Lossless audio is degraded - sounds awful

[Ozpeter]

1. Who knows what master recording each copy came from? Your .mp3 could have come from a remastered version of that Beatles album or some other discrepancy like that. There are MASSIVE differences between different versions of that album. Some of them aren't even in stereo!

Indeed. I briefly compared with the version I have here but without even listening, the waveforms looked almost like two different pieces of music - a radical difference in level compression between the two.

I just listened to your sample files through my BB setup

That's missing the point. If we're assuming that the BB seriously degrades the sound (which I think it doesn't actually) then testing the supplied files which have been once through the BB already (in the case of two of them) kind of defeats the purpose.

[Halmsi]

Good point on all points.

I hope he figures out his sound issues.

[Dave54321]

Thanks for all the replies. At least one or two people can hear the difference.
One person agreed with me that the analogue sound is not important (it's bad, but who cares as we have digital outputs).

One person couldn't even hear any difference between the *analogue* outputted version and the other versions (!), so (no offence to that person) that clearly says more about that person than the BB - after all, if the BB analogue outputs were really as good as the DACMagic it would be featured in 'What Hifi' as an audiophile-separate!

One person wondered what master version of Come Together this was. That's completely irrelevant because we are comparing like-with-like. But for the record, it's the 2009 master, taken from a 16-bit CD.

One person declared that they would expect the sound from the NAD to be brighter. This is missing the point - the NAD was merely acting as a *CD transport* - all the sound was coming from the DACMagic.

I think we're all listening on different levels and all have different opinions about what is acceptable. We also have different sensitivities to differences in sound.

Still, I am happy I have made my point and the evidence is out there on the record for you to take or leave. The fact that some can't even hear a difference between the analogue outs and digital/DACMagic outs proves that audiophile sound is not for everyone - some people cannot hear it. This is not to put those people down - most people can't even tell the difference between an MP3 and CD, so we shouldn't be surprised. I can tell, so my BB is being sent back and I'm ordering an SB Touch.

Thanks for all being good-natured about this, even those that disagreed

[twistybox]

BB is being sent back and I'm ordering an SB Touch.

I think the fact that you even considered a BB for music in place of a Squeezebox speaks volumes about you. Is that an insult? That's for you to decide, the same way as your comments are for everyone else.

most people can't even tell the difference between an MP3 and CD, so we shouldn't be surprised. I can tell,

I can pretty much guarantee that you would not be able to tell the difference between most of my self-encoded MP3 files and a CD when level matched on the same equipment. I've even seen some people claim they can hear the difference between a CD and a FLAC file. Umm, ok then. Likely the same people who are buying a 4 foot long 8 gauge power cable to stick on the end of the 1/4 mile of 14 gauge romex their homes are wired with.

The BB forum is hardly a place to talk about high end audio, especially considering the product barely has any music playback capabilities at all - it's not even featured at the top level of the menu system. But if there are problems in the software, it's most definitely important to bring them to light so they can be looked at and hopefully addressed. It should be pretty straight forward to measure/find faults in the decoder.

[Dave54321]

I think the fact that you even considered a BB for music in place of a Squeezebox speaks volumes about you.

Does it? The BB is advertised as having losslessly-compressed music playing capabilities (including FLAC, ape and wv) up to 24-bit, and has digital outputs for using an external stereo DAC. It also plays lossless files GAPLESS (a major plus for the BB, given that most hardware media players do not do this). So high-end audio playback (in the context of the BB) is clearly a perfectly relevant topic for discussion here. As for it having "barely any music capabilities at all" - maybe you should inform the makers because they certainly advertise a range of music-playing capabilities. It plays a wide variety of lossy and lossless formats of varying bitdepths and sample-rates. I can't think of anything more I would need - except for a pure digital feed to my DAC (post lossless decoding).

Sorry if I ruffled your feathers, but I just think there should be no reason why the BB should not be able to output a digital stream at exactly the same quality as other digital players out there. I think this forum is an entirely relevant place to raise this issue. And I also suspect it's maybe a software/firmware issue that has a great potential to be improved.

[twistybox]

The fact you need to turn on a TV to use the BB disqualifies it from primarily being a music device. The fact it doesn't have the music organizational capabilities of dedicated music players nor support for anywhere close to the same metadata disqualifies it as a primary music playing device.

The makers removed the music feature from the top level until such time as it can be revised/reworked. They do not put an emphasis on music nor photos at this stage because they recognize that these areas need a significant amount of work before they're as polished as the rest of the UI - which itself is still undergoing a lot of change.

I'm sure it will prove to eventually be a fine music player with a wonderful TV-based browsing experience. But TVs don't play into the layout of any dedicated music listening room that I've ever heard of.

If you're serious about music, you'll probably want a dedicated device to stream your music files. Otherwise you might as well sell your DAC and start using a receiver that also integrates everything into a single box.

