Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: > > OK, > anyway just wanted to close this loop .. > > SlimDevices is history.. > Squeeze line of devices is history.. Unfortunately yes but maybe John Swensson and friends will come up with something greatly usable. Also with affordable TB SSDs around the corner there come new possibilities. So i hope my Transporter stays with me in good shape some time. Audio isn´t my main concern atm. so i don´t have to much time and money to burn. The times the sound of my system changes without doing anything is around the same it changed with tons of "mods" :) Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
why broken? :) I had many blind and non-blind listening tests with my friends.. OK, anyway just wanted to close this loop .. SlimDevices is history.. Squeeze line of devices is history.. Yet, I continue to use Squeezeserver with (broken) Squeezelite, which feeds via KS and proprietary Metronome/M2Tech driver the DAC. Broken since I added a parametric EQ.. Michael michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: > I shall like it, otherwise I have a (big) problem :) > > Not every 176/192Khz recording sounds like that, > but I had some others like the SACD rip of Natalie Cole/Ask A Woman Who > Knows.. > > With this disc it was interesting.. few years ago I had Denon A11 > DVD/SACD player. And this SACD sounded absolutely fabulously - you know, > big & rich presentation. > However, when I played a rip (I rip to 176.4/24) on Transporter it > sounded mediocre. Not bad, but nothing special.. > With the new setup, that same rip using 176.4/24 gives me the same > feeling.. although of course, the memory faded.. I think we had this once. IMHO you are testing with a broken Transporter from the moment on you soldered in your Burson OP amps. You should always mention your mod when talking about the Transporter and sound. Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
I shall like it, otherwise I have a (big) problem :) Not every 176/192Khz recording sounds like that, but I had some others like the SACD rip of Natalie Cole/Ask A Woman Who Knows.. With this disc it was interesting.. few years ago I had Denon A11 DVD/SACD player. And this SACD sounded absolutely fabulously - you know, big & rich presentation. However, when I played a rip (I rip to 176.4/24) on Transporter it sounded mediocre. Not bad, but nothing special.. With the new setup, that same rip using 176.4/24 gives me the same feeling.. although of course, the memory faded.. Michael michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
In short you like the metronomes tube signature and you feel your system is more alive. Everyone his own, so have fun! Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
I say that the 176.4/24 version sounds much more realistic and live (on metronome c6) than the downsampled (on Transporter).. Michael michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: > > It really shines with good quality albums, and more with the > high-resolution.. especially 176/192Khz (e.g. Dave Brubeck/TimeOut). > Left me breathless Yeah, on Brubecks Time Out you are lucky when you reach 15bit in 1 or 2 drumhits searching thru the whole album. When it comes from dsd you may of course have enough HF garbage into your 176.4kHz PCM conversion left to make it audiophile. I don't deny that the latest version sounds indeed superb but because of HiRes!? Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: > Phil > > I can leave with this dead-end for next 10 years, > again, the level of the mod is so high, that the player now competes > with the > sound of Metronome and EMM Labs > > Few bugs in firmware and optimization of the code is not something not > possible. > > If SlimDevices/Logitech guys read this, I would like them to contact me, > I have some time so I could invest in profiling and optimizing the code. Well, competes - yes, but not rivals.. :( I upgraded this week my digital source to music server + Metronome C6 Signature DAC. While it is not a night & day difference, hmm.. it is actually, depends on what's important for you. The level of details Metronome retrieves and the quality of the presentation is on another level.. acoustic instruments are more realistic. It really shines with good quality albums, and more with the high-resolution.. especially 176/192Khz (e.g. Dave Brubeck/TimeOut). Left me breathless Michael michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Well, when Akira Suzuki came to present CD (along with the Philips reps) came to present CD in the annual ICIM (International Music Industry Conference) in Athens in 1979, he got the following "constructive" criticism: "Look, son, you propose the bullshit!" Along with the opening of vice-president (Richard Asher) opening speech, which was not tender. Jerry Moss (A&M chairman) stated even that "I fear what the hardware people are going to come up with next., to confuse and confound the consumer" and "I loath seeing the erosion of sales and excitement in the record business because of this confusion". At the time, the recording industry was thinking that home taping was "killing" the industry. All the audience heard in the pristine sound if the CD was a better master tape for pirates. Although Hans Gout (Polygram) was trying to play "good cop" by sayng CD was "small and beautiful, when the microphone was open to the audience (of the conference) it was a deluge of criticisms and great hostility. "How did they expect the labels to invest taht much in the hardware ?" and "pay patends to Sony and Philips?" and "what about the piracy?" (extracts from Greg Miller: Perfecting Sound Forever) -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Croft 25Pre and Series 7 power - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Themis wrote: > To add to that, the industry was against CD for the same reason : > copying. At the time they were claiming cassettes were destroying their > sales and that CD would give the final blow. Er, no. For the first decade or so, the CD was loved by the Music Industry because it was ReadOnly. There was no way to have consumers copy music. They loved it. The CD was designed specifically to be better than cassettes. In the late 70s and early 80s, everyone had a cassette player in their car, and made copies from LPs. Or even shared them. The horrors. I'm a hardcore geek, and I saw me first CD burner in 1996. A major reason that the labels pushed to DVD-A and SACD was that they had built in DRM. There was not much time between the popularity of DVDs and the cheap consumer DVD burner. But by then, most importantly, selling physical media with music was going the way of the dodo. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
mlsstl;530391 Wrote: > Actually, the music industry sales were dropping before that. If you > check the RIAA "Key Statistics" for the period before, (1999 to 2003), > you'll find their record sales dropped 18% in total dollar value in > that period. > > That is -before- downloading was very common since most people were > still on dial-up connections. > > While piracy is certainly an issue, it is too convenient a fall guy to > pin the rap on. Every time there is a change in the music sales scene, > they need someone to blame. Back in January of 1941, the fall guy was > radio and ASCAP refused to renew broadcast rights for the stations. > Ironically, that resulted in the creation of BMI and the introduction > of gospel, blues and country music to the USA at large. Fast forward a > couple of years and you have "rock 'n roll"! Talk about the law of > unintended consequences. > > I'm sure you can find people who complained that LPs screwed up the > sales of singles or that 78s screwed up both the sales of wax cylinders > and sheet music. A double whammy! > > However, there is sales growth in areas of the recorded music business. > They just haven't figured out how to transition it to fully supplant the > natural decline of an aging format that had been their cash cow for many > years. > > If you look at history, that story seems awfully familiar. > > ;-) To add to that, the industry was against CD for the same reason : copying. At the time they were claiming cassettes were destroying their sales and that CD would give the final blow. History repeats itself. :) -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Croft 25Pre and Series 7 power - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Themis;530355 Wrote: > There is a 30% down on Total Music market 2004 to 2009, according to > IFPI's annual report of 2009 > (http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/dmr2009.pdf) > "Liquid" music (digital) is up 940% for the same period, but it doesn't > catch up the physical sales drop neither in volume nor in value. ;) > Piracy is the main reason, as usually... Actually, the music industry sales were dropping before that. If you check the RIAA "Key Statistics" for the period before, (1999 to 2003), you'll find their record sales dropped 18% in total dollar value in that period. That is -before- downloading was very common since most people were still on dial-up connections. While piracy is certainly an issue, it is too convenient a fall guy to pin the rap on. Every time there is a change in the music sales scene, they need someone to blame. Back in January of 1941, the fall guy was radio and ASCAP refused to renew broadcast rights for the stations. Ironically, that resulted in the creation of BMI and the introduction of gospel, blues and country music to the USA at large. Fast forward a couple of years and you have "rock 'n roll"! Talk about the law of unintended consequences. I'm sure you can find people who complained that LPs screwed up the sales of singles or that 78s screwed up both the sales of wax cylinders and sheet music. A double whammy! However, there is sales growth in areas of the recorded music business. They just haven't figured out how to transition it to fully supply the natural decline of an aging format that had been their cash cow for many years. If you look at history, that story seems awfully familiar. ;-) -- mlsstl mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
mlsstl;530186 Wrote: > Other music sales are not down. According to the latest RIAA statistics > (on their web site) CDs are down about 25%, but download sales are up > 27% for singles and 34% for albums. And those numbers make LP sales > look like a small ink drop on a sheet of white paper. There is a 30% down on Total Music market 2004 to 2009, according to IFPI's annual report of 2009 (http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/dmr2009.pdf) "Liquid" music (digital) is up 940% for the same period, but it doesn't catch up the physical sales drop neither in volume nor in value. ;) Piracy is the main reason, as usually... -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Croft 25Pre and Series 7 power - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123;530225 Wrote: > I think I understand you. > I do not compare my rips to CDs, I just do it and like what I get. > > What was your ADC? Which resolution did you use to rip LPs? 96/24? I did enough LP/digital comparison toward the beginning of my ongoing conversion project to satisfy myself that I was getting the results I was after. I tried a couple of different devices and settled on the M-Audio card. Other people have obviously chosen differently. I also tried different sample rates and found I was happy with the standard CD quality. I find the vast majority of LPs have their own inherent limitations and I just didn't find I was getting anything from the higher sampling rates that justified the extra file size. Again, that is one of those points where people need to reach their own conclusion. -- mlsstl mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
