity, with Mathew Broderick as a young Feynman.
Jeff: His autobiographies, Surely You Must Be Joking Mr. Feynman, and What Do You Care What People Think, are also great. There is a pretty good movie about him, Infinity, with Mathew Broderick as a young Feynman.
Also recently watched the dramamentary (on UK TV) about the Shuttle O-ring debacle - very informative about both Feynman and NASA.
I'm sure some of this difference between the bit-rates is down to mastering.
When the CD's hit the market much of the mastering was done poorly, and much of it was done properly.
Some of the mastering today is downright horrible. I read an interview with "Robyn" a swedish pop singer, about how "she" did her mastering. As a reference they used a car radio. As this is the setting where most people listen to her music.
For instance, Jazz music has for the most part always had excellent masterings, be it CD, C-casette or Vinyl. Rock music has had horrible, or even worse masterings forever! There's some exceptions of course, but they are few and far apart. IMHO.
Looking at how new releases of the same music is mastered onto CD's, almost makes one cry! They are exceeding the bandwidth of the CD, just to make it sound "bigger". However this might work on an iPod or a car stereo, but if won't work on a proper set of speakers.
The old (and proper) way of mastering, which means you are leaving bandwidth space, and not exceeding it, means that a CD will sound flatter at low volumes, but crank up that volume a bit and it will come to life with wonderful dynamics! A higher volume makes sense, as anyone who's ever played an instrument will know. Say a drum set. (I've played for over 20 years) a drum which isn't being hit with a proper force will sound silly, it might not even sound as a drum, you can hit it too hard of course, but that won't work either. You need a certain amount of force to play a drum set properly, and to make it sound good. This volume is usually quite high, some instruments aren't as picky as drums, but listening to live jazz bands (usually no amplification to drums) you will experience quite a high volume.
IMHO to sum this all up, firstly listening and judging a stereo set you need a somewhat high volume. There's certainly mastering differences between the formats, as we saw when CD's where introduced and what is happening even today, hastily made poor mastering. We are all different, and certainly our ears has a different "taste" just as our mouth's got.
Perhaps a little clarification is called for here.
I wasn't implying that there is an evil cabal of executives/sound engineer who have consciously planned all of this to boost profits - although some of this may exist. My opinion is that it is much more along the lines of what Jeff has said - unconscious human nature at work more than anything else.
I have also heard definite differences between "hi-res" and "cd" downloads from Naim (did my own "blind" testing - I play them through my BS5 + BL1s, and I can't see which file is which for the same song - haven't normalized for volume, but it does seem to be more than just loudness). However, like many are saying, I believe it's more likely the differences are from mastering.
I believe this because I have a lot of rock/pop 256Kb MP3s that I can't reliably tell the difference from lossless when using my "blind" testing method (these are generally rips taken from the same CD). With MP3, we know there is a loss of fidelity, yet it is barely perceptible. With hi-res, the math and a lot of audio experts seem to support "no audible difference" - yet, the difference I hear between my Naim test tracks is *more* perceptible than the difference between MP3 and CD (this is not totally fair since my Naim tracks are classical music where I can usually hear a difference between MP3 and CD).
I may take it a step further and take Puncher's suggestion and downmix a high-res file to CD and check the result (assuming there's some free software that can do this mostly automatically as I'm no audio engineer)...
Stan
Stan:I may take it a step further and take Puncher's suggestion and downmix a high-res file to CD and check the result
Hi Stan - if you can get me a high-res file I can cut it down for you!
Level matching is critical, to 0.1 dB or better. One of the peculiarities of the human ear is that small loudness differences are perceived not as volume differences but as quality differences, ala presence, imaging, etc. I experienced this firsthand when doing some listening tests on different outboard DACs and CD players. It never ceased to amaze me how "obvious" sonic differences disappeared after level matching, even when I knew what the components were, after blinding the test it was completely impossible to tell one from the other.
One affordable, and well reviewed, outboard DAC consistently ran a few tenths of a dB hotter than the all in one players it was designed to "improve" and I firmly believe that was a deliberate design choice. And if I'd have been in their shoes I'd have done precisely the same thing.
Puncher: Stan:I may take it a step further and take Puncher's suggestion and downmix a high-res file to CD and check the result Hi Stan - if you can get me a high-res file I can cut it down for you!
I'd like to take you up on this offer. I have sent you an e-mail via BeoWorld.
Stan: Puncher: Stan:I may take it a step further and take Puncher's suggestion and downmix a high-res file to CD and check the result Hi Stan - if you can get me a high-res file I can cut it down for you! I'd like to take you up on this offer. I have sent you an e-mail via BeoWorld. Stan
Replied - I'm sure you know but it's important to be sure that the file is recorded at the HD rate rather than it being an upscaled "standard" track.
Yes - I purchased this tracks from Naim thinking that they'd probably not try any upscaling monkey business.
If anyone is following this, Stan purchased a 24bit 96Khz file from Naim, together with it's CD quality (16bit 44.1KHz) version. I have downsampled the HD track using three slightly different settings, 1. No dither, 2. Dithered, 3. Dithered with light adaptive noise shaping). The noticeable thing from doing this is that the purchased CD quality file is at a slightly higher level (from the file stats see below), although I cannot deduce that this was deliberate. All that remains is some proper blind ABX listening tests.
Cool, it will be interesting to see how they compare not only with the HD file, but also with Naims CD quality file. The different dither approaches also highlights why it's hard to really compare these things. And how easily you can induce changes. I imagine an ideal comparison would be to take the same mic feeds, from say a minimalist two mic setup, and record simultaneously to each format.
Next time I telephone my friend who is the Recordist I'll have to pick his brain some more on decimation. Interesting guy, he can play all audio formats from Edison cylinders to modern digital audio.