Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New Benchmark USB DAC1
There are a lot of debates and assumptions about the way these USB audio boxes are clocked. My understanding is that the operating systems fetch a sample rate in the file header, then manage to create some clocking at this sample rate, and eventually pushes out the data bits through the USB to a "class compliant" audio device. So I decided to edit the sample rate inside the header of a WAV file. Easy: just locate the two bytes 44 AC somewhere very close to the beginning of the file, and edit it with a hexadecimal editor. I use WinHex for that purpose. Note: the two bytes are in reversed order, actually 44100 converted to hex is AC44. Let's try B333, or 45875. Why? Why not! For the USB device, I only have cheap devices: here comes a Behringer U-Control model UCA202. Not really Hi-Fi, yet convenient. Plug it, no driver to bother with, it works flawlessly and immediately. I used the same WAV as for testing jitter, because it's very easy to check the actual frequency of the Fs/4 signal. It's 11025 Hz when the sample rate is 44100 Hz. With 45875 Hz, it should be 11468.75 Hz. I measured approximately 11476 Hz, corresponding to a sample rate of 45904 Hz. So, this is a confirmation that, for the clocking purpose, this class compliant USB relies completely upon an information provided by the hosting PC, enbedded in the data flow. More, the PC is not able to provide the exact sample rate, it certainly allows only some discrete frequencies, and picks one it can elaborate, as close as possible to the requested value. To confirm this, I did another edition: this time with ABCD (simple enough, uh?), 43981 Hz, quite close to the regular 44100, and this time, I got 44100 at the output. The implication is impotant: it means that instead of a stable, high precision, low jitter clock, we have something derived from software and/or a clock generator whose specifications are certainly not inspired by audiophile considerations. So the signal delivered to the USB device is prone to be affected with a potentially important jitter. Assuming that a total immunity of DACs to jitter is questionable, I feel it's not a good idea to bet on USB. At least this kind of USB. JLM -- jlmatrat jlmatrat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10656 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34132 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dog/Remote/Bad
bobschneider;193096 Wrote: > For my other gear, I just trained the dog to walk over and adjust the > controls from the faceplates, with her snout. Unfortunately, I can't > do this with my SB3, since it doesn't have any controls on the > faceplate. Time to talk to the wife about getting a Transporter... has trained me just when to get his food, rub his belly and clean his litterbox, I'll be damned if he chews on my SB3 remote !:^O -- empty99 empty99's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3488 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34240 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New Benchmark USB DAC1
jlmatrat;193091 Wrote: > Regarding the Lavry dispute, one sure could expect some perfect plot > from any digital output, if the product was really and totally immune > to jitter. What amount of jitter can be left in order to be recognized > as immune to jitter? I don't know. Well, from the description in his whitepaper, if I understood correctly, the DAC is supposed to buffer the data for a second or fraction of a second, and then start playing it out using a local crystal oscillator (which can have very low jitter and in any case is totally independent of the input). Of course the trick is that the output rate won't quite equal the input rate, but that was supposed to be handled by periodically checking the buffer level and then slightly adjusting the clock rate as needed (typically once every 10 seconds or so, IIRC). That design sounds like it should work, but I don't think the results of your test are consistent with it. And evidently someone else has found that the crystal lock part of the DAC doesn't function - you can lift out the oscillator and it still works, indicating the DA10 functions in Narrow mode even when set to Crystal Lock. I'm not saying this means it won't sound good - a well-designed PLL is probably more than good enough to remove audible jitter effects, and a lot depends on the analogue stages. > > And from what I can see, no other manufacturer seems to be willing to > compete with Dan Lavry on the grounds of jitter rejection. > Not even the Benchmark? I thought they also claimed to be immune to jitter. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34132 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dog/Remote/Bad