pfarrell;530243 Wrote: > michael123 wrote: > > Right..but probably a good surgeon has the best knife available, > right? > > Sometimes. When the surgeon is in his preferred hospital with his > trained crew, sure. Whether he wants a $10 knife or a $100 one is all > personal choice, and the surgeon makes the call. > > But if the circumstances are different, and all the surgeon has is my > pocket Swiss Army knife, I bet the surgeon will do better than an > intern. > > Its about the music, not geeks claiming mine is bigger > > > -- > Pat Farrell > http://www.pfarrell.com/ Well said. :) -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Croft 25Pre and Series 7 power - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: > Right..but probably a good surgeon has the best knife available, right? Sometimes. When the surgeon is in his preferred hospital with his trained crew, sure. Whether he wants a $10 knife or a $100 one is all personal choice, and the surgeon makes the call. But if the circumstances are different, and all the surgeon has is my pocket Swiss Army knife, I bet the surgeon will do better than an intern. Its about the music, not geeks claiming mine is bigger -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Right..but probably a good surgeon has the best knife available, right? -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
I don't know who this "Mlsstl" gentleman isbut he's 100% dead-on in my book. Technology, bit depth or sampling rates don't make the recording any more than the knife makes the surgeon.It's a matter of skill, and attention to detail and quality that go into the front end of the project that has such a significant impact on what we hear at home. Bravo Mlsstl. Well said. -- Curt962 Curt962's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=31949 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
mlsstl;530189 Wrote: > Though my turntable system is now setup only for transcription, in the > past I've had it in my main system and it wasn't too hard to use the > preamp input control to switch back and forth from the digital copy to > the LP. I was satisfied. > > In fact, I was more than satisfied, as a completely pure LP (in terms > of the absence of clicks & pops) is as rare as a blue moon. I found > getting rid of those with the light-handed application of Adobe > Audition's pop removal improved my listening experience. > > As far as "resolution, separation and clarity" any difference for me > was more ephemeral. Perceived differences were so small that which I > preferred could change with my mood. > > Perhaps I'm just displaying my rube ignorance of true audiophileness, > but when differences get to the point of subtlety that I'm not sure > whether the difference is real or my imagination, I long ago made the > decision to just enjoy the music at that point instead of chasing > ghosts. I think I understand you. I do not compare my rips to CDs, I just do it and like what I get. What was your ADC? Which resolution did you use to rip LPs? 96/24? -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123;530101 Wrote: > mlsstl > > so, how would you compare the rip played through Transporter to > original LP record? > > I also have few rips of my friends, and there is some loss in > resolution, separation and clarity (given that the rip is done using > 24/96). It is very close, though. Though my turntable system is now setup only for transcription, in the past I've had it in my main system and it wasn't too hard to use the preamp input control to switch back and forth from the digital copy to the LP. I was satisfied. In fact, I was more than satisfied, as a completely pure LP (in terms of the absence of clicks & pops) is as rare as a blue moon. I found getting rid of those with the light-handed application of Adobe Audition's pop removal improved my listening experience. As far as "resolution, separation and clarity" any difference for me was more ephemeral. Perceived differences were so small that which I preferred could change with my mood. Perhaps I'm just displaying my rube ignorance of true audiophileness, but when differences get to the point of subtlety that I'm not sure whether the difference is real or my imagination, I long ago made the decision to just enjoy the music at that point instead of chasing ghosts. -- mlsstl mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Themis;530132 Wrote: > Hi, > > what is important here is that LP sales are -up-, while total music > sales are -dropping-. No-one claims LP will replace redbook. > If bicycle sales are up while car sales are dropping, this is something > to consider. > > You example of nasty-sounding LPs is obviously correct, but I can find > ten examples of nasty-sounding CDs for one of your examples of > nasty-sounding LPs. Especially on mainstream (pop/rock) music. > > For the rest, I agree with you, of course. Other music sales are not down. According to the latest RIAA statistics (on their web site) CDs are down about 25%, but download sales are up 27% for singles and 34% for albums. And those numbers make LP sales look like a small ink drop on a sheet of white paper. Keep in mind that the nature of music distribution has changed constantly over the years. From 1880 until the 1940s, the primary source of income for music companies was sheet music. 78 records didn't break through that until their lifespan was almost over. I have no doubt that the nature of the market will continue to change. However, one has to be careful not to linearly extrapolate the current growth rate of anything. Just because LPs have a current growth spurt doesn't mean it will continue at that rate. That said, LP lovers should enjoy their current moment in the sun. Though you may think that poor sounding CDs outnumber poor sounding LPs (and with some of the LPs I've encountered I'm not sure I agree), the bigger point is that you acknowledge that some CDs do sound very good. Right there you have the proof that it can be done. Good sounding CDs have been made and they can be made anytime people at the record company make quality a priority. Bad sounding CDs are just like the hot teenage clothing fashion of the moment. We may scratch our heads wondering what they're thinking, but the clothing manufacturers make clothing in that style because they can sell a ton of it. Music is the same way. CDs don't have to sound hot, compressed and aggressive. They sound that way because someone intentionally set out to achieve that sound. -- mlsstl mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
mlsstl;530055 Wrote: > My reply addresses points from a couple of different posts, but the > above is as good a place to start as any. > > 1. Sure, LP sales are up, but compared to what? Vinyl record sale are > estimated at 2,8 million for 2009. That's less than 1% of album sales. > I can also spend a lot on a horse saddle, but that doesn't mean horses > are on track to replace cars in the next couple of years. > > 2. Sound quality - I've converted well over 2,000 LPs and open reels in > my personal collection to digital for my server. (That's been an 8 year > project that is still underway.) As such, I've compared a lot of vinyl > directly to digital. > > The other day I converted a 1979 Nancy Wilson LP to CD for a friend. > One track on the LP was damaged so I downloaded the track from Amazon > so she could have a complete album. The difference was dramatic so I > downloaded a copy of one of the undamaged tracks. While both the LP and > the download were from the original 1979 master tape, the (proudly > declared) "remastered" download had been overprocessed and sounded > aggressive and hot compared to the LP. > > Note that my digital conversion sounded just fine. The point is it > wasn't the format! It was what the producers and engineers had > intentionally chosen to do in their "remastering." > > I've got any number of CDs that are well recorded and a delight to > listen to. I've got a bunch of LPs that are downright nasty sounding. > > Forget the storage format - I like recordings that are good music and > that have been handled by producers and engineers who care about sound. > That doesn't require a return to analog open reel masters and LPs or > everyone switching to a 192K sample rate. It takes artists, producers > and engineers who are willing to buck the current fads and fashions of > recording. > > As far as sample rates, where does one stop? If 192K is better, why not > 1,028K, or 2,056K? I know I spoke of Dan Lavry before, but he makes a > very strong case that super high bit rates are little more than a > novelty in many ways, and may well be solving a problem that is a > non-issue and creating other problems. > > In multi-track mixing there is the issue of noise levels when mixing > tracks with disparate volume levels, but that is not an issue in > playback of a released recording with a set mix. > > Personally, I've heard enough music on "ordinary" formats to know the > results can be outstanding. For me, I'd just as soon have them forget > chasing 192K sample rates and just have them learn to reuse the old > equipment! Far too many audiophile recordings are an excuse for an > examination of a pop singer's tonsils or a too-bright classical > recording with highlight mikes balanced in a way one would never hear > at a concert. > > Sorry for the rant, but in light of the prevailing fads in music > recording these days, worrying about 192K sample rate is like > rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Hi, what is important here is that LP sales are -up-, while total music sales are -dropping-. No-one claims LP will replace redbook. If bicycle sales are up while car sales are dropping, this is something to consider. For the rest, I agree with you, of course. -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Croft 25Pre and Series 7 power - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
mlsstl so, how would you compare the rip played through Transporter to original LP record? I also have few rips of my friends, and there is some loss in resolution, separation and clarity (given that the rip is done using 24/96). It is very close, though. -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
pfarrell;530005 Wrote:
>
> Audiophiles often claim "accuracy" when they like something. And most
> audiophiles love the added even harmonic distortions that tubes/valves
> and vinyl have in spades.
