Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] HD Music Downloads from iTrax
I own a few of your DVD-As and has read from one of the magazines from an article you wrote about high definition audio that you were planning for online downloads. Being a Slim user this is really good news and I am not suprised that you are also one of us. I was excited about download offering from HDTT and have bought a few of their downloads. But HDTT focuses on historical recordings so AIX with their well recorded material would be even better. One question I have is that SB3's digital output maxes out at 48Khz/24 Bit Stereo. Will you be offering that in addition to 96/24 for the transporter? Another quesiton is: What happened to the Jennifer Warnes recording that I have waited for years? -- agentsmith SB2/Pioneer DV-S733A - Benchmark DAC1 - Naim Nait 5i - Naim Ariva Speakers. Storage via Buffalo 250GB LANStation, Linksys NSLU2 300GB USB drive, 720GB RAID One USB drive, Slimserver in Thinkpad T30 and T40p. Network using Panasonic HD Power over Ethernet and Buffalo WiFi agentsmith's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1838 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34870 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Potential benefits of converting to 24 bit
In a thread on the ripping forum recently, mswlogo has sussed out how to 'up-bit-depth' his flacs from 16 to 24 bits. Filesize is similar, as it just compresses out, so no downside. The file is padded out with zeroes, so there is no change Potential upsides he gives are reduced jitter and (if applicable) better DRC from higher bit depth of processing. The latter I don't care about, but the former is interesting. Comments? I would have thought that higher bit depth would change the data timing, but would it always improve it? Analysis from techies welcome! Adam -- adamslim Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others http://www.last.fm/user/AdamSlim/ adamslim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7355 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34892 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Potential benefits of converting to 24 bit
I don't see how simply having more bits (with no information in them) makes it any more likely that any of them will arrive at the right time...I would have thought that it's even harder to control jitter at higher bit rates, since everything is happen faster if you see what I mean. What am I missing? -- Phil Leigh Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34892 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] HD Music Downloads from iTrax
The file types that we are preparing for the site include: MP3 at 192 DD at 448 kbps DTS WMA Pro WMA Lossless 96/24 PCM Each will have the ability for choose Stereo, 5.1 Stage and 5.1 Audience. I know that the SB is limited to 48 kHz and perhaps I should consider this one of our flavors. As for the Jennifer Warnes project...it is not going to happen. I'm sorry but things happened that closed the door. Got to run...more later. -- Dr. AIX Dr. AIX's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11351 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34870 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Potential benefits of converting to 24 bit
Jitter will be exactly the same. The SPDIF spec transmits 32 bits of data per sample anyway; up to 24 of these are available for the sample word (with the bottom bits explicitly set to zero if unused!), and the rest are overheads such as sync pulses, checksums and other stuff. Apart from possibly changing a flag bit or two in the general-purpose data area, there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between transmitting 16 bit samples, and 24 bit samples where the bottom bits are all zero. Since there is no difference at all in the bit stream, there will be no difference in downstream processing either. If a DAC is capable of oversampling / filtering to 24-bit accuracy, it'll be doing that anyway even with a 16 bit input, probably without even knowing the difference. -- AndyC_772 AndyC_772's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10472 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34892 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: System Balancing � - your thoughts please
mine is: cables £25 sb3 £200 dac £200 second hand integrated amplifier £450 speakers £1,000 if had the budget it would be cables £25 sb3 £200 dac £200 second hand integrated amplifier £450 speakers £4,500 (quad electrostatics) I went to a cool and famous hifi shop (Thomas Heinitz, Notting Hill) once and the mad old chap running it (Thomas himself who has since sold the shop) it explained to me how almost all your cash should be spent on speakers. he had this £15k valve amp someone had ordered and he was playing with it before they picked it up and doing demos for all his customers.. Hardly anyone could hear the difference between the 15k amp and a decent normal one... but the difference between various speakers was huge. -- willyhoops willyhoops's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10563 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34849 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: System Balancing � - your thoughts please
willyhoops;198565 Wrote: Hardly anyone could hear the difference between the 15k amp and a decent normal one... but the difference between various speakers was huge. The difference between say a guitar and a piano is huge, but the difference between a master of either instrument, and someone who's just 'good', is what music is all about. Often it's not the obvious differences that are the most significant to the enjoyment. -- 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=34849 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Potential benefits of converting to 24 bit
