Digital equalization/audio degradation [Archive]

boputnam

01-13-2009, 06:56 PM

...(incorporates 16383th order FIR filter)...I have no idea what that is, but I want it... :p

That "Super EQ (http://avisynth.org/mediawiki/SuperEQ)" offers more filters than the normal Winamp EQ - that's why it is "better". But it is still only a 1/2 octave EQ. Winamp's EQ has some other problems (as noted on various websites) and is only an approx. 1 octave EQ - that alone is undesireable.

After all, everything is done digitally and the EQ is very accurate. Filter accuracy is one thing; distortion to phase is quite another...

Rolf

01-14-2009, 01:20 PM

Hello,
I'm playing FLAC-encoded music through a laptop, using its optical output connected to a DAC. I use Winamp and Shibatch Super Equalizer (incorporates 16383th order FIR filter) to correct room modes. Am I being right that this kind of equalization does not make sound quality any worse? After all, everything is done digitally and the EQ is very accurate. Could there be any bottleneck in this setup?

There is no way one can get the same quality from a computer, as you can get from a good CD player. And I mean a CD player, not a player that can play CD, DVD, MP3, picture viewing .. or whatever it can play. Use a CD player that only plays CD's.

One can get an "All playing Unit", but I don't think you want to pay the price.

lofi-ear

01-14-2009, 10:09 PM

There is no way one can get the same quality from a computer, as you can get from a good CD player.

But as long as the signal is digital what difference does it make? I think computer is the best digital audio source, since reading bits from a spinning disc could be a precarious process..

It looks like a fir filter does not distort phase, so maybe there's not much to worry about. If there were better EQ's than the shibatch one I'd gladly like to know about them.

Ducatista47

01-14-2009, 10:31 PM

But as long as the signal is digital what difference does it make? I think computer is the best digital audio source, since reading bits from a spinning disc could be a precarious process..

A hard drive is a spinning disk that bits are read off of. Just not optically, like a disc spelled with a "c" a la Phillips.

You never know until you hear for yourself what something digital is going to sound like. When you burn a disc from a no loss compression source on the fly it should sound the same as burning after decoding, but it does not sound the same to me. There is a difference in fidelity that an excellent playback system will reveal.

Likewise, an analogue master does not sound like a digital master. Who can say why, but it is easy to hear the difference. Ears trump specifications every time, since we have to use them to hear anything.

Clark

Rolf

01-15-2009, 06:30 AM

A hard drive is a spinning disk that bits are read off of. Just not optically, like a disc spelled with a "c" a la Phillips.

You never know until you hear for yourself what something digital is going to sound like. When you burn a disc from a no loss compression source on the fly it should sound the same as burning after decoding, but it does not sound the same to me. There is a difference in fidelity that an excellent playback system will reveal.

Likewise, an analogue master does not sound like a digital master. Who can say why, but it is easy to hear the difference. Ears trump specifications every time, since we have to use them to hear anything.

Clark

Exactly. The same digital music signal does not sound the same with different sources. The best sounding is from an original CD. The signal is on the original CD printed, not burned.

hjames

01-15-2009, 06:46 AM

Exactly. The same digital music signal does not sound the same with different sources. The best sounding is from an original CD. The signal is on the original CD printed, not burned.

And where do you think the data that is "printed" to the CD comes from?
Its from digital sources - on hard drives and such!

The real thing is to be sure no downgrade or translation to lower bit rate occurs when the digital file is copied - THATS what bites most folks when they rip CDs to their hard drives ...

That and, as Scott mentioned, the converter chips used for playback ...

Rolf

01-15-2009, 07:25 AM

And where do you think the data that is "printed" to the CD comes from?
Its from digital sources - on hard drives and such!

The real thing is to be sure no downgrade or translation to lower bit rate occurs when the digital file is copied - THATS what bites most folks when they rip CDs to their hard drives ...

That and, as Scott mentioned, the converter chips used for playback ...

I have not been in a studio for years, so I can't tell you witch media the recording is stored. After what I have read on the net most use a digital tape recorder. Remember, in a studio the signal comes directly from the source.

This is not my point. There is a difference in printing a cd vs burning a cd. They do not sound the same. Don't ask me why, it is just what I can hear when playing a direct copy of a cd vs the original. The same with playing from a computer, squeeze box or whatever media.

