[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: redwine audio mods
nelamvr6 Wrote: > So what took you so long to answer? :D > > Well, that's a pretty good answer, and I gotta say it's not too common > in my experience that the CEO of a company will be up late checking in > on customers questions. > > Kudos! > > Listening to my (bone stock) SB3 right now. That "K" DAC is doing OK by > me. Actually, I am up late soldering new parts into my Rotel receiver that caught fire earlier today. Unfortunately their hardware engineers were not immediately available so I'm on my own, LOL! -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26337 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: redwine audio mods
seanadams Wrote: > It's been covered before, but basically we already get the data sheet > specs of the KE grade by using the K, so it's unlikely to make a > cost-effective improvement. It is quite likely that they are the same > part - it's common practice to mark different grades or speeds of a > chip simply depending on demand, not actual yield. I never got around > to testing it though. So what took you so long to answer? :D Well, that's a pretty good answer, and I gotta say it's not too common in my experience that the CEO of a company will be up late checking in on customers questions. Kudos! Listening to my (bone stock) SB3 right now. That "K" DAC is doing OK by me. -- nelamvr6 nelamvr6's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26337 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: redwine audio mods
nelamvr6 Wrote: > You know, that is a damn good question! It's been covered before, but basically we already get the data sheet specs of the KE grade by using the K, so it's unlikely to make a cost-effective improvement. It is quite likely that they are the same part - it's common practice to mark different grades or speeds of a chip simply depending on demand, not actual yield. I never got around to testing it though. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26337 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Hardware/Software Interface
On Aug 14, 2006, at 2:30 PM, pc4ever1 wrote: Aside from the audio electronics specifications that have continually been discussed in the other Transporter message I was wondering if some additional hardware/software information can be provided as it pertains to usability. 1) Can the "Transnav" controller knob be used to initiate a MusicMagic Mood mix 2) Can the "Transnav" controller knob be used to initiate a MusicMagic mix, if so how. Does one press the knob inward until the action of making a mix is received? Or does the remote need to be used? or do you need to make selections by using the front panel "Play" button 3) Can you access Rhapsody via the "Transnav" knob? The knob is used to scroll through lists, effectively replacing the up/down arrow buttons on the remote, but with tactile feedback. Press the knob to move right, press the BACK button to move left. The PLAY button on the front panel behaves the same as the PLAY button on the remote. So you'd use the front panel controls in the same manner to do a MusicMagic mix. 4) Are the front panel buttons configurable? Meaning if I wanted to change the "visual" button to act as the "favorites" functionality is this possible? This is possible by editing the Front_Panel.ir file in SlimServer. 5) Speaking of the "Visual" button is this used for changing the screensavers? Sort of. The VISUAL button is used to rotate through different displays on the right display (VU meters, spectrum analyzer, additional text, etc...) ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: redwine audio mods
blackbear Wrote: > > > One other thing that puzzles me: > One of the common SB tweaks is to replace the stock D/A chip > (Burr-Brown PCM1748) with the "KE" edition of the same chip which has > slightly better specs. As far as I can tell from TI's website, the > price difference between these two chips is only 10 cents. So, if the > "KE" makes sense, why doesn't Slim Devices use that in the first place? You know, that is a damn good question! -- nelamvr6 nelamvr6's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26337 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
JohnnyLightOn Wrote: > These "scientific sites" are often populated by people who either don't > have great ears or don't have great systems. I've read on > Hydrogenaudio a dozen times that good MP3s and CDs are > indistinguishable, which is clearly not the case. > > I'm not saying I think FLAC sounds worse than WAV. But just because > FLAC is lossless doesn't mean we, as audiophiles, must categorically > rule out any sound difference. This type of thinking - that bits are > bits - is why we've been saddled with crappy CD sound up until a few > years ago, even though the standard came out in 1982. Everything bears > testing, comparison, and scruitiny, even those things that appear > obvious. FLAC needs an extra decoding step, and in any setup, this > step has the potential to degrade the sound. You're right. Perhaps one day science can tell us how computers work. -- CFP Speakers: FLAC > Squeezebox 3 Digital Out > Panasonic SA-XR57 > Energy Veritas 2.4i Headphones: EMU-0404 Digital Out > Zhaolu 2.0C DAC > PMS-04 Headphone Amplifier > AKG K701, Grado HF-1 || iPod Shuffle > Shure E500 CFP's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6915 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Is max volume really max?
