[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
opaqueice;153738 Wrote: And if the mod is digital only then I _really_ don't see the point without some convincing demonstration that it actually sounds better when connected to a good DAC.I'm not too sure what you're on about, but what we do is to disconnect ALL the SB2/3 output circuitry, and replace it with our own DAC, analogue and digital output circuits together with a linear PSU and plenty of local regulation. I personally have always prefered the analogue outputs of the SB+ to the SB+ fed to an external DAC, but the customer has the choice, and in any event it sounds considerably better that the stock SB2/3. We do convincing demonstrations all the time - otherwise people wouldn't buy them (and we wouldn't have it any other way). -- 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=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Better sound with digital out. Why?
beerbunny;153750 Wrote: Thanks for this suggestion. It's a great idea and helped me to (I think) understand what is going on. I set the NAD aside and ran 1) SB2 optical to Yamaha: good sound and bass; 2) SB2 RCA to Yamaha: poor sound, weak bass; 3) didn't have digital coax cable so no SB2 digital coax to Yamaha; 4) SB2 optical to Yamaha, Yamaha RCA to NAD: good sound and bass; 5) SB2 RCA to Yamaha, Yamaha RCA to NAD: poor sound, weak bass. After running these tests, my guess would be that the Yamaha's DAC is superior to the SB2's DAC. Do you agree? I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion. My experience is that the SB2 DAC is actually pretty high quality. Do we know whether the Yamaha digitises its analogue inputs? If it does, then there is bound to be a gain mismatch between the digital and analogue inputs, and this could easily account for perceived quality differences (louder is generally interpreted as better). Here's the reason for the gain mismatch. When you use a digital input, it can simply be passed straight to the DAC. When you use an analogue input, it has to be passed through an A/D converter. Now, since the Yamaha cannot possibly know what signal level you might feed it, it has to operate the A/D converter at a level so that the largest conceivable input won't cause digital clipping. Therefore more typical input levels will be operating the A/D converter below its peak level capability. Apart from getting a quieter digital signal (compared to feeding the SB digital output into the Yamaha), you'll also be losing a bit of resolution. But I'd be surprised if the Yamaha didn't have a decent 24 bit A/D converter, so the resolution issue shouldn't be a big deal - my money is on the analogue input simply providing less volume. (Of course if the Yamaha has a poor quality A/D converter, then that could be a much more straightforward reason for the reduced quality via its analogue inputs). Incidentally, to test the SB digital coax, just use any RCA lead you have lying around. As long as the length of cable is not too long, you'll be fine. -- cliveb Performers - dozens of mixers and effects - clipped/hypercompressed mastering - you think a few extra ps of jitter matters? cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29526 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
opaqueice;153785 Wrote: I think this takes the prize for most incoherent post - congratulations! It's really very boring to argue with you, so I'll sign off here. ezkcdude, I'm still interested in your response - why do you say it's not true that buffering and re-clocking eliminates input jitter? You don't argue. You just keep telling people that you are right, and that is that. Useless guesses based on what you think the talents and budgets are of various people. Fan-boyism, if there ever was any. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Better sound with digital out. Why?
Is your analogue volume at full...? -- tommypeters SB3--Meridian G68--NuForce Ref8--Bc Acoustique ACT A3 tommypeters's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6528 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29526 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
opaqueice;153738 Wrote: I don't know what's inside the Benchmark - but it's certainly NOT implausible to say a DAC can be jitter rejecting or even immune. If you think it's hype, why don't you back that up with some facts rather than simply making rude assertions? Unless a digital system is using a master/slave clock architecture, it needs to use a PLL to synchronize the transport signal to the DAC. A PLL can reduce jitter in the incoming signal, but has some of its own inherent jitter if the clock in the transport has any difference from the receiving clock. A FIFO buffer can help reduce jitter in this kind of design, but it cannot eliminate it. Do a Yahoo/Google search on asynchronous jitter and see what comes up...this topic has been researched at length by the telecom industry, military, and yes, the audio industry. Pretty much all the credible research says that re-clocking does not eliminate jitter, and in some cases it says that the act of re-clocking can sometimes ADD jitter. Here's an interesting one from said Yahoo search: http://users.verat.net/~rogic2/1541/pdf/ASR_Measurements.pdf#search='asynchronous%20jitter' -- 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=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Trasporter display configuration - done much?