Yes, converters do things differently. That is one reason why cd players sound different. Other things are error correction circuit , the drive gear? (not sure if this is the correct word in English). This is why a expensive cd player (up to a point) sound better than a cheaper one.

EDIT: In the "old days" with just analog recordings, you do know that the original master tape sounds better than the LP?

Titanium Dome

01-15-2009, 10:47 AM

Well, moving parts are moving parts. Tape deck, CD transport, turntable, computer hard drive--all have latency, flutter, reading/tracking errors, etc. Sure the specs are better on some than others, but moving parts are moving parts.

Now that solid state storage is coming into its own, it can eliminate the weak link of moving parts, and the errors and latency problems become a magnitude of order smaller. Perfect? No, but much closer to perfect as it becomes a mature technology.

Combine instantaneous transfer with the next generation of DACs and OpAmps, and you're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

Star Trek may have had it right. Drop in a ceramic or crystal chip and there's a universe of uncompressed data or sound right there.

boputnam

01-15-2009, 02:51 PM

...When you burn a disc from a no loss compression source on the fly it should sound the same as burning after decoding, but it does not sound the same to me. There is a difference in fidelity that an excellent playback system will reveal.Hi, Clark...

Your post challenged my experience and memory - it cause me to research two old threads on the topic: Both the "uploading music library suggestions" and the "Anyone had experience with Squeezebox" threads dig pretty deep into the topic.

In both these, Don took many to task with his research and experiences. It got me to challenge and test my own slant, so-much-so that lately I've gone to FLAC file type for live recording on my SoundDevices 722 (http://www.sounddevices.com/products/722.htm). I cannot tell any loss of quality whatsoever.

Ducatista47

01-15-2009, 11:48 PM

Hi, Bo,

There are two things at work here. Firstly, as usual, there is always the possibility that I am full of crap. If I am not, I should clarify that I meant to allude to decoding errors, not any degradation due to FLAC encoding. I agree that FLAC is the best storage tool I have ever worked with. I like it better than Wavpack, and wv better than APE. My prejudices, I can't defend them.

Where I either really did hear differences or imagined them was in burning back to full audio files. When I compared CD's I burned from FLAC on the fly to those from the same files when I first decoded the FLAC and then burned in two distinct processes. I attribute any degradation I think I hear to the burning software's native decoding abilities being inferior to the stand alone FLAC tools handling of the task.

From Don:

I'm not sure if it is clear, but lossless compression has all of the benefits of .wav files but at half the space. When played back, the file is uncompressed and becomes a bit for bit equivalent of the .wav file from which it was created. If need be, you can burn the files back to a CD in .wav format and they will be exactly the same as the original.I always took this as gospel, but now I am not so sure. At this point I think there is room for theory and practice to diverge. Software and/or hardware could be at fault.

I would think computer based burning software would lack accuracy/abilities as compared to professional decoding or encoding hardware like your 722 in any case. The only question - is the difference audible? What I think I hear is not digital errors of the gross kind, but lower fidelity, a less smooth rendering of the music. Like a typical American CD vs the Japanese product (with Obi) of the same recording, but more subtle. It is also possible that it is a burn issue, but I burn at the lowest available rate and use data verification. One would think that would be sufficient to guarantee accuracy, so I am probably all wet.

I should add that I never use a computer or portable music system for playback or music library work. I will probably never have any need for digital storage of music in any form other than CD's and DVD's. I am more or less incapable of casual listening.

Clark, always open to correction

Ian Mackenzie

01-16-2009, 02:56 AM

http://shibatch.sourceforge.net/

http://www.winamp.com/

jblnut

01-16-2009, 11:14 AM

Ducatista47

01-17-2009, 12:00 PM

Rolf

01-17-2009, 01:53 PM

Here is a basic question. When burning software verifies written data, and the FLAC (or Wavpack or APE or mp3) file has been decoded on the fly during the burn, is the written data being compared to a metafile, the FLAC, the results of the decoding, or what?

In other words, if the decoding process produces errors, it is still the output of the decoding that is being verified since the uncompressed source is not available for comparison? I don't know what else there would be to compare to. If this is so, then data verification could not spot decoding errors.

This would also apply, I believe, to music servers playing compressed files. Unless there is a check sum type verification going on during decoding. I think maybe ordinary CD playback does this?

Clerk

Interesting question. Since I really don't know all of this, this is my 2c about this.