Argh! I've been burned by replaygain too. Still, it should not have affected the i2s separately from the s/pdif. The only way to do that should be by choosing fixed digital level. Although if your settings were bolloxed... -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26002 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
CFP Wrote: > On any scientific site if someone contended WAV sounded better than FLAC > on their computer due to the "processing differences" he/she'd be > laughed out of the house. These "scientific sites" are often populated by people who either don't have great ears or don't have great systems. I've read on Hydrogenaudio a dozen times that good MP3s and CDs are indistinguishable, which is clearly not the case. I'm not saying I think FLAC sounds worse than WAV. But just because FLAC is lossless doesn't mean we, as audiophiles, must categorically rule out any sound difference. This type of thinking - that bits are bits - is why we've been saddled with crappy CD sound up until a few years ago, even though the standard came out in 1982. Everything bears testing, comparison, and scruitiny, even those things that appear obvious. FLAC needs an extra decoding step, and in any setup, this step has the potential to degrade the sound. -- JohnnyLightOn JohnnyLightOn's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=28 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
CFP Wrote: > Nice backpedal. > Of course "situations cannot be fully equivalent" - but that's a > meaningless statement it is tantamount to saying, "they are not the > same because they are different." Wow, such a philosophical > breakthough! Do I smell a Nobel Prize? > > Well duh, of course the situations are not full equivalent. On the > most shallow level, one is named "FLAC" and the other "WAV" so right > off you've violated mathematical laws of equivalence! > > I raised skepticism on the contention WAV sounds better than FLAC for > the SB3. Your "short answer": > > > > Well this "processing difference" is by no means unique to the SB3, > FLAC is after all a compressed format. On any scientific site if > someone contended WAV sounded better than FLAC on their computer due to > the "processing differences" he/she'd be laughed out of the house. I > don't know if you're aware but FLAC is one of the only lossless formats > to have a myriad of test suites designed to PROVE output equivalence to > the original signal. Come on now, if you are going to be a sceptic, > then at the very least learn to read carefully and apply logic. I can't recall ever having said that it would be unique. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
P Floding Wrote: > If you are going to be a sceptic, then at the very least learn to read > carefully and apply logic. "no-one can claim the situations are fully > equivalent" is all I said. Nice backpedal. Of course "situations cannot be fully equivalent" - but that's a meaningless statement it is tantamount to saying, "they are not the same because they are different." Wow, such a philosophical breakthough! Do I smell a Nobel Prize? Well duh, of course the situations are not full equivalent. On the most shallow level, one is named "FLAC" and the other "WAV" so right off you've violated mathematical laws of equivalence! I raised skepticism on the contention WAV sounds better than FLAC for the SB3. Your "short answer": > FLAC needs more processing in the SB, so no-one can claim the situations > are fully equivalent Well this is "processing difference" is by no means unique to the SB3, FLAC is after all a compressed format. On any scientific site if someone contended WAV sounded better than FLAC on their computer due to the "processing differences" he/she'd be laughed out of the house. I don't know if you're aware but FLAC is one of the only lossless formats to have a myriad of test suites designed to PROVE output equivalence to the original signal. Come on now, if you are going to be a sceptic, then at the very least learn to read carefully and apply logic. -- CFP CFP's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6915 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Is max volume really max?
Good to hear this John. You will be glad to know that following some debate, 6.5 will default to replaygain turned off for new players - so audiophiles should not get tripped over by this in future... -- Triode Triode's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26002 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Is max volume really max?
