Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Source quality in context
PhilNYC;216216 Wrote: > This is HIGHLY dependent on the technical specs of the components > involved...specifically, the input sensitivity of the amplifier and the > output voltage of the source. A high input sensitivity amplifier will > need a high output voltage from the source. If these are not matched > correctly, then you'll get sub-optimal performance. So it's not a > generalization you can make without knowing the specifics of the > components. I presume this was a typo and you meant to say that that a *low* input sensitivity amplifier will need a high output voltage from the source? In principle I agree. But in practice provided the input impedance is high, the source impedance is low, and the voltage is not so high that it overdrives the input (or so low that the amp's noise floor impinges on the signal), then the signal transfer will be fine. Nearly all modern amps and sources work well together. (If you're referring to the need to gain-match when feeding a Squeezebox directly into power amps, then of course that is necessary - no arguments there). -- cliveb Transporter -> ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36994 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Source quality in context
Pat Farrell;216207 Wrote: > cliveb wrote: > > An SB3 feeding $5000 speakers will almost certainly sound better than > a > > Transporter feeding $3000 speakers. > I'm not sure that this is true in general. It depends on which 5K > speakers vs which 3K speakers. And it really depends somewhat on the > amp. If you're saying that there are plenty of 3k speakers that are as good as many 5k speakers, then you have a fair point. I was trying to make a more abstract point, in the sense that for a given budget you're better off dovoting the lion's share to the transducers - they are after all the components which contribute the lion's share of the end result. -- cliveb Transporter -> ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36994 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Source quality in context
In my opinion yes, the SB3 can sound fantastic as an analog source. I've not (yet) tried a Transporter, but I have tried many different source combos (and too many DAC's to comfortably list anymore), and I've been quite shocked at how good the stock SB3 analog-output sounds with a proper preamp/amp matching. Also, if you can't afford $5k+ speakers, you really should audition a BBE Sonic Maximizer 482i or 882i (882i is the balanced version) - I think you will be stunned. I wish SlimServer supported DirectX plugins - then I could just use the BBE Sonic Maximizer plugin directly in software! :) -- NewBuyer NewBuyer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7862 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36994 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Which Interconnect Cable??
With my Bel Canto DAC2 I noticed a marked improvement with a coax (Stereovox HDVX) over an optical (Wireworld Supernoca III+). With my new Lavry DA10 no real difference that I can detect. -- Markhh2 Markhh2's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3042 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36667 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter together with Nuforce amp?
Have not heard the Nuforce, but have listened extensively to a Transporter straight into a pair of Bel Canto Ref 1000's. Great sound, very dynamic, very clean and limitless dynamic range. The transporter seems to work well straight into the amps. BTW - VH Audio flavor 4's really opened up the Bel Canto's. Not sure what impact they will have on the nuforce. I just picked up a Lavry DA10 to go between my SB3 and my ARC100.2 amp. Very happy with this combo. Will probably be selling my ARC LS16 preamp very soon. Then I'm looking into the Nuforce to replace the ARC. I've heard they work well with my Harbeth Compact 7's. -- Markhh2 Markhh2's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3042 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36916 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
I play uncompressed 96k/24 bit files on my Transporter without problems, using a wired ethernet. When you say they won't play on your wireless network, can you provide a bit more information? If you display the buffer level on the Transporter, does is stay very low? How does this compare to the level when playing 44.1K CD files? Ideally it should stay fairly high, no matter what your source material, but perhaps your wireless network is marginal... -- DCtoDaylight DCtoDaylight's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7284 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Source quality in context
PhilNYC;216216 Wrote: > This is HIGHLY dependent on the technical specs of the components > involved...specifically, the input sensitivity of the amplifier and the > output voltage of the source. A high input sensitivity amplifier will > need a high output voltage from the source. If these are not matched > correctly, then you'll get sub-optimal performance. So it's not a > generalization you can make without knowing the specifics of the > components. Hi Phil, Not to hijack this thread, but can you (or somebody else) please elaborate on this? My B&K amp balanced input sensitivity is listed at 2.8v with input impedance listed at 33.2 k ohms. Is this a good match for the Transporter direct using XLR? There was a thread a while back concerning component matching but for the life of me, I cannot find it. . -- haunyack Transporter -> B&K Reference 200.2 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. RWA (Analog) SB3 -> Rotel RB 1070 -> B&W Matrix 805. Fridgidare -> Mirror Pond pale ale -> easy chair w/remote -> irritated neighbors. haunyack's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9721 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36994 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Source quality in context