If you make a direct copy of a CD, the program first store the files on the hard drive, then make a copy on a CD-R. In this case I believe the program can compare the original CD with the copy on the hard drive. If the original and the copy are in a certain range for errors (guess it depends on what the programmers of the program has decided what is acceptable) it will be burned on the CD-R.

Why the burned copy does not sound as good as the original MUST have to do with printing vs burning.

In the second example that is if the original CD is is transferred directly from the CD's original files, decoded to f.ex. FLAC, there is nothing to compare, as the format of the files are different.

Then, if one is downloading files in FLAC or other decoded formats, there is no way to be sure how good the copy is, and that is probably why I have heard that music copied this way sound terrible.

When you play a original CD in your CD player, the error correction circuit will correct the errors +- ? %. Some CD players accept more errors that others. As a general rule on can say that a less expensive player allows more errors than an expensive one. But all players have a limit, and at a certain point the disk is unusable.

Here are some "facts" I have picked up along the way:

Note is that the more errors needed to be corrected, the more bad the sound. That is why most CD's today sound terrible. Not enough care is taken in production, where ever in the line the "bad things" happen.

If the digital signal always are 100%, the error checking would not be needed. Reality is most CD's have a lot of errors, making them sound bad.

yggdrasil

01-17-2009, 01:54 PM

When you decompress lossless data (FLAC) it shall be bit for bit the same as the original. There are enough checksum data in the compressed file to ensure this. Decompression software is able to recognize errors, and hopefully report them to the user instead of ignoring them.....

Regarding the discussion of sound differences between original CD, copied CD and hard-drive (given that you use the same DAC): Any differences in sound will come from differences in the digital material, which means that the copied CD is harder to read and the hard-drive is defect.

This is possible on an audio cd-drive because it has a logical preference to ignore reading errors so that the music can play continously.

However on a computer cd-drive reading errors will lead to retries until it is read error-free or the retry-count has reached it's preprogrammed maximum.

lofi-ear

01-17-2009, 03:12 PM

This thread seems to have deviated from my original question to a discussion about digital data reliability, so here's my take on it. No offense to anyone :)

A well-preserved CD, when played with a decent CD-player, won't make the CD sound "bad" because the bits are "distorted" or badly read or whatever. It's because of bad mastering. Of course there could be occasional read errors, but they won't make the CD sound bad (unless there's a scratch or something of a larger scale damage on the cd that causes an audible pop). The red book error correction mechanism, although quite primitive, is still efficient enough to eliminate most read errors. Even if a few bits couldn't be read among thousands of them, the missing bits will be interpolated so you won't hear anything that would make you suspect something is wrong with the CD.

When a CD is ripped (copied) to a hard drive with exact audio copy, the result is guaranteed to be bitwise accurate if AccuRip feature is on, which checks the CRC checksum of the audio data from a general database somewhere in the Internet, based on other users' rips of the same CD. Even without accurip and C2 error correction on, the rip will most likely be 100% identical. And still, when read using burst mode only, it will be very close to 100% identical to the original (that is, if the CD is in a good condition).

Once the CD is on the hard drive or RAM, you don't practically need to worry about read errors anymore from the computer's viewpoint. The bits are always correct. If they weren't, programs would be crashing all the time, indicating faults in the hardware. What affects the audio data now is jitter, as the signal goes from the soundcard's spdif jack to the dac. If the DAC can resynchronize itself with the soundboard's internal clock, jitter is of no problem. Also the soundboard could introduce clocking problems, so I recommend a good one (such as M-audio's products).

In conclusion, PC is a perfect digital audio source as long as the data on the hard drive is a perfect copy of the CD. That way, you don't have to worry about possible sloppy CD data correction and the condiction of the CDs.

boputnam

01-17-2009, 03:40 PM

Here is a basic question. When burning software verifies written data, and the FLAC (or Wavpack or APE or mp3) file has been decoded on the fly during the burn...I think you mean encoded...? ;)

Great discussion.
...there is always the possibility that I am full of crap.And as usual, you are certainly not.

Rolf

01-17-2009, 04:00 PM

This thread seems to have deviated from my original question to a discussion about digital data reliability, so here's my take on it. No offense to anyone :)

Sorry about that...But...

A well-preserved CD, when played with a decent CD-player, won't make the CD sound "bad" because the bits are "distorted" or badly read or whatever. It's because of bad mastering.