Cheers Andy, good reply. Saves me from agonising over whether to do lots of converting and testing :) Adam -- adamslim Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others http://www.last.fm/user/AdamSlim/ adamslim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7355 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34892 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] HD Music Downloads from iTrax
Dr. AIX;198561 Wrote: The file types that we are preparing for the site include: MP3 at 192 DD at 448 kbps DTS WMA Pro WMA Lossless 96/24 PCM Each will have the ability for choose Stereo, 5.1 Stage and 5.1 Audience. I know that the SB is limited to 48 kHz and perhaps I should consider this one of our flavors. As for the Jennifer Warnes project...it is not going to happen. I'm sorry but things happened that closed the door. Got to run...more later. Will WMA lossless work on a MAC? Why don't you offer Apple lossless aswell? And flac. -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34870 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Potential benefits of converting to 24 bit
Thanks Andy - that makes sense! -- Phil Leigh Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34892 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Potential benefits of converting to 24 bit
If your going to upsample as well doing it in larger word length is more accurate (some would say a better guessitmate). Upsampling doesn't make a lot of sense with Slimdevices because SB3 only does 48khz and Transporter doesn't do 88.2Khz. BUt my library is for other devices beside the Slimdevices. I don't know why but in this stereophile review of the transporter 16 vs 24 changed the jitter measurement. http://www.stereophile.com/mediaservers/207slim/index4.html Snippet: I tested the Transporter's rejection of word-clock jitter using the Miller Jitter Analyzer, which examines a narrowband, FFT-derived spectrum of the analog output of the device under test (DUT) for pairs of sidebands around a high-level tone at one quarter the sample rate, while the LSB is toggled on and off at 1/128 the sample rate. (Both signals are exact integer fractions of the sample rate, meaning that any spuriae that appear in the spectrum are due to the behavior of the DUT, not to quantizing distortion.) Fed 24-bit data via the WiFi network, the Transporter developed just 235 picoseconds peakpeak of jitter with no data-related components (not shown). Decreasing the word length to 16 bits gave the spectrum shown in fig.10. Here the jitter level has increased slightly, to 268ps pp; though there are data-related sidebands (red numeric markers) at the test signal's residual level. The primary jitter components lie at ±15.6Hz (purple 1) and ±1435Hz (purple 10), but this is still excellent performance. -- mswlogo mswlogo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9090 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34892 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Tried the Mac Mini directly to the DAC
creativepart;196243 Wrote: ... Both were connected via the same Toslink cable to the same DAC. Let me recap what user creativepart is stating. Ran SlimServer on a Mac Mini that connected wirelessly to a SB3. Then tried using an external DAC with the SB3 using the optical output of the SB3. Then connected the Mac Mini directly to DAC using an optical connection. States how much better Mac Mini, running iTunes, is when connected directly to DAC. Acts petulant when claims are questioned. I think creativepart is disingenuous because the optical cable between a Mac Mini and the DAC cannot be the same as what was used for the SB3 to DAC connection. The Mac Mini uses a dual purpose audio output that will work with an electrical connector as well as an optical connector and this physical connector is not the same as those on a SB3 or the vast majority of audio/video components. My conclusion is that creativepart had some reason to make claims that weren't factual so I am choosing to ignore what was said. -- Kiwi Kiwi's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2169 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34592 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Potential benefits of converting to 24 bit
But didn't you just say 16 vs 24 wouldn't make any difference in the actual jitter of the 32bit word. Why would it matter which bits are being used in the test? So your saying each bit has it's own jitter measurement? Or if he toggled Bit 8 of the 24bit word he'd get the same measurement as bit 0 of 16bit? That makes no sense to me. -- mswlogo mswlogo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9090 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34892 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Tried the Mac Mini directly to the DAC
Kiwi;198591 Wrote: I think creativepart is disingenuous because the optical cable between a Mac Mini and the DAC cannot be the same as what was used for the SB3 to DAC connection. The Mac Mini uses a dual purpose audio output that will work with an electrical connector as well as an optical connector and this physical connector is not the same as those on a SB3 or the vast majority of audio/video components. Good catch ... but before judging him, we need to verify if he did use the same optical cable along with a mini-optical to standard toslink adapter or the reverse adapter - these are easily available for not more than a couple of USD. -- Nikhil Nikhil's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=993 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34592 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Potential benefits of converting to 24 bit
