How to maximize audio fidelity?
Some programs like youtube and radiomaximus provide volume controls, and windows provides one.
To maximize fidelity while maintaining the same volume, does one want to
a) Decrease the Windows volume and increase the applications setting?
b) to its max?
c) Increase the Windows volume and decrease the application volume?
d) to the Windows max?
e) Set both in the middle somewhere? Where?
Not every audio source says what its streams are, and years ago when I
would copy the url from the browser url field and insert it into Radiomaximus, it only worked one time out of 3, iirc.
OTOH, today WYPR.org has two streams and at least one works. But it
gives two choices, https://wtmd-ice.streamguys1.com/wypr-1
and https://wtmd-ice.streamguys1.com/wypr-1-mp3
The webpage doesn't say which would be better, and I can't hear a
difference in this case, but in general
f) Does an mp3 suffix imply the other is not mp3?
g) Is mp3 likely to be better, worse, or the same as whatever the alternative is? What is the likely alternative?
(BTW, WYPR Classical comes pre-loaded, but not the talk/news main
channel. Somehow, the author gathers user-installed stations for his
pre-load list, but I don't know if he does it stealthily or if each user
has to send it in somehow. I think I added WYPR news 10 years ago and
he doesn't seem to know that I did.)
I continue to recommend Radiomaximus, which comes preloaded with 100's
of stations from around the world, and allows you to add your own, if
you know the stream url, or can find out from the source. You can play
one station while recording another (or two iirc). It also allows
*timed* recording of your desired programs, which afaik nothing else
does. You don't have to be there for it to start recording. It used to
be free indefinitely if you didn't need timed recording but now I think
it's only for 14 days. But the license which was not expensive lasts,
so far, for ever. Raimersoft has 2 other similar products, Tapinradio
and RarmaRadio. When I looked into it 10 years ago, I thought
Radiomaximus had a better array of features and he's expanded them. ,
but he still has the other two.
BTW2. all the NPR stations have phone apps (well, not WAMU) but the WYPR
app has within its app Play on Demand of every individual NPR radio
program, like the New Yorker Radio Hour and it might well still have
Cartalk, even though there are no new episodes.
To maximize fidelity while maintaining the same volume, does one want to
a) Decrease the Windows volume and increase the applications setting?
b) to its max?
c) Increase the Windows volume and decrease the application volume?
d) to the Windows max?
e) Set both in the middle somewhere? Where?
In article <68uv5kd6se8jn7cad6p1qlaocjccketn6a@4ax.com>, NONONOmisc07 @fmguy.com says...
To maximize fidelity while maintaining the same volume, does one want to
a) Decrease the Windows volume and increase the applications setting?
b) to its max?
c) Increase the Windows volume and decrease the application volume?
d) to the Windows max?
e) Set both in the middle somewhere? Where?
Certainly I've found that with some devices the max output of an app
(e.g. YouTube) can overload an input stage somewhere - either the USB
DAC that I use or the small speaker set I have connected. I just
experiment, and amplifying a low output level doesn't seem to degrade
the sound.
You haven't mentioned which device you use. On many devices (computers
and mobiles) the digital-to-audio stage is little more than an
afterthought, and using a DAC can make a noticeable difference. On my
mobile I use a tiny usb-to-jack adapter with a DAC built-in, and that
does make a noticeable difference.
In article <68uv5kd6se8jn7cad6p1qlaocjccketn6a@4ax.com>, NONONOmisc07 >@fmguy.com says...
To maximize fidelity while maintaining the same volume, does one want to
a) Decrease the Windows volume and increase the applications setting?
b) to its max?
c) Increase the Windows volume and decrease the application volume?
d) to the Windows max?
e) Set both in the middle somewhere? Where?
Certainly I've found that with some devices the max output of an app
(e.g. YouTube) can overload an input stage somewhere - either the USB
DAC that I use or the small speaker set I have connected. I just
experiment, and amplifying a low output level doesn't seem to degrade
the sound.
You haven't mentioned which device you use. On many devices (computers
and mobiles) the digital-to-audio stage is little more than an
afterthought, and using a DAC can make a noticeable difference. On my
mobile I use a tiny usb-to-jack adapter with a DAC built-in, and that
does make a noticeable difference.