Yes, that was what I said, "where ever in the line the "bad things" happen."

Of course there could be occasional read errors, but they won't make the CD sound bad (unless there's a scratch or something of a larger scale damage on the cd that causes an audible pop). The red book error correction mechanism, although quite primitive, is still efficient enough to eliminate most read errors. Even if a few bits couldn't be read among thousands of them, the missing bits will be interpolated so you won't hear anything that would make you suspect something is wrong with the CD.

You are wrong here.

When a CD is ripped (copied) to a hard drive with exact audio copy, the result is guaranteed to be bitwise accurate if AccuRip feature is on, which checks the CRC checksum of the audio data from a general database somewhere in the Internet, based on other users' rips of the same CD. Even without accurip and C2 error correction on, the rip will most likely be 100% identical. And still, when read using burst mode only, it will be very close to 100% identical to the original (that is, if the CD is in a good condition).

NO. Give some proof of that.

Once the CD is on the hard drive or RAM, you don't practically need to worry about read errors anymore from the computer's viewpoint. The bits are always correct. If they weren't, programs would be crashing all the time, indicating faults in the hardware. What affects the audio data now is jitter, as the signal goes from the soundcard's spdif jack to the dac. If the DAC can resynchronize itself with the soundboard's internal clock, jitter is of no problem. Also the soundboard could introduce clocking problems, so I recommend a good one (such as M-audio's products).

That is bullshit

In conclusion, PC is a perfect digital audio source as long as the data on the hard drive is a perfect copy of the CD. That way, you don't have to worry about possible sloppy CD data correction and the condiction of the CDs.

The data on the pc can never be the same. Try it, compare, use your ears. Use the same Original CD vs the computer download, and compare the sound playing on a good CD player.

hjames

01-17-2009, 04:05 PM

Sorry about that...But...
... That is bullshit ...

The data on the pc can never be the same. Try it, compare, use your ears. Use the same Original CD vs the computer download, and compare the sound playing on a good CD player.

An exact copy of data is an exact copy of data - no snake oil cables or maplewood need apply.

Please define "a good CD player".
Give exact make and model so we know of what you speak.
Otherwise its just another bs argument about esoteric minutiae.

Ducatista47

01-17-2009, 04:15 PM

I think you mean encoded...? ;)

I think I mean decoded. When I burn a FLAC file to a CD I either decode it with a stand alone software tool like FLAC frontend, or let the burning software decode it. In both cases, from FLAC to wave, I suppose. Since I am "decompressing" it, I assume I am decoding from FLAC, and the button I click in the tool is indeed marked "decode." But I suppose I could also be encoding the file to wave by doing that. We could both be right! Whether someone is immigrating or emigrating depends on which country you are standing in. :)

Hey, it is a free country (OK, debatable but I think it still is) and I reserve the right to be full of crap. Since I am never sure any more when I am, I am grateful for the option.

You are too kind as is your usual, Bo. I have been reading up on the 722 and I am officially envious. Do you know anyone using the Sony DSD recording system? I have a CD of Tierney Sutton & her band recorded live with the system and it sounds remarkable.

As for the other recent replies, Go Northern Europe! Which has apparently been declared a realm of scholars and gentlemen. I really, really appreciate your replies even if you do not agree.

If I ever get to visit my ancestrial homeland of Scotland, I will find a way to visit Norway, Sweden and Finland. I will be sure to visit the Sami to check out where Renee Zellweger got her great looks.

Clark

Ian Mackenzie

01-17-2009, 04:42 PM

6Moons did a review of FLAC a while back and this is a good explanation of how this whole thing of data works.

They also explain how CDs are made..from a Mother. Quite interesting

To put yet another spin on the topic a CD Player only scans the files once on reading the data and then applies correction using various means.

The Rega Apollo and Saturn pre read the CD and then read and decode .The intent being to have a better Bit perfect read of the files.

FLAC and perhaps some other programs read and scan the CD numerous times and then store the data to the HD. The premise here is the data on the HD will be more likely to be BIT perfect.

Getting the data out of the PC and deciding it is another ball game.

In the above link they refer to AES cards from Lynx that allows sending the data out of the PC to a D/A convertor without the usual issues.

Certain aspects of Windows are worked around to prevent the usual corruption of the data and this is possibly what Rolf is seeing in CD copies.