Sean, thank you for the tests, I had not intended this to get into an adversarial issue, I'm just trying to find out whats going on here to get the best sound. I appologize if I have "cast aspersions" on you or your products that has not been my intent. In order to try and get to the bottom of this I took everything all apart and rebuilt it and reinstalled software etc. All the following is with the low jitter clock in the DAC feeding the SB3 and the "I2S" lines going into the DAC where they are split(taking into account the left justified format), reclocked by the low jitter clock and fed to the DAC chips. The resultant jitter is somewhere at 10 or less ps(its vert tough to measure down there) With some single frequency wave files at various levels and frequencies I get exactly the same output as with the same files sent over USB (but much lower jitter). With music files I get mixed results, some have the same volume as USB and some are lower in volume. This was done using a peak hold feature of the peak to peak measurement in the scope. I finally tracked this down, it was due to replay gain. It turns out that the installation of slimserver was not preserving settings, so even though I had set replay gain to disable, the next time it started it went back to "SMART GAIN". Some of the music files had gain tags and others didn't, thus causing the disparity. Due to switching back and forth between SB and USB inputs I had to reeboot the computer often and did not explicetly check all the settings every time slimserver started up. BTW the "preamp gain" doesn't seem to affect the bits going to the DAC chip, it must be implemented in the attenuator builtin to the DAC chip. The "not sounding as good" issue turned out to be EMI coming from the SB3. Because the cable between SB3 and DAC is very short they have to right next to each other. I tried a test where I was running data over USB and turned on the SB3 and played music through it, this caused the "degradation" even though the data was not coming from the SB3. Wrapping the SB3 in aluminum foil got rid of the problem. It didn't even have to be grounded. It does make it difficult to read the display. In the unwrapped mode I tried different display brightnesses and different screen savers and could hear no difference, it doesn't seem to be a display issue. The upshot is that I'm now listening to a rather interestingly styled, very brightly shining, SB3 with replay gain turned OFF, with very low jitter going to my DAC, the results are stunning. Sean, thanks for puting up with me while I worked this out. John S. -- JohnSwenson JohnSwenson's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5974 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26002 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
CFP Wrote: > I thought it was because they were still trying to compensate for > certain deficiencies of analog recording when it was unneeded for > digital. > > > > So how is this different than any other piece of computer hardware? > Minus of course, the dedicated "FLAC Machine" with gate logic solely > optimized for FLAC algorithm decoding :P > > edit: Going through the hardware specs I see the SB3 has a 250mhz > processor. I'm pretty sure that's enough to decode FLAC - one of the > fastest decoding formats - without straining too much under the labor. If you are going to be a sceptic, then at the very least learn to read carefully and apply logic. "no-one can claim the situations are fully equivalent" is all I said. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: redwine audio mods
Patrick Dixon Wrote: > I can't speak for RW or Boulder, but > > a) Improving the basic clock stability of the SB3, and > > b) Optimising the SPDIF output circuitry, by better matching it to 75 > Ohms and equalising signal rise and fall times > > both reduce jitter at the external DAC and have a dramatic effect on > audio quality (IME). Thanks! I suspect the effect of these tweaks is highly dependent on the properties of the external DAC. The stock SB3 has less than 100pS jitter on the coax output. Have anyone seen measurements on any of the modded versions? One other thing that puzzles me: One of the common SB tweaks is to replace the stock D/A chip ( Burr-Brown PCM1748) with the "KE" edition of the same chip which has slightly better specs. As far as I can tell for TI's website, the price difference between these two chips is only 10 cents. So, if the "KE" makes sense, why doesn't Slim Devices use that in the first place? -- blackbear blackbear's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7015 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26337 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
ezkcdude wrote: > That's a terrible analogy. Sure, people will tell you it's sweeter. Will > they universally tell you it's "better" and the other ones it's no > different? So, what, everybody either loves sweet coffee or doesn't > know the difference? You should think carefully before employing > analogies. > > What exactly about the 63 tweak sounds different to you? Besides the > fact that it is better? I haven't A/B'd the 63 tweak. I didn't hear any immediate difference when I applied it. My point was rather aimed at your logic that *some* people must report the tweak as making it sound worse for it to be valid. R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Is jitter an issue with the SB? Would a Benchmark DAC1 fix it?
