[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: I want a SB2, but...
Hi kbelinski I am in similar situation. I have maybe 10% of music in Chinese. But let me tell you, get the SB2 now. 1) you can control your music via a computer UI (notebook, tablet pc) using SlimServer web UI, all chinese will display there. 2) the SB2 is already ready, so it's a matter of font library via firmware upgrade? it's a matter of time. and you can easily listen to the 70% of music you have now. ws -- WSLam WSLam SB2 | Linn CD12 | Unidisk 1.1 | TacT RCS2.0s | EMM Labs DCC2 | Mark Levinson No.33H | Revel Ultima Salon 'Photo of my Setup' (http://photos.lam.ws/thumbnails.php?album=62) ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Super regulator measurements
Yannzola Wrote: > Sean, > Did you try powering the SB with batteries? A la Vinnie Rossie? I'd be > curious to know how this compares jitter-wise to Andy's super regs PSU > mod. > > y. Yes, I am using a 12V SLA battery. A LT1086CT-5 5V regulator is used for the 5V that feeds the SB2's main voltage input. I am also feeding the 12V off the battery directly into the SB2, as a replacement for the 14V internal switching supply that feeds the critical 5V and 3.3V internal regs that power the DAC, SPDIF, etc. I have plenty to post about all of this soon, but for now let me say that the improvement is amazing! I have modded the analog output stage as well, and the results are telling me that an external dac is not needed now! :-) Slim Devices certainly has a nice product here (at an affordable price), but it can be taken to a whole new level of performance with mods, which I am planning to offer soon. Now, back to listening for me... -- Vinnie R. Vinnie Rossi Red Wine Audio, Inc. www.redwineaudio.com ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Super regulator measurements
Sean, Did you try powering the SB with batteries? A la Vinnie Rossie? I'd be curious to know how this compares jitter-wise to Andy's super regs PSU mod. y. -- 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
The theory being that the microprocessor executes sufficiently different instructions between decompressing flac and wav to impact the psu in a way that impacts the rest of the player? I believe the processor uses a 1.6V rail and the oscillator impacting jitter is 3.3V so there is little chance of this [even if we believed the first assersion] Now if this thread had been about the visualizer or scrolling text impacting the sound quality then it would be more interesting [withdrawing quietly to see if this sparks some more comparison threads...] -- Triode ___ 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
from styx's ass Wrote: > The only plausible reason I can imagine for any audible difference is > that increased stress to the PSU affects the voltage or noise to the > clocks, which in turn produces jitter. Then again, I'm no electrical > engineer, and might be talking out of my ass. To me this sounds like a good challenge to all the 'lectrical engineers out there. Are there any =measurable= differences in PSU voltage, clock noise, etc, when the SB decodes a FLAC onboard vs. PCM streamed from the server? Get out your oscilloscopes, boys. y. (definitely talking out of my ass... which, BTW is =not= a good way to break the ice at parties) -- Yannzola ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Super regulator measurements
Hi all, My tweaked SB2 is on its way back to me from the tweaker. He added an external linear PS, as far as I know at the moment (but I'll know more as soon as I get it) this PS made with high quality components generates a new 5V to replace the orginal one, plus another 5V and a 9V all generated and regulated independantly. They feed directly some different components inside the SB2 (they have been decoupled from the original source). Then he also added a transformer on the S/PDIF output (Lundhal transformer) and 2 word clock inputs (one at 11.2896Mhz and one at 12.288Mhz) to be fed from an external clock. They replace completely the internal crystals. More info when I have it back. As I have a second SB2 I should be able to compare the two. Michel -- Michel Fombellida ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Super regulator measurements
I tried a whole bunch of things including - disabling 12.2880 osc (yes it's okay to do this - 32/48Khz will just not work) - reclocking s/pdif with a discrete flip-flop - dedicating a linear regulator to the oscillator - moving the s/pdif signal off of the 74hcu04 - using external 5v linear supply Will have more detailed measurements later, but basically the easiest tweak (changing PS) seems to account for the vast majority of the improvement. below 1ns we are approaching the lower bound of what I can measure - SB2's output actually measures lower jitter than the reference signal generated by the analyzer. -- seanadams ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Super regulator measurements
Sean, Interesting - I take this as official sanction to discuss SB2 mods on this forum... I'm most interested in spdif output mods and would be interested in what you have been considering. Experience moding my CD transport has lead me to the conclusion that jitter does matter and the psu for at least the clock is critical... [at least into a DAC with minimal jitter reduction] Quick question: other than not playing 48K sampled stuff, would removing the 12MHz clock cause any issues [does any logic rely on it oscillating?] On my CD transport I also found benefit reclocking the spdif line with a flipflop just before the output buffer. Is the output of your Xilinx clocked anyway to avoid any benefit of this? Adrian -- Triode ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Super regulator measurements