mswlogo;198595 Wrote: But didn't you just say 16 vs 24 wouldn't make any difference in the actual jitter of the 32bit word. Why would it matter which bits are being used in the test? So your saying each bit has it's own jitter measurement? Or if he toggled Bit 8 of the 24bit word he'd get the same measurement as bit 0 of 16bit? That makes no sense to me. I must admit, I don't know for sure why the test results are different - but I suspect it's much more to do with flaws in the test itself than the behaviour of the Transporter. For example, the AK4396 DAC is a 128x oversampling delta-sigma device, so there will always be data-dependent noise at frequencies outside the audio band. More than likely there is an analogue filter between the DAC and the output socket to attenuate this noise. Now suppose that, in order to allow excellent flatness up t0 22kHz, this filter has a cutoff around 100kHz. The test equipment is now trying to pick out jitter in the order of 100ps (which is the period of a clock running at 10GHz) in a signal which has been filtered to remove everything above 100kHz. Is that a sensible thing to try and do with any degree of accuracy? Or is the measurement likely to be influenced by the audio signal? I strongly suspect the latter. I'd bet that if the jitter measurement were made at the MCLK pin of the AK4396 - the correct place to measure it - that it would be completely independent of the data. -- AndyC_772 AndyC_772's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10472 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34892 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Potential benefits of converting to 24 bit
AndyC_772;198601 Wrote: I must admit, I don't know for sure why the test results are different - but I suspect it's much more to do with flaws in the test itself than the behaviour of the Transporter. For example, the AK4396 DAC is a 128x oversampling delta-sigma device, so there will always be data-dependent noise at frequencies outside the audio band. More than likely there is an analogue filter between the DAC and the output socket to attenuate this noise. Now suppose that, in order to allow excellent flatness up t0 22kHz, this filter has a cutoff around 100kHz. The test equipment is now trying to pick out jitter in the order of 100ps (which is the period of a clock running at 10GHz) in a signal which has been filtered to remove everything above 100kHz. Is that a sensible thing to try and do with any degree of accuracy? Or is the measurement likely to be influenced by the audio signal? I strongly suspect the latter. I'd bet that if the jitter measurement were made at the MCLK pin of the AK4396 - the correct place to measure it - that it would be completely independent of the data. Ok, thanks Andy, I think we are closer to the same page now. I figured it wouldn't hurt to play with. I'm also not sure how my processor handles 16 vs 24 bit and may do some odd things to be backward compatible with different devices. So I figured it wouldn't hurt to play with. The first thing my processor does is shift the data down to make headroom for some processing and calibration. I don't know if it does that in 16bit on 16bit data or converts first. It is capabable of outputing 16bit data to older active speakers and that data is just lost. With newer active speakers I can't tell what it does because SPDIF data is encrypted. So far I hear no difference. But I need to try it on a wider range of music. Also just a thought wouldn't replay gain (done digitally) or any normalization now have lot headroom in 24bit? -- mswlogo mswlogo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9090 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34892 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Potential benefits of converting to 24 bit
What I was getting at, is that your DAC, or your processor, or whatever else is connected over SPDIF, simply won't know whether it's getting 16 bit or 24 bit data. The SPDIF frame includes 24 bit positions for use with audio data, and a source that only has 16 bits available simply pads the missing bits with zeros. So, there cannot be any difference in how your processor handles the data. That's why you can't hear any difference. SPDIF (at least, the 2 channel uncompressed version we're using) isn't encrypted, BTW - just encoded to ensure plenty of edges for clock recovery. The AES/EBU spec is freely available and explains exactly how to decode it - you could do it with a storage scope and a pencil paper if you wanted. -- AndyC_772 AndyC_772's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10472 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34892 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Potential benefits of converting to 24 bit
So you're saying I've effectively prepadded the low 8bits before it would have already? -- mswlogo mswlogo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9090 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34892 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Potential benefits of converting to 24 bit