--
On Sat, 6/28/2025 1:58 PM, Philip Herlihy wrote:
In article <68uv5kd6se8jn7cad6p1qlaocjccketn6a@4ax.com>, NONONOmisc07
@fmguy.com says...
To maximize fidelity while maintaining the same volume, does one want to >>> a) Decrease the Windows volume and increase the applications setting?
b) to its max?
c) Increase the Windows volume and decrease the application volume?
d) to the Windows max?
e) Set both in the middle somewhere? Where?
Certainly I've found that with some devices the max output of an app
(e.g. YouTube) can overload an input stage somewhere - either the USB
DAC that I use or the small speaker set I have connected. I just
experiment, and amplifying a low output level doesn't seem to degrade
the sound.
You haven't mentioned which device you use. On many devices (computers
and mobiles) the digital-to-audio stage is little more than an
afterthought, and using a DAC can make a noticeable difference. On my
mobile I use a tiny usb-to-jack adapter with a DAC built-in, and that
does make a noticeable difference.
You could use a VU meter on the application, if attempting to ascertain
an overload characteristic.
[Picture]
https://i.postimg.cc/c6yNFpGC/crude-VU-meter.gif
Using Audacity, you can create "tone" files of a certain
amplitude, then play those and observe the VU meter.
Paul
How to maximize audio fidelity?
Some programs like youtube and radiomaximus provide volume controls, and windows provides one.
To maximize fidelity while maintaining the same volume, does one want to
a) Decrease the Windows volume and increase the applications setting?
b) to its max?
c) Increase the Windows volume and decrease the application volume?
d) to the Windows max?
e) Set both in the middle somewhere? Where?
Not every audio source says what its streams are, and years ago when I
would copy the url from the browser url field and insert it into Radiomaximus, it only worked one time out of 3, iirc.
OTOH, today WYPR.org has two streams and at least one works. But it
gives two choices, https://wtmd-ice.streamguys1.com/wypr-1
and https://wtmd-ice.streamguys1.com/wypr-1-mp3
The webpage doesn't say which would be better, and I can't hear a
difference in this case, but in general
f) Does an mp3 suffix imply the other is not mp3?
g) Is mp3 likely to be better, worse, or the same as whatever the alternative is? What is the likely alternative?
(BTW, WYPR Classical comes pre-loaded, but not the talk/news main
channel. Somehow, the author gathers user-installed stations for his
pre-load list, but I don't know if he does it stealthily or if each user
has to send it in somehow. I think I added WYPR news 10 years ago and
he doesn't seem to know that I did.)
I continue to recommend Radiomaximus, which comes preloaded with 100's
of stations from around the world, and allows you to add your own, if
you know the stream url, or can find out from the source. You can play
one station while recording another (or two iirc). It also allows
*timed* recording of your desired programs, which afaik nothing else
does. You don't have to be there for it to start recording. It used to
be free indefinitely if you didn't need timed recording but now I think
it's only for 14 days. But the license which was not expensive lasts,
so far, for ever. Raimersoft has 2 other similar products, Tapinradio
and RarmaRadio. When I looked into it 10 years ago, I thought
Radiomaximus had a better array of features and he's expanded them. ,
but he still has the other two.
BTW2. all the NPR stations have phone apps (well, not WAMU) but the WYPR
app has within its app Play on Demand of every individual NPR radio
program, like the New Yorker Radio Hour and it might well still have
Cartalk, even though there are no new episodes.
Ed Cryer wrote:
micky wrote:
How to maximize audio fidelity?
Some programs like youtube and radiomaximus provide volume controls, and >>> windows provides one.
To maximize fidelity while maintaining the same volume, does one want to >>> a) Decrease the Windows volume and increase the applications setting?
    b) to its max?
 c) Increase the Windows volume and decrease the application volume?
    d) to the Windows max?
 e) Set both in the middle somewhere? Where?
Not every audio source says what its streams are, and years ago when I
would copy the url from the browser url field and insert it into
Radiomaximus, it only worked one time out of 3, iirc.
   OTOH, today WYPR.org has two streams and at least one works. But it >>> gives two choices, https://wtmd-ice.streamguys1.com/wypr-1
               and https://wtmd-ice.streamguys1.com/wypr-1-mp3
The webpage doesn't say which would be better, and I can't hear a
difference in this case, but in general
  f) Does an mp3 suffix imply the other is not mp3?
  g) Is mp3 likely to be better, worse, or the same as whatever the
alternative is? What is the likely alternative?