I like it just the way it is by using the MusicInfoSCR plugin. It allows me to display all the info I like to see at a distance ( Title, Artist, Album, Progress, Playtime and File Extension). I know this could be done in one screen BUT at 10 feet or greater distances it becomes unreadable. With two screens the same information is divided and enlarged. By the way I display File Extension so I can test myself of the sound quality. Without looking at the File Extension on the display, I'll listen to the song. Then I make a mental decision if it's either a Flac or MP3 file ( these are the only types of files on my NAS). Then I check on the display to see what it actually is. Overtime I have found that my ear is getting better at distingishing between the two file types. I only do this once per song, that way it doesn't become memory training. -- pc4ever1 pc4ever1's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3836 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29162 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
PhilNYC;153822 Wrote: Unless a digital system is using a master/slave clock architecture, it needs to use a PLL to synchronize the transport signal to the DAC. A PLL can reduce jitter in the incoming signal, but has some of its own inherent jitter if the clock in the transport has any difference from the receiving clock. A FIFO buffer can help reduce jitter in this kind of design, but it cannot eliminate it. Do a Yahoo/Google search on asynchronous jitter and see what comes up...this topic has been researched at length by the telecom industry, military, and yes, the audio industry. Pretty much all the credible research says that re-clocking does not eliminate jitter, and in some cases it says that the act of re-clocking can sometimes ADD jitter. I think we are talking about two different things. If you read above in this thread, there was a claim (by ezkcdude) that ASRC could significantly reject jitter (or something, I'm not going to go back and check his exact wording). He gave an excellent reference written by a chip designer which describes in great detail (it's about ten pages long) how that works. In a nutshell it is a PLL, but in the digital domain and after upsampling by a huge factor, which allows it to have a bandwidth of around 3 Hz. Apparently that is much better than a more standard approach where one uses a PLL to recover the clock from the S/PDIF directly. However it is also clear that it doesn't not entirely elminate jitter (since it's still using the S/PDIF edges to construct the clock). If done according to his description it's not going to add jitter, except possibly to a signal with very very low jitter to begin with (and then it might increase it slightly). However, there is another, entirely different approach possible, which - as far as I can see - completely and totally eliminates the effects of input jitter. This does not use a PLL at all, because it does not reconstruct the clock from the incoming data stream. As I said above, simply imagine having a huge buffer in your DAC. Now run the audio stream for, say, one hour (the length of a CD). Record the entire thing in the buffer. You now have it stored as a digital sequence which (barring bit errors) is identical to the sequence on the CD, and has nothing at all to do with any jitter in the S/PDIF signal that carried it. Now, after waiting one hour, you get to listen to your jitter-free music as the DAC plays out the data, using its own internal crystal clock (which can be extremely clean). Not very convenient, because you had to wait so long, but this totally eliminates the effects of transport jitter (if not, I'm waiting for someone to tell me why). Now since this is rather inconvenient, you can be more clever and reduce that initial pause to a nearly imperceptible one, and that's what the Lavry does (according to their white paper). This does not use a PLL because it does not reconstruct the clock from the incoming S/PDIF - it uses its own clock - and therefore I fail to see how it can be affected by jitter. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
