[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB sounding too bright
GaryB;83106 Wrote: > A lot of people have noticed that going from the stock switching power > supply to a linear supply helps smooth out the sound. ---Gary Has anyone actually measured this and/or done ABX testing or is this just subjective assessment? I hestitate to ask... but I would have thought Slim Devices (Sean) assessed this. Has anyone seen a pronouncement from Sean if a power supply change will make a measurable change? If yes, maybe SD should offer another PS for the SB3 as a seperately purchasable option (so that people who don't care don't pay the extra cost of the more expensive linear supply). -- Eric Carroll Eric Carroll's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9293 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=20155 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Digital or Analog output?
I plan to move one of my SB3s down to my HT once my Transporter arrives and feed the Pioneer VSX-49Txi with the digitial output of the SB3. Why? I have an old Pioneer CD jukebox down there that was the old "data jail" for the CDs. Its well, pointless now. So in goes the SB3 to replace it. Now, the REAL answer is that next year I plan to upgrade the Pioneer to a Anthem D2 (or next mod). The D2 has the SAME DACs as the Transporter on the audio side. :-) -- Eric Carroll Eric Carroll's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9293 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31497 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter setup with Bryston - Balanced levels
teq;168801 Wrote: > I plan to hook up the Transporter with a Krell 400xi through the > balanced port. According to the Krell's product documentation, the > Krell has > - INPUT SENSITIVITY 0.644 Vrms > - INPUT IMPEDANCE 47 kOhms > > Will this work, or am I in for a problem? > Teq, Here is what I found out for the Bryston. The Bryston has two gain settings: 23dB (2V) and 29dB (1V). This is the voltage gain the amp provides to the input. This translates to a voltage gain factor of 14.1 and 28.1 respectively. So, if the Tp offers 3Vrms balanced at Full Scale into the Bryston 3B SST and an 8ohm speaker, then the power requirement is 223 and 888 Watts respectively. Since the 3B SST is a 150Wpc amp, I will have to use the 2V setting on balanced and will not be able to run full scale. Now, the Tp claims 3Vrms, while the Bryston claims 23dB on 2.6V for full power output (just a note that if you take 2.6V @ 23dB gain that is actually 168W but who is counting). So maybe Slim overstated the balanced output just a bit? Who knows. To run full scale on the Tp into the Bryston 3B and use full power without clipping (assuming Tp 3Vrms output) I will need to use the 2V setting and a 1.2 dB pad (I think). The 10dB XLR pad I was discussing earlier would be too much. Now, in your case, http://www.krellonline.com/html/m_KAV_p_KAV400xi_spec.html says the gain on your amp is a massive 35.8dB. So you definately will not be able to run the SB3 into the Krell and run the volume control to full scale (0dB) on the SB3. The SB3 6Vpp is right around 2V RMS (2Vrms is 5.7Vpp). So assuming output on the SB3 of 2Vrms, and a 35.8dB gain, you would have a power requirement of 1900W which far exceeds your 200W rated power supply. So your choices are: - run the SB3 low on the volume control to avoid overdriving your amp, clipping and/or blowing a fuse - add a 10dB attenuator (pad) in between the SB3 and the Krell input. I personaly would prefer to put the pad in and run the volume control higher. I have seen postings in the forums about suppliers of RCA inline pads, and I mentioned an balanced pad earlier in this thread. If I fluffed my math someone will undoubtably correct me and I will be suitably embarrased but appropriately appreciative. -- Eric Carroll Eric Carroll's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9293 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31096 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Need to brighten sound of new SB3 --> Transporter or DAC?
Hi, I sell Slim Devices products and the Lavry, Benchmark and Belcanto dacs here in Australia, out of these what you are describing would be best rememdied with the benchmark which is has a good level of detail and clarity, plenty of dynamics and to me a little strong in the higher frequencies (but your speakers/system may need this to be balanced overall). The Lavry personally I favor over the Benchmark, it is not as in your face as the benchmark, I feel it has a more balanced sound in my system. The Belcanto DAC 3 may also be worth considering, 6moons have a good review at the moment, but I am yet to here personally in my own system so will reserve judgement till, then. The Transporter is a considerable jump up over the SB3 sound qualitywise but the tonality is similar to the SB3 although I would say it has moved closer to your preferences. Hope this helps. -- dlite dlite's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4885 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31533 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Small Amplifier for Minimalist SB Setup
The Trends TA-10 seems like it might be quite interesting. Only costs about $100 and should have plenty of kick if your speakers are 94db. This would allow LOTS of beers while enjoying the great music! -- dayneger dayneger's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9560 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31445 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter setup with Bryston - Balanced levels
Wow, I look away for a couple of days and this thread takes off! Thanks to all the responders. AndyOz, like you I am currently running a stock SB3 into my Bryston 3B SST while I (still) wait for my Tp. I have started off using 2V setting and it seems to work well. I see on the web page for the SB3 that it claims 6Vpp, but gives no typical line RMS value. I am still searching the forum. On the Bryston, you are also correct, the setting difference between 1V and 2V is 6dB as I figured out after reading the Bryston manual more. So I will play with the 1V/2V setting and the SB3 Preamp Volume control to see which works the best. I plan on moving the SB3 to my home theatre system as soon as the Tp arrives. -- Eric Carroll Eric Carroll's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9293 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31096 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Need to brighten sound of new SB3 --> Transporter or DAC?