(BTW, WYPR Classical comes pre-loaded, but not the talk/news main
channel. Somehow, the author gathers user-installed stations for his
pre-load list, but I don't know if he does it stealthily or if each user >>> has to send it in somehow. I think I added WYPR news 10 years ago and
he doesn't seem to know that I did.)
I continue to recommend Radiomaximus, which comes preloaded with 100's
of stations from around the world, and allows you to add your own, if
you know the stream url, or can find out from the source. You can play >>> one station while recording another (or two iirc). It also allows
*timed* recording of your desired programs, which afaik nothing else
does. You don't have to be there for it to start recording. It used to >>> be free indefinitely if you didn't need timed recording but now I think
it's only for 14 days. But the license which was not expensive lasts,
so far, for ever.  Raimersoft has 2 other similar products, Tapinradio >>> and RarmaRadio. When I looked into it 10 years ago, I thought
Radiomaximus had a better array of features and he's expanded them. ,
but he still has the other two.
BTW2. all the NPR stations have phone apps (well, not WAMU) but the WYPR >>> app has within its app Play on Demand of every individual NPR radio
program, like the New Yorker Radio Hour and it might well still have
Cartalk, even though there are no new episodes.
I've often come across this problem. My hearing isn't too good, and I often use a hearing aid.
The best I've found is to use a graphic equaliser, and just play with it until I get it right.
These days, though, GEs aren't too prevalent in apps; but the older versions might be useful.
You can raise or lower higher frequencies or lower frequencies. I like to start with everything on the middle line, and take it from there.
Ed
Try this Open Source program.
Some people report a trojan on it, but the supplier says it's a false positive; and I get no sign of malware here.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/peace-equalizer-apo-extension/
128 Reviews
Downloads: 26,555 This Week
Ed
Ed Cryer wrote:
micky wrote:
How to maximize audio fidelity?
Some programs like youtube and radiomaximus provide volume controls, and >>> windows provides one.
To maximize fidelity while maintaining the same volume, does one want to >>> a) Decrease the Windows volume and increase the applications setting?
b) to its max?
c) Increase the Windows volume and decrease the application volume?
d) to the Windows max?
e) Set both in the middle somewhere? Where?
Not every audio source says what its streams are, and years ago when I
would copy the url from the browser url field and insert it into
Radiomaximus, it only worked one time out of 3, iirc.
OTOH, today WYPR.org has two streams and at least one works. But it
gives two choices, https://wtmd-ice.streamguys1.com/wypr-1
and https://wtmd-ice.streamguys1.com/wypr-1-mp3
The webpage doesn't say which would be better, and I can't hear a
difference in this case, but in general
f) Does an mp3 suffix imply the other is not mp3?
g) Is mp3 likely to be better, worse, or the same as whatever the
alternative is? What is the likely alternative?
(BTW, WYPR Classical comes pre-loaded, but not the talk/news main
channel. Somehow, the author gathers user-installed stations for his
pre-load list, but I don't know if he does it stealthily or if each user >>> has to send it in somehow. I think I added WYPR news 10 years ago and
he doesn't seem to know that I did.)
I continue to recommend Radiomaximus, which comes preloaded with 100's
of stations from around the world, and allows you to add your own, if
you know the stream url, or can find out from the source. You can play
one station while recording another (or two iirc). It also allows
*timed* recording of your desired programs, which afaik nothing else
does. You don't have to be there for it to start recording. It used to
be free indefinitely if you didn't need timed recording but now I think
it's only for 14 days. But the license which was not expensive lasts,
so far, for ever. Raimersoft has 2 other similar products, Tapinradio
and RarmaRadio. When I looked into it 10 years ago, I thought
Radiomaximus had a better array of features and he's expanded them. ,
but he still has the other two.
BTW2. all the NPR stations have phone apps (well, not WAMU) but the WYPR >>> app has within its app Play on Demand of every individual NPR radio
program, like the New Yorker Radio Hour and it might well still have
Cartalk, even though there are no new episodes.
I've often come across this problem. My hearing isn't too good, and I
often use a hearing aid.