mswlogo;198587 Wrote: http://www.stereophile.com/mediaservers/207slim/index4.html Stereophile's jitter measurement in this case is just nonsense. They are using the Miller jitter analyzer, which implements the test described in Julian Dunn's Jitter and Digital Audio Performance Measurements. The test measures data induced jitter in -a manchester clock recovery circuit-, i.e. an s/pdif receiver. It can not (and is not intended to) measure anything else! Since they used Transporter's internal clock, not its s/pdif receiver, the test is simply meaningless. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34892 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Potential benefits of converting to 24 bit
mswlogo;198613 Wrote: Also just a thought wouldn't replay gain (done digitally) or any normalization now have lot headroom in 24bit? No, the volume function is always 24 bit. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34892 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Inguz Audio tips and initial impressions
Thanks. Reran DRC with the new RSSPL file. Will re-install and do some listening tests soon. muski -- muski muski's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3670 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29489 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Potential benefits of converting to 24 bit
seanadams;198655 Wrote: No, the volume function is always 24 bit. But if someone did normalization on a 16bit file you could lose data. Where is if was done on 24bit data your unlikely to lose anything. Are you saying that even digital volume done on the SPDIF output of a SB3 is effectively done on a 24bit word? -- mswlogo mswlogo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9090 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34892 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: System Balancing � - your thoughts please
adamslim;198194 Wrote: However, different kinds of system require different spend apportionment. Whatever, for that kind of money you should get a really special system. What are you thinking of? Adam Well initially, the source (one of the above) directly into a power amp, then to speakers #8211; I like simple :) - in a nice stereo/home office room, was planned, once we have moved. However, things change :-) the av gear will all have to stay in the same room/lounge now, also, I learnt a bit about the SB digital volume control SNR etc. Hence, this thread, to get an idea as to what sort of £ ratio a pre amp should involve, so as not to degrade the HQ source. By the sounds of Cliveb and Patrick's experience, as well as Robin#8217;s cd direct option [thanks for the posts :)], I should revert back to my original thoughts on set up, and save spending out :) on a pre. I#8217;m getting a strong vibe from the rest of you that speakers may just, play an important role :) pre money - speakers then. Adam, I was thinking of: Source, as above, feeding, either a couple of Exons, a KST-150, or maybe a Bryston, to my existing speakers(for the time being) or possibly some Totem's down the line. But, in avoiding a pre, I'm in need of an idea or two, to get the other sources into the power amp. Not so bad, if I like the TP or a dac, but if I prefer Patricks SB+ :o So then Patrick, if I end up preferring the sound from your SB+ are there any options to get, either an additional analogue or digital signal, through your unit? Thank you everyone for your helpful posts so far :) Cheers -- Deaf Cat Deaf Cat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=515 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34849 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Potential benefits of converting to 24 bit
mswlogo;198663 Wrote: But if someone did normalization on a 16bit file you could lose data. Where is if was done on 24bit data your unlikely to lose anything. I think I follow what you're trying to say there, but it does not apply. The volume function is always 24 bits wide. It doesn't know or care whether the lower 8 bits are used, and all 24 bits of output are meaningful regardless of the input word length. Are you saying that even digital volume done on the SPDIF output (i.e. replay gain) of a SB3 is effectively done on a 24bit word? That's exactly right, if you drop the word effectively. There is no effectively. It's precisely the same operation, not merely the same result. The _input signal_ in either case is precisely the same. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34892 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Potential benefits of converting to 24 bit
seanadams;198672 Wrote: I think I follow what you're trying to say there, but it does not apply. The volume function is always 24 bits wide. It doesn't know or care whether the lower 8 bits are used, and all 24 bits of output are meaningful regardless of the input word length. That's exactly right, if you drop the word effectively. There is no effectively. It's precisely the same operation, not merely the same result. The _input signal_ in either case is precisely the same. Ok, I understand the SPDIF part. But if I have a 16bit wav file, and applied a normalization (not replay gain, static normalization of the data). which may reduce it's volume and it wrote out a new 16bit file, data is lost due to a Volume change. So if I converted that file to 24bit first then did normalization it would unlikely lose any data. Correct? On a similar topic, do plugins like the room correction also work in 24bit (when fed 16bit wave file)? -- mswlogo mswlogo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9090 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34892 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Potential benefits of converting to 24 bit
