Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optical connection - inferior by default?
opaqueice;238369 Wrote: Going into a Benchmark DAC1 I can't hear any change; same with a NOS DAC I experimented with. Yeah, but you can't hear the difference between a SB3 and a Transporter! -- 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=33146 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optical connection - inferior by default?
Patrick Dixon wrote: opaqueice;238369 Wrote: Going into a Benchmark DAC1 I can't hear any change; same with a NOS DAC I experimented with. Yeah, but you can't hear the difference between a SB3 and a Transporter! Heh, I had exactly the same thought! R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What to upgrade next to improve sound quality ?
auronthas;238455 Wrote: Thanks for sharing. So far the sound produced from SF is great, except the low frequecy is a bit tight. I was told this speaker need a break-in period of 200 hrs before it delivers its optimum performance. Hi my experince with sonus faber spekakers are the sound better and better as time passes even years , and espicialy the bass dynamics improve to around 300 houres. Il be picking up the new cremona M fullrangers i around to weeks time , and join the sonus faber family. -- harmonic harmonic's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6879 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39226 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SB3 Bolder Mods
liffy99 wrote: Ouch ! But I stand by my own observations (and my other half, who doesn't listen anywhere near as much as I do, walked in and said that sounds clearer to a well-known track). I have tried using a linear power supply as opposed to the wall wart and could not reliably tell a difference so please don't think I'm suckered into psychologically induced improvements. I've been doing a lot of listening recently to various system changes (class T amps, bi-amping the Prodigies, substituting transformer wire for expensive hose pipe cables and more) so am getting used to spotting differences. As I said, to begin with I was disappointed in an A/B comparison but something has definitely changed in the three weeks I've been running a standard and modified SB3 side by side. Sure, perhaps the local power station has been having a really good fortnight all of a sudden and the mains is cleaner, but then I would have heard an improvement to the regular SB3 wouldn't I ? But thanks for the observatons. I really am right on the fence here. I have a variety of sources and amps and have tried various combinations. My listening environment is not ideal, and my ears are not what they used to be, but I am perhaps more trained in listening musically having studied Acoustics (I have a degree in Electroacoustics) and worked in pro audio for some time. I have no more investment financially or emotionally in any one over the others, i.e. have no reason to prefer any one over the others. I have found that, in most cases, AB testing does *not* show up any significant differences. But, on extended listening, I have a quite clear preference. The differences liffy99 describes are in line with my experiences. My preferred combination is just more musical. I sometimes wish those of you who are so quick to jump down peoples' throats would take a chill pill and consider that maybe, just maybe there may be some truth in these reports. R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optical connection - inferior by default?
Patrick Dixon;238470 Wrote: Yeah, but you can't hear the difference between a SB3 and a Transporter! Robin Bowes;238489 Wrote: Heh, I had exactly the same thought! Can you, blind? -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33146 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SB3 Bolder Mods
Robin Bowes;238491 Wrote: I sometimes wish those of you who are so quick to jump down peoples' throats would take a chill pill and consider that maybe, just maybe there may be some truth in these reports. No one doubts the reports have some truth to them - in fact I'm sure they are absolutely correct. The question is whether the change is in the sound waves emanating from the speakers or is confined to the space between the listener's ears. I really don't understand why that second possibility is regarded with such horror by audiophiles, why so many are so certain it can't be, and therefore that their findings must apply to everyone else. (The OP of this thread was very reasonable and didn't fall into that trap.) -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39684 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Welborne Power Supply for SB3
3 threads merged into one. -- andyg andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39714 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Volume regulation of transporter?
Hi, from what has been said I deduce that if you happen to play 24 bit material and turn the volume down by 48db on the tp digital regulation you loose exactly the detail that a 24 bit recording has and a 16bit doesn't. You will end up with the quality of a 16 bit pcm well and off you go. Enjoy! ;) -- jaysung jaysung's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12375 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39611 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Volume regulation of transporter?
jaysung;238517 Wrote: Hi, from what has been said I deduce that if you happen to play 24 bit material and turn the volume down by 48db on the tp digital regulation you loose exactly the detail that a 24 bit recording has and a 16bit doesn't. You will end up with the quality of a 16 bit pcm well and off you go. Enjoy! ;) Yeah, something like that. Of course, for a 24 bit signal, the few least significant bits are already below the physical noise floor of almost all equipment. So they are already lost before the digital volume control loses them. Darren -- darrenyeats SB3 / Inguz - Krell KAV-300i (pre bypass mode) - PMC AB-1 Dell laptop - JVC UX-C30 mini system darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39611 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Multichannel audio on Transporter?