Sorry for the long post, but it is the synthesis of much perusal of this forum, along with SB info available on Audio Circle, Head-Fi and Audio Asylum forums. (My Asylum moniker is "activeM&Kman"). I'm a new SB3 owner, and the WiFi server concept has me sold. With about 2 weeks of use now, however, I must say I find the sound of the SB3 to be rolled off at the top end, and to be rather constrained throughout all frequencies. As I've read the forums, some folks have had similar opinions, and of course, some have the exact opposite, saying the SB3 is too bright. What a surprise from audiophiles. I'll have to admit I have not heard a huge variety of CD players, but in general I actually like the harder, in your face sound that digital can provide. I am not a tube-sound guy at all. Rolled off and bloated is not my cup of tea, but that is sort of how the SB3 sounds to me. My previous players were both lower end Sony ES units, whose sound I enjoyed. My vinyl rig sounds brighter than the SB3. My hearing is very good at upper extremities -- yes, I do hear 20 kHz. I do not hear much cymbal shimmer or proper crashes with the SB3, and snare decay is truncated. Saxaphone lacks the proper bite. I also see a lot of live, electric jazz and rock shows with good seats. My vinyl rig can reproduce the sound of live music. Even cranking the volume up does not get the SB3 to come alive (and my system can crank some volume ;^) My system is also very revealing, from top to bottom. The vinyl rig I mentioned is a Sota Nova vacuum tt, with a Graham 2.2 arm, and Benz Ace high output cartridge. My preamp is a Bryston BP25MC with built in MC and MM phono amp. Balanced cables run to M&K pro studio monitors (~ 350 watts in each) and subwoofer (400 watts), via an M&K crossover/bass controller. The system plays clean as a whistle even when I crank it to (way) over 100db in the sweet spot. I moved to the boonies so I can CRANK my stereo! My first thought was to swap the SB3 for a Transporter. As I read opinions of the TP, however, I get the impression it also has a tube-like character, although much clearer than the SB3. This sure is not what I am looking for, based on the SB3 sound. I'll admit I didn't want to spend $2K now, but I'm willing to now that the SB3 has me hooked on the concept. I do prefer the one-box solution, plus I know the TP has additional inputs and just darn looks cool, as well. I've also been reading descriptions of the sounds of DACs, to see what else I might try. Several solid state units around $1K sound promising. The pro audio world offers the Benchmark, Lavry DA10 and Apogee MiniDAC, characterized with revealing pro audio sound. The Channel Islands VDA2 and possibly improved power supply is also in this range, and while the descriptions I read tend toward the tube-like side, I have a soft-spot for designer Dusty Vawter as I have old Audio Alchemy (analog) gear still cruising in my office system. I still have about 2 weeks to play around with the SB3. I guess I'm looking for "swap it" or "keep it and get a DAC" advice, and why, based on the description on the kind of sound I like. Any comments on the above DACs is appreciated, as well as any other suggestions. FYI, modding the SB3 or tube DACs are not an option. Thanks, desertrat58 from Joshua Tree, California, USA. -- desertrat58 desertrat58's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9431 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31533 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
I'm on 7.0.2.16 now. Sorry, but I don't actually remember what version I upgraded from. The dbpoweramp problem was a little mysterious to me. I used the file selector, started it up, saw it working ok, and went away. When I came back and looked at the log file, I found that dbpoweramp had been unable to open about 10% of the total. These were all fairly recent rips (since I upgraded). _Some_ of the newer rips were fine. The log messages weren't terribly informative, for example: The file 'F:\iTunes\ITunes Music\Steve Bernstein\Diaspora Blues\04 Commentary 1.m4a' could not be opened. These files played fine in itunes, on my ipod, and on my sb3. _Some_ of them could be converted using foobar, some couldn't. I can't really say what caused this. Perhaps something about the wa y the newer itunes saved this stuff was incompatible with the alac converter for dbpoweramp-- I have no real idea why this happened, though, that's obviously a wild guess. -- totoro squeezebox 3 -> mccormack dna .5 -> audio physic tempo 4 totoro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5935 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31480 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
totoro;169128 Wrote: > DBPoweramp will do it for a whole tree. I recently did it. I _did_ have > a problem with some files that I ripped after my most recent itunes > update. Some of these I _was_ able to transcode using foobar's > converter. Others I had to re-rip. This makes me wonder a bit about > what exactly went into that last itunes "upgrade". > Michael, can you remember what version of iTunes you upgraded from? And what are you on now? What was the problem? I'm on iTunes 7.0.1.8 - I just tried converting a single track from ALAC-> FLAC with dBpowerAMP and it seems OK. Steve. -- SteveEast SteveEast's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4193 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31480 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
tomjtx wrote: > Robin, > Do you have a way to easily convert ALAC to FLAC? ALAC, I mean, alas no. You may be able to do it with Foobar2000, but I suspect you're on a Mac. dbPoweramp can do it, but again, that's Pc-based. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t49757.html http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t45497.html Max seems to be able to do it: http://sbooth.org/Max/ Do you have OS-X Tiger (10.4) ? HTH, R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
tomjtx;169120 Wrote: > Robin, > Do you have a way to easily convert ALAC to FLAC? > > I am very much plug and play re computers and I only know how to push > the button the software tells me to push. > > I would like to try FLAC and I think it could be a good idea to have my > files backed up to FLAC even if I continue to use Itunes. > > Tom DBPoweramp will do it for a whole tree. I recently did it. I _did_ have a problem with some files that I ripped after my most recent itunes update. Some of these I _was_ able to transcode using foobar's converter. Others I had to re-rip. This makes me wonder a bit about what exactly went into that last itunes "upgrade". This brings me to my biggest worry about a closed proprietary format. There is _nothing_ to prevent the owner of such a format from making changes to it at any time. This could include adding drm, making it impossible to convert, _whatever they want_. FLAC is open source, so even if the guy who wrote it decided to do something like this (afaik _extremely_ unlikely), there is nothing to stop anyone interested from forking at that point. This is a pretty major big deal for me. Maybe not for you, but it _is_, at some level, a technical difference. Please note that noone here has advocated trusting M$, either. And lafayette, for someone who claims to love logic, you do seem to be prone to spout off on technical subjects of which you know essentially nothing (such as networking). Asserting what you want to be true merely because you believe it is hardly the mark of a logician. Also- you might want to note that the subject of logic is taught at the higher levels in philosophy, math, and computer science departments, _not_ law school (unless proof theory, constructive type theory, recursion theory, etc have suddenly become hot topics in law schools). Your constant harping on your profession basically amounts to a pretty feeble argument by authority (your own). -Michael -- totoro squeezebox 3 -> mccormack dna .5 -> audio physic tempo 4 totoro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5935 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31480 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For Sale New Sprint Ppc 6700 For A Cheap Price Of.........$200usd
