adamdea;687308 Wrote: > Actually I think a Linn Klimax might be a fairly reasonable buy. That is > quite a different thing from saying it is likely to be better than a SBT > into a good dac. > > One real problem with audiophiles and digital is that audiophuiles have > bult up a lot of gut instinct ideas based on analog electronics which do > not apply to digital. > - turntables require really good engineering to work really well, > including heavy expensive finely crafted platters, really good motors > and psus. So if a turntable looks cheap and flimsy it's probably shit. > The same is simply not true of digital componenats which can be > perftectly well engineered even though they come in flimsy plastic > boxes. > > - anything you do to an analog signal degrades it somewhat especially > a. transmitting it, which cannot be done without some signal loss and > noise insertion > b. manipulating it by EQ > This really is not true of digtal signals which can be perfectly > transmitted with ALL the information extracted reclocked and > retransmitted. You can do this from one end of the universe to the > another. > > Audiophuile can;t help thinkg that digtal trasnports are like > turntables- they aren't. They are more like a way of getting the record > onto the turntable mat. The only place where sound is made from data is > the DAC and the digtal data really can be perfectly trasnmitted to the > DAC. Trying to "perfect" bit perfect tranports is like trying to > improve the sound of your records by getting a better pair of gloves to > wear while you're holding them. > > > Digitasl signals can also be manipulated by convolution to produce > sample rate conversion and equalisation (inter alia) to produce > essentially accurate results with very little expense other than TINY > rounding errors. > This is also happening invisbly all around you in the recording and > editing and mastering process and in your dac so you might as well get > used to it. > > - the whole front end concept needs rethinking. Analog crossovers > intriduce gross distortions into the sigbnal chain. These can be > replaced digitally just as anlog filters in dacs have laregely been > replaced by more accruate digtal ones. Digital crossovers can do this > more accurately the anlog ones, without the need fro expensive highly > specced components. And they can combined the crossover and DRC *in one > step*. Even if there is some loss introduced by a digital filter you > have to bear in mind that speaker crossovers have filters too and these > are FAR less precise and CHANGE over time. > > Once you accpe tthat the crossover can be accomplkished digtally, you > then have consider where this should be done. Audiophiles dont like > digtal crossovers if they require the anlog premap output to be > converted to digtal then back to anlog, but you don't need to. > > There is no reason why it can;t be done along with DRC in your server > just as inguz allows you to do room/speaker correction on the server. > If logitech would kindly make a 4 channel squeezbox then we could all > sijply get corssoverless 2 way speakers and do the crossovers, DRC and > volume controls prior to DAC conversion. > > SO now where is the front end and where is the back end? > > By this method we could comparativekly cheaply get much closer to > accurate in room sound. > > Taking the same principle but implementing them at the end rather than > the beginning in the pro market it seems to be becoming quite common > nto have active speakers with digtal inputs, digital crossovers and > DRC built in (see eg genelec). It may well be that an SBT plus a pair > of these is all you need. Personally i would prefer to be able to > choose each of the individual components, but the principle is the same > as the server side one. Again where is the front end? > > The problem at the moment is that there is a limited market for this > kind of thing because pro engineers by and large buy pro equipment, and > consumers who care about really good sound have an alarming tendency to > be luddites. At the moment the one box solutions are either rather > expensive or a bit too demanding for the consumer, but this would be > solved pretty quickly if there were perceived to be demand > > The real shame to me is that auidphile superstition and neuroses lead > to people wasting lots of money and time trying to tune their system > randomly, expensively and either ineffectually (cables, amarra etc) or > effectively but unfaithfully (valves, nos dacs) when they could be > devotgin their time to tackling REAL problems (in room response/ > crossover distortions) relatively systematically and relatively > cheaply. > > And it is painful that it is the tweakers, who invariably seem to claim > that all convolution must be bad, who claim that other people have > closed minds.
Many thanks for your detailed response - lots to take in there! So right at the start you suggest something like a Linn Klimax or similar could be reasonable value. At a RRP of c.15k I'd suggest it's poor value. If I understand the replies so far correctly, SBT will do what any other streamer can ie. retrieve data from a source (eg PC HD or NAS). The key to it is where the data then goes either thru the DAC of the SBT or via an external DAC out then to the amp? So the Linn Klimax DS must have one hell of a DAC inside, alongside the build quality, engineering & brand! I've listened to the low end Linn DS players and was underwhelmed, compared to the SBT. Maybe I should start thinking of a DAC to try alongside the SBT to see whether there are improvements that I like. Many thanks again. -- pandasharka ------------------------------------------------------------------------ pandasharka's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45806 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93317 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