The way I see it is you won't get jitter with a Flac or similar lossless file delivered to the on-board DAC over Ethernet and TCP/IP protocols. You may get jitter during the DAC stage but the very short distances signals have to travel would mean jitter is essentially zero. However if you hooked up a DAC using SP/DIF to the SB you may in theory be introducing jitter issues (not that I've ever experienced jitter myself but I'm sure you could academically prove it's there). What the external DAC may do though is just generally be superior to the on-board DAC and thus sound superior anyway, regardless of any talk of jitter. Even so, perhaps it will help with the jitter introduced by connecting SP/DIF from the SB. In my opinion it's best to get your head out of academic audiophile talk on web sites and marketing, and actually audition things for yourself, preferably with a true blind test. If it truly sounds better, then buy it. -- deadkenny deadkenny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6722 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26030 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Where to buy power supply upgrade in UK
I'm dubious about the need with the SB3 though. >From what I understand it has linear filters inside anyway unlike the SB2, and I'm sure I read in the manual that you shouldn't use a different PSU as the one supplied is optimum for it anyway. -- deadkenny deadkenny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6722 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26142 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Good CD player vs Squeezebox
It has the advantage also of you having made a perfect (I hope) rip to a lossless format that can be delivered perfectly to the DAC of the Squeezebox. The downside of the CD player is that it's having to deal with environmental conditions when playing the CD live (vibrations, dirt, scratches, electrical noise, etc). When ripping with something like EAC it's repeatedly going over the CD doing error correction to ensure the data is perfect. A CD player is just not going to do that. -- deadkenny deadkenny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6722 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26486 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: To DAC or not to DAC
bitmonkey Wrote: > However, if the SB's internal DAC is really *THAT* good, I guess I'd be > happy using it as an analogue source. Part of this is probably > disbelief that a £200 component's DAC can really be better than the > ring DAC in my not-so-old £1200 CD player, but if it's true then I > guess I ought to be happy I can upgrade for such small cost. I can't say whether it's a better DAC, but my bet is there's a high chance that ripped CDs in lossless (e.g. Flac) format played through the SB will sound better than the £1200 CD player. Why? Not because of the DAC but because the CD player, though digital, has variables that affect the play back because it's reading a stream of data off a CD spinning away with vibrations and all sorts. A CD may not play perfectly or the same every time (arguably). In many ways a CD player is analogue in behaviour. However when ripping a CD using something like EAC to a lossless format you get an exact copy with all the errors ironed out and playing the lossless file is exact every time. Coupled with sending the file through TCP/IP to the SB you don't get jitter issues delivering the file to the DAC, so it's pretty much as perfect a delivery of digital data to the DAC as you can get. If you were to output SP/DIF from the SB you may be introducing jitter again, though the quality of an external DAC might outweigh that. -- deadkenny deadkenny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6722 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26548 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] To DAC or not to DAC
Hi everyone, I'm going to get a squeezebox 2 and am debating which of the following will be a better solution: 1. The Bolder cable analogue sonicap platinum and silver bybees mods + PSU, directly feeding 2 Musical fidelity A3.2cr power amps (no pre-amp). 2. The Bolder digital mods with a silver bybee on the coax output, with an external DAC (possibly a Storm D02). Then direct connection to the 2 x A3.2cr amps. My speakers are Ruark prologue one reference, my current source (which the SB will be replacing if all goes to plan) is an Arcam FMJ CD23. I know a lot of people like the analogue output of the modified SB, but I wonder how much of that is personal preference - I like transparency and imaging in my music, a lot of people find my system slightly thin sounding but I love the CD23 and MF amps because of this "analytical" tendency and would want to replicate this same sound as much as possible in the new setup. So, can anyone tell me how they find the sound of the boulder modified SB through the analogue outputs - especially someone who likes arcam gear (or ideally has a CD23) and can draw a comparison. I guess option 2 appeals to me, since it allows more flexibility, for example the SB could be changed for a newer