BUSINESS QUOTE. We have all brands of Mobile Phones,Ipods,Sidekicks,Nextels phone,Laptops for sell at cheap and affordable prices, they ranges from NOKIA SAMSUNG LG SONYERICSSON MOTOROLA ALCATEL PANASONIC With Bluetooth, all brands and Models of Nextel Phones, we want you to get back to us with your quote so that we can begin a good business relationship. Note they are all Brand New T2 Euro specs,unlocked, no operator logo, come in their original sealed box, With 1 year international warrantyfrom the manufacturer, English & Spanish manual, Finland made. We want to assure you that you will never regret buyingfrom us because the delivery will be to your doorstep viaFedEx Courier service.And the Tracking number shall be sentto you upon acknowledgement of your payment. Kindly acknowledge the reciept of our mail and get back to us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] NEXTEL 1930 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$120USD NEXTEL 1960 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$130USD NEXTEL i870 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$140usd NEXTEL i450 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...90usd NEXTEL I830 FOR A VHEAP PRICE OF.$100USD NEXTEL 1860 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$105USD SAMSUNG SCH i830 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$220USD SAMSUNG MM-1940 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$190USD SAMSUNG SGH D307 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF..$180USD SAMSUNG SGH D720 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$170USD SAMSUNG D500 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$160USD MOTOROLA V3 RAZ FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$140USD MOTOROLA MPX 220 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF $120USD MPX 300 FOR CHEAP PRICE OF...$150USD SIDEKICK 2 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$120USD SIDEKICK 3 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$180USD SONYERICSSON P990 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$220USD SONYERICSSON W900 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$210USD SONYERICSSON Z500a FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$190usd SONYERICSSON Z520 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$200USD SONYERICSSON P910 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$180USD SONYERICSSON P800 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$160USD SONYERICSSON K750i FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$110USD SPRINT PPC 6700 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF.$200USD NINTENDO WII FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF ...$200USD NOKIA 9500 COMMUNICATOR FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$200USD NOKIA 9300 COMMUNICATOR FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$180USD NOKIA N70 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF $140USD NOKIA N71 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF $170USD NOKIA N72 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF $200USD NOKIA N73 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF $230USD NOKIA N80 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF $180USD NOKIA N90 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF $190USD NOKIA N91 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF $2000USD NOKIA N92 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF $240USD NOKIA N93 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF $270USD NOKIA 7360 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$170USD NOKIA 7370 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$180USD NOKIA 6682 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$150USD NOKIA 7380 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$200USD NOKIA 8800 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$180USD NOKIA E60 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$160USD NOKIA E61 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$180USD PAMTREO 600 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$120USD PAMTREO 650 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$150USD, XBOX 360 FOR A CHEAP PRICE OF...$200USD Apple 4 GB iPod Mini Pink M9435LL/A ...40 USD Apple 40 GB iPod photo...40 USD Apple 4 GB iPod Mini Silver M9160LL/A ...40 USD Apple 60 GB iPod Photo M9830LL/A...60 USD Apple 60 GB iPod photo ...55 USD Apple 30 GB iPod Photo M9829LL/A...50 USD Apple 512 MB iPod Shuffle MP3 Player...40 USD Apple 4 GB iPod Mini Blue M9436LL/A...45 USD Apple 2 GB iPod Nano...50 USD Apple 4 GB iPod Nano...60 USD Apple 30 GB iPod Video...110 USD Apple 60 GB iPod Video...150 USD PLAYSTATION 2 FOR $120USD PLAYSTATION 3 FOR $200USD for more details contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- desmond11 desmond11's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9538 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31525 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
Robin Bowes;169007 Wrote: > geraint smith wrote: > > > If only FLAC worked with iTunes (or vice versa), or else that there > > were another music ripping/tagging/labelling all-in-one product for > Mac > > OSX that was as easy, and worked as well as, iTunes. But it doesn't, > and > > there isn't - or if there is one, I'd very much like to know about > it > > (although only if it reads tags attached by iTunes. The thought of > > doing all that again...ugh!). So Aiff it is, then. The only > practical > > thing against Aiff (apart from the space it takes on your disc, > which > > is not much against it given how cheap disc space is now) is that > > programmes for PCs don't seem to like it much. There there, very > sad, > > never mind. But tagging is not an issue with Aiff. You can - and I > do, > > using iTunes - tag Aiff as easily, comprehensively and well as one > can > > tag FLAC, and a darned site better than one can tag WAV. > > So, would you be interested in a script that converts your AIFF files > to > FLAC, including all tags? > > Also, if you're tied to formats supported by iTunes then ALAC will > take > up less space than AIFF and support the same tags. > > R. Robin, Do you have a way to easily convert ALAC to FLAC? I am very much plug and play re computers and I only know how to push the button the software tells me to push. I would like to try FLAC and I think it could be a good idea to have my files backed up to FLAC even if I continue to use Itunes. Tom -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31480 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
Robin Bowes;169102 Wrote: > Nothing further to add, m'lud. > R. Careful! Anything you say can and most probably will be used against you! ;-D P.S: What other merits are there to compare between two lossless formats than the "other" aspects? That sort of goes without saying.. For long term storage non-proprietary is always superior. (Gee, how well those old Word documents work today...) -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31480 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
lafayette wrote: > Perhaps it is simply your manner or the way I interpreted an abrasive > and/or curt post. My reply was indeed terse, but your initial "challenge" was hardly neutral: "Pray, do expound upon..." - a little condescending, don't you think? Having said that, I do seem to rub you up the wrong way - this isn't the first time you've reacted this way. > Having said that, I am an attorney, and as open source matters to > you, logic matters to me. Ok, if you want to be like that about it ... > You did not state an opinion. You stated something as a matter of > fact. In my original post I actually presented two facts "expounding" why I believe FLAC to be superior to both ALAC and AIFF: 1. FLAC is open source, not proprietary 2. FLAC takes up less space than AIFF, These are incontrovertible facts, presented in support of my opinion. > As a matter of fact, in terms of audio, the two formats are > equivalent. But of course. They are both lossless, so the decoded audio will be the same from both formats. However, note that you have inserted a qualifying clause here: "in terms of audio". If you look back, your original question was: > Pray, do expound upon how FLAC is superior to Apple Lossless (which > is not lossy)? Or AIFF, which is not lossy and uncompressed, for > that matter? Note that you make no mention of audio in either of those questions. Hence my reply took other factors into consideration. Also note that you didn't say "which is the best: FLAC, ALAC, or AIFF"; had you done so, my reply would have been different still. I may have listed the benefits of all three formats and presented a discourse as to their relative merits. I may then have summarised by suggesting that the "best" format depends on the purpose for which it is to be used. > No one is forcing you to use an Apple codec. You want open source? > Then how about turning to Microsoft? Apple Lossless is perfect for > audio, just as much as FLAC, and it is convenient for Apple users. > Incidentally, Apple users comprise 3% or so of the market. I don't > think you need to feel threatened by them. I'm perfectly happy in my choice of audio formats, and I'm perfectly happy that Mac users may choose Apple formats as they are more convenient to work with on the Mac platform. Nothing further to add, m'lud. R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Digital or Analog output?