Patrick Dixon;153790 Wrote: I'm not too sure what you're on about, but what we do is to disconnect ALL the SB2/3 output circuitry, and replace it with our own DAC, analogue and digital output circuits together with a linear PSU and plenty of local regulation. I personally have always prefered the analogue outputs of the SB+ to the SB+ fed to an external DAC, but the customer has the choice, and in any event it sounds considerably better that the stock SB2/3. I find it much more plausible that the analogue outs could be improved. What I find especially hard to believe is that the digital outputs are so significantly improved by your mod that you can hear the difference played through a Benchmark. I say that simply because I'd be surprised if there's any perceptible difference between any two transports - say between a $30 DVD player and the SB+ or a $5000 CD player or what have you - when played through a good DAC. I say this because it seems clear that jitter can be entirely or almost entirely eliminated with a good DAC (see my post above). In any case, I'd be very interested to see evidence to the contrary, but that must either be a measurement or a blind test, as we know (from thousands of scientific studies) that non-blind tests are useless for this. Until I see that I wouldn't even consider buying such a mod. After seeing it I would. There are quite a few people that think like I do on this, so purely from a marketing point of view it would benefit you to in fact conduct such a blind test. Given the minimal effort involved, it's interesting (to put it kindly) that this isn't done. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
PhilNYC;153822 Wrote: And here's a pretty good paper by dCS as an overview of jitter as it relates to audio: http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/technical_papers/jitter.pdf An interesting point made in this paper is the claim that asynchronous sample rate conversion (ASRC) embeds incoming jitter into the signal, and that low jitter sources with short cable runs should be used when the receiver employs ASRC. Contrast this to Benchmark's claim (and published measurements) that the DAC1 (which uses ASRC) is immune to incoming jitter - to the extent that you can stick it on the end of a thousand feet of digital interconnect with no ill effects. There are precious few companies around whose literature I would be inclined to accept on good faith, but dCS and Benchmark are two of them. And yet they appear to have diametrically opposed views regarding ASRC. Which leaves me in a bit of a quandry. Anyone care to shed some light on this? -- cliveb Performers - dozens of mixers and effects - clipped/hypercompressed mastering - you think a few extra ps of jitter matters? cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
opaqueice;153828 Wrote: However, there is another, entirely different approach possible, which - as far as I can see - completely and totally eliminates the effects of input jitter. This does not use a PLL at all, because it does not reconstruct the clock from the incoming data stream. As I said above, simply imagine having a huge buffer in your DAC. Now run the audio stream for, say, one hour (the length of a CD). Record the entire thing in the buffer. You now have it stored as a digital sequence which (barring bit errors) is identical to the sequence on the CD, and has nothing at all to do with any jitter in the S/PDIF signal that carried it. Now, after waiting one hour, you get to listen to your jitter-free music as the DAC plays out the data, using its own internal crystal clock (which can be extremely clean). Not very convenient, because you had to wait so long, but this totally eliminates the effects of transport jitter (if not, I'm waiting for someone to tell me why). Now since this is rather inconvenient, you can be more clever and reduce that initial wait from one hour to a nearly imperceptible pause, and that's what the Lavry does (according to their white paper). This does not use a PLL because it does not reconstruct the clock from the incoming S/PDIF - it uses its own clock - and therefore I fail to see how it can be affected by jitter. This is essentially a FIFO buffer (my Dodson DAC does the same thing, albeit with a much bigger buffer than the Lavry), and in this architecture, you need to deal with things like buffer overflow/underflow, because the data is still streaming...and this still requires some cooperation between the incoming clock and the re-clocker. This will still contain some inherent jitter. The only way to truly do it without a master/slave architecture is to completely load the audio data into solid state memory up front, so there is no buffer management required. There is a player that does this called the Nova Physics Memory PLayer... -- 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=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Will Transporter support video?
