The Rothwells are easy to get hold of in the UK and do the job. You can
use them at either end of the SB-303 connection. Popular wisdom is that
they should go at the amp end but the difference will be marginal at
best (assuming shielded ie normal) interconnects.
On the subject of power
Phil,
Your advice seems sound to me. Unfortunately (or fortunately?), I don't
live in the UK. I live in Canada, but the Rothwells are certainly still
an option. They wind up being something like $75 shipped, so pretty
reasonably priced. As far as servicing goes, I'll check with the guy I
bought
There is no need to use a preamp [unless you want to select multiple
sources] or spend big bux on an attenuator. While your friend is
making cables for you, have him install a two resistor voltage divider
in each cable. Quality metal film resistors will cost about $0.05
each.
Otherwise, you
Mark Lanctot;154969 Wrote:
You could also use passive attenuators and go from the SB3 direct to the
amp.
Strangely, the reports of the white noise of death appear to have
ceased.
Funny you should mention this. I had an occurrence a couple of days ago
while attempting to play a programme
geraint smith;155253 Wrote:
Funny you should mention this. I had an occurrence a couple of days ago
while attempting to play a programme recorded from BBC R3 via DTTV
using EyeTV on a Mac, and converted to Apple Lossless (at least, I
think it was the Apple Lossless version. I had converted
Mark Lanctot;155255 Wrote:
The WNoD appears to have changed - this isn't what was reported before.
Earlier it was caused by some spontaneous failure Slim Devices was never
able to reproduce. People would just come home and their Squeezebox
would be putting out white noise at 100% power and
geraint smith;155256 Wrote:
More a white noise of catnap, by comparison.
LOL! Yeah, at least the current one you're in the room for.
It's good to see that the original issue went away though. That would
be far more dangerous if you had an auto-on amp.
--
Mark Lanctot
LikeButtah;155218 Wrote:
Phil,
Your advice seems sound to me. Unfortunately (or fortunately?), I don't
live in the UK. I live in Canada, but the Rothwells are certainly still
an option. They wind up being something like $75 shipped, so pretty
reasonably priced. The endlers also seem like
Read Sean's post on the matter: if the SB3 is your source, then you need
something between it and your amp(s). That would mean using your
preamp. The deal is that you run a real, if as yet unrealised by
anyone on this forum, chance of a digital failure of sorts followed by
the blowing of your
LikeButtah;154940 Wrote:
At the moment I'm using a Quad 33 Preamp, and 303 Poweramp to a pair
Dynaudio Audience 52s. My speaker wire is some flavour of Ixos, and my
interconnects are complete garbage (i'm having a friend custom make
some good ones, having Quad stuff means DIN and that makes
I go from my sb3 to my amp via a pair of endler attenuators. Sounds at
least as good as it did with my old classe preamp. The endler
attenuators are something like $65.
--
totoro
squeezebox 3 - mccormack dna .5 - audio physic tempo 4
You could also use passive attenuators and go from the SB3 direct to the
amp.
Sean recommends passive attenuators, and I believe they aren't that
expensive.
You need something should the SB3 catastrophically fail and send out
white noise at 100% power. This is possible and was infrequently
LikeButtah;154940 Wrote:
I find the whole thing sounds better when the SB volume is lower (~50)
and I increase the volume on the Quad. Does that make sense?
Yes, because the volume pot on the Quad pre is probably worn/dirty in
the low gain range. You could replace it with a DACT attenuator,
Mark Lanctot;154969 Wrote:
You could also use passive attenuators and go from the SB3 direct to the
amp.
Sean recommends passive attenuators, and I believe they aren't that
expensive.
You need something should the SB3 catastrophically fail and send out
white noise at 100% power. This
Read the threads on the power supply issue. I heard a big improvement
with the stock PS plugged into a power conditioner, I heard even more
improvement with a linear regulated PS. There is a lot of info on this
in these forums. It is controversial, however :-)
--
tomjtx
The 33 is not the most transparent pre-amp in the world..in fact it's
not Quads greatest moment imho. Compared to modern pre-amps its input
overload threshold is very low and will easily be driven into overload
by modern equipment. This is why it sounds better when you turn the SB
down and raise
Whoa, thanks for all the responses in such short time! You guys are
awesome...
Skunk, that's exactly my problem, before reaching 1/4 on the 33 volume
control the level isnt even on balance between the two speakers. It
seems to click in at about that level. How could I check to see how
much
LikeButtah;155084 Wrote:
How could I check to see how much attenuation is needed?
