jh901 wrote: > I do not believe that Mac or Windows based laptop storage is going to > deliver the finest sound quality
Why not? > I'd like to discuss the Antipodes DX or other "digital transport" > devices. I'd like to discuss their findings on power supply design, for > example. I'm attracted to the front end where one could have a physical > SACD transport and then something like the Antipodes for audiophile > quality ripping and storage. Each would send PCM or DSD to a DAC which > may or may not also function as a pre-amp. A physical CD/SACD transport is really 20-year-old technology. What you want is a computer drive, reading buffered blocks multiple times to ensure a bit-perfect result. > "The motherboard derives from a standard board that happens to have the > mix of the chips we like, with some minor changes to onboard power > supply. But the big difference with the motherboard is the way it is > tuned. All chipsets generate electronic noise that will interfere in > some way with the signal carrying the digital data, and the level and > frequency of the noise has an audible effect on the analog output of any > DAC. It is easily heard it just does not fit with the simplistic > accepted digital theory of how these things work. If that is the case, the best solution would be to have the computer/motherboard part isolated from the DAC by an optical connection - TOSLINK or optical USB, but I am not seein too many reports of optical connections sounding vastly superior to electrical ones. > In reality, in normal use, you wont hear any difference between using > 2GB and 4GB, but the extra is useful if playing during say a library > rescan or ripping. In reality, you won't hear a difference between 256M and 2G either, as long as you don't get into swapping. > "We prefer to use open source software and believe in the eco-system > of SqueezeBox Server and VortexBox as the best way forward (now that > Logitech is out of it). It might not fit the rock star mentality in > high-end audio, but there are a number of audio firms that have got > stuck in narrow technology silos by insisting on doing something on > their own. > > "In the end open source software is better for the customer. The > software capability of our servers continues to get better, and be > widely supported, with or without us. All of our customisation is at the > script level. There is a lot of customisation involved, but by keeping > it at the script level it can remain proprietary in a Linux license > environment." > So if I understand that correctly, they like to use open source, but keep their own stuff proprietary? Funny enough, that seems to be a common model for a lot of "audiophile" software - if it was open source, we could actually verify the effect (or lack of it) of the "optimizations", and that would probably be counter-productive for the product vendor... "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=96407
_______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