jdbaker;193041 Wrote: > This might seem obvious, but do not let your dog get a hold of your > remote. A while back my Airedale puppy chewed on my SB3 remote, The > remote had a few chew marks but seemed to work fine. Last night the SB > just went haywire, long story short I finally figured out the remote > was constantly sending signals and was totally screwing up the SB. > Fortunately the universal remote (puppy also chewed on) that came with > my Parasound C2 now has a download for Slim Devices remotes, I > downloaded the codes and everything is back to normal. Damn dogs. For my other gear, I just trained the dog to walk over and adjust the controls from the faceplates, with her snout. Unfortunately, I can't do this with my SB3, since it doesn't have any controls on the faceplate. Time to talk to the wife about getting a Transporter... -- bobschneider bobschneider's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10074 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34240 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New Benchmark USB DAC1
opaqueice;193078 Wrote: > But for the moment I'm happy - upgraditis will set in later :-). I just haven't been able to get the SB2 that I have up to where my CD player is in terms of audio quality. Every time I spin a disc it just reminds me that there is something not there and I do think it's the MF DAC since the network side is unlikely to have any significant effect on audio signal. The SB2 DAC is nowhere near the CD Player on its own. The Transporter just isn't for me, partly down to design and partly down to software and a big chunk down to cost. All I want is a top notch DAC with a network interface and a simple GUI remote, but to me Slim development seems to focus more and more on more knobs and whistles rather than the fundamentals of audio reproduction. I wish it were a more simple solution with a server that didn't remind me of a software version of "Buckeroo". "Just one more featuresproinng!!!" All a personal opinion of course, I'm a big fan of "less is more". I used to love my SB, now I want something more. -- CardinalFang CardinalFang's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=962 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34132 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New Benchmark USB DAC1
opaqueice;192976 Wrote: > ...you seem to have proven that the Lavry DA10 is [b[not[/b] immune to > input jitter, contrary to the claims of the manufacturer: there is a > clear difference between the SB3+DA10 result and the Terratec+DA10. > > There were recently some debates on another forum over the Lavry - > someone took it apart and concluded that the so-called crystal lock > mode is a sham, and in fact is identical to the narrow mode - just a > decent PLL, but without the fancy re-clocking claimed by Lavry. > > You don't have access to a Benchmark DAC, do you? Regarding the Lavry dispute, one sure could expect some perfect plot from any digital output, if the product was really and totally immune to jitter. What amount of jitter can be left in order to be recognized as immune to jitter? I don't know. And from what I can see, no other manufacturer seems to be willing to compete with Dan Lavry on the grounds of jitter rejection. And, no, I don't have a Benchmark DAC. Maybe some happy owner of one could run some test? It's not really complicated, and would be very interesting, definetely. JLM -- jlmatrat jlmatrat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10656 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34132 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New Benchmark USB DAC1
Fair enough. I agree about the interface - SS is just not very good. They need a nice graphical remote to bypass it, or at least a bigger display - something like a little flat screen that plugs into the SB4 (so you can remove it if you don't want it) and displays album art. Even better if it's a touch screen so you can use it as a control. But for the moment I'm happy - upgraditis will set in later :-). -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34132 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] HDCD ripping
Jaco;193008 Wrote: > So, here's my feature request for the Transporter: please, please add > HDCD decoding! It would be quicker to figure how to rip CDs to take advantage of HDCD as outlined in this thread. Microsoft seems to have little interest in HDCD. HDCDs are still being produced, but who knows for how much longer. HDCD decoders aren't free, and in the Transporter it would have to be added in firmware. The firmware is apparently nearly full as it is and others want AAC added. I personally couldn't use AAC but (sadly) it would be much more popular than HDCD and much more likely to be added if there was space to even add it to the firmware. Also existing HDCD implementations seem to be in DSPs or hardware only. The only software implementation seems to be WMP. Whether Microsoft would license a software-only HDCD decoder that could be used in SB/Transporter firmware only they can say, but given their disinterest in the format, it's not likely. So it would be quicker to try to get it working as outlined here. -- Mark Lanctot Mark Lanctot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32967 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 24 bit wavs?