Looking at the manual shows only limited audio format support, no balanced outs, no AES/EBU, and no wordclock. The fact they call it AudioPhile is just marketing imho. http://www.neodigits.com/download/X5000_Manual.pdf -- augustusflavius Wadia 830 - Sophia Princess 845 Monoblocks - Rosinante Dulcineas augustusflavius's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8419 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29362 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
opaqueice;153831 Wrote: I'd be surprised if there's any perceptible difference between any two transports - say between a $30 DVD player and the SB+ or a $5000 CD player or what have you - when played through a good DAC. I say this because it seems clear that jitter can be entirely or almost entirely eliminated with a good DAC (see my post above).You seem to be following a circular argument - (jitter rejecting) DACs are transport agnostic therefore there is no perceptible difference between transports. Only problem is, in the real world, one can hear the difference. Feel free to try for yourself! -- 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=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
ezkcdude;153858 Wrote: If you're going to keep on with this, at least, you must remember that it is *input* jitter you're talking about. You have not addressed jitter generated in the D/A process (which is not inconsequential). In almost every place (except the one you quoted) I was careful to specify *input* jitter - clearly there will be some jitter in the oscillator used to clock the DAC. But that has nothing to do with the transport, which was my point. Also those clocks are extremely clean. cliveb Wrote: Doesn't this do exactly the same as a PLL with a bandwidth of 0.1Hz? In some vague sense yes - but it's not a PLL, and its characteristics are different. In any case at least for me it's easier to simply think of what happens - if we assume the DAC clock is perfect for a moment, there will be one slightly jittered bit every ten seconds. So one out of every 441,000 sound samples will be very slightly wrong. Precisely which sample it is might depend very weakly on some characteristic of the input jitter, depending on how the algorithm which decides when to adjust the clock works. Another question is whether a real crystal oscillator already has more jitter in it than is caused by these adjustments, in which case this is as good as you'll ever be able to do. PhilNYC Wrote: Well, that might be a semantic difference, because jitter is measured as an average, not regarding each individual rising edge. As the dCS whitepaper describes, we're now talking about Signal-related timing error, not random noise-related jitter. The only reason why you'd have buffer overflow/underflow is because of a difference in the transport and DAC clocks, and this is essentially the same issue that is introduced by PLL's. The bottom line is if you have a system that uses two different clocks, there will be differences, and therefore jitter will be present. EDIT/ADDED: The remaining question is whether it is enough jitter to be audible. Actually jitter has a spectrum - you can measure its RMS average if you like, but that's only one number out of N necessary to fully specify it (where N is the number of bits in the stream, or the times at which each edge arrive). I'm not sure what you mean by the issue that is introduced by the PLL's - actually that's the issue which is *solved* by the PLLs, albiet with some possibility of jitter contaminating the output. Patrick Dixon Wrote: You seem to be following a circular argument - (jitter rejecting) DACs are transport agnostic therefore there is no perceptible difference between transports. Only problem is, in the real world, one can hear the difference. Feel free to try for yourself! I have, and there was no difference. My original suggestion was that you try this as well - evidently you haven't. I'm not sure where you see a circular argument - if DACs are transport agnostic then it follows that transports played through them are indistinguishable. How is that circular? -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Better sound with digital out. Why?
beerbunny;153750 Wrote: Thanks for this suggestion. It's a great idea and helped me to (I think) understand what is going on. I set the NAD aside and ran 1) SB2 optical to Yamaha: good sound and bass; 2) SB2 RCA to Yamaha: poor sound, weak bass; 3) didn't have digital coax cable so no SB2 digital coax to Yamaha; 4) SB2 optical to Yamaha, Yamaha RCA to NAD: good sound and bass; 5) SB2 RCA to Yamaha, Yamaha RCA to NAD: poor sound, weak bass. After running these tests, my guess would be that the Yamaha's DAC is superior to the SB2's DAC. Do you agree? The consistency of your answers and my knowledge of the SB's sound leads me to one of three conclusions: 1 - Your Yamaha is somehow artificially boosting the bass, and this sounds better in your system to your ears, or 2 - You have a problem in your setup; possibly a contact failing or really bad mains interference, or 3 - Your SB3 is faulty in that its analogue output is not working correctly. The SB3 is only slightly lighter sounding in the bass than my CD player, and that's a nice CD! I can't believe that your Yamaha is going to be as good, period. I do know that AV amps tend to add a lot of thump to the bass; in a balanced system this is not ideal, but if you have tiny speakers, it could sound better...? -- adamslim SB3 and Shanling CDT-100, Rotel RT-990BX, Esoteric Audio Research 859, Living Voice Auditorium IIs, Nordost cables adamslim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7355 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29526 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Rave: New setup + SB2 = great sound!