What a debate. I didn't think my question would draw so much interest. I too run my 2805 in pure direct but with the option of the sub on. >From the posts that may or may not envoke some digital conversion. I will get behind there and hook up some good RCA interconects and see what I think. Before I was going on the notion that the $800 Denon would have a better quality DAC but then the $250 SB3 has less devices to control so the money may go more into the DAC. There is no doubt the SB3 is an incrediable device that makes listening to music so convenient along with great sound. As I have read in other posts if they find a way for Joe public to easily plug this thing in and easily rip his CD's to a hard drive home CD players will become extinct. Thanks for the comments! DeWayne -- DeWayne DeWayne's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4345 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31497 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
Perhaps it is simply your manner or the way I interpreted an abrasive and/or curt post. Having said that, I am an attorney, and as open source matters to you, logic matters to me. You did not state an opinion. You stated something as a matter of fact. As a matter of fact, in terms of audio, the two formats are equivalent. No one is forcing you to use an Apple codec. You want open source? Then how about turning to Microsoft? Apple Lossless is perfect for audio, just as much as FLAC, and it is convenient for Apple users. Incidentally, Apple users comprise 3% or so of the market. I don't think you need to feel threatened by them. Robin Bowes;168969 Wrote: > lafayette wrote:[color=blue] > > > > Yet again, you manage to find offence where there is (or should be) > none. > > You ask a question, I answer it with my opinion. > > I'm not upset - just stating my opinion. > > It's not nonsense - it's my opinion. > > In my world, open source is important, so the fact that flac is open > source is also important, and that makes it superior to other lossless > formats. > > Keeping this vaguely on topic (Slim Devices) don't lose sight of the > fact that Slim Devices' products support flac natively, which makes > flac > a more suitable choice. > > I can perfectly understand that if you're a Mac/iTunes user that flac > is > not so attractive as the support is not as good as for Apple's formats > (so I am led to believe). > > You are free to prefer any format you like, and for any reason. But > please don't come whining on here when other people state their views > and opinions that disagree with yours. Now *that* upsets me. > > R. -- lafayette Sweet Home Alabama lafayette's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9022 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31480 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Digital or Analog output?
Mark Lanctot;169067 Wrote: > Ceejay: I'm curious how you know this. > > I'm not at all suggesting you're wrong, but I'd like to know how to > determine this myself. If you look at all the manufacturer literature, > they'd have you believe every one of them with a bypass mode is pure > analog bypass. Yet the volume control always works in this mode, but > most of these volume controls are encoders rather than potentiometers. > I'm not fully versed in electronics but I don't know how an encoder > could be used in a fully-analog circuit for volume control. Well, "know" is a strong word... I've not examined the circuits. But I did search the internet extensively and found some statements that seemed to be credible which stated this. Interestingly in relation to your earlier post about 2.1 vs 2.0 ... there was an additional claim that in analog mode the processor actually switches to an analog method for filtering and driving the subwoofer, so you could get 2.1. There is of course a lingering doubt in my mind, which is perhaps one reason why I've ditched the Denon 2805 as an amplifier for my Transporter and gone for entirely separate 2ch/5.1ch setups!! The only thing I can assert confidently is the entirely subjective judgement that my SB2 sounded better driving the Denon in analog mode, which I think was the original question!!! As for the volume control, its surely not hard to construct an analog electronic volume control which is driven by a digital control source (I'm fairly sure I remember designing such a thing myself in the very distant past!)(remember that its only the actual signal path that has to be analog) Ceejay -- ceejay ceejay's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=148 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31497 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Burwen Bobcat
Talking of enhancing sound has anybody tried DVD2ONE to enhance CDs? -- AlanE AlanE's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9251 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31390 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Burwen Bobcat
>"Enhances" usually means it messed with the sound and it's no longer >pure. Also, Media Player is not esoteric enough for us audiophile... >c'mon! Yes, I wouldn't go near it with a barge pole. My FLAC files don't need any enhancement. However, my mate thinks mp3's at 128kbp sound great... Phil ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Digital or Analog output?
ceejay;169028 Wrote: > I have a Denon 2805. In "Direct" or "pure Direct" mode, it really is > Analog all the way through (does NOT do A-D-A conversion), although it > does go digital in Stereo mode. Ceejay: I'm curious how you know this. I'm not at all suggesting you're wrong, but I'd like to know how to determine this myself. If you look at all the manufacturer literature, they'd have you believe every one of them with a bypass mode is pure analog bypass. Yet the volume control always works in this mode, but most of these volume controls are encoders rather than potentiometers. I'm not fully versed in electronics but I don't know how an encoder could be used in a fully-analog circuit for volume control. -- Mark Lanctot Mark Lanctot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31497 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Digital or Analog output?
