pablolie;185839 Wrote: > Then moving the computer away should provide an easy way of reducing the > effect, or investing in a computer with a good enclosure (and there are > many available). Computer can be build to pass extremely demanding EMI > specs for some applications without a lot of money.
You're just not getting it - this has nothing to do with the server. Decoding is done on the SB's CPU when you stream FLAC, and the claim was that the increased load on the *CPU of the squeezebox* was responsible for the worse sound. > > That's a bit too SB centric. There are a lot of audio designers out > there that take the jitter issue seriously and have invested into what > they regard as severe overengineering to make sure it's not there. I > posted a link to Accuphase. There are many others. So I think > everything you say is plausible, I'd object to the "demonstrably > superior" part, because such absolutes do not exist in a world like > high end audio. It's about different strokes for different folks, and > clearly the SB does many things very well. I still wouldn't use the > built-in DA, because it sounds "demonstrably worse" (Sheffield Labs > test CDs, for one) than hooking up an external DA via the oh so flawed > S/PDIF interface. None of this stuff is utterly linear. > Well, I'm personally of the opinion that all reasonably well-engineered digital sources sound the same, and the rest sound worse. When you say the SB sounds demonstrably worse, do you mean you did a blind ABX trial? If so, please provide details; if not, you haven't demonstrated anything. -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32999 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