Pat Farrell;216225 Wrote: > > Speakers require different amps. > > Lowther's http://www.lowtherloudspeakers.co.uk/ are extremely efficient > > and can be happily driven by flea powered SET amps. The worse speakers > I > have owned where the original "large" Advents, which required 60W per > channel and didn't sound right until you had 200 W/ch. Quads require > lots of current, not so much as power, so you have to match to them as > > well. Horns are efficient, and can sound great with very little power. > I > am sure there are many others. > I certainly agree that you can hear quite clearly when an amp clips, and different amps clip under different circumstances. However under normal operation I think one can take the position that all solid-state amps sound identical. I don't know a single shred of solid evidence against that, and in the few A/B comparisons I've done it held true. You can buy a perfectly decent two-channel amp for peanuts (in audiophile terms at least): http://www.google.com/products?q=Behringer+A500 http://www.emotiva.com/amplifiers.html So I don't think amplification should be a particularly high priority - just buy one that's adequate and be happy. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36994 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Source quality in context
opaqueice wrote: > Different speakers sound REALLY different. Same goes for rooms and > room placement. But different amps and sources sound almost exactly, > if not exactly, the same. So IMO one should first optimize the > speakers, and only then look at the rest of the system. Speakers require different amps. Lowther's http://www.lowtherloudspeakers.co.uk/ are extremely efficient and can be happily driven by flea powered SET amps. The worse speakers I have owned where the original "large" Advents, which required 60W per channel and didn't sound right until you had 200 W/ch. Quads require lots of current, not so much as power, so you have to match to them as well. Horns are efficient, and can sound great with very little power. I am sure there are many others. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Source quality in context
PhilNYC;216215 Wrote: > I remember not even having to do the A/B switch to identify the > Dodson...that just a few seconds of hearing whichever was playing was > good enough. And you were pretty good at mixing up the selector switch > and volume, so it wasn't predictable at all as to which you were playing > first (for those reading, the volume control on my preamp is a stepped > attenuator, so it's easy to go back and forth precisely on volume > settings). So the level-matching was not so critical... darrenyeats;216204 Wrote: > > You imply there was no difference, but I note you stop short of > actually saying that. I wasn't implying that, actually. I really don't know if there was a difference - to me, any difference which might have been there was masked by the (rather significant) volume mismatch. Phil disagrees, but since we didn't really do the test I think the best we can say is it was inconclusive. darrenyeats;216204 Wrote: > > To be fair, that's putting words in my mouth. I am stating my opinion, > which is that people could do better and they should audition allegedly > better alternatives. > > > > So I advise an audition, and am criticised for it by opaqueice. You buy > the Transporter without an audition, and then side with him in this > little bun fight. Attacked from all sides, I am. :-) > > I do believe in blind testing, by the way. > Darren OK, since you said that last bit, I'll go easy on you :-). I'm certainly not opposed to the idea of auditioning a TP, especially if you compare it blind to the SB (that's absolutely essential in my book, at least if you're financially limited and buying it for the sound quality rather than looks or functionality). I also have no problem with buying a TP just because it MIGHT sound better, or because it looks good. If I were completely happy with my speakers (I'm not) I'd consider it too. But I'm fully with cliveb on the source versus speakers thing. Different speakers sound REALLY different. Same goes for rooms and room placement. But different amps and sources sound almost exactly, if not exactly, the same. So IMO one should first optimize the speakers, and only then look at the rest of the system. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36994 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Here is why no FF/RW
seanadams;216027 Wrote: > Not at all. You still have to _get_ all that data to the player. And you > still have to be able to generate some audible rendition of it as you > scan through the compressed stream. And you still have several of the > other issues I originally mentioned, such as supporting the myriad of > formats. So only if you had unlimited RAM, CPU, and bandwidth, and only > one format to support would it be "trivial". And as long as you're > having all that, why not a pony too? :) Sure, as long as someone else pays for feeding and housing the thing... :P How I would solve it given infinite memory: decode the whole track and then the position of the sound at X seconds is derivable via multiplication. A faster CPU would help, too, so that more of the track could be decoded in background to anticipate forward movemeent. That would keep ff/rew in the client. I am not sure if bandwidth would help that much in cases of short ff's and wouldnt help at all in rewinds. But then were specing a reeasonably hefty CPU and memory... RAM is certainly cheap, but CPUs can be spendy, and the market for a $1000 device is a lot smaller (and of course faster CPUs almost always mean more heat...) That is most likely how MCE does it, with a sliding window instead of the whole file to save RAM, but still there is a lot more RAM. > > Anyway if you could only change one of those things, I'd say the best > one would be the bandwidth. If you're guaranteed the throughput, low > latency, and zero packet loss of 100Mbps ethernet (as in the DVR > example) then the problem becomes a LOT more manageable. More RAM is > nice but certainly wouldn't solve the problem per se. Well the DVR example also allows for a lot more intelligence in the client, and this is not even universal on Windows apps. (For some reason WMP will play AVI's stored on an SMB-mount, but Winaamp rarely works... some need in Winamp to seek or something is not implemented the same for SMB as it is in local access) Given infinite resources, the problem is easy, but then so are most problems. (It would be possible to design a chess-playing computer much like the always-winning checkers machine announced this week... assuming infinite CPU power to process the entire tree of potential moves and infinite memory store the results... the 50-move rule ensures that there is an end to any game. A decisiion tree could never be more than 30*50 nodes deep.) But, yes, given the real world constraints throwing 1G of memory and a 1Ghz CPU and 100W of heat into a music player to solve this is silly. In the real world, it is a hard problem. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36446 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Source quality in context