The best I've found is to use a graphic equaliser, and just play with it
until I get it right.
These days, though, GEs aren't too prevalent in apps; but the older
versions might be useful.
You can raise or lower higher frequencies or lower frequencies. I like
to start with everything on the middle line, and take it from there.
Ed
Try this Open Source program.
Some people report a trojan on it, but the supplier says it's a false >positive; and I get no sign of malware here.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/peace-equalizer-apo-extension/
128 Reviews
Downloads: 26,555 This Week
Ed
In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Sun, 29 Jun 2025 12:56:58 +0100, Ed Cryer
Ed
Thanks for the encouragement, Ed.
And for this. Very impressive. I'll try it.
Try this Open Source program.
Some people report a trojan on it, but the supplier says it's a false
positive; and I get no sign of malware here.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/peace-equalizer-apo-extension/
I have to ask. Why was the first post, replying to me, legible and your
own reply to yourself, actually your next 3 posts in this thread,
required some sort of conversion for me to read it/them.
128 Reviews
Downloads: 26,555 This Week
Ed
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/6/29 20:20:41, micky wrote:
[]
I have to ask. Why was the first post, replying to me, legible and your >>> own reply to yourself, actually your next 3 posts in this thread,
required some sort of conversion for me to read it/them.
[]
The problem _may_ be Thunderbird; there's a discussion in the TB newsgroup. >> If someone using a modern version of Thunderbird uses - or, possibly,
quotes - a non-ASCII character, TB not only (correctly) declares that
fact in the header, but also (unnecessarily) encodes the message. Other
users of TB (and some other clients) don't know this has happened, as
their client automatically decodes the message; users of other clients
see lines of code.
It is hoped that some future version of TB may not do this.
That may not be the cause, of course, but it sounds like it from your
description.
I post through Betterbird. I see nothing of micky's complaints;
everything looks hunky dory here.
Ed
On 2025/6/29 20:20:41, micky wrote:
[]
I have to ask. Why was the first post, replying to me, legible and your
own reply to yourself, actually your next 3 posts in this thread,
required some sort of conversion for me to read it/them.
[]
The problem _may_ be Thunderbird; there's a discussion in the TB newsgroup. >If someone using a modern version of Thunderbird uses - or, possibly,
quotes - a non-ASCII character, TB not only (correctly) declares that
fact in the header, but also (unnecessarily) encodes the message. Other
users of TB (and some other clients) don't know this has happened, as
their client automatically decodes the message; users of other clients
see lines of code.
It is hoped that some future version of TB may not do this.
That may not be the cause, of course, but it sounds like it from your >description.
In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Sun, 29 Jun 2025 22:15:32 +0100, Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/6/29 20:20:41, micky wrote:
[]
I have to ask. Why was the first post, replying to me, legible and your >>>> own reply to yourself, actually your next 3 posts in this thread,
required some sort of conversion for me to read it/them.
[]
The problem _may_ be Thunderbird; there's a discussion in the TB newsgroup. >>> If someone using a modern version of Thunderbird uses - or, possibly,
quotes - a non-ASCII character, TB not only (correctly) declares that
fact in the header, but also (unnecessarily) encodes the message. Other
users of TB (and some other clients) don't know this has happened, as
their client automatically decodes the message; users of other clients
see lines of code.
It is hoped that some future version of TB may not do this.
That may not be the cause, of course, but it sounds like it from your
description.
I post through Betterbird. I see nothing of micky's complaints;
everything looks hunky dory here.
IIUC it's not that you see them. It's that I see them, using Forte
Agent 5, which I guess does something, use non-ASCII characters?, that
causes Betterbird to reply encoded. >>
Ed
On Sun, 6/29/2025 6:06 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Sun, 29 Jun 2025 22:15:32 +0100, Ed Cryer
<ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/6/29 20:20:41, micky wrote:
[]
I have to ask. Why was the first post, replying to me, legible and your >>>>> own reply to yourself, actually your next 3 posts in this thread,
required some sort of conversion for me to read it/them.
[]
The problem _may_ be Thunderbird; there's a discussion in the TB newsgroup.
If someone using a modern version of Thunderbird uses - or, possibly,
quotes - a non-ASCII character, TB not only (correctly) declares that
fact in the header, but also (unnecessarily) encodes the message. Other >>>> users of TB (and some other clients) don't know this has happened, as
their client automatically decodes the message; users of other clients >>>> see lines of code.