ianr;238296 Wrote: Not sure if I'm just being a niche customer, but does anyone else feel that Slim/Logitech should consider a Transporter that would handle multichannel audio (DVD-A etc)? The problem is, strictly speaking, it is illegal under the DMCA to extract audio from DVD-A or SACD onto your PC. Much more so than CD, and there are significant technological barriers in place to prevent this (particularly for SACD). CD extraction fits into the grey zone of fair use, DVD-A and SACD never have. So to provide a player for illegal formats is not only a bad idea, it may be illegal in and of itself. And yeah, these formats are dead - the funeral hasn't taken place yet, that's all. -- Mark Lanctot 'Sean Adams' Response-O-Matic checklist, patent pending!' (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=200910postcount=2) Mark Lanctot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39694 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Volume regulation of transporter?
jaysung;238517 Wrote: Hi, from what has been said I deduce that if you happen to play 24 bit material and turn the volume down by 48db on the tp digital regulation you loose exactly the detail that a 24 bit recording has and a 16bit doesn't. You will end up with the quality of a 16 bit pcm well and off you go. Enjoy! ;) I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that - and if you turn the gain down by 48dB it's going to be rather quiet... -- 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=39611 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Multichannel audio on Transporter?
Mark Lanctot wrote: The problem is, strictly speaking, it is illegal under the DMCA to extract audio from DVD-A or SACD onto your PC. Strictly speaking, it is illegal under the DMCA to write/talk about how you could extract audio from a protected source. and there are significant technological barriers in place to prevent this (particularly for SACD). CD extraction fits into the grey zone of fair use, DVD-A and SACD never have. The easy way to do it is to play the multi-track music into a multi-track PCM sound device, say a M-Audio Delta 1010, recording each channel's analog output. While there clearly can be some degradation, if you record it at 24/96 there won't be much. And yeah, these formats are dead - the funeral hasn't taken place yet, that's all. Which is good, since its illegal to even talk about ripping the music. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optical connection - inferior by default?
ar-t;238344 Wrote: It is inferior, and it is not a myth. You are grossly uninformed. Galvanic isolation can be achieved by using transformers, althoough doing so requires some skill on the part of the designer. Of all the optical methods, TOSLINK is the worst. Single-mode fibre could be used effectively, but alas, the way it is commonly implemented is all wrong. (In case anyone actually cares, I helped to engineer the world's first single-mode long-haul fibre system. I may just have an idea what I am talking about. Not that the ignorant will care; they rarely are open-mended enough.) Pat Welcome to the forum - and thanks for the gratuituous comment. I was under that being informed was the converse of being uninformed and thus represents a binary state. Therefore, being grossly uninformed makes no sense, since one cannot be less informed than uninformed. Since I didn't mention TOSLINK in my comment, I'm not sure what you are taking exception to. ADAT LightPipe (for example) is a variation on Toslink that has been in pro-use for a long time and some great recordings have been made using it - so clearly it can't be all that bad, can it? Also, no matter what your oscilloscope says, few people can reliably distinguish optical vs. SPDIF in various systems with their actual ears...this may well be because the DACS they are using effectively deal with the jitter arising from both the Toslink and SPDIF interfaces. My point was simply that IN PRACTICE there is little if any to choose between them. Theory well may say otherwise...but then theory has a poor track record compared to practice IMHO. -- 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=33146 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How is Audiodiffmaker meant to work?
bwaslo;234946 Wrote: I have done some interesting tests comparing 24bit/192kHz recorded music with a 16bit/44.1kHz version recorded from the same mix. I sample rate converted with the r8brain software so both were at 192kHz, then diffed them. Even with the (I assume) imperfect sample rate conversion used, it was rather shocking how very low the diff recording was. I'd like to repeat with other recordings (192kHz WAV files, with 44.1kHz equivalents aren't easy to come by, does anyone have a source?), but for now I am less enthused by the idea of high rate sampling than I had been. Seems reasonable. If 192/24 (or even 96/24) had been the leap equivalent to HDTV vs SDTV for example, we'd have made the switch by now... it just didn't turn out to be a compelling enough improvement. Maybe that Nyquist chap was onto something after all, and maybe those ringing filters aren't as bad as theory implies... ? -- 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=37352 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optical connection - inferior by default?
