Get Free, Friendly, Expert Advice
Call 1-866-244-8796 or email

Designed and Manufactured in Canada Since 1980


AxiomAudio Blog

Blind Listening Tests

Sneak Peek into Axiom’s Current Research and Development

Axiom’s Newest Speaker: The In-Ceiling M3

Wall'O'Fame
EP175v4 with M3v4
Jungle's HT
Who's Online
5 registered (Socketman, ClubNeon, MarkSJohnson, fredk, onn), 54 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Financing
Forum Stats
13336 Members
11 Forums
22944 Topics
405770 Posts

Max Online: 378 @ 02/24/13 04:33 PM
Top Posters
Ken.C 17809
pmbuko 16297
SirQuack 13344
CV 11269
MarkSJohnson 10965
Meanwhile On Facebook

Just two more days! Better tell your gift-givers! http://axiomaudio.com/holida...

So many people took advantage of the weekend sales! Lots of auditioning about t...

Only a few hours left to get a gift card worth up to 25% of your purchase! http:...

Four days to get in on the action!

Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#350563 - 06/19/11 10:27 PM Re: Adaptation for PC Streaming to a NAD Receiver? [Re: terzaghi]
ClubNeon Online   content
connoisseur

Registered: 02/06/09
Posts: 3450
Loc: Western Maryland, USA
Actually, Rhapsody's quality is excellent. I've never heard any sort of compression artifacts. Though, I've never A/B'd against a real CD, I'm quite impressed with what they offer.

Plus, they just enabled (optional) 192kbps AAC streaming to phones (if your data plan can handle it). So even music on the go sounds good.
_________________________
Pioneer VSX-1018AH-K, PDP-5020FD, DV-79AVi
Axiom M22s, VP150, QS8s
Sony PS3, surround backs
-Chris

Top
#350564 - 06/19/11 10:27 PM Re: Adaptation for PC Streaming to a NAD Receiver? [Re: Captain4105]
St_PatGuy Offline
axiomite

Registered: 03/07/05
Posts: 7413
Loc: Glendale, Arizona
No problem, Lee. Glad I could help!
_________________________
***********
"Nothin' up my sleeve. . ." --Bullwinkle J. Moose

Top
#350576 - 06/20/11 03:55 AM Re: Adaptation for PC Streaming to a NAD Receiver? [Re: terzaghi]
RickF Offline
axiomite

Registered: 02/26/05
Posts: 5210
Loc: Vero Beach, Florida
Originally Posted By: terzaghi
The guy's house I went to when I auditioned axioms in 2007 had a squeezebox and I was pretty impressed.

I wouldn't count on Rhapsody providing you with very good recording quality. I suggest you build a digital library in FLAC format and stream that to whatever receiver you decide to buy for pure lossless m80 awesomeness.

I rip all of my digital library in FLAC via a Vortexbox Appliance, serve it up through Squeezebox and am extremely happy with both the ease of ripping and the sound quality. It's totally plug and play or if you want you can build your own Vortexbox with the free software provided.
_________________________
Rick
Our Room

smile

Top
#350577 - 06/20/11 04:24 AM Re: Adaptation for PC Streaming to a NAD Receiver? [Re: Captain4105]
JohnK Offline
shareholder in the making

Registered: 05/11/02
Posts: 10411
Lee, I was aware of that 765 deal at the time of my previous reply, but because of my comment relating to some dated features I didn't link to it. My thought re the 765 still stands, and if you do decide to get an NAD, I'd suggest you go with at least the 775 here, with more updated features, including Audyssey room correction.
_________________________
-----------------------------------

Enjoy the music, not the equipment.



Top
#350580 - 06/20/11 07:58 AM Re: Adaptation for PC Streaming to a NAD Receiver? [Re: JohnK]
terzaghi Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 04/04/07
Posts: 4848
Loc: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Chris, I had heard that the quality wasn't the best but have never listened to it myself. Good to know that isn't necessarily true.
_________________________
-David

Top
#350585 - 06/20/11 10:25 AM Re: Adaptation for PC Streaming to a NAD Receiver? [Re: ClubNeon]
alan Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 01/29/02
Posts: 3191
Loc: Toronto/New York/Dwight
Hi Chris and all,

I agree with you, Chris, on the sound quality of Rhapsody; I've not heard any compression artifacts on the admittedly limited number of selections I have on my portable player.