I don't think there is a method for predetermining it. By checking, I
meant slowly turn the SB3-303 from zero until it's at maximum
listening level. Since the SB3 vol scale works in .5 dB steps you can
roughly
I have Dynaudio Contour 1.3 MKII and use a passive preamp by Luminous
Audio. It basically gives you a volume knob instead of attenuation
settings, and I've found it to be really transparent. It's relatively
cheap and the company was great to deal with.
http://www.luminousaudio.com/axiomrca.html
LikeButtah;155084 Wrote:
...The rothwells seem like a solid solution. I was reading up a bit on
them, and people suggest that you plug them in directly to the power
amp. Considering I've got 4 pin din and not RCA, would it be a
disadvantage to plug them into the squeezebox directly and then
Néstor Wrote:
Hi,
If I remember it well, EAC always re read the suspicios block a fixed
time (I guess 8 times the first time) and if, lets say , 7 of the 8
reads of the same block produce the same value, and only one is
different then EAC assumes that the most common value is the right
seanadams Wrote:
Also, any opinions as to whether plextor drives are really that much
better than the others these days? They earned a good reputation early
on, but AFAICT all CD drives are now equally good at ripping.
Here's one anecdotal bit of evidence:
I have a Plextor PX712A, and have
The ones that you rip in non-secure mode will potentially not sound as
good as the ones that you do in secure mode. In secure mode, they are
guaranteed to be an exact copy of your cd. It depends on whether you
actually sit in front of your pc whilst it's ripping. I did my 300 odd
albums in
max.spicer Wrote:
The ones that you rip in non-secure mode will potentially not sound as
good as the ones that you do in secure mode.
I guess my question is, how potential is potentially, and how bad is
not as good?
I should add that I'm using a Plextor 740A to do the ripping, and I
don't
The problem I've found, is that whilst CDPs use 'concealment' to conceal
any errors they detect but cannot correct, ripping s/w doesn't.
So any ripping errors you do get, tend to be very annoying on playback;
pops, clicks - that kind of stuff, whereas a good CDP will still sound
like music.
A
OK, well I set up EAC/FLAC on my PC according to all the instructions,
and it seems to be running OK.
However, it's still taking somewhere between 5-10 minutes to rip most
of my CDs. I've got hundreds of CDs, so it's a major undertaking.
Question: What am I losing by not running EAC in secure
Honestly, how much can you really dress that up?
Well, the 16bit part is the only real limiting factor (unless you are a
bat ;) ) and since surprisingly few systems actually to manage the full
16 bits in actual reality, you may be surprised!
Andy.
--
Andrew L. Weekes
Well, I'd have to get an external/firewire drive or something, so that'd
be a little more expensive than $100, and I'd have to keep it hooked to
my laptop (I'm assuming).
But I'll do a blindfold test on a random sample of songs and see how
much difference I can detect between lossless and 320.
Mike Anderson Wrote:
Well, I'd have to get an external/firewire drive or something, so that'd
be a little more expensive than $100, and I'd have to keep it hooked to
my laptop (I'm assuming).
But I'll do a blindfold test on a random sample of songs and see how
much difference I can detect
Does your A3.2 have the ability to connect direct into the power amp
side, bypassing the preamp? If so, I recommend you try feeding the SB2
analogue outputs direct into the power amp and use the SB2 volume
control. Even the best preamps will slightly degrade the signal, and in
my experience
cliveb Wrote:
Does your A3.2 have the ability to connect direct into the power amp
side, bypassing the preamp?
Nope; it's a very basic (albeit high-quality) piece of gear.
--
Mike Anderson
___
audiophiles mailing list
Even the best preamps will slightly degrade the signal
Yes, we can tend to forget that anything in the signal path, however
esoteric and expensive, degrades the signal. I sometimes feel that we
should not talk of 'upgrades' or 'improving the sound', but that the
focus should be on minimising the
^^^ Right, I gather that's what makes this a nice (integrated) amp - It
has no tone knobs, no balance, nothing -- just a volume knob and input
selectors.
--
Mike Anderson
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
Mike Anderson Wrote:
Looks like it will take well over 30 mins to encode most of my CDs,
Wow. Why? Do you have a very slow CD drive or something? On my PC using
EAC a typical rip takes about 2 minutes, with compression happening in
the background and rarely taking more than another 30
radish said the following on 30/09/2005 17:17:
Mike Anderson Wrote:
Looks like it will take well over 30 mins to encode most of my CDs,
Wow. Why? Do you have a very slow CD drive or something? On my PC using
EAC a typical rip takes about 2 minutes, with compression happening in
the
Your maggies deserve lossless! Try encoding something with ALAC as an
easy to accomplish test, and compare it with the AAC at 320. If you do
decide to go lossless, you might want to spend money first on hard
disks, rather than a DAC. Ive got an older pair of MG 3.5s and Im
using a modified
36 matches
Mail list logo