yes any static normalisation is a bad idea, regardless of how many bits you have to play with. The engineers did their best to master your bits...do not mess with them - you will not make them better - only different :0) -- Phil Leigh Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34892 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: System Balancing � - your thoughts please
willyhoops;198565 Wrote: I went to a cool and famous hifi shop once (Thomas Heinitz, Notting Hill), and the mad old chap running it (Heinitz himself who has since sold out) explained to me how almost all your cash should be spent on speakers. he had this £15k valve amp someone had ordered, and he was playing with it before they picked it up, and doing demos for select customers.. The difference between the 15k amp and a decent normal one was questionable... but the difference between various speakers was huge. He was a great chap if you were lucky enough to get to know him (I met him through my father who was a favorite customer). Although he had a bit of equipment in the shop he only really sold two systems, one based on small Rogers speakers with a subwoofer and the other on quad electrostatics. Yeah, this is just obviously true, at least if your goal is high fidelity (meaning accurate reproduction of recorded music). The differences between amps or sources operating normally is measurable but extremely small and usually inaudible, while the differences between speakers is (relatively) huge and easily audible. Furthermore some speakers perform much, much better than others, with good performance defined as, for example, a close to flat frequency/phase response. So you have the potential to get much more for your money when you invest it in speakers, or perhaps room treatments and equalization/room correction, than you do from sources or amps/pre-amps. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34849 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Potential benefits of converting to 24 bit
mswlogo;198673 Wrote: Ok, I understand the SPDIF part. Actually I was talking about the volume function, but yes, this applies to the s/pdif link also. But if I have a 16bit wav file, and applied a normalization (not replay gain, static normalization of the data). which may reduce it's volume and it wrote out a new 16bit file, data is lost due to a Volume change. So if I converted that file to 24bit first then did normalization it would unlikely lose any data. Correct? I can only guess what you mean by unlikely or losing any data, but the only reason you would get more precision in the latter case is because the volume function you are describing happens to be designed to output 16-bits when given a 16-bit input. A volume function could just as easily generate 24 bits of output, or 137 bits for that matter, from a 16 bit input. There is nothing about padding the the input signal to a longer word which causes a more accurate output. Obviously if you truncate your result to 16 bits, it is less precise than if you have not truncated it. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34892 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Tried the Mac Mini directly to the DAC
Kiwi;198591 Wrote: My conclusion is that creativepart had some reason to make claims that weren't factual so I am choosing to ignore what was said. I think that's a little harsh. I re-read his postings and didn't feel that he was trying to be disingenuous at all. I have a laptop connected to my DAC as well as a SB2 (with modded PSU) and there isn't a big difference in sound between the two. I wouldn't expect one unless the jitter performance of the laptop was really bad compared to the SB2. For those of us with some iTunes store purchases, it's a damn fine alternative, and even on lossless tracks that I have ripped myself, it can sound better since SlimServer seems to induce volume clipping when compared to iTunes playback of the same tracks. -- CardinalFang CardinalFang's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=962 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34592 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: System Balancing � - your thoughts please
Heard a Transporter at the Sound Vision show back in February... Awesome. Sounded better than a NAIM CD player on the same system. Problem is, I can't justify spending £1,200 on one. My current setup, sources first: Arcam DV-79 CD/DVD-Audio player Rega Planar 3 turntable, Ortofon 510 cart, Pro-Ject Phono Box II Technics RS-BX606 cassette deck Sony RCD-W100 CD recorder Sony MDS-JB980 minidisc deck Turtle Beach Audiotron Pinnacle ShowCenter Arcam AVR-250 AV receiver Mordaunt-Short Avant 908 front, 905C centre, 2x 903S surrounds BW ASW-1000 subwoofer Chord Cobra 3 interconnects between DVD and amp Cambridge Atlantic interconnects between everything else and amp Chord Rumour 4 speaker cable for front and centre Gale XL-105 for rears (buried into plaster) At present I use the Audiotron as a network media source as it fits nicely in the kit rack. Granted, a Transporter would be better for this (FLAC support anyone?) but as mentioned above I can't justify spending this kind of money. What I'd really love is a standard SB3 mounted in a hi-fi component size case with front panel buttons, but without the fancy DACs of the Transporter. Probably be happy without the dual displays as well... just a SB that will sit in the kit rack and look right - and be operable without the remote. I've had an SB3 hooked up to an offboard DAC (Arcam Black Box 50) and the results have been superb. -- Squirrel Squirrel's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5785 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34849 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quality streaming music...