cliveb;216193 Wrote: > And then I realised that it was possible to feed the SB2's output direct > into the active speakers, so I tried it. And you know what? It sounded > *better* than the CD player+preamp combo. Less is more. This is HIGHLY dependent on the technical specs of the components involved...specifically, the input sensitivity of the amplifier and the output voltage of the source. A high input sensitivity amplifier will need a high output voltage from the source. If these are not matched correctly, then you'll get sub-optimal performance. So it's not a generalization you can make without knowing the specifics of the components. -- 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=36994 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Here is why no FF/RW
Pat Farrell;216147 Wrote: > thomsens wrote: > > To suggest based on a limited sample of this forum combined with > your > > opinion that a feature is not required is silly. > > This forum is where customers who have bought SqueezeBoxes and > Transporters talk among themselves. The forums in total are for people > > interested in SD/Logitech audio products. > > There is no overwhelming demand for this feature in the forums. > > I have not said that you are silly, or your request is silly. > I know you want it. But there is no groundswell of support for it. > > > Instant access to all my music and other media > > files increases the need for the feature for me. > > CD players had 'index' support from the start. The idea was the > movements or breaks to the chorus, or other musically significant parts > > could be indexed, so you could instantly go to them, forward or > backwards. When CDs came out, reviewers noted with players did this > properly. It was an expected feature. But hardly anyone used it, and > few CDs carried index markers in their meta data, so over time the > feature disappeared. > > Much like "pre-emphasis" in the audio tracks. > > >> What Sean said was that it is not easy. He decided not to do it. > >> What changes because you want it anyway? > > > > Great point. What changes is where I spend my $$ over time if the > > product does not continue to evolve (so far $2600 spent with SD). > I'm > > sure given the choice, Sean would rather have me buy the T2 when my > T1 > > dies. For that matter, I'm sure he's just hoping for the ability to > > build a T2 one day. Clearly without the base of users to support > it, > > that will never happen. So, the average joe will need to start > buying > > this thing and regardless of your or my opinion, the average joe > will > > definitely expect this feature in a usable format. > > I was with you up until the last sentence. It depends on your intended > > use of the word average. > Given the sample of the folks posting to the forums, if you select a > customer at random, they won't notice this missing feature. If you > select a random sample of users, you would expect that the majority of > > folks selected don't care. > > If lots of Joe Customers bought SB's or Transporters, and returned them > > because this feature was missing, I am sure Sean and others would > notice. If the "average" meaning more than half, so that most of the > units were returned, I am sure Sean and others would find a way to fix > > it no matter how hard it is. > > Never say never, but when evaluating what features and functions to put > > in the next unit, a smart company has to listen to what the majority of > > its customers want. Or, if they can know, what features kept a large > portion of the potential customers from purchasing the unit. > > Sony had better music players than the iPod in many dimensions many > years before the iPod. Sony screwed up the interface with fascist DRM > that made it unusable for mere mortals. Now, no one remember Sony was > there in 1999 and 2000. > > I have no inside knowledge, but I bet if the SqueezeBox had exactly > today's feature set, cost $200 and had a strong national marketing > campaign, Logitech could sell four to ten times as many. There are > people who want FF/RW, and would be happier, buy more, tell more > friends, etc. but I don't think it would increase sales by more than > 10%. > > IMHO, YMMV, etc. > > > > -- > Pat > http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html We're just going to have to agree to disagree. My goal is simply to improve a feature that needs to be improved. I don't believe the need is lost on Sean - he's just in a tough spot because as he said, the path between here and there isn't easy. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36446 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Source quality in context
opaqueice;216167 Wrote: > That was not a level matched comparison. I could also tell the > difference - one was louder. > I remember not even having to do the A/B switch to identify the Dodson...that just a few seconds of hearing whichever was playing was good enough. And you were pretty good at mixing up the selector switch and volume, so it wasn't predictable at all as to which you were playing first (for those reading, the volume control on my preamp is a stepped attenuator, so it's easy to go back and forth precisely on volume settings). So the level-matching was not so critical... -- 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=36994 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
I can play 24-bit WAVs on my SB3, but I have a wired connection. Try converting the WAVs to FLAC to save bandwidth. -- Pale Blue Ego Pale Blue Ego's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=110 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Source quality in context