I did concur that the forum is the right place to discuss possible issues with the Boxee, even those related to music/audio, but you were doing something a little more.

In all honesty, I read all of your initial posts and I still couldn't tell whether you had actually tried playing the same source files on different players to compare, or whether you were trying a comparison between a file on the Boxee and the original CD elsewhere - in other words, not providing any verification that your file-based music was not corrupted/damaged or just poorly ripped/encoded to begin with. Did you at any time consider that perhaps there was an issue with your particular box?

In any case, You should attach a sample file for the Boxee team to look at when they have the chance and I'm sure they can compare the output to that of a Squeezebox, AppleTV, etc.

[Ozpeter]

Dave, no "audiophile" claims are valid without an ABX test - for very well documented reasons. Your posts wouldn't last seconds on a forum such as Hydrogenaudio.

but why on earth is the bass so weak and rolled off, and the treble so tinny?

The bass isn't weak and rolled off and treble isn't tinny - it's actually measurably flat in the bass and the treble is very slightly rolled off. So your ears are telling you the opposite of what the analysis tells me. That's puzzling.

There are doubtless limitations on the Box audio quality dictated by its price. I wouldn't be surprised if the optical output was the result of AD conversion after the analog stages, for instance. It passes through the Box's output level control so it's not likely to be bit perfect and you state that it's resampled to 48kHz. Having said all that, 99.9% of users are going to be entirely happy with the result, and would not agree that it "sounds awful". I'm sorry that you find it unacceptable and good luck with your search for an alternative.

[Prospero424]

Thanks for all the replies. At least one or two people can hear the difference.

Actually, only you claim to be able to hear a difference. The only other person not suffering from an unrelated issue who commented negatively on the quality wasn't clear on what the circumstance were and was comparing it to an invalid source.

So far, both people who are approaching this objectively (aside from yourself, of course) have presented fairly good evidence and informed opinion of there being no detectable difference.

The fact that some can't even hear a difference between the analogue outs and digital/DACMagic outs proves that audiophile sound is not for everyone - some people cannot hear it.

Well, I still don't see where someone said they couldn't tell a difference between the analog output and digital output files. Ozpeter said he couldn't tell a difference, but I inferred from the context that he was comparing only the two digital files, as I was. Not that it really matter for the purposes I was arguing...

This is not to put those people down - most people can't even tell the difference between an MP3 and CD, so we shouldn't be surprised. I can tell, so my BB is being sent back and I'm ordering an SB Touch.

All it would take to satisfy me would be for you to take 5 minutes and do a blind ABX comparison (download link) of your own between those two digital-output tracks above and report the results accurately here. If you really are confident you can tell a big difference, it should be rather trivial to prove it (or at least objectively support it) in this manner.

Honestly, if you refuse to do this little thing after all of the effort (which I am grateful for, BTW) you've already put into this, that tells me that you're not quite as confident as your tone thus far has implied.

ABX results CAN be manipulated, most notably by simply running test after test until you get a short series of them, through the luck of the draw, that tell you what you want to hear. But deciding on a hard number of test iterations to do before you even start and resolving not to keep running them if you don't like the result is a good trick to use to avoid this. I did eight tests above, which gives a confidence of roughly 88%. Professionals usually suggest a minimum of 10 tests to achieve truly statistically significant confidence (95%), but we aren't exactly competing for the Nobel Prize, here. Heh.

Thanks for all being good-natured about this, even those that disagreed

Right back atcha!

[Ozpeter]

I'll cheerfully admit that I did say I couldn't tell the difference between the analog output recording and the digital output recording - but maybe if I'd worked harder at it, and used more revealing material than a recording made at a time when the analog quality of the BB would have been studio class (how old is that track?!) then maybe I could have heard something.

Or maybe, if I'm right and the digital output is merely a different form of connector stemming from the same analog part of the circuit, which is not an unknown way of doing things, then I'd have been kidding myself if I said I could hear a difference, as there would be virtually none.

Throughout this I've been assuming we were looking for the difference between a very high grade sound from the preferred source, and an "appalling" sound from the Box. Nobody has come forward and said that they endorse that description (apart from one poster who seems to be saying that even the sound of the preferred source was inferior to a low bitrate mp3).

If we're looking for very subtle differences audible with young, trained ears, then of course they are likely to be there, and my measurements show that they are. But anyone using 'audiophile' equipment has to recognise that, especially these days, you're very much into 'law of diminishing returns' territory. You have to spend twice as much to get 5% better sound (a crude generalisation intended to illustrate the point). Conversely, if you spend half as much as you would have spent on an 'audiophile' system, you won't usually go from a superb sound to an appalling one - you'll go from superb to pretty good. Pretty good audio can be achieved at remarkably low cost these days.

[Prospero424]

I'll cheerfully admit that I did say I couldn't tell the difference between the analog output recording and the digital output recording

Ah, my mistake.