Mike Meyer;169047 Wrote: > So with analog, what comes out of my 5.1 speakers? Just 2.1? Not even. If you use direct or bypass, bass management is disabled, you get 2.0. With Stereo mode, you do have bass management, so 2.1, but you also get the extra A-D conversion. This isn't strictly "2.1", nor are the other modes, the ".1" channel is separated from the L/R channels using a synthesized filter algorithm in the DSP. With all the other modes, you always get A-D conversion but, depending on the setting, 4.1 (Dolby Pro-Logic), 5.1 (Dolby Pro-Logic II, various manufacturer-specific DSP modes), 6.1 (Dolby Pro-Logic IIx with one SB speaker set, DTS:Neo 6, Circle Surround II) or 7.1 (Logic7, Dolby Pro-Logic IIx). 'Course none of this is truly discrete, it's matrixed from a 2-channel source if you're using an SB. That said, Dolby Pro-Logic II/IIx and Logic7 are very, very good implementations. They do not sound artificial, gimmicky or contrived at all. Dolby is especially strong in this area. Full Logic7 first appeared in the high-end Lexicon pre/pros, hardly cheap equipment. -- Mark Lanctot Mark Lanctot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31497 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Digital or Analog output?
I remember reading a previous post of yours, Mark, and it dealt with Dolby Pro Logic IIx. At that time I tried the analog output from my SB2 to my Pioneer and I preferred the digital with the Dolby Pro Logic IIx. I'm not sure what the Slimserver version was at that time but I think it's time to try analog again with my SB3 this time. So with analog, what comes out of my 5.1 speakers? Just 2.1? I wonder if I'm just a person that likes the 'surround sound'. I'll give it another go. -- Mike Meyer SB2 / Pioneer VSX-1015TX / Orb Audio Mod 1's Mike Meyer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1832 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31497 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: splitting the rca outputs of the sb
I run the SB3 to a Creek remote passive attenuator and split the output to powered monitors and a powered sub. Sounds great! -- konut konut's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1596 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31509 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Digital or Analog output?
I'll give my impressions using receivers - I started out with a Denon 1602, then an 1803 (for 6-channel). I didn't have a Squeezebox back then or very good speakers until the last few months with the 1803. The sound was good but when I compared it to an all-analog setup attached to the speakers I realized it was slightly cold/analytical/bright. When it came time to go to 7-channel, I got a Marantz 7400, replaced in about a year with the 8400. I've used a Squeezebox 2, Squeezebox v3 and now a Transporter with the 8400. The Marantz units are better for music in my opinion. They are quite a bit warmer and sound richer. When I first tried the comparison between the analog and digital, digital was definitely brighter, almost "crystalline" if you will. Analog was much, much warmer, in fact downright muddy in the vocals. So I used digital. However in the last few months of Squeezebox v3 ownership I tried out analog again and I can't explain why, but the difference between analog and digital was not nearly as pronounced - I preferred analog. This is a head-scratcher that started with SlimServer 6.5.0 and its associated firmware. I was not the only one who experienced a sound quality increase and there was a thread on it but no one could explain why. So it's best to experiment with your equipment and see what you like best. Also don't be afraid to revisit your findings at a later date! -- Mark Lanctot Mark Lanctot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31497 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Digital or Analog output?
I have a Denon 2805. In "Direct" or "pure Direct" mode, it really is Analog all the way through (does NOT do A-D-A conversion), although it does go digital in Stereo mode. Personally I found it sounded significantly better using analog out from the SB (I was using an SB2), even using not-terribly-expensive cable, ie I preferred the SB's DAC to the Denon. YMMV. YMMV Ceejay -- ceejay ceejay's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=148 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31497 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: splitting the rca outputs of the sb
chiefersone;168919 Wrote: > Has anybody used a standard splitter for the rca out cables/jacks > without loss of sound quality? > I have a stereo system downstairs with a rca cable running there that I > want tyo connect so I can listen to sb down there too. I am using the optical out on my SB to receiver in my primary listening location. Then I've split the RCA outputs to go to another (fairly decent) Alpine receiver in the other room and a sony boom-box in my workshop in the basement. Since the two receivers on the split RCA are more for "ambient listening" I've never noticed any loss in audio quality at those two listening locations. Works fine for me. Whole-house synchronized audio from one SB :). -- jeffluckett jeffluckett's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31509 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Digital or Analog output?