It is hoped that some future version of TB may not do this.
That may not be the cause, of course, but it sounds like it from your
description.
I post through Betterbird. I see nothing of micky's complaints;
everything looks hunky dory here.
IIUC it's not that you see them. It's that I see them, using Forte
Agent 5, which I guess does something, use non-ASCII characters?, that
causes Betterbird to reply encoded. >>
Ed
Forte Agent is not ready for that BASE64 variant. There are some other NNTP >clients that have a similar problem. Some NNTP clients don't even know
what UTF-8 is, and all they know is the code page representations.
If a user picks up a copy of RN, that's an example of an *unthreaded*
client, and trying to read NEWS in there would be suitably awful. They're
not going to handle BASE64 properly either.
The only option I can think of for Ed Cryer, is to use both THunderbird
and Betterbird, do email-only in one program, do NNTP-only in the other >program, each using its own profile.
In the NNTP program, you turn off HTML composition (as it is not needed >particularly for USENET and the policies for individual groups). And that should
be enough to stop this. At a guess.
Until we get a bug fix some day,
Paul
In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Sun, 29 Jun 2025 18:56:18 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 6/29/2025 6:06 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Sun, 29 Jun 2025 22:15:32 +0100, Ed Cryer >>> <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/6/29 20:20:41, micky wrote:
[]
I have to ask. Why was the first post, replying to me, legible and your
own reply to yourself, actually your next 3 posts in this thread,
required some sort of conversion for me to read it/them.
[]
The problem _may_ be Thunderbird; there's a discussion in the TB newsgroup.
If someone using a modern version of Thunderbird uses - or, possibly, >>>>> quotes - a non-ASCII character, TB not only (correctly) declares that >>>>> fact in the header, but also (unnecessarily) encodes the message. Other >>>>> users of TB (and some other clients) don't know this has happened, as >>>>> their client automatically decodes the message; users of other clients >>>>> see lines of code.
It is hoped that some future version of TB may not do this.
That may not be the cause, of course, but it sounds like it from your >>>>> description.
I post through Betterbird. I see nothing of micky's complaints;
everything looks hunky dory here.
IIUC it's not that you see them. It's that I see them, using Forte
Agent 5, which I guess does something, use non-ASCII characters?, that
causes Betterbird to reply encoded. >>
Ed
Forte Agent is not ready for that BASE64 variant. There are some other NNTP >> clients that have a similar problem. Some NNTP clients don't even know
what UTF-8 is, and all they know is the code page representations.
If a user picks up a copy of RN, that's an example of an *unthreaded*
client, and trying to read NEWS in there would be suitably awful. They're
not going to handle BASE64 properly either.
The only option I can think of for Ed Cryer, is to use both THunderbird
and Betterbird, do email-only in one program, do NNTP-only in the other
program, each using its own profile.
INteresting, but FTR, I wasn't asking anyone to fix this or to change anything. i was only asking why it happened. And now I know. It's no
big deal. Because clicking on Reply converts it. (Which probably means I could make it read it even without clicking Reply, and I'm sure Ralph
could tell me how, but it's no big deal.)
--In the NNTP program, you turn off HTML composition (as it is not needed
particularly for USENET and the policies for individual groups). And that should
be enough to stop this. At a guess.
Until we get a bug fix some day,
Paul
In article <68uv5kd6se8jn7cad6p1qlaocjccketn6a@4ax.com>, NONONOmisc07 >>@fmguy.com says...
To maximize fidelity while maintaining the same volume, does one want to >>>a) Decrease the Windows volume and increase the applications setting?
b) to its max?
c) Increase the Windows volume and decrease the application volume?
d) to the Windows max?
e) Set both in the middle somewhere? Where?
Certainly I've found that with some devices the max output of an app
(e.g. YouTube) can overload an input stage somewhere - either the USB
DAC that I use or the small speaker set I have connected. I just >>experiment, and amplifying a low output level doesn't seem to degrade
the sound.
So it wouldn't matter if use a or c?
And maybe even b and d.
One of them being at full scale - doesn't matter which one - will
contribute no degradation (the factor is 1). So normally, do that -
unless that means you have to set the other one _so_ low that you get >rounding-error noise.