I have been testing a modified Squeezebox2 using Andrew's super regulators - there is a definite improvement at the RCA outputs when a super reg is used to power the DAC chip: http://www.seanadams.com/sb2_super_regs/ Also trying some hacks to the oscillator and s/pdif circuitry - I've been fiddling around with some jitter measurements and will have more data on that soon. Replacing the external PS with a linear supply, although it doesn't appear to have much impact on the DAC, *does* reduce jitter measuably (from about 3.5ns to 1ns pk-pk). This simple THD+N test is not expected to reveal any effects of jitter at the DAC output though. -- seanadams ___ 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
Patrick Dixon Wrote: > I understood that there were a number of tracks in the playlist, each in > WAV/FLAC, and then randomly shuffled. Seems 'blind' to me. But then how would he quickly switch between the 2 same songs that have one as flac and one as wav quickly without looking at the display? Unless he had more than just 1 of each of the same track, that might work. Have like 5 copies of the wav song and 5 copies of the flac song, shuffle them, then play them through and vote on each one. The go back and compare results, however it may be tricky keeping track of which song you voted on, this is why having a second person easier cause then you can label the songs 1,2,3,4,5,etc and then give the tester a sheet labeled accordingly. This can not be done by the tester because he/she will know that 1 is FLAC, etc. -- m1abrams ___ 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
> Also when he loads up the playlist, how does he not know which track is > which? If he only has two tracks I guess he could select shuffle, but > you always will know which track you started with, and with just 2 > tracks not hard to figure which is which.I understood that there were a > number of tracks in the playlist, each in WAV/FLAC, and then randomly shuffled. Seems 'blind' to me. -- 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: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 08:14 -0700, m1abrams wrote: > But it is generally consider not a true ABX test if done solo. Good science usually requires a double blind test, where both the person doing the test and person administering the test do not know what is real and what is a placebo. It would be possible, with enough effort, to make a machine that could make the randomizing switches, record it, but it wouldn't be trivial. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ 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
Patrick Dixon Wrote: > Indeed. All you need to do is to figure out exactly what measurements > are required, and then what instruments and techniques you'll need to > make them with. As it happens, when it comes to equipment designed to > reproduce music, I always reckon your ears are are pretty good > substitute. > > It sounded pretty good to me. Why do you think it wasn't blind then? My only real concern is he did not say wether he used the same wav rip for both the wav sample and the flac sample. Also when he loads up the playlist, how does he not know which track is which? If he only has two tracks I guess he could select shuffle, but you always will know which track you started with, and with just 2 tracks not hard to figure which is which. Not saying he did not truly know. But it is generally consider not a true ABX test if done solo. -- m1abrams ___ 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
> Yes measurements are ALL that is needed,Indeed. All you need to do is to > figure out exactly what measurements are required, and then what instruments and techniques you'll need to make them with. As it happens, when it comes to equipment designed to reproduce music, I always reckon your ears are are pretty good substitute. > However just a point of reference it is pretty much impossible to do a > true blind test without assistance, yours is close but not truly blind.It > sounded pretty good to me. Why do you think it wasn't blind then? -- Patrick Dixon www.at-view.co.uk ___ 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
Please read his reply again! m1abrams Wrote: > My complaint is your argument that by decoding FLAC to PCM (on any > correctly working decoder) there is some how a change in the quality of > the data. Which it is just that DATA, and it is been proved over and > over that it is the EXACT same data. I do not care what the format > original was in, if the data is exactly the same going into the DAC it > will produce the same audio out of the DAC. Any difference you can > hear is placebo. Timbo Wrote: > No, no, no - please, the bits are fine, the noise from the digital > source (not the rest of the equipment) would effect the analogue > circuitry (in the rest of the equipment). - doh! The only plausible reason I can imagine for any audible difference is that increased stress to the PSU affects the voltage or noise to the clocks, which in turn produces jitter. Then again, I'm no electrical engineer, and might be talking out of my ass. -- styx ___ 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
> Please guys dont try to ridicule me for wasting space - its my space > and it is cheap and who knows what compression format will be with us > in five years time - I am happy uncompressed WAV - you choose FLAC I > will choose WAV - no problem. This is my exact reason for using FLAC, because I can easily transcode my entire collection to the next best codec (actually I already transcode to mp3 for use on portables), yes you can do this with WAV but as you have seen tagging WAV is not exactly easy and for my collection having good tags is a requirement which i would assume would be for anyone with a decent collection. Sorry if I got a little ruffled. You may have found a problem with the SB2 FLAC decoder, however I can not test that because I only have a SQ1. Work with the dev team about resolving the problem, they have been very good at handling such items. However just a point of reference it is pretty much impossible to do a true blind test without assistance, yours is close but not truly blind. Also your tracks used, you