DeWayne, interesting Wiki. Based on that and other posts here someone using an AVR would be mostly wasting their money buying a Transporter, since the internal DAC and preamp should be bypassed anyway. I have tried doing an A-B between the analog and digital outputs of my SB2 into my Harmon Kardon 7200 AVR. Truthfully, the difference was very small, to the point where it might have been imagined. I tended to favor the analog outputs. But as most of us are too aware of, small differences are probably overwhelmed by our psychological reactions. I was thinking seriously about buying an external DAC for my SB2. Maybe that would be a waste of money. I'll have to repeat my comparisons first. I've come up with some good recordings to do that with since then. -- regalma1 regalma1's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6658 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31497 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
geraint smith wrote: > If only FLAC worked with iTunes (or vice versa), or else that there > were another music ripping/tagging/labelling all-in-one product for Mac > OSX that was as easy, and worked as well as, iTunes. But it doesn't, and > there isn't - or if there is one, I'd very much like to know about it > (although only if it reads tags attached by iTunes. The thought of > doing all that again...ugh!). So Aiff it is, then. The only practical > thing against Aiff (apart from the space it takes on your disc, which > is not much against it given how cheap disc space is now) is that > programmes for PCs don't seem to like it much. There there, very sad, > never mind. But tagging is not an issue with Aiff. You can - and I do, > using iTunes - tag Aiff as easily, comprehensively and well as one can > tag FLAC, and a darned site better than one can tag WAV. So, would you be interested in a script that converts your AIFF files to FLAC, including all tags? Also, if you're tied to formats supported by iTunes then ALAC will take up less space than AIFF and support the same tags. R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
CardinalFang;168872 Wrote: > Apologies for jumping into your discussion, but how does that affect > audio quality? It's more of a personal issue whether you care or not > about open source vs proprietary and it doesn't make either technically > "superior" to the other. They are both lossless and take up less file > space. I like choice too, but I'm not a zealot either way. I've never > used FLAC because the tools take too long to use, if it were as slick > as iTunes, I might switch, but then I like the to being able to use > iTunes for playback on a PC as well. > > > > That is a good reason, but so does Apple Lossless and with disk space > so cheap, it's probably the tagging aspect that is more relevant. Quite - save that tagging not an issue either. Aiff tags as well as FLAC. > > > Is that another Apple convergence device? It cooks your brain and pokes > tinsel in your eyes at the same time when you are calling home at > Christmas? :-) Aaargh! Don't! Jobs has ears everywhere! It'll be in production in time for Q4! Geraint. -- geraint smith geraint smith's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=625 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31480 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
Robin Bowes;168860 Wrote: > lafayette wrote: > > [color=blue] > > One point people seem to be missing is this: Apple has moved forward > > with 802.11n. All these problems with Squeezebox/Transporter > > drop-outs? History. > > Nope. The microwave/phone/xmas tree will still affect the signal. > > R. Just think, folks, now this new improved flavour brings you drop outs at five times the speed. Unless, of course, you plug your Squeezebox into your Airport Express, when you will get none at all (saving the cordless phone next door, your honour). -- geraint smith geraint smith's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=625 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31480 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
Pat Farrell;168809 Wrote: > tomjtx wrote: > > benthos;168790 Wrote: > >> That's where you and I part paths: it's about my property, not > Apple's, > >> or anyone else's. > > > I completely agree with you that it's my property once I buy it. > This > > whole DRM thing should be a major consumer > > concern...but most people seem to be unaware of the > > limitations DRM puts on our purchase. > > Sadly, this thread is going off topic. And it gets complicated > quickly. > IANAL... > > The legal terms on a CD are not what people think. > You do not own the CD's music. You only own the right to listen to it. > > Buying a CD gives you only limited rights to use the music, you can > not, > for example, put the wave files up on the internet. > > Sony, last year put out a number of CDs with DRM on them, which is > fairly bad, but much worse was that Sony put them out without labeling > that the CDs were not really CDs, per the RedBook spec. > > Video licensing is even less well understood that music, as bandwidth > to > share videos has not been around and commonplace as long as bandwidth > to > share music. > > It is correct that today, neither Microsoft nor Apple include DRM in > their mainline products. But Microsoft's Play-for-sure was a DRM. > And Apple is in bed with Disney, a major creator of movies. So > one should be careful extrapolating from today's Apple and Microsoft > products. > > It is impossible to tell, but if the Sony CD DRM had not been badly > implemented, and had not been labeled a "rootkit" by folks strongly > against all DRM, perhaps all CDs sold today would have the same sorts > of > protection as Sony tried to sell. > > Be careful with broad statements about "its my property" because the > law > is not as clear or settled as people think. > > It is possible that Apple and/or Microsoft will add DRM to their > formats. It is not possible that FLAC will ever add it, as the goal of > FLAC precludes it. Just as there is nothing to prevent someone from > making a package that has better compression than FLAC and calls it > something like AlmostFree lossless audio codec. > > > -- > Pat > http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html If only FLAC worked with iTunes (or vice versa), or else that there were another music ripping/tagging/labelling all-in-one product for Mac OSX that was as easy, and worked as well as, iTunes. But it doesn't, and there isn't - or if there is one, I'd very much like to know about it (although only if it reads tags attached by iTunes. The thought of doing all that again...ugh!). So Aiff it is, then. The only practical thing against Aiff (apart from the space it takes on your disc, which is not much against it given how cheap disc space is now) is that programmes for PCs don't seem to like it much. There there, very sad, never mind. But tagging is not an issue with Aiff. You can - and I do, using iTunes - tag Aiff as easily, comprehensively and well as one can tag FLAC, and a darned site better than one can tag WAV. -- geraint smith geraint smith's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=625 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31480 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
lafayette wrote: > Why on earth do people get upset about this stuff? > > This is nonsense. The formats are perfectly equivalent when it comes > to audio output. If you are not an Apple user and do not want ALAC, > well, that's your business. But puffing up your chest about being > somehow superior is just, well, hot air. > > Sorry for being curt but these responses have been rude. Yet again, you manage to find offence where there is (or should be) none. You ask a question, I answer it with my opinion. I'm not upset - just stating my opinion. It's not nonsense - it's my opinion. In my world, open source is important, so the fact that flac is open source is also important, and that makes it superior to other lossless formats. Keeping this vaguely on topic (Slim Devices) don't lose sight of the fact that Slim Devices' products support flac natively, which makes flac a more suitable choice. I can perfectly understand that if you're a Mac/iTunes user that flac is not so attractive as the support is not as good as for Apple's formats (so I am led to believe). You are free to prefer any format you like, and for any reason. But please don't come whining on here when other people state their views and opinions that disagree with yours. Now *that* upsets me. R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