In practice, assuming you're using 16-bit representation or better,
you're unlikely to be able to hear _any_ effect.
On 2025/6/30 2:52:39, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Sun, 29 Jun 2025 18:56:18 -0400, Paul
<nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 6/29/2025 6:06 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Sun, 29 Jun 2025 22:15:32 +0100, Ed Cryer >>>> <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/6/29 20:20:41, micky wrote:
[]
I have to ask. Why was the first post, replying to me, legible and your
own reply to yourself, actually your next 3 posts in this thread, >>>>>>> required some sort of conversion for me to read it/them.
[]
The problem _may_ be Thunderbird; there's a discussion in the TB newsgroup.
If someone using a modern version of Thunderbird uses - or, possibly, >>>>>> quotes - a non-ASCII character, TB not only (correctly) declares that >>>>>> fact in the header, but also (unnecessarily) encodes the message. Other >>>>>> users of TB (and some other clients) don't know this has happened, as >>>>>> their client automatically decodes the message; users of other clients >>>>>> see lines of code.
It is hoped that some future version of TB may not do this.
That may not be the cause, of course, but it sounds like it from your >>>>>> description.
I post through Betterbird. I see nothing of micky's complaints;
everything looks hunky dory here.
IIUC it's not that you see them. It's that I see them, using Forte
Agent 5, which I guess does something, use non-ASCII characters?, that >>>> causes Betterbird to reply encoded. >>
Ed
Forte Agent is not ready for that BASE64 variant. There are some other NNTP >>> clients that have a similar problem. Some NNTP clients don't even know
what UTF-8 is, and all they know is the code page representations.
If a user picks up a copy of RN, that's an example of an *unthreaded*
client, and trying to read NEWS in there would be suitably awful. They're >>> not going to handle BASE64 properly either.
The only option I can think of for Ed Cryer, is to use both THunderbird
and Betterbird, do email-only in one program, do NNTP-only in the other
program, each using its own profile.
INteresting, but FTR, I wasn't asking anyone to fix this or to change
anything. i was only asking why it happened. And now I know. It's no
big deal. Because clicking on Reply converts it. (Which probably means I
could make it read it even without clicking Reply, and I'm sure Ralph
could tell me how, but it's no big deal.)
However: the discussion in the TB groups suggests that it is only
necessary to put something (UTF-8?) in the header, _not_ encode the
body; there is hope that some future version of TB (and probably BB)
will actually do this.
Glad it's not bothering you though.>>
In the NNTP program, you turn off HTML composition (as it is not needed
particularly for USENET and the policies for individual groups). And that should
be enough to stop this. At a guess.
Until we get a bug fix some day,
Paul
It'll depend on the hardware you have, but on my Dell Vostro, I set
Windows Media Player to about 2/3 max volume, and then adjust my
speakers' volume to taste. With WMP on max output, I get that harsh
sound that comes from an overload somewhere. You should experiment.
On 2025/6/30 11:39:26, Philip Herlihy wrote:
[]
It'll depend on the hardware you have, but on my Dell Vostro, I setInteresting. When you say "WMP on max output", do you mean the slider in the WMP window? Does it still sound like an overload with that on max., but with the master volume control (near the clock) set to _less_ than max.?
Windows Media Player to about 2/3 max volume, and then adjust my
speakers' volume to taste. With WMP on max output, I get that harsh
sound that comes from an overload somewhere. You should experiment.
In article <103q74h$15dk2$1@dont-email.me>, G6JPG@255soft.uk says...
One of them being at full scale - doesn't matter which one - will >>contribute no degradation (the factor is 1). So normally, do that -
unless that means you have to set the other one _so_ low that you get >>rounding-error noise.
In practice, assuming you're using 16-bit representation or better,
you're unlikely to be able to hear _any_ effect.
Not my experience. On my ageing Dell Vostro, if I have Windows Media
Player set to maximum output there is clear "clipping", which gives the
sound a harsh edge. Turn down the output control on WMP (compensating
as needed with the speakers' volume control) and the distortion
disappears.
--
In article <f8i06k9eeniggco9k0v4pmpvtr977a5q6i@4ax.com>, NONONOmisc07 >@fmguy.com says...