What is often overlooked in many forum discussions about data rates and audible artifacts is the complexity of the musical programming.

As someone who spent days on a professional listening panel auditioning various compression schemes at various data rates in a experimentally extremely well-controlled listening environment, I can state that for most musical content, it was surprising how many of the test selections passed the listening tests at very low data rates. At 192 kbps and higher, it was only with concentrated headphone listening (the phones were high-end electrostatics) and repeated A/B/X comparisons that some instruments sounded flawed: mainly harpsichord, and castinets.

These tests, by the way, were repeated by similar panels of "golden ears" in the U.K. (BBC music producers) and the Australian Broadcasting services and the results were the same.

ON the other hand, there was one test selction, an a cappella version of "Tom's Diner," by Suzanne Vega, that proved to be one of the most critical test signals. At any data rate below 320 kbps, Vega's voice took on a slightly metallic quality that was quite audible and offensive.

Using data rates above 320 kbps, all of the test selections including complex orchestral works by Ravel, with plenty of percussion, were artifact-free.

For those interested, the A/B/X comparisons required the listener to compare uncompressed digital files to various codecs (unnamed) at random and see if we could detect any audible differences. You always had the choice of listening to the headphones or high-end tri-amped professional monitors. Some compression artifacts that were easily detectable with headphone comparisons totally passed with loudspeaker listening.

While I've been amazed at how much excellent music remains untainted by data rates as low as 192 kbps, I never forget the Suzanne Vega example.

Regards,
Alan
_________________________
Alan Lofft,
Axiom Resident Expert

Top
#350597 - 06/20/11 11:46 AM Re: Adaptation for PC Streaming to a NAD Receiver? [Re: alan]
MarkSJohnson Online   happy
shareholder in the making

Registered: 09/27/04
Posts: 10965
Loc: Central NH
oooooh!

A new, odd sig line! smile
_________________________
::::::: No disrespect to Axiom, but my favorite woofer is my yellow lab :::::::

Top
#350603 - 06/20/11 12:17 PM Re: Adaptation for PC Streaming to a NAD Receiver? [Re: MarkSJohnson]
Murph Offline
axiomite

Registered: 10/05/06
Posts: 6884
Loc: PEI, Canada
Sig adjusted.
_________________________
With great power comes Awesome irresponsibility.

Top
#350644 - 06/21/11 04:55 AM Re: Adaptation for PC Streaming to a NAD Receiver? [Re: Murph]
Captain4105 Offline
veteran

Registered: 01/11/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Southern California
Thanks John, I know you think highly of the Audyssey MultEQ XT technology and am convinced it would improve the sound quality of my system in its playing environment. There is an upgrade module for the 765 that has this feature but buying the 765 and adding this module would cost more than the advertised 775 at this point and it's at a great price. As it is my first order for business was to obtain the main M80 speakers initially for stereo listening (and as I write I am listening to Sibelius and the M80's are just singing away!).

I think a power source has to be my next investment before any other expansion of speakers for surround & subwoofer purposes. I also believe the NAD's are rated very conservatively & I am leaning toward the older and upgradable 765 & 775 now for its solid engineering and reserve power. Another minor issue is the requirement for phono pre-amp since one isn't built into the NAD's and I have some 400 vinyls, a decent Denon turntable and a great Shure V15 Type IV MM cartridge. I know I should jump on this deal now but I am not by nature impetuous but rather take my time to carefully study my options and then wait for the next time a deal arises.

Top
#350731 - 06/22/11 01:31 AM Re: Adaptation for PC Streaming to a NAD Receiver? [Re: Captain4105]
JohnK Offline
shareholder in the making

Registered: 05/11/02
Posts: 10411
Yeah, Lee; I see that the AM 200 module alone lists for $600. For that amount of money I'd get an entire receiver, such as the Onkyo 808 at Accessories4less, which would do the job just fine.
_________________________
-----------------------------------

Enjoy the music, not the equipment.



Top
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >



Moderator:  alan, Amie, Andrew, axiomadmin, Brent, Debbie, Ian, Jc 

Home  |  Corporate Info  |  Products  |  Message Board  |  FAQs  |  Warranty  |  Site Map  |  Privacy Statement   |  Contact Us

©2014 Colquhoun Audio Laboratories Limited
All Rights Reserved.