model in future if some new feature was wanted, and the DAC could still be used. However, if the SB's internal DAC is really *THAT* good, I guess I'd be happy using it as an analogue source. Part of this is probably disbelief that a £200 component's DAC can really be better than the ring DAC in my not-so-old £1200 CD player, but if it's true then I guess I ought to be happy I can upgrade for such small cost. My other question is how much diffence the $750 bolder PSU makes over the cheaper solution of a modded linear supply of some kind - it's a lot dearer, am I going to appreciate the difference? I know my setup isn't super high end at present, but I consider myself quite a critical listener and found quite a lot of stuff I listened to back when I brought the CD23 left me wanting, despite being around the same price range and being widely regarded as excellent sources. Thanks in advance for any feedback you can give me. Paul -- bitmonkey bitmonkey's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7054 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26548 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
ezkcdude Wrote: > Yes, but in that case most people would also hear the change. We're > talking about a tweak in which half of us don't hear anything, and half > think it's the best thing since sliced bread. Not necessarily. Small differences in volume are quite difficult to judge by ear, but can nonetheless make the music sound better. > > Let's get to the root of the problem. I believe it's psychology, but > for a different reason. I think that people say they hear a change, > because it says how great their system is. And if you don't hear a > difference, it's because your setup is not as good as theirs. Moreover, > the smaller the tweak, the better their system is. Heck, that argument > was used just a few posts ago. In my opinion, it's more about bragging > rights than about sound. I think you're being overly harsh here. While some might be motivated this way, I think most others are quite sincere, and simply hear something because they are expecting to. Since (at least in this case) they are strongly biased towards hearing something good, that's what happens. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
That's a terrible analogy. Sure, people will tell you it's sweeter. Will they universally tell you it's "better" and the other ones it's no different? So, what, everybody either loves sweet coffee or doesn't know the difference? You should think carefully before employing analogies. What exactly about the 63 tweak sounds different to you? Besides the fact that it is better? -- ezkcdude SB3->Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
ezkcdude wrote: > opaqueice Wrote: >> One can imagine lots of possible effects which would sound good to >> almost everyone - like making the volume slightly higher, for example. > > Yes, but in that case most people would also hear the change. We're > talking about a tweak in which half of us don't hear anything, and half > think it's the best thing since sliced bread. > > Let's get to the root of the problem. I believe it's psychology, but > for a different reason. I think that people say they hear a change, > because it says how great their system is. And if you don't hear a > difference, it's because your setup is not as good as theirs. Moreover, > the smaller the tweak, the better their system is. Heck, that argument > was used just a few posts ago. In my opinion, it's more about bragging > rights than about sound. Here's an analogy: "I've noticed that putting sugar in my coffee makes it taste sweeter. Does anyone else find that?" I suggest that most people will also find this; some may not be able to taste the difference, but I'll bet that no-one will say that adding sugar made the coffee less sweet. Using your logic, that fact that there were no negative reports makes you suspicious! R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
P Floding Wrote: > Actually, audio reproduction is not an exact science. There is no > ultimate sound system on this planet that sounds perfect to all ears. > Perhaps I overstated the case, but the fact remains that it is hard to > believe that more jitter will sound better. Especially since we know > that one of the reasons digital sounded so awful in its ugly childhood > was that the engineers had overlooked the effects of jitter. I thought it was because they were still trying to compensate for certain deficiencies of analog recording when it was unneeded for digital. P Floding Wrote: > We here have been over this before, and unless you simply search the > archives, I suggest we start a new thread if you'd like to discuss it. > (Short answer: FLAC needs more processing in the SB, so no-one can > claim the situations are fully equivalent.) So how is this different than any other piece of computer hardware? Minus of course, the dedicated "FLAC Machine" with gate logic solely optimized for FLAC algorithm decoding :P -- CFP CFP's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6915 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
