Wombat;672898 Wrote: > Just 3 questions because i know nothing about apples digital outs or > alike. Only 3 questions about the 3 advantages of this software that > were made. > > 1. Is the digital out of any Apple computer measured better as the one > of the Squeezebox? Links please. > > 2. How does one qualify the sound of an Equalizer? Shouldn´t the most > difference come from the applied gains? Not one Equalizer does exatly > have the same curve. How to qualify this against other implementations? > Besides that on a good system there shouldn´t be ANY equalizing so this > is s non-issue. > > 3. Someone mentioned Amarra sounds best on Upsampling!? This is as dull > as any claim can get. Perfect upsampling has NO sound. Maybe the device > that is feeded by higher sampling-rate sounds better because of its > strange design.
1. You'll be hard pressed to find comparable measurements of a Touch and an Apple computer. One, b/c there isn't a standard for jitter measurement. Two, b/c what are you comparing? What outs? The two devices aren't necessarily directly comparable. Quite possible that in one setup the Touch is superior and the Apple in another. So I'm not sure any measurements that were made would be useful in terms of what you would actually hear in practice. That's why you need to judge equipment on how it sounds, and not on it's specs or parts. 2. Equalizer: Amarra has software equalizers that let you boost or reduce certain frequencies. Not based on a set curve. Some equalizers don't just change frequencies,but add their own sound signature or distortion. The one in Amarra is reputed to be "transparent", i.e., no sound signature. Having a good system and equalizing aren't opposed. Your room adds its own sound signature, and can boost or reduce some frequencies. Many who want the most accurate sound think that they come closer to accuracy by measuring their room response, and then ensuring that the output it flat when room interactions are taken into account. This has nothing to do with whether the sound reproducing equipment itself is accurate. 3. Upsampling. No, your view is a little simplisitic. Some devices are known to sound better working at some sampling rates rather than others. In addition, some users prefer upsampling b/c it enables different filtering to be used which results in a different sound. Again, this has nothing to do with whether the upsampling is done perfectly or not. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, ClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91692
_______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