In article <68uv5kd6se8jn7cad6p1qlaocjccketn6a@4ax.com>, NONONOmisc07 >>>@fmguy.com says...
To maximize fidelity while maintaining the same volume, does one want to >>>>a) Decrease the Windows volume and increase the applications setting?
b) to its max?
c) Increase the Windows volume and decrease the application volume?
d) to the Windows max?
e) Set both in the middle somewhere? Where?
Certainly I've found that with some devices the max output of an app >>>(e.g. YouTube) can overload an input stage somewhere - either the USB
DAC that I use or the small speaker set I have connected. I just >>>experiment, and amplifying a low output level doesn't seem to degrade
the sound.
So it wouldn't matter if use a or c?
And maybe even b and d.
It'll depend on the hardware you have, but on my Dell Vostro, I set
Windows Media Player to about 2/3 max volume, and then adjust my
speakers' volume to taste. With WMP on max output, I get that harsh
sound that comes from an overload somewhere. You should experiment.
--
On 2025/6/28 15:39:14, micky wrote:
How to maximize audio fidelity?
Some programs like youtube and radiomaximus provide volume controls, and
windows provides one.
To maximize fidelity while maintaining the same volume, does one want to
a) Decrease the Windows volume and increase the applications setting?
b) to its max?
c) Increase the Windows volume and decrease the application volume?
d) to the Windows max?
e) Set both in the middle somewhere? Where?
[]
Looking purely at volume controls (i. e. ignoring things like lossy >compression such as mp3 etc.), then cascaded (one after the other)
"volume controls" are just successive multiplication by a factor.
One of them being at full scale - doesn't matter which one - will
contribute no degradation (the factor is 1). So normally, do that -
unless that means you have to set the other one _so_ low that you get >rounding-error noise.
In practice, assuming you're using 16-bit representation or better,
you're unlikely to be able to hear _any_ effect.
If you're talking about _processing_, rather than actual listening, then
set all stages to full volume - or ×1, or whatever it calls it; that way >you'll not lose anything. (If just changing levels, you won't overload;
if something is already overloaded [clipping], then multiplying by 1
won't make it worse, and multiplying by less than 1 won't make it any
_less_ distorted. _Some_ processing activities - such as some kinds of >filters - _can_ result in a[n effective] gain greater than 1; if you
find that is happening, then set a ×.5 somewhere in the process.) If you
have software that has controls that give actual gain (more than ×1),
don't use that - it won't _gain_ any fidelity, and unless it's a factor
of a power of two, will _in theory_ add some distortion - though _in >practice_ this won't be audible. (Obviously if the final result exceeds
full scale, i. e. clipping, then even powers of two are to be avoided.)
If your final result is low level, then do boost it - but only by powers
of two. (Getting to above half full scale is sufficient; the logarithmic >characteristic of human hearing means the difference between >over-half-full-scale and actual full scale is barely audible.)--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Write a question, using "why".
Why?
On 2025/6/30 11:39:26, Philip Herlihy wrote:
[]
It'll depend on the hardware you have, but on my Dell Vostro, I setInteresting. When you say "WMP on max output", do you mean the slider in
Windows Media Player to about 2/3 max volume, and then adjust my
speakers' volume to taste. With WMP on max output, I get that harsh
sound that comes from an overload somewhere. You should experiment.
the WMP window? Does it still sound like an overload with that on max.,
but with the master volume control (near the clock) set to _less_ than max.?
On 2025/6/30 11:45:39, Philip Herlihy wrote:
In article <103q74h$15dk2$1@dont-email.me>, G6JPG@255soft.uk says...Ah, you're using external speakers, with a physical volume control (a
One of them being at full scale - doesn't matter which one - will
contribute no degradation (the factor is 1). So normally, do that -
unless that means you have to set the other one _so_ low that you get
rounding-error noise.
In practice, assuming you're using 16-bit representation or better,
you're unlikely to be able to hear _any_ effect.
Not my experience. On my ageing Dell Vostro, if I have Windows Media
Player set to maximum output there is clear "clipping", which gives the
sound a harsh edge. Turn down the output control on WMP (compensating
as needed with the speakers' volume control) and the distortion
disappears.
knob, or up and down buttons)?
In article <103udhu$27r2q$2@dont-email.me>, G6JPG@255soft.uk says...