pfarrell Wrote: > P Floding wrote: > > ezkcdude Wrote: > > > >>Really? I didn't know this was a proven fact. My bad. > > > > > Perhaps I overstated the case, but the fact remains that it is hard > to > > believe that more jitter will sound better. > > Just a little, perhaps. > > There are thresholds of inaudibility for any of a number of criteria. > > The question is neither 'is less jitter better?' nor 'Systems have to > be > X good to see the obvious difference, is your that good?'. > > The question is engineering. What level is bad? or perhaps > "what level is bad enough to be important and audible > and in need of correction, in an otherwise well matched system of price > > about X?" > > If you are playing on a boombox, a lot of jitter can be hidden > (along with THD, and other evils) without being important. > Played on a $5K system, what is important changes. And it > changes a little more on a $10K system and probably on a $50K > system. (I don't have much experience on the latter). > > It is very easy "to believe" that numerically different amounts of > jitter are irrelevant in listening to music. It is not easy to know > what > levels are relevant in the real world. > > Its about the music. > > -- > Pat > http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html Good post. -- Patrick Dixon www.at-tunes.co.uk Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
opaqueice Wrote: > One can imagine lots of possible effects which would sound good to > almost everyone - like making the volume slightly higher, for example. Yes, but in that case most people would also hear the change. We're talking about a tweak in which half of us don't hear anything, and half think it's the best thing since sliced bread. Let's get to the root of the problem. I believe it's psychology, but for a different reason. I think that people say they hear a change, because it says how great their system is. And if you don't hear a difference, it's because your setup is not as good as theirs. Moreover, the smaller the tweak, the better their system is. Heck, that argument was used just a few posts ago. In my opinion, it's more about bragging rights than about sound. -- ezkcdude SB3->Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
ezkcdude Wrote: > Then I don't believe the effect is real! We're not talking about an > objective measurement with an indisputable value. I wouldn't have any > argument if you told me the tweak lowered jitter, for example. How can > I argue with that? With a subjective measurement alone, though, it is > very surprising in a statistical sense to have universal agreement that > a difference is positive. For example, with the NOS vs. OS debate, there > are plenty of people on either side who claim their way sounds better. > As I said before, so far, I've only heard that this tweak improves > sound or makes no difference whatsoever, but none have said it makes > the sound worse. Isn't that fishy? I'm not sure that the fact that no one has thought this sounded bad is fishy. One can imagine lots of possible effects which would sound good to almost everyone - like making the volume slightly higher, for example. On the other hand there's pretty much zero evidence that this is a real effect, as (IMHO) the sort of anecdotal evidence we've seen here so far is totally useless, and there has been no plausible explanation advanced for why muting the volume would change anything. Add to that the fact that the "believers" seem to be unwilling or unable to perform a proper test, and we're left with zero. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
P Floding wrote: ezkcdude Wrote: Really? I didn't know this was a proven fact. My bad. Perhaps I overstated the case, but the fact remains that it is hard to believe that more jitter will sound better. Just a little, perhaps. There are thresholds of inaudibility for any of a number of criteria. The question is neither 'is less jitter better?' nor 'Systems have to be X good to see the obvious difference, is your that good?'. The question is engineering. What level is bad? or perhaps "what level is bad enough to be important and audible and in need of correction, in an otherwise well matched system of price about X?" If you are playing on a boombox, a lot of jitter can be hidden (along with THD, and other evils) without being important. Played on a $5K system, what is important changes. And it changes a little more on a $10K system and probably on a $50K system. (I don't have much experience on the latter). It is very easy "to believe" that numerically different amounts of jitter are irrelevant in listening to music. It is not easy to know what levels are relevant in the real world. Its about the music. -- 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: S/PDIF sounds poor