Anne;193023 Wrote: > I converted a cd to 24/96 wavs in dbpoweramp and played it on SB3. The > files were HUGE, over a gigabyte an album and its just throwing money > at harddisk manufacturers Yes - there is zero point in converting CD to anything but 16/44.1 - aside from the HDCD issue which requires 24-bit 44.1 wav/flac.. -- Phil Leigh Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34228 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dog/Remote/Bad
Funny story. Not funny for you I guess! Perhaps one of the buttons got stuck down due to, umm, puppy slobber. I find when this happens it's almost impossible to get the remote working again. There's a residue that gathers around the rubber behind the faceplate that's impossible to remove. -- Mark Lanctot Mark Lanctot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34240 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dog/Remote/Bad
This might seem obvious, but do not let your dog get a hold of your remote. A while back my Airedale puppy chewed on my SB3 remote, The remote had a few chew marks but seemed to work fine. Last night the SB just went haywire, long story short I finally figured out the remote was constantly sending signals and was totally screwing up the SB. Fortunately the universal remote (puppy also chewed on) that came with my Parasound C2 now has a download for Slim Devices remotes, I downloaded the codes and everything is back to normal. Damn dogs. -- jdbaker jdbaker's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8531 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34240 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New Benchmark USB DAC1
darkglobe;192411 Wrote: > Have you considered the racket a laptop actually makes? Mine is very quiet - the fan only comes on if it is doing some serious processing and playing back music isn't that stressful. As far as USB DAC goes, I don't see why it should be prone to losing data if it is used in the mode of USB disk drives, they don't lose data and the transfer rate is adequate. I'll have to try it and see if I prefer the sound. I know most of you won't agree, but the SB doesn't work that well for me anymore. I feel that it's fallen behind the market in usability whilst not really improving in audio quality - the SB3 isn't really an audible improvement over the SB2 for example. Perhaps they'll be a new version soon that'll stop me giving up on Slim. If there was for example a version of the Transporter that dispensed with the displays and knob, kept the high end electronics and came with a Sonos-like remote, then I might think again, but right now I'm looking for a change to something that works better for me. -- CardinalFang CardinalFang's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=962 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34132 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Do you have Bi-Wiring speaker terminals? Try this out!
Excellent. So I'll: 1. Use a test tone and measure SPL. Then try: a. jump neg side b. jump both neg and pos c. disconnect one side of bi-wire and leave jumpers attached. 2. Listen to various test tracks under my normal conditions and three stated above. I'll report sometime over the weekend with my findings. -Ben -- Ben Diss 'SB3' (http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_squeezebox.html) -> 'Lavry DA10' (http://www.lavryengineering.com/productspage_da_10.html) -> 'BAT VK-31SE' (http://www.balanced.com/products/line/Vk-31SE/index.html) -> 'Halo A21' (http://www.parasound.com/halo/a21.php) -> 'B&W 803D' (http://www.bwspeakers.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/products.models/label/Model%20803D) Ben Diss's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4289 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34163 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 24 bit wavs?
I converted a cd to 24/96 wavs in dbpoweramp and played it on SB3. The files were HUGE, over a gigabyte an album and its just throwing money at harddisk manufacturers -- Anne Bryston B-100 SST, Squeezebox 3, Stax Signature II, Martin Logan Aeon I. Anne's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34228 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New Benchmark USB DAC1
SoftwireEngineer;192869 Wrote: > > Also, you did not tell us your subjective opinion of the sound of the > modded SB2 vs the SB3 with or without the Lavry (?) It's difficult to explain, and I don't lke the usual talk about air, clarity, authority, soundstage, and the like. Regarding the Lavry, imagine a show by some good singer, say a one who won the first prize at the art academy. Flawless performance, nothing to be blamed, cordial applause from a pleased audience. Now comes some kind of a diva, same arias or whatever, why does she deserve a standing ovation? This is the hind of difference I feel with the Lavry. There is also a "Ella Fitzerald sings the Cole Porter songbook" I like very much. It's a remastering from a 1956 recording. Oh my, how come did they manage to put all of this on tape fifty years ago! Without the Lavry, it's just a fine vintage record. OTOH, there is no mercy for bad records, but you know that. Regarding the modded SB2: do you know the Patricia Barber "Ode to Billy Joe"? There is a finger slapping in the beat. With stock SB2, or my regular CD player, it was not distinctive, and sometimes just like if fingers slipped instead of slapped. With the new clock, not only it is well located in the soundstage, and firm and steady, but you can hear there is a specific reverb for it. As you can guess, it's not a simple matter of bandpass, lower distorsion and so on. I love it :-) JLM -- jlmatrat jlmatrat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10656 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34132 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Apple Lossless a compromise?