I have been listening to music for several hours straight now and could not contain myself any longer - I needed to rave about my new system! I've been using SB2 for a long time now, but due to convenience, had it plugged into a Bose Wave radio, and sometimes a Denon AVR-4800 with Klipsch KG4's. Howver, my true-love speakers were in my other apartment (Dynaudio Contour 1.3 MKII). They were being driven by my old college amp (Luxman L-430) which finally decided to give up the right channel. OK, time to ship those puppies home and set them up in my living room to create a proper system! With a dead amp, I was able to convince the wife that I had to buy a new amp. And my goal was a minimalist system which just sounded good. I finally chose the following: Amp - after a lot of research, I decided that I couldn't go wrong trying out the Portal Panache with its 60 day return policy. It got great reviews, seemed like it would love my Dyns, and the designer was a minimalist who bleieved in spending the momey on the parts and not on_any_fluff (no remote even). I called Joe at Portal to she what he thought of the match, and he told me that he happened to have a pair of the monoblocks in stock from a magazine review that he could let me have at considerable discount. Hmm...overbudget, but another great excuse to upgrade. Sold! Now I have these brawny yet subtle Portal Paladin Monoblocks, but needed a preamp to control the volume. Preamp - I read every thread on this site about using the SB2 to control the volume and finally Sean posted to a thread I started saying please don't. Ok, I guess that sealed it. I looked into a lot of passive options (Endler Attenuators etc.) and finally decided on the Axiom passive pre (with cassock upgrade) made by Luminous Audio. Speakers arrived this morning and I put it all together and oh...my...god... I just didn't know this could all sound so good. And with the ease I can cue up any song I feel like listening too, I have not moved from the chair with my laptop browser controlling SS and a big stupid grin on my face. Just wanted to say that if anyone is interested in good value and high quality with no BS and people who are a pleasure to work with, check into the guys above (Portal and Luminous). http://portalaudio.com/paladin.html http://www.luminousaudio.com/axiom.html -- ob_kook ob_kook's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29587 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Better sound with digital out. Why?
cliveb;153795 Wrote: I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion. My experience is that the SB2 DAC is actually pretty high quality. Do we know whether the Yamaha digitises its analogue inputs? If it does, then there is bound to be a gain mismatch between the digital and analogue inputs, and this could easily account for perceived quality differences (louder is generally interpreted as better). Here's the reason for the gain mismatch. When you use a digital input, it can simply be passed straight to the DAC. When you use an analogue input, it has to be passed through an A/D converter. Now, since the Yamaha cannot possibly know what signal level you might feed it, it has to operate the A/D converter at a level so that the largest conceivable input won't cause digital clipping. Therefore more typical input levels will be operating the A/D converter below its peak level capability. Apart from getting a quieter digital signal (compared to feeding the SB digital output into the Yamaha), you'll also be losing a bit of resolution. But I'd be surprised if the Yamaha didn't have a decent 24 bit A/D converter, so the resolution issue shouldn't be a big deal - my money is on the analogue input simply providing less volume. (Of course if the Yamaha has a poor quality A/D converter, then that could be a much more straightforward reason for the reduced quality via its analogue inputs). Incidentally, to test the SB digital coax, just use any RCA lead you have lying around. As long as the length of cable is not too long, you'll be fine. I bought a digital coax cable and tested it with the SB2 to Yamaha and it was indistinguishable in sound and bass quality from the digital optical. Since I can't run the digital through anything but the Yamaha, it is very difficult to say what the difference is. I do appreciate your thoughts about volume, although I don't think that's it. When I play a bass heavy song like Burning Down the House at volume with the digital output connections (and tone controls neutral), it punches you in the stomach and shakes the filament of a nearby lightbulb. When I run the same song through the RCA analog at volume, it has no punch and sounds too bright, almost noisy. I should say that the reason for my original question is that I am setting up my SB2 with my NAD S200 separately from my home theater (HT) for space and imaging reasons so the Yamaha is staying with the HT. I plan to first buy the S100 preamp that was designed to mate with the S200. Because it doesn't have digital inputs of any kind (all RCA), I will be testing it with the SB2's RCA analog output. This might solve my problem. Do you think so? If it doesn't, I would be inclined to buy a decent DAC that accepts a digital coax input and run SB2 to DAC to NAD S100 to S200. -- beerbunny beerbunny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2600 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29526 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Better sound with digital out. Why?