>
This is a caricature, as you know.
My tube amplifiers have no more distortion than the ss ones. No
properly designed tube gear has distortion "in spades".
That's funny, replying to a caricature ("cold CD sound") by another
("harmonic distortions is spades"). :)
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Croft 25Pre and Series 7 power - Sonus Faber
Grand Piano Domus
Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123;529998 Wrote: > That's not exact. > The market of vinyl is booming. Records go for 30$, 50$, 100$, ... > I see more audiophiles that switched to CD 10-15 years ago and now go > back to turntable. Because of a sound. If there will be more material > to buy, these guys will. > > There is no point to own 100,000$ stereo system and feed it with CD > mastered with 'loudness wars' in mind. > > For me, turntable is simply impractical. I took a "strategic decision" > to go media-less. I do not have any room to store these "pancakes". My reply addresses points from a couple of different posts, but the above is as good a place to start as any. 1. Sure, LP sales are up, but compared to what? Vinyl record sale are estimated at 2,8 million for 2009. That's less than 1% of album sales. I can also spend a lot on a horse saddle, but that doesn't mean horses are on track to replace cars in the next couple of years. 2. Sound quality - I've converted well over 2,000 LPs and open reels in my personal collection to digital for my server. (That's been an 8 year project that is still underway.) As such, I've compared a lot of vinyl directly to digital. The other day I converted a 1979 Nancy Wilson LP to CD for a friend. One track on the LP was damaged so I downloaded the track from Amazon so she could have a complete album. The difference was dramatic so I downloaded a copy of one of the undamaged tracks. While both the LP and the download were from the original 1979 master tape, the (proudly declared) "remastered" download had been overprocessed and sounded aggressive and hot compared to the LP. Note that my digital conversion sounded just fine. The point is it wasn't the format! It was what the producers and engineers had intentionally chosen to do in their "remastering." I've got any number of CDs that are well recorded and a delight to listen to. I've got a bunch of LPs that are downright nasty sounding. Forget the storage format - I like recordings that are good music and that have been handled by producers and engineers who care about sound. That doesn't require a return to analog open reel masters and LPs or everyone switching to a 192K sample rate. It takes artists, producers and engineers who are willing to buck the current fads and fashions of recording. As far as sample rates, where does one stop? If 192K is better, why not 1,028K, or 2,056K? I know I spoke of Dan Lavry before, but he makes a very strong case that super high bit rates are little more than a novelty in many ways, and may well be solving a problem that is a non-issue and creating other problems. In multi-track mixing there is the issue of noise levels when mixing tracks with disparate volume levels, but that is not an issue in playback of a released recording with a set mix. Personally, I've heard enough music on "ordinary" formats to know the results can be outstanding. For me, I'd just as soon have them forget chasing 192K sample rates and just have them learn to reuse the old equipment! Far too many audiophile recordings are an excuse for an examination of a pop singer's tonsils or a too-bright classical recording with highlight mikes balanced in a way one would never hear at a concert. Sorry for the rant, but in light of the prevailing fads in music recording these days, worrying about 192K sample rate is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. -- mlsstl mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
snarlydwarf;530013 Wrote: > Then your citations to those articles was meaningless? > > I must not understand how you could be "not talking about graphs" when > you cited them as proof of the "limits" of digital reproduction. Measurements might be the proof to the listening experience. Listening per se is very subjective. RE: Distortion and tubes - that's again not exact. There is some very good quality gear that by combining both tubes and solid state gives very impressive results. Talking about 'tube sound', 'vinyl distortion' is prejudgment. I was listening to some Brinkmann 30,000$ turntable on last Munich HE Show year ago, you could not tell you were hearing to to vinyl. -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123;530007 Wrote: > I was not talking about graphs, that was my pure listening experience. > Then your citations to those articles was meaningless? I must not understand how you could be "not talking about graphs" when you cited them as proof of the "limits" of digital reproduction. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
snarlydwarf;530004 Wrote: > The catch is those graphs are not comparing "digital to analog" ... > there is no analog source depicted for comparison: you are left to fill > out the ideal curves in your head. Believing those ideal curves are > representative of how an analog source would display, however, is an > error. > > All they show is that digital is an approximation and at enough of a > 'zoom level' you can see the edges of the line. > > So what? Zoom in that close on a real world analog signal (which > medium? Vinyl isn't the only analog medium) and you will see > distortion. > > It's not even a question of "is it audible", it's a question of > implying that analog sources somehow make a magical sine wave with no > distortiona at all, which is plain and simply not true. I was not talking about graphs, that was my pure listening experience. In ideal world, I would simply have turntable for older recordings (like Miles Davis, Coltrane, etc.) -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Themis wrote: > Phil Leigh;52 Wrote: >> This is just silly. Analogue has some lovely added distortion that a >> lot of people like. Accurate it simply isn't. > Well, not quite true. A lot of quality recordings are made on analogue > gear, and, having them on CD doesn't make them "more accurate"... ;) Well, there are two kinds of "accuracy" here, often confused. If a CD/DVD-A is properly made, it can be accurate to the source per the Nyquist frequency. It can be engineered to be as close to accurately replicating the vinyl signal as you want. Audiophiles often claim "accuracy" when they like something. And most audiophiles love the added even harmonic distortions that tubes/valves and vinyl have in spades. > As for the rest, you're right: there can be fine digital recordings. > Although it took the industry some 20 years to get them right. I wouldn't say it took 20 years to get right. It did take five to ten years. The problem is that the music industry (and the RIAA) have no interest in music. They care only about sales and revenue. Its only the boutique folks that care at all about quality, accuracy, etc. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123;530001 Wrote: > > Many digital recordings have that 'edginess', vinyl sounds more > 'smooth' > > The catch is those graphs are not comparing "digital to analog" ... there is no analog source depicted for comparison: you are left to fill out the ideal curves in your head. Believing those ideal curves are representative of how an analog source would display, however, is an error. All they show is that digital is an approximation and at enough of a 'zoom level' you can see the edges of the line. So what? Zoom in that close on a real world analog signal (which medium? Vinyl isn't the only analog medium) and you will see distortion. It's not even a question of "is it audible", it's a question of implying that analog sources somehow make a magical sine wave with no distortiona at all, which is plain and simply not true. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Phil Leigh;52 Wrote: > > This is just silly. Analogue has some lovely added distortion that a > lot of people like. Accurate it simply isn't. Well, not quite true. A lot of quality recordings are made on analogue gear, and, having them on CD doesn't make them "more accurate"... ;) As for the rest, you're right: there can be fine digital recordings. Although it took the industry some 20 years to get them right. -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Croft 25Pre and Series 7 power - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Phil 1) Did you listen to quality analog rig? 2) If you did not read the article, please do. That's not black & white. I am not a "vinyl lover", but I do listen frequently to quality gear. Many digital recordings have that 'edginess', vinyl sounds more 'smooth' There are some measurements in the article, taken with Tektronix and Audio Precision (I think), I do not understand why did you have to call it 'old misinformed rubbish'. -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123;529986 Wrote: > Thanks, wireless200. > > mlsstl, > > Then why is the need to work with 192KHz at all? Why the industry > adopts DXD, which is 384Hz, I think..? I saw few labels going this way, > and there is hardware available of course.. > > > There is one interesting article, comparing analog and different > digital techniques: > http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles/427-a-secrets-technical-article.html > > Even with 192/24, analog still has an edge over digital recording > (see here, for example - > http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles/427-a-secrets-technical-article.html?start=3) > > I think the main idea of high-resolution is to provide a proper > substitute to vinyl and/or master tape. > > HDAD by Classic Records indeed sounds very close, still older records > sound much better on turntable than on computer. > > Recent (USB) release of Beatles was 44.1/24, but, as I understood, it > was digitized on much higher sample rate, and will be re-released in > the future. That article you linked to is the same old misinformed rubbish that has been washing around the internet and in (some) hi-fi mags for years. Please don't show me another jagged sine wave... So you can't record a 10kHz sine wave perfectly at 44.1kHz, huh? Clearly Shannon et al were misguided fools... Why can't people learn that the way the wave gets drawn on the screen by some software says nothing - NOTHING - about how it sounds. There is NO veracity in that article. Nothing scientific in it at all. It's just trying to prop up the old agenda that digital ain't as good as analogue. This is just silly. Analogue has some lovely added distortion that a lot of people like. Accurate it simply isn't. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