I prefer not to copy CDs and I find depending on the type of blank CD they dont last very long and tend to have more error correction problems than the original..

I suspect Windows 7 will be a lot better for handling audio data.

My only grip with using a PC is the background noise (assuming its in the playback room) screws with the S/N and ultimate resolution of the system

yggdrasil

01-17-2009, 05:15 PM

FLAC and perhaps some other programs read and scan the CD numerous times and then store the data to the HD. The premise here is the data on the HD will be more likely to be BIT perfect.

A computer CD-drive has different logic from audio CD-drive because it needs to read bit-perfect......

Ducatista47

01-17-2009, 05:35 PM

The Rega Apollo and Saturn pre read the CD and then read and decode .The intent being to have a better Bit perfect read of the files.

The latest Rega players do have a circuit that analyzes the CD and plays a version that hopefully improves fidelity. My friend that owns one says it does improve crappy CD's a lot, but the output does not allow for an exact burn of the original on some stand alone burners like BurnIt machines. They won't sync up.

My only grip with using a PC is the background noise (assuming its in the playback room) screws with the S/N and ultimate resolution of the systemI can't deal with that either. I turn the thing off when I am listening to music. Judging from all the play cable length and working around its limits gets on the Computer Audiophile site, I think a lot of listeners feel the same way.

Clark

boputnam

01-17-2009, 05:49 PM

When I burn a FLAC file to a CD ...That part is encoding. Reconstructing the file (decompressing it) is decoding. Absolutely correct, Clark - it was me stumbling on your syntax...

Rolf

01-18-2009, 04:00 AM

An exact copy of data is an exact copy of data - no snake oil cables or maplewood need apply.

In a computer program, yes. Regarding music signals, no. This is my opinion, judging by my ears. Regarding cables ... well ... I don't use very expensive cables. The most expensive I have is going from the CD to the pre. Monster Sigma. Price is about 12.000,- NKR when the US$ was around 5 NKR a US$. I hear differences, some others claim they don't. I will not go into that discussion again. People, including myself has the right to there opinion and judgement.

Please define "a good CD player".
Give exact make and model so we know of what you speak.
Otherwise its just another bs argument about esoteric minutiae.

There is a lot of good players on the market. I use a Burmeister, I believe the model is "Rondo" or something. Price? about 30 - 35000,- NKR, from the company importing them.

hjames

01-18-2009, 06:32 AM

In a computer program, yes. Regarding music signals, no. This is my opinion, judging by my ears.

Okay, so you fall squarely in the "its not measurable but I can hear it" camp.
That's cool, like you, I won't get into that argument here, but other folks might
not spend that kind of money to attain that rarified air for testing.
And like others have said, it may be that data is not different, but the signal path may not be identical.

Regarding cables ... well ... I don't use very expensive cables. The most expensive I have is going from the CD to the pre.
Monster Sigma. Price is about 12.000,- NKR when the US$ was around 5 NKR a US$. I hear differences, some others claim they don't.
I will not go into that discussion again. People, including myself have the right to their opinion and judgement.

Bravo ... why fight that?

There is a lot of good players on the market. I use a Burmeister, I believe the model is "Rondo" or something. Price? about 30 - 35,000 - NKR, from the company importing them.

Ah Bermester - http://www.burmester.de/english/welcome.html
But I would imagine many folks here will don't have that kind of money ($6 - 7,000 us) in their CD player ...
so they'll never hear such sound ... but few have a pair of K2 speakers, right?

No flames meant at all, just putting things into perspective ...

Besides, like Dieter says, the experience of live music is the yardstick its all measured against!
Living music is so much different!

Rolf

01-18-2009, 06:57 AM

Okay, so you fall squarely in the "its not measurable but I can hear
it" camp. Thats cool, like you, I won't get into that argument here, but other folks might not have that kind of money to spend to attain that rarified air.

Yes, I know that darling, but I am willing, and for me it is worth it. And from time to time I can afford to buy such things. I must admit I must other things I want come on second place. I am not a million-er you know.

Ah Bermester - http://www.burmester.de/english/welcome.html
But I would imagine many folks here will don't have that kind of money ($6 - 7,000 us) in their CD player ...
so they'll never hear such sound ... but few have a pair of K2 speakers, right?

No flames meant at all, just putting things into perspective ...