PhilNYC;193011 Wrote: > > So the question I had was which File Type was being used when making > this comment...ALAC->FLAC or ALAC->WAV? He just said that he wasn't > using ALAC->MP3, but didn't specify whether he was using FLAC or WAV. > If he was using ALAC->FLAC (the default setting), then the comment I > posted was appropriate, because he was then comparing ALAC->FLAC to > WAV->WAV (instead of ALAC->WAV to WAV->WAV)... > Isn't part of the default setting WAV->FLAC? Anyway, it's pointless to speculate - maybe he will chime in. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34122 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Apple Lossless a compromise?
opaqueice;193002 Wrote: > > The issue here was different - it was whether you hear a difference > between ALAC->WAV and WAV->WAV, or between ALAC->FLAC and WAV->FLAC. > The comment being discussed was an assertion that "but I found that reproduction of Apple Lossless files through the SB3 was noticeably poorer than WAV or AIFF, even after checking that Slimserver was not transcoding ALAC to MP3 etc." So the question I had was which File Type was being used when making this comment...ALAC->FLAC or ALAC->WAV? He just said that he wasn't using ALAC->MP3, but didn't specify whether he was using FLAC or WAV. If he was using ALAC->FLAC (the default setting), then the comment I posted was appropriate, because he was then comparing ALAC->FLAC to WAV->WAV (instead of ALAC->WAV to WAV->WAV)... :-)->:-D -- 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=34122 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] HDCD ripping
I've been planning to upgrade to a Transporter, but by doing that I'll be losing the ability to play my HDCD's as they were intended - damn! Ok, I can always connect the digital out of the Transporter to a DAC that can decode HDCD, but then I'll have to remember which of my CD's are HDCD encoded :-( That's too much of a schlepp. So, here's my feature request for the Transporter: please, please add HDCD decoding! -- Jaco Jaco's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10726 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32967 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] HDCD ripping
I've just verified that ripping with EAC using FLAC works for HDCD - yay! My setup consists of an SB3 with a Denon 3805 A/V amp. The 3805 has the ability to decode HDCD. The digital output of my SB3 is connected to the digital in of my Denon 3805, that is, I'm using my 3805 as a decoder and DAC for my SB's digital audio. When I play any of my ripped and FLAC encoded HDCD's, e.g. Dreamland by Madeleine Peyroux, the Denon 3805 indicates that it is playing an HDCD. -- Jaco Jaco's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10726 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32967 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Apple Lossless a compromise?
PhilNYC;192999 Wrote: > It depends on how you have the File Types set up in Slimserver. You can > have it convert Apple Lossless files to either FLAC, MP3, or WAV, and I > believe the default converts it to FLAC. > > I do perceive a slight but noticeable improvement in sound quality when > using ALAC-to-WAV over ALAC-to-FLAC OK, I'm skeptical, but it's more plausible since at least the packets sent to the SB are different. The issue here was different - it was whether you hear a difference between ALAC->WAV and WAV->WAV, or between ALAC->FLAC and WAV->FLAC. CardinalFang, of course it's possible there's a bug in ALAC decoding, but it would be pretty strange for it to result in a subtle degradation of sound quality (as opposed perhaps to a click like what you heard). Anyway this can be easily checked - just play an ALAC file and record the S/PDIF stream from the SB digital out, then compare that to the original. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34122 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Do you have Bi-Wiring speaker terminals? Try this out!
Ben Diss;192997 Wrote: > That's an interesting thought. Since I'm biwired I should be able to > connect a bridge between the high and low side at the speaker and > listen for a difference in sound. If biwiring makes a difference I > should hear it, right? > > -Ben Ideally you would disconnect one set of wires while attaching the jumpers, but it might be mechanically easier and quicker just to attach or detach the jumpers while leaving the wires in place. The magnitude of the effect should be roughly the same. Just make sure your assistant knows not to short the amp with the jumpers! If you do the experiment and hear a difference, you might want to check with a meter to see if the SPL is the same. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34163 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Do you have Bi-Wiring speaker terminals? Try this out!