That's not exact. The market of vinyl is booming. Records go for 30$, 50$, 100$, ... I see more audiophiles that switched to CD 10-15 years ago and now go back to turntable. Because of a sound. If there will be more material to buy, these guys will. There is no point to own 100,000$ stereo system and feed it with CD mastered with 'loudness wars' in mind. For me, turntable is simply impractical. I took a "strategic decision" to go media-less. I do not have any room to store these "pancakes". -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123;529986 Wrote: > Thanks, wireless200. > > mlsstl, > > Then why is the need to work with 192KHz at all? Why the industry > adopts DXD, which is 384Hz, I think..? I saw few labels going this way, > and there is hardware available of course.. > > > There is one interesting article, comparing analog and different > digital techniques: > http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles/427-a-secrets-technical-article.html > > Even with 192/24, analog still has an edge over digital recording > (see here, for example - > http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles/427-a-secrets-technical-article.html?start=3) > > I think the main idea of high-resolution is to provide a proper > substitute to vinyl and/or master tape. > > HDAD by Classic Records indeed sounds very close, still older records > sound much better on turntable than on computer. > > Recent (USB) release of Beatles was 44.1/24, but, as I understood, it > was digitized on much higher sample rate, and will be re-released in > the future. Problem is nobody cares. You'll have a few esoteric recordings from boutique studios that will sell six copies to "audiophiles" but the popular mainstream lables will continue to ship junk product. -- ghostrider ghostrider's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18959 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123;529986 Wrote: > Thanks, wireless200. > > mlsstl, > > Then why is the need to work with 192KHz at all? Why the industry > adopts DXD, which is 384Hz, I think..? I saw few labels going this way, > and there is hardware available of course.. > > > There is one interesting article, comparing analog and different > digital techniques: > http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles/427-a-secrets-technical-article.html > > Even with 192/24, analog still has an edge over digital recording > (see here, for example - > http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles/427-a-secrets-technical-article.html?start=3) > > I think the main idea of high-resolution is to provide a proper > substitute to vinyl and/or master tape. > > HDAD by Classic Records indeed sounds very close, still older records > sound much better on turntable than on computer. > > Recent (USB) release of Beatles was 44.1/24, but, as I understood, it > was digitized on much higher sample rate, and will be re-released in > the future. Problem is nobody cares. You'll have a few esoteric recordings from boutique studios that will sell six copies to "audiophiles" but the popular mainstream lables will continue to ship junk product. -- ghostrider ghostrider's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18959 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Thanks, wireless200. mlsstl, > If one is not mixing and editing multi-track files, what purpose is > being served at 192K sample rates? Then why is the need to work with 192KHz > at all? Why the industry adopts DXD, which is 384Hz, I think..? I saw few labels going this way, and there is hardware available of course.. There is one interesting article, comparing analog and different digital techniques: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles/427-a-secrets-technical-article.html Even with 192/24, analog still has an edge over digital recording (see here, for example - http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles/427-a-secrets-technical-article.html?start=3) I think the main idea of high-resolution is to provide a proper substitute to vinyl and/or master tape. HDAD by Classic Records indeed sounds very close, still older records sound much better on turntable than on computer. Recent (USB) release of Beatles was 44.1/24, but, as I understood, it was digitized on much higher sample rate, and will be re-released in the future. -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123;529507 Wrote: > > Transporter is a killer product, i think it deserves more attention. Michael, I appreciate you dogged pursuit of answers in this thread. That's really the only way good things ever get done. You ran into a bit of a "no can do" attitude but it resulted in one of the more interesting threads here for some time. -- wireless200 wireless200's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11887 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Curt962;529674 Wrote: > > It seems the music industry itself isn't concerned with providing the > highest resolution possible.They could, but without a viable market > (read: BIG market) it simply isn't on their radar screen. > A sole focus on maximum quality has never been true in the history of recorded audio, whether you're talking downloads, the introduction of the CD almost 30 years ago, or the introduction of the 33 RPM LP in 1948 or 78s and wax cylinders before that. Simply put, the industry has to sell large commercial quantities of its music in order to stay in business. So when the "committee" gets together to define the standards for the music format du jour, there are always a lot of variables in play and a compromise at some level is inevitable. LPs just suffered from a different version of the time vs quality compromise that CDs and subsequent digital formats have had to face. Dan Lavry even has even discussed the disadvantages of having too high a sampling rate; it can actually reduce accuracy. For example, he states that it isn't hard to get 24 bit accuracy at 10KHz, but if you need a 1 GHz signal, you'd be lucky to get 6 bit accuracy. So the increase to very high sample rates comes with a price tag other than just file size and needed processing power. If one is not mixing and editing multi-track files, what purpose is being served at 192K sample rates? In many ways audio is just like any other engineering task. Good design is a matter of picking the compromises that make the most sense. And it is also inevitable there will be differing opinions about the best choice. -- mlsstl mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Perhaps someone could award me an honorary PhD in "Miscommunications" For me, it's really not a matter of music appreciation.There's not many genres of music in which I can't find something to like. Thoughts to the contrary wasn't my point at all. My point is, and I'm sure others may quietly agree It seems the music industry itself isn't concerned with providing the highest resolution possible.They could, but without a viable market (read: BIG market) it simply isn't on their radar screen. If people were falling over themselves for the latest Hi-Res musicthen SACD and DVD-A wouldn't be on death row. Would they? There are any number of reasons for this, but we live in an age of cheap, now, and plenty. An age where the CD is too bulky and complicated. Mega Hi-Res media...as much as it appeals to the audiophile in those of us here will simply not be born by the masses. This will, as it always has,leave us with a tiny handful of niche recordings from largely obscure performers with which to enjoy the capabilities of our specialist hardware. I'd love to have 176, 192, 384 or whatever else can be dreamed up. As a practical matter however I wouldn't spend a dime for it until I see some movement to provide me, the consumer with a broad catalog of music from which to choose. It's not there, and so I'm not buying. My 2 pesos... -- Curt962 Curt962's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=31949 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123;529507 Wrote: > > > Transporter is a killer product, i think it deserves more attention. It may be a killer product, but not for a Logitech like company, they want the MP3 crowd, volume is where it's at. Dave -- DaveWr DaveWr's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9331 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Curt962;529502 Wrote: > I for one am all for the best possible technologies to present our > favorite music, but until the record companies are?? It seems to > remain just a dream. > > As long as "focus groups" of college students find 128Kbps MP3s to > sound so good, I don't expect the labels to make the investment. If > the kids won't buy it...we don't get it. Period. Folks would rather > have it "now" via download than they would have it "good". When > your entire system costs $169...a few thousand Kbps doesn't make a lot > of difference to the masses. > > The same people who wouldn't dream of watching American Idol on > anything less than a lifesize Plasma screen, will happily listen to > their music through a 2" paper cone. > > And we want 176 what?? > > I'm done buying "audiophile" music that bores me in one or two plays. > I've found that in the meantime, there are far more meaningful aspects > of one's playback system that can be improved upon. > > I feel that my Transporter at 24/96 is the least of my challenges. Jazz/blues was indeed boring me 15 years ago, but today I find it quite interesting. Also, since I heavily upgraded my stereo system, I can now enjoy classical recordings... Which are plenty on high-rez For some reason, maybe marketing as Pat noted, recording industry goes to 192/24. Hence, I prefer the player to handle it natively, rather than buying strong CPU for SqueezeCenter to downsample it, and create artifacts.. Transporter is a killer product, i think it deserves more attention. -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