Why on earth do people get upset about this stuff? This is nonsense. The formats are perfectly equivalent when it comes to audio output. If you are not an Apple user and do not want ALAC, well, that's your business. But puffing up your chest about being somehow superior is just, well, hot air. Sorry for being curt but these responses have been rude. Robin Bowes;168923 Wrote: > CardinalFang wrote: > > Robin Bowes;168892 Wrote: > >> Audio quality should be identical, given that all file formats > under > >> discussion here are lossless. > >> R. > > > > Exaxctly. They are audio file formats and the only way to judge > > superiority is on their performance in that role. > > No, that is *your* way to judge superiority. > > > > > Judgement based on Open Source vs Proprietary is irrelevant in > deciding > > the superior format, it's just a personal view of philisophical > > approach to the formats. I like Open Source because of the community > > aspects and I also like proprietary because it is designed for one > > product - the one I own. But they are my personal reasons and not > due > > to measurable technical superiority. > > You seem to have unilaterally decided to define "superior" as > "technically superior". > > It is only my opinion that an open source format is preferable to a > closed, proprietary format - others may (at it would seem, do) > disagree, > but you cannot exclude this fact from consideration when debating > which > format is superior. > > R. -- lafayette Sweet Home Alabama lafayette's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9022 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31480 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
Robin Bowes;168923 Wrote: > > You seem to have unilaterally decided to define "superior" as > "technically superior". > R. Perhaps I did, but it's the most meaningful way to compare audio formats within the context of the original discussion which was about FLAC being "genuinely" lossless. Anyway, the orginal discussion was also based on a misunderstanding, so let's let it rest eh? -- CardinalFang CardinalFang's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=962 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31480 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] splitting the rca outputs of the sb
chiefersone wrote: > Has anybody used a standard splitter for the rca out cables/jacks > without loss of sound quality? > I have a stereo system downstairs with a rca cable running there that I > want tyo connect so I can listen to sb down there too. In general, you can drive two sources with one output from most line level gear, including a squeezebox or transporter to two amps. But the specifics vary a lot, too much to make generalizations on. If you have a preamp or integrated amp upstairs, it is better to run the squeezebox output to it, and then pull a feed from the tape out or monitor jacks to feed the downstairs system. Again in general, you can try it and decide if you like it. The worst you can do is blow up two amplifiers and a squeezebox. er, no, the worse you can do is that and set your house on fire. But problems are unlikely. YMMV, etc. -- 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: AppleTV
tomjtx wrote: > Thanks , Robin for reiterating that ALAC should be auditorily > indistinguishable from FLAC. There seems to be some misconception > about that. I suspect there is often confusion between ALAC (lossless) and AAC (lossy). It seems that many more people have heard of AAC than ALAC. R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
CardinalFang wrote: > Robin Bowes;168892 Wrote: >> Audio quality should be identical, given that all file formats under >> discussion here are lossless. >> R. > > Exaxctly. They are audio file formats and the only way to judge > superiority is on their performance in that role. No, that is *your* way to judge superiority. > > Judgement based on Open Source vs Proprietary is irrelevant in deciding > the superior format, it's just a personal view of philisophical > approach to the formats. I like Open Source because of the community > aspects and I also like proprietary because it is designed for one > product - the one I own. But they are my personal reasons and not due > to measurable technical superiority. You seem to have unilaterally decided to define "superior" as "technically superior". It is only my opinion that an open source format is preferable to a closed, proprietary format - others may (at it would seem, do) disagree, but you cannot exclude this fact from consideration when debating which format is superior. R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] splitting the rca outputs of the sb
Has anybody used a standard splitter for the rca out cables/jacks without loss of sound quality? I have a stereo system downstairs with a rca cable running there that I want tyo connect so I can listen to sb down there too. -- chiefersone chiefersone's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9413 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31509 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
Robin Bowes;168892 Wrote: > > Audio quality should be identical, given that all file formats under > discussion here are lossless. > R. Exaxctly. They are audio file formats and the only way to judge superiority is on their performance in that role. Judgement based on Open Source vs Proprietary is irrelevant in deciding the superior format, it's just a personal view of philisophical approach to the formats. I like Open Source because of the community aspects and I also like proprietary because it is designed for one product - the one I own. But they are my personal reasons and not due to measurable technical superiority. -- CardinalFang CardinalFang's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=962 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31480 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
Robin Bowes;168892 Wrote: > CardinalFang wrote: > > Robin Bowes;168860 Wrote: > >> 1. FLAC is open source, not proprietary > > > > Apologies for jumping into your discussion, but how does that affect > > audio quality? > > Who said anything about audio quality? > > The original question was: > > > Pray, do expound upon how FLAC is superior to Apple Lossless (which > is > > not lossy)? Or AIFF, which is not lossy and uncompressed, for that > > matter? > > Audio quality should be identical, given that all file formats under > discussion here are lossless. > > R. Someone earlier on the tread implied that ALAC isn't really lossless. I think the audio quality comment was in reference to that. Thanks , Robin for reiterating that ALAC should be auditorily indistinguishable from FLAC. There seems to be some misconception about that. I am sometimes tempted to convert to FLAC but I am so used to itunes I hesitate. -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31480 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
CardinalFang wrote: > Robin Bowes;168860 Wrote: >> 1. FLAC is open source, not proprietary > > Apologies for jumping into your discussion, but how does that affect > audio quality? Who said anything about audio quality? The original question was: > Pray, do expound upon how FLAC is superior to Apple Lossless (which is > not lossy)? Or AIFF, which is not lossy and uncompressed, for that > matter? Audio quality should be identical, given that all file formats under discussion here are lossless. R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter setup with Bryston - Balanced levels
Skunk;168874 Wrote: > Isn't this an integrated amp? If so you just use the volume control on > the Krell, unless I'm missing something. OK so I'm an idiot. The volume control of the Krell would have nothing to do with it's input sensitivity. Sorry for that. I understand what you're saying now, but I read the Stereophile review* (measurements anyway) and didn't see the low input sensitivity mentioned. This seems like it would be a bigger deal than was made of it. * http://www.stereophile.com/integratedamps/205krell/index4.html -- Skunk Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31096 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Digital or Analog output?