cliveb wrote: > An SB3 feeding $5000 speakers will almost certainly sound better than a > Transporter feeding $3000 speakers. I'm not sure that this is true in general. It depends on which 5K speakers vs which 3K speakers. And it really depends somewhat on the amp. I don't see this as a certainty. Ten years ago, I would have agreed that $1000 speakers don't sound as nice as $2000 speakers. This is where all the action is. Really cheap speakers are not candidates for audiophiles, and the difference between 10K speakers and 20K speakers are immaterial for folks with rent and kids to pay for. But since all of the action, and all of the sales volume is in the low thousands of dollar range, the current $1000 speakers are very impressive. Some $1K speakers sound (to me) as good as some $2K speakers. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Source quality in context
Guys, Allow me to debate your comments a bit :-) cliveb;216193 Wrote: > An SB3 feeding $5000 speakers will almost certainly sound better than a > Transporter feeding $3000 speakers. Well, if you say so. I haven't tried it myself. All I can say is that my 15 year old CDT/DAC sounds better than an SB3 when feeding a 10 year old Krell and >10 year old PMC AB-1s. I see no reason why that difference wouldn't be even more apparent in a better system. cliveb;216193 Wrote: > All this "source first" nonsense was exposed for the garbage it is years > ago. By all means spend more on your amps and speakers. If you've spent well in excess of $10k on amps and speakers then a Transporter is still rather small beer wouldn't you say? cliveb;216193 Wrote: > And you know what? It sounded *better* than the CD player+preamp combo. > Less is more. "Less is more" is a good rule of thumb and I agree with it. To use a performance car analogy, lower weight is a desirable characteristic. However, a Ferrari Enzo is heavier than my wife's Nissan Micra...I leave you to draw your own conclusions about sweeping statements vs rules of thumb. opaqueice;216167 Wrote: > That was not a level matched comparison. I could also tell the > difference - one was louder. You imply there was no difference, but I note you stop short of actually saying that. opaqueice;216167 Wrote: > But don't go around telling others they *need* to upgrade - that's > uninformed nonsense. To be fair, that's putting words in my mouth. I am stating my opinion, which is that people could do better and they should audition allegedly better alternatives. cliveb;216193 Wrote: > Incidentally, I do now have Transporter - again feeding the speakers > directly. I think it sounds heaps better than the SB2, but then I've > never done a controlled blind comparison, so I could be deluding > myself. So I advise an audition, and am criticised for it by opaqueice. You buy the Transporter without an audition, and then side with him in this little bun fight. Attacked from all sides, I am. :-) I do believe in blind testing, by the way. Darren -- darrenyeats Monarchy CLD-M401 transport -> Sony DAS-703ES DAC -> Krell KAV-300i -> PMC AB-1 (home-made room treatments and supports) darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36994 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Source quality in context
darrenyeats;216092 Wrote: > No offense, but an SB3 is not the last word in sound quality. It is very > good, but the idea of putting it in front of dollar/pound five-figures > of amps and speakers is silly. An SB3 feeding $5000 speakers will almost certainly sound better than a Transporter feeding $3000 speakers. All this "source first" nonsense was exposed for the garbage it is years ago. And as for whether an SB3 is "high-end", consider this: Before I bought an SB2, my system included £7000 active speakers, a £5000 CD player, and a £2500 preamp. When I bought an SB2 and stuck it in the system, I was amazed at how good it sounded - almost as good as the CD player. And then I realised that it was possible to feed the SB2's output direct into the active speakers, so I tried it. And you know what? It sounded *better* than the CD player+preamp combo. Less is more. The CD player and preamp were sold pretty quickly after this epiphany. (I still have the speakers, of course). Incidentally, I do now have Transporter - again feeding the speakers directly. I think it sounds heaps better than the SB2, but then I've never done a controlled blind comparison, so I could be deluding myself. But the TP is such a sexy device, I'm happy. -- cliveb Transporter -> ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36994 ___ 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 Hi all, Just registered so I can post this pic. I will be a Dad soon, so this system will be occupied by a future audiophile.but my wife and the crib wins for now! Cary Audio CP player Electrocompaniet integrated Enlightened Audio Design DAC (connected to Squeezebox) Monster Power conditioner JM Lab Electra 1007 Be Cardas Hexlink, Sterovox Colibri X +---+ |Filename: P1010637_edited.JPG | |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3068| +---+ -- pedroboe pedroboe's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12459 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] The reason for the dirty fight???!
Jeronimo, I am a guitarist , so not a slim employee :-) I will teach at iserlohn so the festival director picks me up in Dusseldorf. Bringing my guitar precludes bringing a TP :-) Check out the website there will be great concerts. -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36950 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The reason for the dirty fight???!
OK - If the internal PSU mods do anything good to a digital-only RCS it will be related to jitter and/or clock quality on the outbound SPDIF stream. My Altmann gear may be negating those effects. Please don't misinterpret what I am saying as a general comment on the Aberdeen mods as I am not in a position to comment having not tried them. What I was trying to do was to explain exactly why I felt no need to try them. If there was any quality insertion loss in bypass mode I would be looking into them. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... ...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36950 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
I realise this isn't what you were asking, but are these files upsampled (in Goldwave) from 44.1/16 CD rips? -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... ...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The reason for the dirty fight???!
