mashimaro

Best Audiophile Voices ~ Various Artists (XRCD2 Version) Anyone wants to lend me the original for comparison?

What is the price range of the Laroccos anyone? Still thinking.... to pair up with my UM2 and iAudio XL5.

I think the player itself can make a difference in the judgement of the quality of the UEMs. When I was at Jaben's, I use my PDA (iPaq) to test UM1, UM2 and the difference is not as obvious as when I test it directly from Wilson's CD Player. I was playing this Kitaro CD from Wilson's player and this "drum" song which I can't remember the title but very famous one. Using the UM2, the first beat of the drum. You can hear "Dong ~~~~~~". The resonance is so good, it feels like you are hearing LIVE and you can feel all your goosepimples. To be fair, I think we should write off the effects of the player by using a properly amplified CD Player aka Wilson's setup in the office, to audition the UEMs. I don't want a case where after I upgrade my DAP, I have to change my UEMs because it just doesn't match with my current one. Anyway, my current setup is UM2 <-> iAudio X5L. I still debating whether an amp will make a diff.

I tot of another good point about loseless. Once you rip to loseless, you can convert to any bit rate to suit your needs. If you are not satisfied, you can reconvert again lor. No matter what, based on the above, I always feel it make sense to keep a loseless copy. Anyone knows a good FREE FLAC->MP3 converter?

小飞鱼 by 邓妙华

Snappi Song? 吉祥三宝? Misiam MaiHum (My Hump) by Lee XXX XXXX?

Cannot figure out this one.... Got more clues?

In a sense, yes but the problem with all analogue system is prone to noise. By the time, you receive the signal, a lot of noise has been added from the modulation, transmission, demodulation stage. That's why everything in our world now is digital. We are no longer satisfied with almost "EXACT". Imagine I transmit an almost EXACT Word document to you using radio waves. Don't know if you dare to receive it or not.

I am not a Electrical Engineer but so I give you a QUICK but "roughly and layman" answer. FM Radio is an analogue system. Basically, each band is a 20kHz range (human's range) and the exact source that I want to broadcast is frequency-modulated (that's where the FM comes from). Eg: For Perfect 10, 98.7MHz (98 700kHz), you "add" your music to 98 700kHz to 97 720kHz. So once transmit over the air, a receiver will "minus" the 98.7Mhz to get back the original music. In radio, there is no compression, you receive the music RAW (of course, you have to "minus" the carrier frequency) but that also means it is very prone to noise. Say some joker run some generator or high electrical current thingie next to your receiver. Your signals will all be distorted. MP3 and all those codec thingie we are talking about DIGITIZING the data, so that the data can be EXACTLY preserved and COMPRESSING the data. LOSSY means COMPRESSED the ALMOST EXACT copy of the data. LOSSLESS means COMPRESED the EXACT copy of the data. how? layman enough? Some EEE engineer, please correct me if i am wrong. haha....

This part is interesting: "Evidence that conversions really are lossless To make sure that the audio stored in each lossless format really is the same as the original audio source, I used an uncompressed Wave file of Canon in D major from The Essential Classics Collection. This Wave file was examined using the handy HashTab Shell Extension, and the MD5, SHA1 and CRC-32 hash values for the file were noted down, as was the size of the Wave file in bytes. This Wave file was converted using dBpowerAMP into a FLAC file (using the same compression settings as used in the big comparison above), and the original Wave file was deleted. The FLAC file was converted into a Monkey's Audio file, which was converted into an OptimFROG file, which was converted into a Shorten file, which was converted into a WavPack file. Finally, the WavPack file was converted into an uncompressed Wave file. The resulting Wave file was exactly the same size as the original Wave file, and the MD5, SHA1 and CRC-32 hash values matched exactly with the original. This is very strong evidence that each of the lossless formats tested preserves the original audio perfectly. Note that this process only succeeds because Wave does not support meta tags, it only stores the audio in the track. The conversion process above will change meta tags (that describe the track name, year the track was released, etc), so these are not necessarily preserved exactly between lossless formats. This is because not all audio file formats support the same meta tags. However, as far as audio is concerned, these formats really are lossless."

For any zip file, there is error checking. If there is 1 bit change, it will report "file corrupted".

Let's look at another point of view. If I am an artiste, I made a very nice piece of music and I want you to listen to it as close as what I have listened. I would hope that the Amp try its best not to distort any frequency or whatsoever. The objective of an audio system is try its very best to make you feel that you are listening to it LIVE. But of course, we know that preference is subjective. "I like a lot of bass", "I like the ROCK setting on my DAP" and so on. I think we can have this freedom. But at least the source from the AMP must be clean for me to "color" it the way I want to. If it is "colored" already, it makes it difficult for me to color it the way I want. Don't know if it makes sense.

Difference between HP and DOCK? Ok... Got it! Headphone Jack and Docking Line-Out.

I bought it already @ SGD 499!!!! First impression, is sibei song ah!!!!!! Now, I really know how f*** up my HP6365 is as a mp3 player, totally cannot drive the UM2 Some more I go bugis by Micheal Wong's latest album and straight away use FLAC to rip. Cannot compare with the MP3 I d/l from baidu man..... Very happy now so soothing to my ears now.... aahhhh.......

Ok. If Scanfield says can use means ok lah..... Going SLS later.