I for one am all for the best possible technologies to present our favorite music, but until the record companies are?? It seems to remain just a dream. As long as "focus groups" of college students find 128Kbps MP3s to sound so good, I don't expect the labels to make the investment. If the kids won't buy it...we don't get it. Period. I'm done buying "audiophile" music that bores me in one or two plays. I've found that in the meantime, there are far more meaningful aspects of one's playback system that can be improved upon. I feel that my Transporter at 24/96 is the least of my challenges. -- Curt962 Curt962's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=31949 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
tcutting;529198 Wrote: > So, do you know the difference between "Hardware" and "Software"? Sorry - didn't mean this to be too deep a question... more of a "geeky riddle". Answer: You can change the hardware! -- tcutting tcutting's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17402 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
:) -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Croft 25Pre and Series 7 power - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
pfarrell;529218 Wrote: > Phil Leigh wrote: > > tcutting;529198 Wrote: > >> So, do you know the difference between "Hardware" and "Software"? > > > > ??? > > I see this as a perfectly valid question. These days, a lot of > "hardware" is really defined by "software" and so the ancient > distinctions are vague and occasionally meaningless. > > I expect that in time, there will be very little "hardware" differences > > in even high end audio equipment. > > -- > Pat Farrell > http://www.pfarrell.com/ No I get that - FPGA's changed everything. But there's a big difference between DSP within audio gear and large-scale commercial Enterprise computing...(as I'm sure you know) ...and yes I am 100% comfortable that I understand the difference between hardware and software! -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Phil Leigh wrote: > tcutting;529198 Wrote: >> So, do you know the difference between "Hardware" and "Software"? > > ??? I see this as a perfectly valid question. These days, a lot of "hardware" is really defined by "software" and so the ancient distinctions are vague and occasionally meaningless. I expect that in time, there will be very little "hardware" differences in even high end audio equipment. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
tcutting;529198 Wrote: > So, do you know the difference between "Hardware" and "Software"? ??? -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
So, do you know the difference between "Hardware" and "Software"? -- tcutting tcutting's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17402 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Themis;529176 Wrote: > Well, then, we must agree, I guess. :) Yes... it gets written very, very slowly :-) -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Well, then, we must agree, I guess. :) -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Croft 25Pre and Series 7 power - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Phil Leigh;529034 Wrote: > Well, actually my experience is that it can be much cheaper AND > faster-to-market to buy a new £1m server that is ten times quicker than > it is to hire a bunch of highly expensive gurus to pour over > already-optimised code to get maybe 50-100% performance increase after > massive testing... and then 6 months later buy the hardware anyway... > ymmv :-) Bad idea. It costs less. Code is rarely optimized, you would be scared if you knew how it is made and tested... (not talking about the Transporter, here). Experts are no "gurus", just normal/good professionals. The bunch of us is simply heavily under-qualified, crushed by the abnormally high project-management costs. ;) -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Croft 25Pre and Series 7 power - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
paulduggan;529118 Wrote: > I don't understand the relevance of the link. It seems to be advertising > material for a device that adds distortion to a signal. If you want to > do that then surely there are cheaper and easier ways than buying a > high fidelity device and then hacking it? > > Which distortion are you talking about? Do you know of one which > doesn't detract from the accuracy of the source? Did you read it? It is about common goals in audio design of amplification If you have further questions, please post them on DIYAudio -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
I don't understand the relevance of the link. It seems to be advertising material for a device that adds distortion to a signal. If you want to do that then surely there are cheaper and easier ways than buying a high fidelity device and then hacking it? Which distortion are you talking about? Do you know of one which doesn't detract from the accuracy of the source? -- paulduggan paulduggan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=30396 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
paulduggan;529089 Wrote: > That sounds like -more- distortion. which one? ;-) -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123;529085 Wrote: > ...I think that higher-order harmonics's amplitude decreased. That sounds like -more- distortion. -- paulduggan paulduggan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=30396 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Phil Leigh;528853 Wrote: > Well, no need really - a lot (probably most) of the music we listen to > has already passed through several 5532/4 opamps (or worse - much > worse) with power supplies you and I wouldn't allow in the house, so > there is no going back from there. Messing around with the opamps in > the TP will make it sound different for sure, but absolutely better > (more accurate)? Categorically not. Just "better" for you - which is > fine. DAC output stages are like cartridges - pick one to suit your own > taste. I agree that as far as it comes to music, this kind of experience is very subjective. Yet, there are at least five people I know that liked the sound.. Objectively speaking though, these op-amps I am talking about are *discrete*, not SMD. The benefits are much less inter-modulated distortion (?? I believe this is the coined term..). That's like comparing Class AB and Class A amplifiers. Also, since the sound became "warmer" (and respectfully, less analytic and metallic), I think that higher-order harmonics's amplitude decreased. [ We do not have 10K$ Audio Precision so we could not measure, although I very wanted to.. ] We did not modify topology, did not touch the digital interface, which is in our opinion - excellently built. The guy who soldered this for me is professional, he has 20 years of experience in electronics (high-tech) and now he builds and sells various kind of equipment, such as speakers, digital amplifiers, power supplies etc. Modders and DIY-ers are not something bad.. This is by far the best "bang for the buck", if you know what you're doing.. -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Themis;528895 Wrote: > Well, I don't know which is michael123's job, but he's right on software > performance. Optimizations are not indefinite, of course, but you can > divide useful (externally observed) response time by 20 to 50 most of > the time. ;) Thanks! BTW, I spent almost a month with my team two years ago in Montpellier in IBM Labs, benchmarking and optimizing our system for Power6 Really great place! -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Themis;529023 Wrote: > Thanks Robin. > > > Yes, you have to upgrade the hardware, eventually. But, problem is, you > upgrade it for adding another software, rarely for making existing > applications faster (except if you lack software experts to do so, or > you are advised by hardware makers...). ;) Well, actually my experience is that it can be much cheaper AND faster to buy a new £1m server that is ten times quicker than it is to hire a bunch of highly expensive gurus to pour over already-optimised code to get maybe 50-100% performance increase after massive testing... and then 6 months later buy the hardware anyway... ymmv :-) -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Robin Bowes;528957 Wrote: > On 29/03/10 23:34, Themis wrote: > > > > Sorry, Phil, my English is not good enough to know what "throw tin" > > means... and search engines were not of much help. I would be > grateful > > if you could provide a synonym, if you don't mind. > > To "throw tin" at something means to upgrade the hardware. > > R. Thanks Robin. Phil Leigh Wrote: > You can go so far then eventually you have to "throw tin" at the > problem. Yes, you have to upgrade the hardware, eventually. But, problem is, you upgrade it for adding another software, rarely for making existing applications faster (except if you lack software experts to do so, or you are advised by hardware makers...). ;) -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Croft 25Pre and Series 7 power - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