ar-t;238344 Wrote: It is inferior, and it is not a myth. You are grossly uninformed. Galvanic isolation can be achieved by using transformers, althoough doing so requires some skill on the part of the designer. Of all the optical methods, TOSLINK is the worst. Single-mode fibre could be used effectively, but alas, the way it is commonly implemented is all wrong. (In case anyone actually cares, I helped to engineer the world's first single-mode long-haul fibre system. I may just have an idea what I am talking about. Not that the ignorant will care; they rarely are open-mended enough.) Pat I think you're over-analysing the behaviour of the TOSLINK connection, and making comparisons that don't really apply. Of course if you're considering long-distance high speed communications, then pulse spreading due to optical line width and multiple propagation paths along the fibre are significant. But over a few feet, running at 5.6 MHz? (As an aside - try looking up a data sheet for the type of high speed comparator used as a line receiver for coax. I bet you'll find a skew, which translates into data-dependent jitter, which is orders of magnitude greater than any spreading due to optical effects in the cable). What I do find surprising is that anybody designs a DAC that uses the SPDIF input as a timing reference rather that merely a source of bits. I've spent some of my spare time this year designing a DAC - based around the AK4396 as it happens - which makes no attempt to directly recover a clock from the SPDIF input. Incoming edges are used merely to identify where bits start and finish so they can be sampled correctly, nothing more. So, it's an inherent property of the design that input jitter makes no difference at all. Doing this is not expensive, and I don't regard the use of a crystal and an FPGA as fancy. I do, however, regard the topology as correct - and, fortunately for those of us with a working design with commercial potential, unusual. One day, all DACs will be made this way. -- AndyC_772 AndyC_772's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10472 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33146 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optical connection - inferior by default?
AndyC_772;238566 Wrote: What I do find surprising is that anybody designs a DAC that uses the SPDIF input as a timing reference rather that merely a source of bits. I've spent some of my spare time this year designing a DAC - based around the AK4396 as it happens - which makes no attempt to directly recover a clock from the SPDIF input. Incoming edges are used merely to identify where bits start and finish so they can be sampled correctly, nothing more. So, it's an inherent property of the design that input jitter makes no difference at all. How do you deal with buffer underrun/overflow due to differences in average clock rates between your DAC's oscillator and the source's? There's the rub, I think. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33146 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optical connection - inferior by default?
Actually you'd be amazed just how hard it is to hear when a sample is dropped or duplicated - not that the final design ever actually does that, of course. I hope you'll forgive me for not disclosing all the inner workings of the design right now - it does seem to be a peculiar characteristic of hi-fi companies that they seem unusually willing to discuss their trade secrets in public. I guess there's a trade-off between maintaining a competitive advantage, and gaining credibility with an inquisitive customer base. As of this moment in time, though, my DAC is not available for sale - so I have no particular need to earn that credibility just yet by explaining the precise ins and outs. Hope you understand. I will say that the crystal I use is actually a VCXO, with a specified rms output jitter of 2.72 picoseconds, and that it's connected directly to the master clock input pin of the AK4396. -- AndyC_772 AndyC_772's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10472 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33146 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optical connection - inferior by default?
Andy I always imagined that by dumping the bits frame by frame into a buffer and then reading them out aysnchronously but with a very high-rez/low jitter clock, the end result would be good. Provided that the buffer never underruns then I see no reason why this wouldn't work. Since the sampling frequency is a given, there's no need to re-discover it from the the bitstream. Just grab the bits and feed them into the DAC nice and steady. I wish you success with your design - Phil -- 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=33146 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optical connection - inferior by default?
Thanks Phil :) I have a prototype and it works very well indeed. -- AndyC_772 AndyC_772's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10472 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33146 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Welborne Power Supply for SB3
CPC;238461 Wrote: Why do you feel the need to post negative comments about something you've never purchased or listen to? Why do you seem to be incapable of understanding my post? I did not make negative comments concerning the efficacy of wellborne gear. Therefore it is not germane whether or not I have listened to his products. I simply alerted the OP to the many posts about wellborne on other fora concerning the fact that wellborne takes the money and in many cases never sends the product and doesn't give refunds, according to the many complaints on these fora. It appears Wellbone owes a lot of people momey and gear . Perhaps you should read posts more carefully and make sure you understand them before you respond to them. Your response to mine clearly indicates you didn't understand it and it seems your are the victim of your own sloppy thinking. -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39714 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optical connection - inferior by default?
Andy, that's fine - of course you don't have to discuss it. Phil Leigh;238596 Wrote: I always imagined that by dumping the bits frame by frame into a buffer and then reading them out aysnchronously but with a very high-rez/low jitter clock, the end result would be good. Provided that the buffer never underruns then I see no reason why this wouldn't work. Since the sampling frequency is a given, there's no need to re-discover it from the the bitstream. Just grab the bits and feed them into the DAC nice and steady. The problem is that the frequency of the input is -not- given, because each oscillator has a slightly different average frequency. So your local clock will never match the one that generated the input exactly, which means the buffer will eventually overflow or empty. Unless... unless you can vary the speed of oscillation of the DAC clock in response to the state of the buffer (slow it down if it's getting close to empty, speed it up if it's getting close to full, no adjustment if it's just right). That's how Lavry's DACs are supposed to work (although evidently the DA10 doesn't), and it sounds like that's what Andy is doing. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33146 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optical connection - inferior by default?