Phil Leigh;216129 Wrote: > I wasn't going to bother replying but... > > 1) The true value of RC is RC. > 2) I put my TACT in bypass mode when listening to headphones (for > obvious reasons). > 3) If the sound in bypass mode is "transparent" then I fail to see how > tinkering with the PSU is going to improve the way those numbers get > crunched. I've tried all sorts of line conditioners etc on the TACT and > not one has changed the sound one iota. Good job really. I wouldn't want > to think that computing accuracy is subject to poor supply noise issues. > However this is way off-topic now. I understand your point I also tried several different powerconditioners on my tact amps with no improvment what so ever . The aberdeen atacks the problem internaly wich is clerarly superior for obvious reasons. But for some reason people would rather buy a shiny dollar powerconditioners with blinking lights when it dossnt matter much when the nois problem is inside the unit. -- harmonic harmonic's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6879 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36950 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Question about volume
OK thanks guys! The SB3 stacks up pretty well against the RME. It's pretty close. -- markwm markwm's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12366 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36997 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Source quality in context
darrenyeats;216164 Wrote: > opaqueice, > The point of my post was that the SB3 is not high end. Those with high > end rigs should demand more, and the Transporter and SB+ are available > for audition. I will do that when I'm ready in the context of a wider > upgrade. Then why was it impossible for three audiophiles to hear any difference on a very high-end system in a treated room? > > Phil noticed just such a difference between his SB3 and CDP: > That was not a level matched comparison. I could also tell the difference - one was louder. If I had to venture a guess on Sean's position, it's that he knows for sure the TP is superior because he designed it and measured it. So if you want the best, buy a TP - but don't expect to be able to hear the difference. Maybe you will, maybe you won't, maybe you won't but you'll think you do. But don't go around telling others they *need* to upgrade - that's uninformed nonsense. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36994 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Source quality in context
Darren, Are you talking about the SB analogue or digital? As a digital transport it takes on pretty much anything IMHO. The focus then shifts to the SPDIF chain and DAC, which can be endlessly tweaked to taste. However, I think that comparing ANY CD player to an SB is rather pointless since apart from both reproducing music they are in every other respect completely different beasts in terms of functionality...and fun!. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... ...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36994 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Question about volume
Phil Leigh wrote: > You need to use a sound level meter to set the levels identical. There > are no shortcuts on this one. Even two identical soundcards can have > slightly different analogue ouput levels. What Phil said. And of course, it they are not perfectly matched, the louder one will sounds better. Its how human ears have evolved (or were created). -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Here is why no FF/RW
opaqueice;216150 Wrote: > What is this thread about? There's a perfectly good FF/RW function > called songscanner, and a jump-to-a-point-in-the-track function in the > fishbone skin. IMO both should be incorporated into the main SS builds > as they are far superior to the standard FF/RW feature (which I think we > all agree is broken). Meanwhile you can download songscanner as a > plugin in 5 minutes. It doesn't act exactly like a CD player FF/RW - > it's much nicer. I'm going to try that...problem is I use both standalone XP as well as Infrant NV version of SlimServer, so I don't like being out of sync between them (issue is that I have 2 libraries). But, I might add this simply to give the functionality to my TP (XP SS). -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36446 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Source quality in context
opaqueice;216118 Wrote: > How about on a $50,000 system? > > http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35068 > > None of us could tell the difference between the SB3 and the TP blind. > On the other hand, it was very easy sighted. opaqueice, The point of my post was that the SB3 is not high end. Those with high end rigs should demand more, and the Transporter and SB+ are available for audition. I will do that when I'm ready in the context of a wider upgrade. As I said, my reasoning is that I can hear the difference between the SB3 and my CD transport/DAC. Phil noticed just such a difference between his SB3 and CDP: PhilNYC;203104 Wrote: > Just to be clear, when we compared the SB3 analog out to the Dodson, I > was able to identify the Dodson every time within the first few seconds > of listening. And many others questioned his findings on SB3 vs Transporter, including himself: PhilNYC;203104 Wrote: > > I do have some additional theories as to why this particular listening > test came out with the results it did, but I'm not going to get into > them because they are just theories and I don't want to come off as > trying to make excuses. As I've mentioned before, I've done blind > tests like this before in my system with digital components and have > been able to reliably detect differences. I wonder what Sean's opinion is on SB3 vs Transporter. Regards, Darren -- darrenyeats Monarchy CLD-M401 transport -> Sony DAS-703ES DAC -> Krell KAV-300i -> PMC AB-1 (home-made room treatments and supports) darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36994 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Question about volume
markwm;216108 Wrote: > I'm trying to A/B my SB+ against my RME HDSP 9632 soundcard, both > analogue line outputs into my Rotel amp. > > The problem is the SB+ is considerably louder than my RME. I have the > SB+ set to 100% volume which I assume is 0db. I also have the RME set > to 0db, so why is the SB+ a good bit louder, I thought they were both > line level inputs and should output the same volume? You need to use a sound level meter to set the levels identical. There are no shortcuts on this one. Even two identical soundcards can have slightly different analogue ouput levels. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... ...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36997 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