snarlydwarf wrote: > pfarrell;528958 Wrote: >> While the 'high end' audio folks have a longer time frame, anything >> computer related that is four or five years old is economically >> obsolete. > > With the fast rise of ARM processors in the last few years, that > timeline is accelerated for 'embedded' applications. cheap, low > wattage, reasonable cpu speed and a wealth of options on chip. > > Even my TV has an ARM processor in it (and runs Linux). Yes, the ARM is a great chip. iPhones have three of them. They are everywhere. I can't predict the future, but as all media moves to digital formats (vinyl lovers excepted) there is not a lot of room for the old style using of components for decades. I still have two Large Advents that I bought in 1971, but I don't use them for anything. My brother has my Dynaco preamp and amp from that system. Modern systems are going to be all DSP based, with an ARM or whatever replaces it in charge. The idea of putting a lot of time, money and effort into improving a piece of HiFi gear is going to look as silly as putting a lot of money into restoring a mid-70s vintage Toyota. Real computers (desktops, laptops, etc., as opposed to embedded systems) have gotten so powerful that 99% of the buyers never use even a fraction of their capabilities. Pat -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
pfarrell;528958 Wrote: > > While the 'high end' audio folks have a longer time frame, anything > computer related that is four or five years old is economically > obsolete. > With the fast rise of ARM processors in the last few years, that timeline is accelerated for 'embedded' applications. cheap, low wattage, reasonable cpu speed and a wealth of options on chip. Even my TV has an ARM processor in it (and runs Linux). -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Robin Bowes wrote: > On 29/03/10 23:34, Themis wrote: >> Sorry, Phil, my English is not good enough to know what "throw tin" >> means... and search engines were not of much help. I would be grateful >> if you could provide a synonym, if you don't mind. > > To "throw tin" at something means to upgrade the hardware. Back when I drove near junker cars as an impoverished student, we would talk about how to best fix up the car. Sometimes, the best approach was to jack up the radiator cap, and replace everything under it. A more serious version of "upgrading the hardware" While the 'high end' audio folks have a longer time frame, anything computer related that is four or five years old is economically obsolete. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
On 29/03/10 23:34, Themis wrote: > > Sorry, Phil, my English is not good enough to know what "throw tin" > means... and search engines were not of much help. I would be grateful > if you could provide a synonym, if you don't mind. To "throw tin" at something means to upgrade the hardware. R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Sorry, Phil, my English is not good enough to know what "throw tin" means... and search engines were not of much help. I would be grateful if you could provide a synonym, if you don't mind. -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Croft 25Pre and Series 7 power - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Themis;528895 Wrote: > Well, I don't know which is michael123's job, but he's right on software > performance. Optimizations are not indefinite, of course, but you can > divide useful (externally observed) response time by 20 to 50 most of > the time. ;) You can go so far then eventually you have to "throw tin" at the problem. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Well, I don't know which is michael23's job, but he's right on software's performance. Optimizations are not indefinite, of course, but you can divide useful (externally observed) response time by 20 to 50 most of the time. ;) -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Croft 25Pre and Series 7 power - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123;528847 Wrote: > > My specialization is performance of cluster-based enterprise system. My > background is imaging processing and algorithms. Software system > performance can be always improved, this is matter of time and will. > This is my bread and butter. I got paid for it. > But I got my answer.. This is not true. If it were, it would be possible to run Windows on an 8008. Eventually you hit the wall on software optimizations. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123;528824 Wrote: > Phil > > Bear in mid this link: > http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=505803&postcount=56 > > > yes, power supply of Transporter is good enough as well as digital > output interface. This is what we saw and compared.. [ Digital input, > however, is not at the same level IMHO. ] > > Yet, analog topology *is exactly as* specified by Asahi Kasei (one of, > actually - there are few options), on page 35 of the spec (there are > very small differences, but the topology is 100% same) > > Bear in mind that we had Transporter opened for 10 days against our > eyes > > Bear in mind we tested different components and measured with equipment > and then listened.. > > Bear in mind that the raw electronics in analog stage is very basic > (could not be worse than that..) > > Shall I continue? Well, no need really - a lot (probably most) of the music we listen to has already passed through several 5532/4 opamps (or worse - much worse) with power supplies you and I wouldn't allow in the house, so there is no going back from there. Messing around with the opamps in the TP will make it sound different for sure, but absolutely better (more accurate)? Categorically not. Just "better" for you - which is fine. DAC output stages are like cartridges - pick one to suit your own taste. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
pfarrell;528841 Wrote: > michael123 wrote:[color=blue] > What people? > See few posts before pfarrell;528841 Wrote: > michael123 wrote:[color=blue] > You seem to be just asking the same thing over and over. > One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and > expecting different results. > And another definition of insult somebody is to call him 'insane' Pat, I love my Transported, I loved it before and now I love it even more. If I would not love it, I would not mod it, but just connect some Weiss DAC.. My specialization is performance of cluster-based enterprise system. My background is imaging processing and algorithms. Software system performance can be always improved, this is matter of time and will. This is my bread and butter. I got paid for it. But I got my answer.. -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: > 1) stop insulting me > I will bring this to attention of Logitech guys > You should go away as your posts are ignorant and irritating I have not insulted you. I have said that your posts are pointless and you are a troll. You act like a troll, you write like a troll, you listen like a troll. As a wise man once said, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck > 2) You are misleading.. > Transporter can be upgraded and improved, that's the point.. > As with every component. All audio designers are DIY-ers and modders. If you hack it up, its no longer a Transporter. Its like someone who has a 32 ford and puts a Chevy V8 into it. Its now a hot rod, its not a Ford. The Transporter is old, Electronics moves with Moore's Law. If you want to hot rod it, why are you here in the commercial product forums and not in some DIY site? > 3) I am a legitimate (paying) customer of SlimDevices and Logitech. > You're not going to shut me off Of course not, I am asking you, politely to shut up. > 4) People asked me about the mod, so I provided some questions.. What people? You seem to be just asking the same thing over and over. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Pat 1) stop insulting me I will bring this to attention of Logitech guys You should go away as your posts are ignorant and irritating 2) You are misleading.. Transporter can be upgraded and improved, that's the point.. As with every component. All audio designers are DIY-ers and modders. Did you visit DIYAudio? You can meet there John Curl, Nelson Pass, ... 3) I am a legitimate (paying) customer of SlimDevices and Logitech. You're not going to shut me off 4) People asked me about the mod, so I provided some questions.. 5) Yes, I got the questions regarding 192/24. I understood that nobody will profile it. -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: > When you will have something meaningful to say on the subject of this > thread, say it.. We have fully explored this thread. You are asking for stuff that will not be answered. You want stuff that can't be done. If you hate the Transporter so much, and have half the skills you claim, built your own. Otherwise, please, go away. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Pat give me a favor. When you will have something meaningful to say on the subject of this thread, say it.. In the meantime... -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: > Shall I continue? No You have become a troll. And your SeanTrollScore for these recent posts is 0/10. See http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76315 -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Phil Bear in mid this link: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=505803&postcount=56 yes, power supply of Transporter is good enough as well as digital output interface. This is what we saw and compared.. [ Digital input, however, is not at the same level IMHO. ] Yet, analog topology *is exactly as* specified by Asahi Kasei (one of, actually - there are few options), on page 35 of the spec (there are very small differences, but the topology is 100% same) Bear in mind that we had Transporter opened for 10 days against out eyes Bear in mind we tested different components and measured with equipment and then listened.. Bear in mind that the raw electronics in analog stage is very basic (could not be worse than that..) Shall I continue? -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