Ben Diss;192997 Wrote: > That's an interesting thought. Since I'm biwired I should be able to > connect a bridge between the high and low side at the speaker and > listen for a difference in sound. If biwiring makes a difference I > should hear it, right? > > -Ben One interesting thing to try when you are bi-wiring is to just put on one jumper (the negative)...when I tried bi-wiring, I found doing this made a good improvement in coherence... -- 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=34163 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Apple Lossless a compromise?
opaqueice;192974 Wrote: > That's an extraordinary claim - my understanding is that SS converts > apple lossless files into WAV *at the server side* before streaming it > to the SB3, and therefore the packets the SB3 receives, and the > processing it has to perform, are *identical* whether your music is > stored as apples lossless or as WAV/AIFF. It depends on how you have the File Types set up in Slimserver. You can have it convert Apple Lossless files to either FLAC, MP3, or WAV, and I believe the default converts it to FLAC. I do perceive a slight but noticeable improvement in sound quality when using ALAC-to-WAV over ALAC-to-FLAC -- 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=34122 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Do you have Bi-Wiring speaker terminals? Try this out!
opaqueice;192977 Wrote: > If you draw a little schematic circuit diagram you'll see that the > bi-wired configuration is identical to the single-wired if the wires > are ideal, but if you replace them with (very small) resistors to model > the fact that they aren't perfect, there is a slight difference between > the two configurations. > > But bear in mind that the posts on the speaker are in direct electrical > contact either way - either they are connected by the jumpers > (single-wired) or by a path that runs down one pair of bi-wired speaker > cables, into the amp post, and back down the other pair. So if the > wires and jumpers were all ideal, there would be *no* difference > whatsoever, and therefore the differences can not be larger than the > difference between a speaker wire or jumper and a perfect conductor > (which means small!). That's an interesting thought. Since I'm biwired I should be able to connect a bridge between the high and low side at the speaker and listen for a difference in sound. If biwiring makes a difference I should hear it, right? -Ben -- Ben Diss 'SB3' (http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_squeezebox.html) -> 'Lavry DA10' (http://www.lavryengineering.com/productspage_da_10.html) -> 'BAT VK-31SE' (http://www.balanced.com/products/line/Vk-31SE/index.html) -> 'Halo A21' (http://www.parasound.com/halo/a21.php) -> 'B&W 803D' (http://www.bwspeakers.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/products.models/label/Model%20803D) Ben Diss's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4289 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34163 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Apple Lossless a compromise?
opaqueice;192974 Wrote: > That's an extraordinary claim - my understanding is that SS converts > apple lossless files into WAV *at the server side* before streaming it > to the SB3, and therefore the packets the SB3 receives, and the > processing it has to perform, are *identical* whether your music is > stored as apples lossless or as WAV/AIFF. Isn't it the case that SS uses Quicktime to decode the Apple Lossless format? Are their any circumstances under which that process could result in less than perfect WAV or AIFF files? I find that some of my Apple Lossless files which play perfectly through iTunes exhibit clipping or clicking sounds when played back through my SB2 - it's one of the reasons I've been thinking about a radical change. When I play the same files back through my laptop into the same DAC using the laptop SPDIF connector, the artifacts are gone. So it's as though something in the SS transcoding is messing up gain levels. -- CardinalFang CardinalFang's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=962 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34122 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Fast Fourier Transform question
Hmmm... could be this: if the FFT uses the *other* definition than the one in the wiki, which is to put a 1/sqrt[N] in front of both the transform and its inverse, then a bandwidth-limited signal (say a pure sin) would have an amplitude twice as large for the 4096 as for the 1024 (4/sqrt[4]=2). However, if you FFT the *same* white noise signal, once with 1024 and once with 4096 samples, there will be a factor of 4 in the amplitude of the 1024 FFT because each frequency "bin" is four times as large (that's a kind of aliasing) - so in the end the 1024 FFT will have twice the amplitude of the 4096. Anyway there are clearly lots of factors of 2 floating around - if that's not the right explanation, hopefully it puts you on the right track. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34206 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A photo of your Squeezebox setup (please)
A poll associated with this post was created, to vote and see the results, please visit http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19817 Question: Should there be a new forum for photos? - yes - no - maybe happy;192913 Wrote: > What's that device that holds up your cd rack? =) looks suspiciously like a Systemdek II TT -- killie99 killie99's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8337 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19817 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Firmware on Multiple SB3's ?