had a FLAC and WAV of each track right? My complaint is your argument that by decoding FLAC to PCM (on any correctly working decoder) there is some how a change in the quality of the data. Which it is just that DATA, and it is been proved over and over that it is the EXACT same data. I do not care what the format original was in, if the data is exactly the same going into the DAC it will produce the same audio out of the DAC. Any difference you can hear is placebo. > What you mean there isnt a measurable difference when you take two > dissimilar metals (or whatever conductor you like) and join them (as in > cable to connector via solder to circuit), no impedance change? No > reverse electrons zooming back up the wire colliding with those coming > down - in that case obviously there is also no advantage from a better > or easy conductive load and no need to play with cable structure and > build (as in Kimber cables excellent RFI dumping weave) or materials > (as in carbon fibre mix or silver for vdh). Good luck with your > speakers - try a bit of wet string to connect them to the amp A marketing persons dream here. Yes measurements are ALL that is needed, their is no voodoo magic in audio or electronics. My speakers actually are quite good, hooked them up with nice 14ga 2 conductor power cord, used bananna plugs just to make connecting easier since I swap speakers out alot. I have pics of the first set I built, which are based on a design by another fellow. These do not go very low ~80 Hz (small drivers), however the are very precise in the vocal range and highs. Which is good since I made these for my Home Theatre and use a subwoofer to cver the areas below what these speakers can drive. I had to use small drivers because I am married and the wife has final word what can go in the living room, and she does not value function of form as much as I do. My next project will be a pair of nice 2-way bookshelf speakers for the "listening" room. http://www.thetank.org/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=speakerproj -- m1abrams ___ 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
Oh dear well - I think its best if I leave this particular topic alone as it seems my audiophile type discussion has riled a few folk here and I can really do without that and I know everyone else can as well. I am very happy with my choice of formats (for me) and I was only contributing to what I thought was a interesting thread and offering up my personal findings. So final post... >there's little to talk about here without a blind comparison being done >Do a true blind test and post the results >As of your last post, I don't recall a true blind test having been conducted. Have you had the chance to do that yet? OK - playlist of comparison tracks - various formats (not just FLAC and WAV) all with same title, sorted into track order (not format). Sit on sofa with SB display turned off, listen to tracks, zapp to zapped playlist tracks I feel dont make the grade (when switching backwards and forwards doing typical comparison as I would do with new piece of equipment or whatever). Whats left was WAV - 100%. This was with built-in decoding. I can barely hear any difference (and perhaps there isnt any difference) when doing this with PC side decoding - but cant do that blind as need another pair of hands which I dont have. >store it as FLAC and stream it as PCM (server side decoding). Thats actually a very good idea - I did try it and like I said in an earlier post I thought I could still tell a difference but wasnt sure - probably placebo - but space is cheap and honestly, really I dont mind using the extra space. > It is just plain silly and wasteful to use WAV when a solution like FLAC is available regardless of how much money you can spend on gear Please guys dont try to ridicule me for wasting space - its my space and it is cheap and who knows what compression format will be with us in five years time - I am happy uncompressed WAV - you choose FLAC I will choose WAV - no problem. >Bits are Bits, either they make it or they dont. You would have to have some serious amount of noise coming from that expensive equipment of yours to cause the bits to be scambled No, no, no - please, the bits are fine, the noise from the digital source (not the rest of the equipment) would effect the analogue circuitry (in the rest of the equipment). - doh! > And my favorite you mention exotic cable, LMAO. Sorry its the engineer in me. Not that this means anything on the Big internet, but I have a degree in Electrical Engineering, currently a software developer, and build my own speakers, and speakers for friends. I build my own speakers not because I am cheap, but because I can What you mean there isnt a measurable difference when you take two dissimilar metals (or whatever conductor you like) and join them (as in cable to connector via solder to circuit), no impedance change? No reverse electrons zooming back up the wire colliding with those coming down - in that case obviously there is also no advantage from a better or easy conductive load and no need to play with cable structure and build (as in Kimber cables excellent RFI dumping weave) or materials (as in carbon fibre mix or silver for vdh). Good luck with your speakers - try a bit of wet string to connect them to the amp > The reason I can't hear any difference between FLAC->WAV and WAV is that there IS no difference, it's nothing to do with how much my speakers cost. Mathematics trumps placebo every time. Rubbish! Math is a tool used to prove a theory - all you have proved is the theory that a WAV file is bit identical to a decoded FLAC file. Now use math to prove that a WAV file decoded on the PC sounds exactly the same as one decoded on the SB2. You might have to think out of the box here. Ok - I'm outa here...:-) (PS thanks to those who saw I wasn't trying to rock any boats - just stating my findings... :-) -- Timbo ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