twheatley;528751 Wrote: > anyone know anywhere in the UKthat would perform the upgrades michael123 > mentions? It's always worth bearing in mind this post... http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=249134&postcount=4 -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
When we replaced 6 op-amps with Burson discrete ones, oscilloscope showed some noise. So, initially we thought of power supply. Frankly, the guy who did the mod had some available (dedicated toroidal power supply + super regulators), but after he installed it (to feed op-amps) he could not see the benefits (noise remained) The outcome of this test showed us that the power supply of Transporter is very good (no similarities to SB3 at all). Few days after we tested modded Transporter against EMM Labs XDS1 player (one of the most expensive on the market and considered to be one of the best) - http://www.emmlabs.com/html/audio/xds1/xds1.html Rest of the system was on par with this machine, such as Von Schweikert VR-7 speakers.. We listened for five hours via Transporter digital output AES/EBU fed to EMM input, EMM CD source, and Transporter modded analog output. While Transporter's analog output was close to EMM's (small difference was mainly in the high-frequency area, Transporter was more extended), digital was the same. We did switching between preamp inputs every few minutes.. No difference.. And we all have (we were group of three people) 'audiophile' ears :-) So, I would not perform digital-only mod.. -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
twheatley;528751 Wrote: > anyone know anywhere in the UKthat would perform the upgrades michael123 > mentions? Interestingly, Audiocom only do a digital output upgrade for the TP. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
anyone know anywhere in the UKthat would perform the upgrades michael123 mentions? -- twheatley twheatley's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5167 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Transporter's DAC - e.g. the chip - is well-respected and used in a very high-end equipment, such as Esoteric and Metronome. Yet, it is analog stage may be **greatly** improved. Under the hood, while schematically excellent, Transporter has very cheap (cents) components. I wish I could upgrade it earlier, now it sounds incredible. Three-dimensional, very quiet (more quite than before), better bass control, better details & microdynamics, etc.. Yet, Transporter as-is sounds good, but not as it could once you upgrade op-amps, capacitors, etc. from 1cent to something that costs 1$ (virtually) Re: 192/24 vs. 176.4/24 - Recently Linn Records released few classical albums with 192/24, I have also HRx disk with 176.4/24, Lindberg has few 192/24 records.. I just want to hear as-is. Another points are that downsampling from 192/24 to 96/24 is CPU-intensive, while 172.4/24 to 96/24 may introduce noise (until I fix SoX to downsample to 88.4/24) -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123;528228 Wrote: > And to the guys that do not (even) need 96/24, why did you buy > Transporter? Are you suggesting that the only capability of the Transporter that might justify a purchase is the sample rates that it supports? Don't you think perhaps the high quality DAC chip it uses, or the fact that it has low noise balanced outputs might have some bearing on its performance? Or that its multiple digital inputs which allow it to be used as a DAC for other sources might be useful in some installations? I would still have bought a Transporter if it had been limited to 48/24 -- cliveb Transporter -> ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
JohnSwenson;528305 Wrote: > I've measured big differences using a linear supply for the SB3, but its > not in the signal coming out of the DAC or digital outs. The switcher > that comes with the SB3 injects a huge amount of noise into the power > cord which winds up in the other boxes in the system unless you have > very good power filtration in your system. The frequencies that come > out of this switcher are rather pernicious, they are low enough that > most "RF" filters don't touch them and high enough that they sail right > through the stray capacitances of most power supplies. > > This is not just conjecture, I've measured it several times with many > different pieces of equipment, power bars, power filters etc. > > Its rather interesting that the only equipment which does a good job > filtering out this noise is boxes which also have switching supplies. > The switcher has filters designed to keep its own noise out of the > electronics which also does a good job blocking the noise from the SB3 > supply. > > The result of this is that the effect of the noise from the SB3 > switcher in general is far more noticeable on high end gear that uses > good linear supplies than it is with "consumer" gear using swithing > supplies. > > In my system the good linear supply does make a significant difference > with the SB3. With the SB3 supply even if the SB3 is not providing the > signal it makes a difference, which seems a pretty good indication that > its not direct signal related but some other vector. > > Just plugging the switcher is not enough to cause the problem, it has > to have a significant load (the SB3) in order for this to be an issue. > I have not tried just a resistor as a load to the switcher and see if > that degrades the sound from other sources. > > The switcher that comes with the Touch is vastly better than the one > that came with the SB3. With it I cannot hear any difference using the > switcher or the linear supply. When I have the touch in the listening > room I just use its own switcher. > > One test I have NOT done, but probably should is to use the Touch's > supply with the SB3. > > In addition to the noise injected into the AC line there IS noise > radiated from the wires and the supply box itself which can get picked > up by interconnects and other boxes. My measurements show this to be > significantly less importance than the power cord born noise, but its > still there. If an audiophile is using unshielded interconnects (which > are popular in some circles) this source of noise can wind up being > significant. > > Th SB3 itself also radiates a lot more RF than the Touch, but thats > irrespective of what power supply you use. > > So yep, using a linear instead of the switcher that comes with the SB3 > CAN make a big difference to sound. How much is going to be quite > system dependant. For some its going to make a big difference others > won't hear it at all and others will be inbetween. > > That little switcher that comes with the SB3 is so bad that it makes my > skin crawl just thinking about it. I keep one on the floor in my > listening room and stomp on it everytime I go in or out. I've been > trying to come up with a good use for one, such as testing the > ruggedness of a sledge hammer etc. That little thing is amazingly > resiliant, I have not been able to damage it yet. A 15 pound sledge > hammer with a really good swing would probably do it. > > John S. John - thanks for taking the time to type all of this - really fascinating stuff. This explains a lot: 1) Why I could never detect/measure any audible differences with the different supplies - I was measuring the SB3 in isolation, so there were no other vectors. 2) When doing listening tests, my system has a very high-quality switching supply in the pre-amp which would filter out any crap coming back in via the mains through that vector 3) I only use screened cables (I did once have an NVA amp that came with unscreened cables - it also came with a self-destruct feature!) 4) I use a symmetrical choke-based mains filter for all of my "switching" supplies (router, USB disk, HDMI Switch box, SB3/Touch) that will stop some crud coming back onto the mains from those devices. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.co
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
johnswenson;528305 Wrote: > > > that little switcher that comes with the sb3 is so bad that it makes my > skin crawl just thinking about it. I keep one on the floor in my > listening room and stomp on it everytime i go in or out. I've been > trying to come up with a good use for one, such as testing the > ruggedness of a sledge hammer etc. That little thing is amazingly > resiliant, i have not been able to damage it yet. A 15 pound sledge > hammer with a really good swing would probably do it. > > John s. :p -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Croft 25Pre and Series 7 power - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
On the main subject of this thread there IS a reason that 176/192 might sound better, but the explanation is somewhat involved and I don't have time right now to put it all down. Maybe tomorrow I'll take a couple hours off from DAC design and give it a try. John S. -- JohnSwenson JohnSwenson's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5974 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Phil Leigh;527990 Wrote: > John - what's your view on after-market power supplies for the > SB3/Touch? > I'm pretty much convinced that there MIGHT be a very small benefit for > the SB3 s/pdif but I'm darned if I can find any benefit for the Touch > using its digital outputs... I've measured big differences using a linear supply for the SB3, but its not in the signal coming out of the DAC or digital outs. The switcher that comes with the SB3 injects a huge amount of noise into the power cord which winds up in the other boxes in the system unless you have very good power filtration in your system. The frequencies that come out of this switcher are rather pernicious, they are low enough that most "RF" filters don't touch them and high enough that they sail right through the stray capacitances of most power supplies. This is not just conjecture, I've measured it several times with many different pieces of equipment, power bars, power filters etc. Its rather interesting that the only equipment which does a good job filtering out this noise is boxes which also have switching supplies. The switcher