[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2
please back up these claims. You are saying that based on a non-blind subjective listen, our FLAC implementation is *broken*. The correctness of our FLAC decoder is empirical and all you need to do is save the bits at the output to test it. Please note that our implementation: 1) is based on the official FLAC sources - it is the exact same code base as the one that's running on your computer. 2) has been tested by us for bit-perfect output, by recording PCM output back into a computer 3) has also been confirmed by us and others to pass through non-PCM bitstreams correctly 4) has also be tested by the author of FLAC, Josh Coalson, for compatibility with the included test suite There are a couple known bugs and feature requests but none concerning accuracy, which is the entire point of using FLAC! http://tinyurl.com/ak3vc -- seanadams ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Stick with SB1 or get SB2?
Guys I have double booked myself Sunday, so will have to delay it Sorry for the confusion -- lilolee Cheers Lee ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Stick with SB1 or get SB2?
no problem. -- julian2002 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Wired vs. Wireless audio differences
you're really comparing the DAC of the CD player (or outboard DAC) with the DAC of the SB2 (assuming both deliver bit-perfect digital streams, which the SB2 may actually excel at) and (not to be forgotten), the clock jitter performance of the two transports. Since high-end audio is all about how it sounds... I can't fathom why somebody would nix blind listening testsPerhaps because they feel blind listening tests don't accurately predict how music sounds when you listen to music, rather than equipment. When your hypothesis doesn't fit the facts, you have to look closely at your hypothesis - rather than dis the facts! -- Patrick Dixon www.at-view.co.uk ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Wired vs. Wireless audio differences
Patrick Dixon a écrit : Since high-end audio is all about how it sounds... I can't fathom why somebody would nix blind listening tests Perhaps because they feel blind listening tests don't accurately predict how music sounds when you listen to music, rather than equipment. When your hypothesis doesn't fit the facts, you have to look closely at your hypothesis - rather than dis the facts! Or you can get some facts from the medical and drug design industry and learn about placebo effect and related things. Your mind is so powerful that it can actually heal your body not only when you believe your are given an active drug, but also (in case of single blind tests) when the nurses and doctors believe your are given an active drug. Many audiophiles are pissed off because they can't tell the difference between things that sound extremely different under blind test. So they reject the facts which actually are that those things do not sound different. No fancy explanation needed here. Andy gave a very interesting explanation why the standard ABX testing methodology might 1) rely on short term memory 2) put you under a lot of stress. This might give an explanation why people fail to recognize different equipments under the ABX methodology (I'm not completely convinced, but at least there are some explanations). But, this does not apply to blind AB tests in which you level match the devices and then do what you want (listen for one full day to A and then to B, etc.). The same anti science rant was used by some psychics. Some of them refused to perform there tricks under the supervision of a magician or taped by several high rate video recorder. They claim that the bad vibes of the magician were disturbing them and other strange things. Fabrice PS: by the way, thanks a lot to sleepysurf for reporting his test results. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Wired vs. Wireless audio differences
When your hypothesis doesn't fit the facts, you have to look closely at your hypothesis - rather than dis the facts! Sorry should have also added: or fall back on some (possibly unrelelated) facts, that do fit your hypothesis -- Patrick Dixon www.at-view.co.uk ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Wired vs. Wireless audio differences
pfarrell Wrote: Their website does not yet have the August issue. The do have a 15+ year old article http://www.stereophile.com/features/113/ on Blind Listening Very interesting article. The letters are very interesting too. I guess the effectiveness of blind testing depends on how different the sound is between the components tested and also on the person doing the listening. Some people obviously have better trained (or simply more gifted) ears than others. -- Aylwin ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB2 vs. Naim CDS+CDPS...
Mike, are you using Scott Nixons 3Xac powersupply? Sounds like I need to visit my local hifi shops and borrow a few DACs... I'd love to get rid of my CD player entirely... but the ol' CDS has spoiled me to anything less. I've never tried anything with tubes... for instance Scott Nixons Tube DAC. How would you describe the sonic character of a tubed DAC vs. the punchy CDS Naim sound? Regardless... looks like it's time to tryout some alternative DACs. Thanks! y. Mike Hanson Wrote: I've got two DACs here: the Benchmark DAC1 and the Scott Nixon Chibi Saru NOS DAC. The Benchmark sounds much more refined than the Scott Nixon, but sometimes it seems like the Scott Nixon is more fun. (The Benchmark sometimes sounds a bit too controlled.) Neither is as good as my CDS2/XPS. -= Mike Hanson =- -- Yannzola ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB2 vs. Naim CDS+CDPS...
Poking around a variety of forums has led me to belive that the following are all decent (affordable) options: - Scott Nixon ChibiSaru Dac+ and 3XAC PSU - Benchmark DAC 1 - Musical Fidelity X-DAC V3 + X-PSU - Audiosynthesis DAX Decade - 47 Labs Progression DAC + PSU Any more suggestions? .y -- Yannzola ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB2 vs. Naim CDS+CDPS...
Keep us posted! Unfortunately, at a pricepoint of over $11K, the DCC2 is =seriously= out of my reach. It better sound =damn good= ;-) y. WSLam Wrote: SB2 is impressive huh! I ordered a EMM Labs DCC2 which will be arriving this week. I plan to use that with the SB2,so everything gets upsampled to 5.8MHz DSD. shouldbe interesting. -- Yannzola ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2
There's a good reason for this effect. If you read the label, you'll find that San Pellegrino is a mild diuretic and the perceived improvement is a result of taking the p**s. -- Fifer ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2
seanadams Wrote: FLAC is by definition lossless. If you're not getting the same data out that you put in, then it's broken in every sense of the word. You said you tested your implementation (which after all is the same standard code in software regardless of where it is implemented) and you get out what you put in - so - it isn't broke. Maybe what we measure is not all that is there? Or maybe what we do measure is not effecting the sound - maybe it is the actual act of deconstruction and reconstruction that effects something indefinable that we cannot measure - and perhaps when this is performed on a separate CPU a long way away from the audio circuits things sound better...? Anyway, nuff of all this audiophile stuff - it doesnt matter because your product is performing to specification and that specification is excellent! What I would like to know from someone however is - bearing in mind I would really like to store my sound files uncompressed - then how do I get EAC to do this and not end up with a WAV file I cant tag :-/ -- Timbo ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2
Okay, I'm game. I'll try a HEARING test this eve... Sean, are the steps Timbo performed (deselecting all FLACXXX conversion options except for FLACWAV) the correct way to test for this? y. seanadams Wrote: Like I said in the wired vs wireless topic: I am not going to entertain the idea that there's a problem until someone can either HEAR or MEASURE it. Either of those tests is extremely easy to perform. -- Yannzola ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