Quite all right. But if you want something you know makes a difference, you save until you can get it.

Music, Hi-Fi, reproduction of the sound, to get it as close to the real thing is something I have been having for a "hobby" for over 40 years.

I started with a "Lenco"? player, about US$ 25. Maybe I shall tell my story in a thread. I think I will.

In a few days, look in the "Off Topic" - "Rolf's Hi-Fi Story"

Cheers baby!

yggdrasil

01-18-2009, 08:59 AM

If I ever get to visit my ancestrial homeland of Scotland, I will find a way to visit Norway, Sweden and Finland. I will be sure to visit the Sami to check out where Renee Zellweger got her great looks.
You are most welcome here if you do make the trip.

Beware of the distances you have just described.....

Rolf

01-18-2009, 10:29 AM

I guess you are welcome to most Norwegian members. Me included.:)

Ian Mackenzie

01-19-2009, 02:38 AM

Yes, I know that darling, but I am willing, and for me it is worth it. And from time to time I can afford to buy such things. I must admit I must other things I want come on second place. I am not a million-er you know.

Quite all right. But if you want something you know makes a difference, you save until you can get it.

Music, Hi-Fi, reproduction of the sound, to get it as close to the real thing is something I have been having for a "hobby" for over 40 years.

I started with a "Lenco"? player, about US$ 25. Maybe I shall tell my story in a thread. I think I will.

In a few days, look in the "Off Topic" - "Rolf's Hi-Fi Story"

Cheers baby!

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=236072&postcount=6

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=235571

Hi Rolf,

I think its too early in the year to spa over hifi jewellery particularly when I read about some members selling their home built JBLs in difficult circumstances

The problem with all this stuff is that whether we spent a fortune or hunt for a bargin well all have a loyalty to what we own and we like to think it sounds best "to our ears". But dont ever expect anyone or everyone else to entirely agree with your Hifi prowess.

For example, you like your 4343's and consider them to be superior to other more contemporary systems. You are entitled to that opinion but its not an absolute that eveyone else accept that view...its all about what your ears and experiences tell that makes you happy. Nothing is perfect.

After a while most people find a combination of gear that works for their ears and their environment. If your CD player makes your speakers "sing" that is all that matters.

Ian Mackenzie

01-19-2009, 02:57 AM

For the curious and open-minded, there is some great info on this website. I'm not taking sides here, as I've mostly decided that LP's sound superior to CDs on my equipment in my room. Your mileage may vary of course...

:)

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/

jblnut

Hi Nut,

I have followed that forum from time to time.

There appears to be an art to making a good PC Music bank but those that have persisted certainly appear very happy.

Rolf

01-19-2009, 05:20 AM

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=236072&postcount=6

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=235571

Hi Rolf,

I think its too early in the year to spa over hifi jewellery particularly when I read about some members selling their home built JBLs in difficult circumstances

The problem with all this stuff is that whether we spent a fortune or hunt for a bargin well all have a loyalty to what we own and we like to think it sounds best "to our ears". But dont ever expect anyone or everyone else to entirely agree with your Hifi prowess.

For example, you like your 4343's and consider them to be superior to other more contemporary systems. You are entitled to that opinion but its not an absolute that eveyone else accept that view...its all about what your ears and experiences tell that makes you happy. Nothing is perfect.

After a while most people find a combination of gear that works for their ears and their environment. If your CD player makes your speakers "sing" that is all that matters.

Hi Ian, and thank you for your reply.

Yes of course I don't expect that many (if any) to agree with my choice of equipment. The only thing I am trying to say is that "this in what works for me". I don't agree with a lot of people regarding the stuff they use, but I respect it. I have a motto, had it for years, that "if you are happy with your system, it's ok".

Here, in my area, we started a club for people who have hi-fi/sound or equipment as a hobby. At present we are about 35. The first Tuesday every month we come together at one of the members home to listen to music and talk. Of course not everybody is able to come every time, so about 10-14 are the normal. We have no member fee, and anyone can join as long as they behave ok.

We don't have any rules, but one unwritten rule is "newer to throw dirt on" what we hear or see at the member we are visiting regarding his or hers equipment. (So far only male members. HEY girls, Come On!)

Finally Ian, yes my cd player (and the rest of my chosen equipment) makes my speakers sing. I guess you have the same feeling, and so does a lot of people.