has filters designed to keep its own noise out of the electronics which also does a good job blocking the noise from the SB3 supply. The result of this is that the effect of the noise from the SB3 switcher in general is far more noticeable on high end gear that uses good linear supplies than it is with "consumer" gear using swithing supplies. In my system the good linear supply does make a significant difference with the SB3. With the SB3 supply even if the SB3 is not providing the signal it makes a difference, which seems a pretty good indication that its not direct signal related but some other vector. Just plugging the switcher is not enough to cause the problem, it has to have a significant load (the SB3) in order for this to be an issue. I have not tried just a resistor as a load to the switcher and see if that degrades the sound from other sources. The switcher that comes with the Touch is vastly better than the one that came with the SB3. With it I cannot hear any difference using the switcher or the linear supply. When I have the touch in the listening room I just use its own switcher. One test I have NOT done, but probably should is to use the Touch's supply with the SB3. In addition to the noise injected into the AC line there IS noise radiated from the wires and the supply box itself which can get picked up by interconnects and other boxes. My measurements show this to be significantly less importance than the power cord born noise, but its still there. If an audiophile is using unshielded interconnects (which are popular in some circles) this source of noise can wind up being significant. Th SB3 itself also radiates a lot more RF than the Touch, but thats irrespective of what power supply you use. So yep, using a linear instead of the switcher that comes with the SB3 CAN make a big difference to sound. How much is going to be quite system dependant. For some its going to make a big difference others won't hear it at all and others will be inbetween. That little switcher that comes with the SB3 is so bad that it makes my skin crawl just thinking about it. I keep one on the floor in my listening room and stomp on it everytime I go in or out. I've been trying to come up with a good use for one, such as testing the ruggedness of a sledge hammer etc. That little thing is amazingly resiliant, I have not been able to damage it yet. A 15 pound sledge hammer with a really good swing would probably do it. John S. -- JohnSwenson JohnSwenson's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5974 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Michael, perhaps you should change your ID to "Don Quixote". But you do get a gold star for persistency ;-) -- mlsstl mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Pat, 1) Downsampling introduces artifacts, right? 2) Of course, Wave sounds same as flac. The purpose was to save CPU cycles on Transporter by doing the decompression on the server. What would be the CPU load on the Transporter for 192/24 raw wav file? -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: > regarding silly sampling rates, tell it to Linn, Lindberg, Classic > Records and others, ok? As P T Barnum said, no one has ever gone broke underestimating the intellegence of the American public. I have no problem with 88.2/24 or 96/24. I can't hear it, but I can believe it could be better. But I can't see any possible theoretical improvement for twice that rate. None. I have more than 30 microphones in my recording studio. None of them claim any response over 20kHz. They might have something over 20.0 kHz, but its going to have at least a 6 dB per octave rolloff, and more are more likely to have a 24 dB per octave rolloff. The point of higher rates is to avoid the brick wall filters needed at 22 kHz for redbook. You do that fine with 88.2 or 96 kHz. > Working with Wave files on the server reduces the load on the > Transporter. What are you talking about? There are no "wave" files that are more than RedBook. You can have PCM files at any rate/size you want, but it is not going to make it actually sound better. > >> Give it up. >> >> You have become a troll. And your SeanTrollScore for these recent posts >> is 0/10. See http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76315 You can't get a negative score on the SeanTrollScore, but we may have to change the rules just for you. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Pat, regarding silly sampling rates, tell it to Linn, Lindberg, Classic Records and others, ok? Working with Wave files on the server reduces the load on the Transporter. By which degree? is it enough to lift the limitation of higher bitrates? -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: >> What is the point of your continual posting in this thread? You are not >> going to change any facts. The firmware is not open source, the CPU is >> too slow. >> >> Accept it and move on with your life > If that's a pure software issue, it can be profiled and optimized. Its "software" in the TP, not in the server. You could have the server do any kind of transcoding you like, but it won't make the hardware/firmware support your silly sample rates. The firmware in the TP is not open source, its not going to be changed by anyone not employed by Logitech. And I bet its not going to be changed by anyone emplyeed at Logitech either. Give it up. You have become a troll. And your SeanTrollScore for these recent posts is 0/10. See http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76315 -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
If that's a pure software issue, it can be profiled and optimized. There was a post by Sean Adams, saying that different Flac compression ratio's generate different CPU load (make sense..) so, if the limitation would be to use pure wav files, while SqueezeCenter will decode? -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
If that's a pure software issue, it can be profiled and optimized. There was a post by Sean Adams, saying that different Flac compression ratio's generate different CPU load (make sense..) so, if the limitation would be to use pure wav files, while SqueezeCenter will decode? -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: > My choice was greatly based on the fact that Transporter is an open > platform. There is a good chance that your choice was based on incorrect understanding of the open license. The hardware has never been open source in any sense. None of the firmware has been open source, altho the Touch and other recent models have some pieces of software that is Open Source. > I agree about "marketing purposes"! > I know few people that do not buy it just because it does not support > 192/24 and 176.4/24.. Well, then they won't buy one. Are you really of the impression that the Transporter was ever a mass market device? It was an engineering tour-de-force, a flagship. And a labor of love by folks who are no longer part of the company. What is the point of your continual posting in this thread? You are not going to change any facts. The firmware is not open source, the CPU is too slow. Accept it and move on with your life -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
andyg;528229 Wrote: > No, it's already been said that it's not possible, I was just stating > that if it were, it probably still doesn't make a lot of sense, other > than for marketing purposes. I agree about "marketing purposes"! I know few people that do not buy it just because it does not support 192/24 and 176.4/24.. -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
No, it's already been said that it's not possible, I was just stating that if it were, it probably still doesn't make a lot of sense, other than for marketing purposes. -- andyg andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
andyg;528143 Wrote: > Of course it's not abandoned. But even if it were possible to support > 24/192 I'm not sure there's a real reason to do so. Can anyone > actually ABX accurately between 24/96 and higher sample rates? I have few HDAD albums by Classic Records with both 96/24 and 192/24 layers. If my comparison will convince the management to add support of new sampling rates, will do (how will I do that?) I just do not want to downsample anything. I have absolutely fabulous recording of Lindberg 2L in 192/24, why should I convert them? These recording were made in DXD (384KHz I think) And to the guys that do not (even) need 96/24, why did you buy Transporter? Good mastering of 96/24 has an edge over 44.1/24 and surely over 44.1/16 -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
paulduggan;528201 Wrote: > There are consumer benefits to owning a powerful sports car that are not > psychological. > What are the consumer benefits of >96Khz sampling? (I'm not convinced > there are any benefits >44.1Khz given good mastering but 96Khz seems to > give some headroom for sloppiness). So why -should- you make the TP > support 192Khz? You shouldn't - its end of line. Buyer gets what the specification is makes choice, then shouldn't have major expectations of performance changes. Dave -- DaveWr DaveWr's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9331 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Robin Bowes;528198 Wrote: > On 26/03/10 14:43, DaveWr wrote: > > > > And Ferrari's exceed the UK speed limit. > > and are generally driven by dickheads, with more money than sense. > > :) > > R. OK Ford Focus - same issue. -- DaveWr DaveWr's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9331 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
There are consumer benefits to owning a powerful sports car that are not psychological. What are the consumer benefits of >96Khz sampling? (I'm not convinced there are any benefits >44.1Khz given good mastering but 96Khz seems to give some headroom for sloppiness). So why -should- you make the TP support 192Khz? -- paulduggan paulduggan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=30396 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