I'm glad you've got it working for you. I personally can't hear any difference between fw15 and the latest fw (aside from the obvious volume control behaviour), but if it works for you, then it's fine by me. It's just a shame that open source and open minds don't go hand in hand really. -- 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=34115 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Do you have Bi-Wiring speaker terminals? Try this out!
haunyack;192854 Wrote: > Sounds reasonable. > What about the crossover effect? > Does it present different path characteristics for the 2X2 cable > connection? > If you draw a little schematic circuit diagram you'll see that the bi-wired configuration is identical to the single-wired if the wires are ideal, but if you replace them with (very small) resistors to model the fact that they aren't perfect, there is a slight difference between the two configurations. But bear in mind that the posts on the speaker are in direct electrical contact either way - either they are connected by the jumpers (single-wired) or by a path that runs down one pair of bi-wired speaker cables, into the amp post, and back down the other pair. So if the wires and jumpers were all ideal, there would be *no* difference whatsoever, and therefore the differences can not be larger than the difference between a speaker wire or jumper and a perfect conductor (which means small!). -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34163 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New Benchmark USB DAC1
These are very very interesting plots - for one thing, you seem to have proven that the Lavry DA10 is [b[not[/b] immune to input jitter, contrary to the claims of the manufacturer: there is a clear difference between the SB3+DA10 result and the Terratec+DA10. There were recently some debates on another forum over the Lavry - someone took it apart and concluded that the so-called crystal lock mode is a sham, and in fact is identical to the narrow mode - just a decent PLL, but without the fancy re-clocking claimed by Lavry. You don't have access to a Benchmark DAC, do you? And apparently that junk on the left channel isn't asociated with the display noise - thanks for checking. Great results - thanks very much for posting them! -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34132 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Apple Lossless a compromise?
Shuggie;192970 Wrote: > I'm sure all the above is theoretically correct, but I found that > reproduction of Apple Lossless files through the SB3 was noticeably > poorer than WAV or AIFF, even after checking that Slimserver was not > transcoding ALAC to MP3 etc. So, I can understand that ALAC is not a > compromise per se, but that's not quite how it works out with > Slimserver and the SB3. As disk space is not a problem for me, I am > content to use uncompressed storage in iTunes, which I find the easiest > way to organise my music. I can't be bothered with FLAC, when Apple > have made iTunes so pleasant to use. That's an extraordinary claim - my understanding is that SS converts apple lossless files into WAV *at the server side* before streaming it to the SB3, and therefore the packets the SB3 receives, and the processing it has to perform, are *identical* whether your music is stored as apples lossless or as WAV/AIFF. Have you done a blind test to verify that the effect is real? -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34122 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Apple Lossless a compromise?
I'm sure all the above is theoretically correct, but I found that reproduction of Apple Lossless files through the SB3 was noticeably poorer than WAV or AIFF, even after checking that Slimserver was not transcoding ALAC to MP3 etc. So, I can understand that ALAC is not a compromise per se, but that's not quite how it works out with Slimserver and the SB3. As disk space is not a problem for me, I am content to use uncompressed storage in iTunes, which I find the easiest way to organise my music. I can't be bothered with FLAC, when Apple have made iTunes so pleasant to use. -- Shuggie Shuggie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8568 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34122 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SB3 is equivalent to which CD Players or DACs?
Its a highly subjective question, and I think you will get a range of replies on this one, but I think an unmodified SB2/SB3 comes close to an entry level NAD type CD player. Of course with tweaks and modifications, or with an external DAC, it can end up sounding much better than a far more expensive player. -- Nikhil Nikhil's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=993 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34233 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