To answer the other questions on page 2: I think my interconnects are fine. On volume, when using the Yamaha, I keep the Slimserver software volume at full and use the Yamaha volume to regulate speaker sound. I do not have a subwoofer connected as the Paradigm Studio 100's produce plenty of bass. -- beerbunny beerbunny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2600 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29526 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Trasporter display configuration - done much?
pc4ever1;153823 Wrote: I like it just the way it is by using the MusicInfoSCR plugin. I love the plugin too. It's just that overall display configuration is very hard unless you work with computers! It needs simplifying, whilst retaining the same configurability. MC -- ModelCitizen Now what? Transporter Naim NAP 250 PMC OB1s. Music catalog: http://modelcitizen.mine.nu/music.txt ModelCitizen's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=446 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29162 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter review
cliveb;153833 Wrote: An interesting point made in this paper is the claim that asynchronous sample rate conversion (ASRC) embeds incoming jitter into the signal, and that low jitter sources with short cable runs should be used when the receiver employs ASRC. Contrast this to Benchmark's claim (and published measurements) that the DAC1 (which uses ASRC) is immune to incoming jitter - to the extent that you can stick it on the end of a thousand feet of digital interconnect with no ill effects. There are precious few companies around whose literature I would be inclined to accept on good faith, but dCS and Benchmark are two of them. And yet they appear to have diametrically opposed views regarding ASRC. Which leaves me in a bit of a quandry. Anyone care to shed some light on this? Hi Clive, I understand what he is saying there. He says: DATA JITTER AND ASYNCHRONOUS SAMPLE RATE CONVERTERS Asynchronous sample rate converters can respond to data jitter and process it into the signal, irrevocably. For this reason they should be used with care, and if they have to be used, should be used with low data jitter sources with short cable runs. The point is that ASRC embeds some jitter into the digital sequence itself. So you start with something which, when represented as a string of digits, is identical to the track on the CD. Jitter manifests itself only as small variations in the time at which those bits arrive. But after ASRC you have embedded those timing variations, to some small degree, into the digital sequence representing the sound samples themselves. It's like doing D-A-D', so the jitter in D gets into D' and can never be removed. Of course if you then immediately play out to a DAC that's not a bad thing, but if you stored the digital sequence for later use, or did multiple such conversions, you might run into problems. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29450 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Trasporter display configuration - done much?