dudeymon;216036 Wrote: > I moved my 96K file to a new folder & got it to show up in slimserver. > But when I try to play the file, it never starts - the browser window > just resets over & over trying to play it. Again, the file plays fine > in Windows. The WAV header is corrupt (or rather, non-standard). There are 2 standards for WAV headers. Only one of them is supported by the SB AFAIK. It's nothing to do with the wireless. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... ...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
The FLAC file plays fine. Thanks. But shouldn't it play an uncompressed WAV 96/24 as well. I wonder if the lack of compression is overloading the wireless? Have you ever played uncompressed WAV files at 96/24? Thanks. -- dudeymon dudeymon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12453 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Here is why no FF/RW
What is this thread about? There's a perfectly good FF/RW function called songscanner, and a jump-to-a-point-in-the-track function in the fishbone skin. IMO both should be incorporated into the main SS builds as they are far superior to the standard FF/RW feature (which I think we all agree is broken). Meanwhile you can download songscanner as a plugin in 5 minutes. It doesn't act exactly like a CD player FF/RW - it's much nicer. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36446 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
Thanks - PBE - will download and see what happens. -- dudeymon dudeymon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12453 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Here is why no FF/RW
thomsens wrote: > To suggest based on a limited sample of this forum combined with your > opinion that a feature is not required is silly. This forum is where customers who have bought SqueezeBoxes and Transporters talk among themselves. The forums in total are for people interested in SD/Logitech audio products. There is no overwhelming demand for this feature in the forums. I have not said that you are silly, or your request is silly. I know you want it. But there is no groundswell of support for it. > Instant access to all my music and other media > files increases the need for the feature for me. CD players had 'index' support from the start. The idea was the movements or breaks to the chorus, or other musically significant parts could be indexed, so you could instantly go to them, forward or backwards. When CDs came out, reviewers noted with players did this properly. It was an expected feature. But hardly anyone used it, and few CDs carried index markers in their meta data, so over time the feature disappeared. Much like "pre-emphasis" in the audio tracks. >> What Sean said was that it is not easy. He decided not to do it. >> What changes because you want it anyway? > > Great point. What changes is where I spend my $$ over time if the > product does not continue to evolve (so far $2600 spent with SD). I'm > sure given the choice, Sean would rather have me buy the T2 when my T1 > dies. For that matter, I'm sure he's just hoping for the ability to > build a T2 one day. Clearly without the base of users to support it, > that will never happen. So, the average joe will need to start buying > this thing and regardless of your or my opinion, the average joe will > definitely expect this feature in a usable format. I was with you up until the last sentence. It depends on your intended use of the word average. Given the sample of the folks posting to the forums, if you select a customer at random, they won't notice this missing feature. If you select a random sample of users, you would expect that the majority of folks selected don't care. If lots of Joe Customers bought SB's or Transporters, and returned them because this feature was missing, I am sure Sean and others would notice. If the "average" meaning more than half, so that most of the units were returned, I am sure Sean and others would find a way to fix it no matter how hard it is. Never say never, but when evaluating what features and functions to put in the next unit, a smart company has to listen to what the majority of its customers want. Or, if they can know, what features kept a large portion of the potential customers from purchasing the unit. Sony had better music players than the iPod in many dimensions many years before the iPod. Sony screwed up the interface with fascist DRM that made it unusable for mere mortals. Now, no one remember Sony was there in 1999 and 2000. I have no inside knowledge, but I bet if the SqueezeBox had exactly today's feature set, cost $200 and had a strong national marketing campaign, Logitech could sell four to ten times as many. There are people who want FF/RW, and would be happier, buy more, tell more friends, etc. but I don't think it would increase sales by more than 10%. IMHO, 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
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Here is why no FF/RW
seanadams;216027 Wrote: > Not at all. You still have to _get_ all that data to the player. And you > still have to be able to generate some audible rendition of it as you > scan through the compressed stream. And you still have several of the > other issues I originally mentioned, such as supporting the myriad of > formats. So only if you had unlimited RAM, CPU, and bandwidth, and only > one format to support would it be "trivial". And as long as you're > having all that, why not a pony too? :) > > Anyway if you could only change one of those things, I'd say the best > one would be the bandwidth. If you're guaranteed the throughput, low > latency, and zero packet loss of 100Mbps ethernet (as in the DVR > example) then the problem becomes a LOT more manageable. More RAM is > nice but certainly wouldn't solve the problem per se. Well, I suppose I cheat because I have GE to every port in the house, but obviously the TP drops that to 100Mbs. I'd be ok with a per client setting to enable a feature based on wired or not. It would be even better if a network health monitor set that capability automatically so the user just gets the best the unit can do at any time...but I'll settle for basic improvement first. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36446 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Here is why no FF/RW