I am struggling a bit with the radio here. Sorry, I need some help and easy explanation. I really like the Shoutcast HAPPYDAY contemporary radio station, but I have lots of annoying dropouts, re-buffering, in the stream from time to time. I would love to get links to URL´s on similar, quality sound stations, these I can then glue into Tune in URL, or find at SqueezeNetwork, or do both I signed up at Radioio but the stations there dont suit my taste, sorry to say -- Anne Bryston B-100 SST, Squeezebox 3, 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=34718 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: System Balancing � - your thoughts please
adamslim;198685 Wrote: I'm not sure paragraph one leads to the second. I agree that differences between source and amplifier components are less obvious than for speakers, but I have found (as Patrick put much more elegantly than me!) that source quality is highly linked with my overall enjoyment. Certainly many people share your views, but that just hasn't been my experience. I get tired of poor speakers as I start to notice their weak points, which jump out at me more and more on certain tracks. On the other hand I appreciate the qualities of speakers I like again and again - that sudden bass slam you can feel in your stomach, sparkling clarity on highs, warm mids, seamless crossovers, incredibly real soundstage. And yet I usually can't distinguish at all between sources, even over lots of time. I used to think that was just me, and it's still a possibility - but I've learned that just about everyone else also has great difficulty distinguishing digital sources and amps, at least when blind. Granted, those are short tests, and you can always find something to criticize in them - but no one has any difficulty at all telling speakers apart. I rest my case. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34849 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: System Balancing � - your thoughts please
opaqueice;198730 Wrote: Certainly many people share your views, but that just hasn't been my experience. I get tired of poor speakers as I start to notice their weak points, which jump out at me more and more on certain tracks. On the other hand I appreciate the qualities of speakers I like again and again - that sudden bass slam you can feel in your stomach, sparkling clarity on highs, warm mids, seamless crossovers, incredibly real soundstage. And yet I usually can't distinguish at all between sources, even over lots of time. I used to think that was just me, and it's still a possibility - but I've learned that just about everyone else also has great difficulty distinguishing digital sources and amps, at least when blind. Granted, those are short tests, and you can always find something to criticize in them - but no one has any difficulty at all telling speakers apart. I rest my case. O, I tend to agree with you but once you have a highly resolving speakers the other components start to make a bigger difference. I do hear some differences between amps and digital sources in informal blind lstening (which might not satisfy your rigorous criteria for a blind test :-) ) I do think one may have to spend the most on speakers to get the best results. It seems amps and DACs get to SOTA at a much lower price point than speakers. I did blind test Transporter V SB and the TP was significantly better. I also blind tested the XLR V RCA outs of the TP into my balanced amp and the XLR was much better than the RCA. We did level matching and my preamp switched silently and seamlessly between RCA and XLR. That difference was so large that all 3 people listening prefered balanced every time. I only refer to this to make the point that once the speakers are optimized , upstream components can become more important. Tom -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34849 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Tried the Mac Mini directly to the DAC
slimkid;198118 Wrote: He also lets his breathing/mumbling/singing while playing be recorded. Scared @#$%^ out of me when I first heard some recordings of Bach on my MG12s. Sounded like somebody was breathing down my neck - I jumped from the chair :). But, that's Glenn Gould - he can get away with that kind of stuff. Same thing happened to me after I upgraded my turntable and heard his 1982 Goldberg Variations for the first time. Listening late at night and his music was magical as ever, and when I heard that hum, I thought he was in the room somewhere, or a ghost was enjoying what he was hearing in my room. -- agentsmith SB2/Pioneer DV-S733A - Benchmark DAC1 - Naim Nait 5i - Naim Ariva Speakers. Storage via Buffalo 250GB LANStation, Linksys NSLU2 300GB USB drive, 720GB RAID One USB drive, Slimserver in Thinkpad T30 and T40p. Network using Panasonic HD Power over Ethernet and Buffalo WiFi agentsmith's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1838 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34592 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Tried the Mac Mini directly to the DAC
CardinalFang;198700 Wrote: and even on lossless tracks that I have ripped myself, it can sound better since SlimServer seems to induce volume clipping when compared to iTunes playback of the same tracks. Can you elaborate please? I thought SlimServer wasn't supposed to cause clipping or any other modifications to the files other than transcoding if required. -- Nikhil Nikhil's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=993 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34592 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