I also like the way that MusicInfoScr works, and agree with MC that the overall structure isn't right. I've been exercising a few brain cells over this and so far have come up with some requirements and a few thoughts towards a spec. First, the requirements: - want to be able to define display config as MusicInfoScr does today (this isn't broken, lets keep it!) - want full flexibility on when different information layouts, and visualisers, appear on one or both screens - must allow for plugins doing weird things with the display at will (eg Snow screensaver!) - must be able to offer good out of the box default layouts while allowing fancy customisation for the keen - make the use of the various configuration options well structured and logical Second, some thoughts inching towards a spec... I think that there are several layers of definition here, some of which are already in use: 1 - define the formats for information strings that you want to be able to use (Server wide)(today: Server settings/Formatting/Title Format) 2 - Select which of those format strings you want to use for a particular player for a given purpose (today: player settings/basic settings/title format) - there might be a need for other comparable strings at this level but I can't offhand think of one maybe Album name format? 3 - define one or more different Display Views. Give them a name so you can refer to them later. MusicInfoScr does a great job of this, as far as text layout is concerned. I'd like to see the use of visualisers integrated here, though, and perhaps the various scroll settings. (I think this set of Display Views would be Server wide). 4 - Apply the different Display Views to the display (or displays if you are lucky enough to have two!) for a variety of modes (see the table in my earlier post). Per Player. Putting all of these together, you'd be able to define your own display layout (as per MusicInfoScr today) for each display - or use the visualisers - where and when you want. You'd be able to have visualisers on either side. You'd be able to have a display look like a visualiser when playing, but have a specific text layout when you press Now Playing (say). It would clean up the currently confused relationship between the core slimserver functions and the MusicInfoScr plugin. OK, so it would allow me to do what I want with the displays (which I'm fairly sure I can't at the moment), but I think it offers a lot of options for what others might want too. Just one other thing - if anything like this happens, I'd also request a save display configuration to file and load from... option - it would allow users/support to post configurations around as well as make it easy to copy from one player to another. Any thoughts? Ceejay -- ceejay ceejay's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=148 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29162 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] low cost dac recommendations?
While I've got the Transporter for my main system, I'd like some suggestions for a low cost DAC to get audio out of my computer. The Mac has optical out, and I'd like an upgrade from the analog out I'm currently using in my office. Any suggestions that use an optical, USB, or firewire connection in the range of $100 new or used? Or is that too low? -- pvadbx pvadbx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5719 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Rave: New setup + SB2 = great sound!
Fantastic! The Axiom passive preamps look like a really nice product. I also went through a similar process, retiring my old kit speakers and amp to the kitchen and investing in some new gear. Keeping things simple and uncluttered is one of the beautiful things about SqueezeBox. No cd's cluttering the lounge room floor, no need to search for that one cd you really want to listen to, only to find your daughter has stolen it. I run an SB3 direct into my Perreaux 200ip amp using Rothwell attenuators. The preamp in the integrated Perreaux is very good but I have chosen to bypass it. The sound then runs to some magnificent VAF Research I93's speakers I bought after heading down to Adelaide to look at their much cheaper DC-X speakers. I spent 3 hours listening to music in their showroom and chatting with the owner of the business - fantastic service. So the only true import to the Southern Continent is the SB3 (Australia and New Zealand really should be one country there are too many borders in the world). I am yet to set up Inguz room correction on the new speakers but that will come next after I have fully sorted out the speaker positions etc. There is so much good gear about - a Transporter should turn up soon as well. I kept eying off DAC's but the Transporter seems to have it all at a reasonable price compared to the DAC's I was checking out. I average at least 3 to 4 cd purchases a month - probably more. So much good music so little time. I didn't realise how good cd's could sound. It's wonderful. Stevo www.vaf.com.au http://www.perreaux.com/ -- stevo stevo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6250 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29587 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: low cost dac recommendations?
stevo;153944 Wrote: TDA1545 TDA1545A Non-OS DAC -- USB Plus Constantine DAC's look nice. You will find them on Ebay. I haven't tried them. Stevo I second this. I have tried the Mhdt Labs DAC units and they are a true bargain, wonderful sound. -- NewBuyer NewBuyer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7862 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Rave: New setup + SB2 = great sound!