Pat Farrell;216028 Wrote: > thomsens wrote: > > Pat Farrell;216023 Wrote: > >> A modern PC has a gigabyte of RAM, which can hold a complete CD, > >> uncompressed, in memory. Serious PCs for either Vista or development > > >> have two or three gig. > > > If it's really a matter of inadequate hw, then my original assertion > > that initial architectural decisions (i.e., hw specs) were the > problem > > is true. Sean says that is not the case. > > Er, I wasn't talking about the SqueezeBox. The question was why can a > Windoze Media Center handle it properly, and the reason is that it is a > > powerful generalized system. > > I don't quite get how you jump from Sean's initial post in this thread > > to your conclusion. > > The SqueezeBox and the Transporter are embedded systems. That is a > totally different design space for software than generalized PCs/Mac, > etc. > > What you seem to be asking for is that the price to everyone be > increased to meet your needs for FF/RW. I never use it, never tried. > Never tried it on the CD players I've had over the decades. > > I used to do all sorts of stuff when I was a radio station DJ when > there > were vinyl disks on turntables, but that was long ago and far > away.[/url] To suggest based on a limited sample of this forum combined with your opinion that a feature is not required is silly. CD players have had the capability (note I said capability, not interested in the exact implementation) on just about every unit ever made. That's a better sample for me to believe it is a feature folks desire. Combine that with the fact that you now have other common media such as podcasts, etc. that you might want to jump to a certain section in, and in my opinion, the need is greater now than before. I rarely used it on my CD players, I've tried to use it many times on my SD products and have been left frustrated. Instant access to all my music and other media files increases the need for the feature for me. As you should have noted, I believe the memory should be adequate based on what I paid - I don't see how adequate memory should drive the price higher. In any case as Sean's next post indicates, memory is apparently not the issue. > What Sean said was that it is not easy. He decided not to do it. > What changes because you want it anyway? Great point. What changes is where I spend my $$ over time if the product does not continue to evolve (so far $2600 spent with SD). I'm sure given the choice, Sean would rather have me buy the T2 when my T1 dies. For that matter, I'm sure he's just hoping for the ability to build a T2 one day. Clearly without the base of users to support it, that will never happen. So, the average joe will need to start buying this thing and regardless of your or my opinion, the average joe will definitely expect this feature in a usable format. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36446 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Question about volume
There is no standard for "line level" outputs. TD -- tyler_durden tyler_durden's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36997 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Headless music server
I run a headless server. I access it via UltraVNC. Works great. The only time it becomes a pain is if you lose the network connection then you have to hook up a monitor. -- markwm markwm's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12366 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35806 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The reason for the dirty fight???!
CPC;216058 Wrote: > Who buys a TacT RCS to run it in the RC off mode? > > Your statements are meaningless in the active RC mode. > > FYI- the true value of the TacT system, is the 2.2 mode, blending > subs with main speakers. > > In the active RC mode, the Aberdeen mods make a big difference. > > But as you've said: > > "I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that people will hear what they > want to hear regardless of the facts. If that makes them happy then who > am I to criticize? However, it does NOT mean I have to agree with > them..." I wasn't going to bother replying but... 1) The true value of RC is RC. 2) I put my TACT in bypass mode when listening to headphones (for obvious reasons). 3) If the sound in bypass mode is "transparent" then I fail to see how tinkering with the PSU is going to improve the way those numbers get crunched. I've tried all sorts of line conditioners etc on the TACT and not one has changed the sound one iota. Good job really. I wouldn't want to think that computing accuracy is subject to poor supply noise issues. However this is way off-topic now. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... ...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36950 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Headless music server
jdbaker;216038 Wrote: > Man that is so F**ked UP, how is someone supposed to know that, I would > have never figured that one out. Thanks again, you guys are the best. Welcome to the wonderful world of windows -- egd http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_transporter.html? >> http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/shopbycable/1800F.htm >> http://www.atc.gb.net/homeamplifier/sca2.html >> http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/shopbycable/1800F.htm >> http://www.atc.gb.net/domestic/scm100slat.html egd's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3425 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35806 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audiophile wanna-be
Ha, Ha, Ha very funny... ...and the real funny part in this pic is the gear that stands for men, the up-down switch with the light on when on the upper position. -- signor_rossi signor_rossi's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11941 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36907 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
Download one or more of these. They are 24/96 FLAC files: http://01688cb.netsolhost.com/samplerdownload/ -- Pale Blue Ego Pale Blue Ego's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=110 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Source quality in context
darrenyeats;216092 Wrote: > > I have a relatively modest system and I can't do serious listening with > my SB3, because I know my CD transport/DAC sounds better and I want the > best to hand. If I can hear the difference in my old and modest set up > then I shudder to think of the musical joy some of you are missing out > on. How about on a $50,000 system? http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35068 None of us could tell the difference between the SB3 and the TP blind. On the other hand, it was very easy sighted. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36994 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Source quality in context