On 2025/6/30 11:39:26, Philip Herlihy wrote:
[]
It'll depend on the hardware you have, but on my Dell Vostro, I setInteresting. When you say "WMP on max output", do you mean the slider in
Windows Media Player to about 2/3 max volume, and then adjust my
speakers' volume to taste. With WMP on max output, I get that harsh
sound that comes from an overload somewhere. You should experiment.
the WMP window? Does it still sound like an overload with that on max.,
but with the master volume control (near the clock) set to _less_ than max.?
It's always good to have it pointed out you've overlooked something!
I've ignored the "system" volume control, simply adjusting the WMP
control and the speaker volume (rotary dial). Next time I play any
music I'll experiment!
Thinking about it more, I realise I don't really understand quite what's going on when clipping is detected. I'm using an external USB DAC
(Cambridge Audio Dacmagic). So the signal is still digital when it
reaches that - the speaker volume control is downstream (analogue
signal). So how does a digital output (however loud it's coded to be) overload a downstream input stage? I wonder if this is a shortcoming in
my DAC - though it certainly delivers better sound than the standard PC
jack.
On 2025/7/1 11:27:4, Philip Herlihy wrote:system), and turn it up until you hear distortion; at that point, measure the output with a voltmeter (with it still connected to the speaker input); that is the maximum voltage the speaker can accept. (Doesn't matter if the voltmeter isn't "true RMS" or
In article <103udhu$27r2q$2@dont-email.me>, G6JPG@255soft.uk says...Unless it's been badly set up, a DAC should not produce clipping, unless fed with a digital signal that already includes clipping. It will produce a signal of a given voltage. That could still be more than whatever it is feeding is capable of accepting.
On 2025/6/30 11:39:26, Philip Herlihy wrote:
[]
It'll depend on the hardware you have, but on my Dell Vostro, I setInteresting. When you say "WMP on max output", do you mean the slider in >>> the WMP window? Does it still sound like an overload with that on max.,
Windows Media Player to about 2/3 max volume, and then adjust my
speakers' volume to taste. With WMP on max output, I get that harsh
sound that comes from an overload somewhere. You should experiment.
but with the master volume control (near the clock) set to _less_ than max.?
It's always good to have it pointed out you've overlooked something!
I've ignored the "system" volume control, simply adjusting the WMP
control and the speaker volume (rotary dial). Next time I play any
music I'll experiment!
Thinking about it more, I realise I don't really understand quite what's
going on when clipping is detected. I'm using an external USB DAC
(Cambridge Audio Dacmagic). So the signal is still digital when it
reaches that - the speaker volume control is downstream (analogue
signal). So how does a digital output (however loud it's coded to be)
overload a downstream input stage? I wonder if this is a shortcoming in
my DAC - though it certainly delivers better sound than the standard PC
jack.
Ideally, you need something that can produce a signal you can vary the output of, in an analogue fashion: ideally a signal generator, but maybe a CD player playing a test tone, with a volume control. Feed this into your "speaker" (amplified speaker
hear any degradation.)
Do this when you have the house to yourself if you don't want to irritate people!
If you can borrow an oscilloscope, that will show you fairly quickly if any signal you can get at is clipping, and let you find any relevant levels.
Unless it's been badly set up, a DAC should not produce clipping, unless
fed with a digital signal that already includes clipping. It will
produce a signal of a given voltage. That could still be more than
whatever it is feeding is capable of accepting.
In article <1040ko8$2or9a$2@dont-email.me>, G6JPG@255soft.uk says...
Unless it's been badly set up, a DAC should not produce clipping, unless
fed with a digital signal that already includes clipping. It will
produce a signal of a given voltage. That could still be more than
whatever it is feeding is capable of accepting.
I know what clipping sounds like - it's very characteristic. We have a street preacher who visits our town square who has a habit of belting
out his story with something being overloaded, and the sound is even
less appealing than his admonishments.
My system WMP, PC, USB, DAC clips (irrespective of overall volume level)
on some CDs if the WMP level control (and the system level) are at 100%.
If I turn down the WMP control, I get clean sound, which I can then
amplify to considerable levels without loss of quality. Yes, I'd be interested to know quite which stage is being overloaded.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 508 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 233:20:15 |
| Calls: | 9,984 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,833 |
| Messages: | 6,359,841 |