Hey Stevo - I just checked out that Perreaux amp and it looks like it was built with very similar objectives - lot's of raw yet refined power! Nice looking piece of kit. I went round and round about attenuators, but finally having a knob that was easy to turn up and down won out. And actually the unit looks even better in real life. For anyone considering passive attenuation, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it. You are right about the gear that is out there these days - having secured a budget of $2500 put me in an area that was overwhelming with choices! I have also been following the Inguz post with great interest. My listening room is a tad hard around the edges and there will be no foam finding their way onto the walls, and it sounds like DRC might be the way to go anyway. Intriguing... -- ob_kook ob_kook's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29587 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Any fellows SB3er using Icepower class D w/ BW speakers ?
There's a LOT of info on calss D in this month's Stereophile. -- nelamvr6 nelamvr6's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29446 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 into TacT - how good can it get?
SoftwireEngineer;143467 Wrote: Try this one from partsexpress. It should be better, I think. http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?DID=7Partnumber=180-952 I have the sound professionals one and I think both are same because they have the same number of fibres - 65. http://www.soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/gold/item/SP-TOC-99HQ The audioasylum review is linked in the sound professionals site. I think these toslinks will easily beat your electrical digital cable (it betters my Zu Ash)... Softwire (and others with glass optical cables), I often hear about these types of cables being very fragile because of the glass material used. I'm wondering, just how fragile are we talking about here? Does the user need to be worried everytime the cable starts to bend? Or are they fragile in a different way, etc? Would really appreciate any comments on this, before buying one of these nice Toslink cables... -- NewBuyer NewBuyer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7862 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28307 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Total BS (Logitech) Sellout
Does anyone else feel slighted by the Logitech buyout crap. Granted I'm sure they got paidbut all the Slimdevices credibility just went out the freaking window. Now all of us device owners will be religated to the bureaucratic steaming excrement of logitech. Guess what open source -- bye bye Hello license fees and content restriction. God I hope it was worth it. I wish I was within my 30 day return policy for my Transport. This sucks -- Walleyefisher Walleyefisher's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7122 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29597 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Total BS (Logitech) Sellout
Walleyefisher wrote: Does anyone else feel slighted by the Logitech buyout crap. Granted I'm sure they got paidbut all the Slimdevices credibility just went out the freaking window. Troll? Its not news, and its not bad. But if you hate it, sell your unit on eBay. -- 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: Any fellows SB3er using Icepower class D w/ BW speakers ?
i shed all my SS amps (Parasound and Meridian) for 4 Bel canto Ref1000s and TACT BOZ 216/2200s. Couldn't be happier. The BelCantos never blink. -- Sleestack *headphone:* singlepower sds-xlr at, classe sacd2, hd650 *2 channel:* tact rcs 2.2.xp w/ full aberdeen mods, bel canto oneref. 1000 monoblocks x 4,teac esoteric p-03/d-03, epiphany 12-12s (waiting for my 20-21s), tact w210 corner load subs *5.1 channel:* tact tcs mkii w/ aberdeen power supply, tact boz 216/2200 (x5) w/ aberdeen power supply, tact adc6 w/ full aberdeen mods, denon 5910, bel canto pl-1a, eggleston andra ii (x5), velodyne dd-15, pioneer elite pro 1130hd Sleestack's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29446 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Total BS (Logitech) Sellout
Walleyefisher;153978 Wrote: God I hope it was worth it. I wish I was within my 30 day return policy for my Transport. I would advise keeping it if the box and badge read Transport. Misprints often become valuable, so you may have a collectors item. Best box it up to keep the condition though, which shouldn't matter since the sound degraded so badly after the announcement. -- Skunk Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29597 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Total BS (Logitech) Sellout
Skunk;153984 Wrote: Best box it up to keep the condition though, which shouldn't matter since the sound degraded so badly after the announcement.Not sure if the sound degraded, but the noise part of the signal-to-noise ratio certainly increased. -- TiredLegs TiredLegs's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6201 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29597 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