Since this question gets asked so often, I've made a wiki page here: http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?AVReceivers -- Mark Lanctot Mark Lanctot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31497 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter setup with Bryston - Balanced levels
teq;168801 Wrote: > > I plan to hook up the Transporter with a Krell 400xi through the > balanced port. According to the Krell's product documentation, the > Krell has > - INPUT SENSITIVITY 0.644 Vrms > - INPUT IMPEDANCE 47 kOhms > Isn't this an integrated amp? If so you just use the volume control on the Krell, unless I'm missing something. -- Skunk Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31096 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
Robin Bowes;168860 Wrote: > > 1. FLAC is open source, not proprietary > Apologies for jumping into your discussion, but how does that affect audio quality? It's more of a personal issue whether you care or not about open source vs proprietary and it doesn't make either technically "superior" to the other. They are both lossless and take up less file space. I like choice too, but I'm not a zealot either way. I've never used FLAC because the tools take too long to use, if it were as slick as iTunes, I might switch, but then I like the to being able to use iTunes for playback on a PC as well. Robin Bowes;168860 Wrote: > > 2. FLAC itakes up less space than AIFF, > That is a good reason, but so does Apple Lossless and with disk space so cheap, it's probably the tagging aspect that is more relevant. Robin Bowes;168860 Wrote: > Nope. The microwave/phone/xmas tree will still affect the signal. > R. Is that another Apple convergence device? It cooks your brain and pokes tinsel in your eyes at the same time when you are calling home at Christmas? :-) -- CardinalFang CardinalFang's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=962 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31480 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Digital or Analog output?
A/V receivers don't usually have a true analog bypass, so you may find that analog is worse. This isn't because the SB3 DAC is worse than the DAC in your receiver, it's that most A/V receivers work with all audio streams in the digital domain. The DSP in your receiver implements things like bass management, tone control, speaker level and of course DSP effects like "Jazz", "Hall", "Virtual" or Dolby Pro-Logic IIx and DTS:Neo 6 and it can only work with digital streams. Even "Stereo" mode uses the DSP. Therefore the analog stream gets converted to digital using an ADC (analog-to-digital converter), the DSP works with it, then it gets converted back to analog again in the DAC. This extra conversion step usually makes the sound warmer but often so warm as to be muffled in comparison to the digital stream, which doesn't need this extra conversion step. You can minimize this effect using "direct" or "bypass" mode, but it's possible the DSP isn't bypassed even then since you still have things like volume control which is often handled by the DSP. Still, it's worth a try. You may like it. Digital is sometimes too bright in A/V receivers, and I found the Denon receivers I had were on the bright side. -- Mark Lanctot Mark Lanctot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31497 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Digital or Analog output?
I have a SB3 connected to a Denon 2805 reciever with high quality fiber. My thinking was the Denon would have a better DAC then the SB but maybe this isn't the case. I know I need to try connecting it through the analog connections and test it for myself but I was wondering what thoughts others had on this type of setup with a mid level reciever. Thank You! -- DeWayne DeWayne's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4345 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31497 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
lafayette wrote: > Pray, do expound upon how FLAC is superior to Apple Lossless (which is > not lossy)? Or AIFF, which is not lossy and uncompressed, for that > matter? 1. FLAC is open source, not proprietary 2. FLAC itakes up less space than AIFF, > One point people seem to be missing is this: Apple has moved forward > with 802.11n. All these problems with Squeezebox/Transporter > drop-outs? History. Nope. The microwave/phone/xmas tree will still affect the signal. R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Small Amplifier for Minimalist SB Setup
for a stylish and minimalist setup have a look at eclipse-td system probably the 508pa would be the best ! have a look ! Liam -- soupdragon soupdragon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4958 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31445 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: AppleTV
ezkcdude;168698 Wrote: > I think both the TV and iPhone miss the mark. There are numerous > solutions that do what the AppleTV does, and the iPhone is way too > expensive for what it does. Although, I agree with the above poster > that a nice SlimServer skin would make it more appealing, in that it > could be used as a Wi-Fi remote. I think it is too expensive for the iPod user market, most have Nanos or shuffles, but it is not expensive compared to Smartphones, such as Trios, SonyEricssons, Nokias and others that cost in the region of $500. What is scary though is that you have to sign up for a 2 year contract to get that price and there is no mention of monthly charges as yet. It gives you an idea of what it would cost without contract. In the UK we're used to getting handsets for free or under £100 with a year's contract. So the question is - will an iPod user shell out for the phone and ditch the handset and iPod they currently own, or will business users switch? The business users may well want to stick with exchange-based devices from Microsoft, or encrypted devices like the Blackberry. The real big plus point is it now means that the other manufacturers have got to smarten up their act and produce handsets that are easy to use to compete. I think the AppleTV will be a big success, £199 in the UK compares very favourably with SB3, especially if you already have a TV and I would imagine leaves Roku and Sonus wondering what to do next. We may scoff at proprietary file formats and closed nature of the beast, but consumers simply don't care - the many millions of downloads on iTunes testify to that. I will probably buy one because the interface is far better for my family to use, the SB is so geeky in comparison - they have used both and never come back to the SB. The SB survives because of audio quality, but I may well ditch it if the AppleTV sounds as good through my DAC. I rip all my CDs to Apple Lossless anyway so that my kids can use iTunes on their PCs, so it would just make life a lot easier for all of us. -- CardinalFang CardinalFang's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=962 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31480 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Transporter setup with Bryston - Balanced levels
teq;168801 Wrote: > I plan to hook up the Transporter with a Krell 400xi through the > balanced port. According to the Krell's product documentation, the > Krell has > - INPUT SENSITIVITY 0.644 Vrms > - INPUT IMPEDANCE 47 kOhms > That input sensitivity is quite high. The Transporter at full volume puts out about 3V RMS on the balanced outputs. So you'll probably need to organise some sort of passive attenuation, otherwise you'll have to set the Transporter's volume control down quite a long way. (And there is the danger that if for any reason it goes to 100%, you'll be overdriving the Krell's input). The input impedance of the Krell is sufficiently high that a simple passive voltage divider should work 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=31096 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