ezkcdude Wrote: > Really? I didn't know this was a proven fact. My bad. Actually, audio reproduction is not an exact science. There is no ultimate sound system on this planet that sounds perfect to all ears. Perhaps I overstated the case, but the fact remains that it is hard to believe that more jitter will sound better. Especially since we know that one of the reasons digital sounded so awful in its ugly childhood was that the engineers had overlooked the effects of jitter. I have played a bit more with 0.0 vs. 63.0 and the effect is even more dramatic than I thought. Especially CDs that were crowded and noisy (in the instrumental sense), such as Primal Screams "Vanishing Point", open up a whole soundscape when the analogue output is muted. Anyones milage may vary depending on DAC used, which i the unfortunate result of the way SPDIF works. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
P Floding Wrote: > Less jitter will always sound better if you have a good enough system to > hear the difference. Really? I didn't know this was a proven fact. My bad. -- ezkcdude SB3->Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
ezkcdude Wrote: > Then I don't believe the effect is real! We're not talking about an > objective measurement with an indisputable value. I wouldn't have any > argument if you told me the tweak lowered jitter, for example. How can > I argue with that? With a subjective measurement alone, though, it is > very surprising in a statistical sense to have universal agreement that > a difference is positive. For example, with the NOS vs. OS debate, there > are plenty of people on either side who claim their way sounds better. > As I said before, so far, I've only heard that this tweak improves > sound or makes no difference whatsoever, but none have said it makes > the sound worse. Isn't that fishy? Less jitter will always sound better if you have a good enough system to hear the difference. If you don't, then you won't hear any difference. You can't really prove anything by guessing, so you might as well stop trying. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
PhilNYC Wrote: > What if it doesn't? Then I don't believe the effect is real! We're not talking about an objective measurement with an indisputable value. I wouldn't have any argument if you told me the tweak lowered jitter, for example. How can I argue with that? With a subjective measurement alone, though, it is very surprising in a statistical sense to have universal agreement that a difference is positive. For example, with the NOS vs. OS debate, there are plenty of people on either side who claim their way sounds better. As I said before, so far, I've only heard that this tweak improves sound or makes no difference whatsoever, but none have said it makes the sound worse. Isn't that fishy? -- ezkcdude SB3->Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
ezkcdude Wrote: > Well, I'm still waiting for the first person who says this "63" tweak > (thank god it's not "69") sounds worse. What if it doesn't? -- PhilNYC Sonic Spirits Inc. http://www.sonicspirits.com PhilNYC's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=837 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
PhilNYC Wrote: > This isn't true. There are plenty of tweaks that I've tried that have > made things sound worse in my system. Well, I'm still waiting for the first person who says this "63" tweak (thank god it's not "69") sounds worse. -- ezkcdude SB3->Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: S/PDIF sounds poor
andy_c Wrote: > Actually, Kurt was quoting me in the referenced article, using quotation > marks instead of the QUOTE tags. > > Certainly, this change can do no harm and costs nothing. However, > claiming something makes a big difference in sound, and saying it does > no harm are two different things. What I was satirizing was the > audiophile bandwagon effect. That is, someone draws a conclusion based > on an uncontrolled experiment. Then others, not wishing to be called > "tin-eared" by saying they hear no difference, also chime in with their > agreement, again based on uncontrolled experiments. If you go back to > the beginning of the thread, the original claim of an improvement was > based on changing two things at once - setting both the digital and > analog attenuations. One change affects the digital output data > directly, and the other does not. The claims of improvement will cause > an expectation bias in the experiment, so to get an unbiased picture > requires a test method that removes expectation bias. > > I have no issue with people going with what works for them, based on > uncontrolled subjective experiments. I do this myself with my own > system all the time. But there is a difference between saying "X works > for me" and saying "X is true". The difference is that people will > claim these results to be some kind of indisputable fact when no > controlled experiments have ever established that. The idea is that > once an assertion has been repeated often enough, it is considered to > be true, regardless of the facts of the matter. This phenomenon is > known rather harshly as the "big lie theory". Since the above is a general discussion there really is no need to spam every single thread about a possible improvement with this kind of stuff. And, no, I don't think many here claim any kind of "indesputable facts". I reassess my system and its various chosen solutions all the time. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