amcluesent;216097 Wrote: > No doubt about it, Transporter SQ is a step up from the SB3. It was > clear as a bell on even my 'mid fi' kit (Arcam Solo and B&W CM-2 > speakers). > > Of course, if you run your SB3 with external DAC, who knows? No doubt the SB3 is not high-end or anything like it but what it does do - in a similar way that the iPod does for sounds on the move - is provide a jukebox with my music for less serious listening, for example when I'm working. For the serious stuff the LP12 or the CDP are of course favourite by far. Having said that the SB3 with the Beresford - a very reasonaly priced combination - is quite listenable and would give many a sub £1000 CDP some decent competition. -- dehavillandrfc SB3 -> Beresford DAC -> Netgear Wireless Router -> QNAP TS-101 LP12 / Genki -> Kollektor / LK140 -> ALR Jordan Entry M dehavillandrfc's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12322 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36994 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Question about volume
I'm trying to A/B my SB+ against my RME HDSP 9632 soundcard, both analogue line outputs into my Rotel amp. The problem is the SB+ is considerably louder than my RME. I have the SB+ set to 100% volume which I assume is 0db. I also have the RME set to 0db, so why is the SB+ a good bit louder, I thought they were both line level inputs and should output the same volume? -- markwm markwm's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12366 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36997 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Source quality in context
No doubt about it, Transporter SQ is a step up from the SB3. It was clear as a bell on even my 'mid fi' kit (Arcam Solo and B&W CM-2 speakers). -- amcluesent amcluesent's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10286 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36994 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Upgrading the Power Supply
mtan002;215985 Wrote: > I received my Farnell (the 230V equivalent) yesterday. I have problem > determining which side of the output socket is +/-. The two output > wires are coded black and black/white. Can somebody help. Thanks. > > M Tan Hi the black/white wire is +5v the black wire is ground- -- Ashy72 Ashy72's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12230 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=20855 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Source quality in context
Guys, Bearing in mind this is an audiophile forum... I've noticed there are several people here running incredible rigs, using an SB3 as a front end. No offense, but an SB3 is not the last word in sound quality. It is very good, but the idea of putting it in front of dollar/pound five-figures of amps and speakers is silly. The Audio Critic guys make my blood boil sometimes, but knowing they contribute to such folly is one of the worst things. They're such idiots sometimes. I have a relatively modest system and I can't do serious listening with my SB3, because I know my CD transport/DAC sounds better and I want the best to hand. If I can hear the difference in my old and modest set up then I shudder to think of the musical joy some of you are missing out on. The extra SQ you might gain by upgrading your front end (listening through such exalted downstream equipment) is sadly beyond my reach for now. Please, if you are lucky enough to be able to spend five figures on amps and speakers, spend a bit more and consider the Transporter or SB+ for audition. No I don't get commission from Slim Devices or Mr Dixon! It's just what my ears tell me. That is what I'm going to do, as well as upgrade my whole system, when the time is right. Please take a look at my system below, and consider my words, since if I can hear a difference then surely some of you guys using an SB3 will hear a heck more! Darren PS: This is not to belittle the SB3 as an achievement. It is amazing for the money. Also, slimserver is a great achievement regardless of the player. This post is about matching a $300 retail front end with, as I have seen on this forum, SOTA amps and $1 retail speakers. The manufacturer of the $300 front end is not to blame, in fact should be praised that the product can live for 30 seconds in such company. So read this post in context. -- Monarchy CLD-M401 transport -> Sony DAS-703ES DAC -> Krell KAV-300i -> PMC AB-1 (home-made room treatments and supports) -- darrenyeats darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36994 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Upgrading the Power Supply
I'm a bit disappointed with some of these new power supplies. They are too small, too cheap and there is no ridiculous cast aluminium case with them. I think it should be a given that new supplies should cost at least 25% of the squeezebox price. these supplies are just too sensible. -- mudlark SB3>CyrusDACX>PreXvs>260A>KEFiQ7 cable Avondale server Kubuntu Feisty Fawn, linkstation for storage. DIY SB3 3A linear power supply. mudlark's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7151 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=20855 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter together with Nuforce amp?
Hi Mik63, How do you find the Mahlers with the Nuforce? I couldnt find a better combination! As for the SB3 skipping track, are you sure your wireless in not dropping off from time to time? It used to happen to me until I changed my access point. Btw have you noticed much change between the ref9 v1 and v2? Regards, Greg. -- greg_f greg_f's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5876 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36916 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The reason for the dirty fight???!
Phil Leigh;215721 Wrote: > No I haven't. However, my TACT (which is digital only - no ADC/DAC) has > NO impact on the sound. My systems sounds IDENTICAL with or without the > TACT connected in bypass mode. Therefore, NO TACT mod can make it sound > better than not being there at all... Who buys a TacT RCS to run it in the RC off mode? Your statements are meaningless in the active RC mode. FYI- the true value of the TacT system, is the 2.2 mode, blending subs with main speakers. In the active RC mode, the Aberdeen mods make a big difference. But as you've said: "I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that people will hear what they want to hear regardless of the facts. If that makes them happy then who am I to criticize? However, it does NOT mean I have to agree with them..." -- CPC CPC's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12336 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36950 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audiophile wanna-be
tyler_durden;215959 Wrote: > They were talking about a woman, but woman, amplifier, what's the > difference? That question reminds me of this: +---+ |Filename: elec_device.jpg | |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3065| +---+ -- cliveb Transporter -> ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36907 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