I must be missing something...the ORIGINAL sampling frequency is a given...let's say it's 44.1 kHz. So all you need to do is read those frames out at that frequency. Why exactly is that so hard? Assuming you never run out of frames to read. As far as I can understand things, the whole clocking problem comes about if - and only if - there is no buffer. If the design is synchronous end-to-end I can see how the clocks and clock drift and jitter can really mess things up. -- 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=33146 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optical connection - inferior by default?
opaqueice;238603 Wrote: The problem is that the frequency of the input is -not- given, because each oscillator has a slightly different average frequency. So your local clock will never match the one that generated the input exactly, which means the buffer will eventually overflow or empty. (My comment isn't a criticism of anyone's previous posting.) This is like a lot of discussions of possible effects on sound quality. It poses a theoretical effect and proceeds directly to the solution. A couple of questions always come to my mind: 1. Does this effect actually occur to an extent that can be detected? 2. How big is the effect? For example how far off would an SB3 clock be from an perfect clock? In this case, I wonder just how much difference is there between the average rates of the clock locally generated in a buffered DAC and the clock used to transmit the SPDIF stream from a good quality sound card in a PC? Or the transmit clock in an SB3? If the difference is fairly small, then a simple approach using a fixed local clock and a reasonable sized buffer may in fact work well enough. Deleting quiet samples or inserting quiet samples in a string of quiet samples every now and then might provide periodic re-syncing of the transmit and receive clocks. Bill -- Listener Listener's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2508 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33146 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Multichannel audio on Transporter?
Mark Lanctot;238537 Wrote: So to provide a player for illegal formats is not only a bad idea, it may be illegal in and of itself. Multichannel audio is better than stereo, period. This has been known since 1934. My preferred format (B-format) has nothing to do with legality of ripping protected content in various jurisdictions, and it would be a shame to kill the goose if the record industry is trying to protect DVDA or whatever it thinks is a golden egg. -- inguz inguz's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1139 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39694 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Multichannel audio on Transporter?
inguz wrote: Mark Lanctot;238537 Wrote: So to provide a player for illegal formats is not only a bad idea, it may be illegal in and of itself. Multichannel audio is better than stereo, period. This has been known since 1934. Your response to Mark's comment is a non-sequitur. He did not say it was worse, better or anything else, just that it is illegal under the DMCA. This is not how civil discourse is conducted. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Multichannel audio on Transporter?
The suggestion that a player for multichannel formats might be illegal, though, is just silly. There are some formats that would need a licensed decoder - but they don't encompass the whole world of desirable functionality. And I'd hate to see Slim hardware forever tied to two-channel... since that would mean I'll move elsewhere. -- inguz inguz's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1139 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39694 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Multichannel audio on Transporter?
inguz;238623 Wrote: The suggestion that a player for multichannel formats might be illegal, though, is just silly. It's just that the grand majority of multichannel material is on DVD-A and SACD, and it is not only illegal to rip this material, it is illegal to even -talk- about ripping this material as Pat mentioned. This is the first time I've heard of B-format. I wasn't referring to that, in fact I've never heard of it, and if there's a player out there that can play it, great. But the grand majority is DVD-A and SACD. Don't get me wrong, I do like multichannel audio. Yes, if done right it cements the soundstage that stereo aficionados seek. However it has been problematic to implement - the fact that it's been around since 1934 yet still isn't popular outside of movies is telling. Has it ever been done right? Is it simply too complicated? Oh and also - since I'm in Canada I'm not subject to the DMCA - yet the MPAA and the RIAA are desperately trying to exert their influence here in order to get the politicians in their pockets and the laws changed ASAP, threatening to do things like delay movie releases if they don't get their way. Disgusting. -- Mark Lanctot 'Sean Adams' Response-O-Matic checklist, patent pending!' (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=200910postcount=2) Mark Lanctot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39694 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Multichannel audio on Transporter?
inguz wrote: The suggestion that a player for multichannel formats might be illegal, though, is just silly. There are some formats that would need a licensed decoder - but they don't encompass the whole world of desirable functionality. And I'd hate to see Slim hardware forever tied to two-channel... since that would mean I'll move elsewhere. Read the DMCA, you will be amazed. Discussing how to circumvent the DRM is illegal per the DMCA. Its dumb, but I didn't write it or vote for it. But ignoring the idiotic DMCA, there is zero mass market for even quality stereo music. And that is all that the major labels care about. So you have a chicken and egg. There are no mass millions demanding it, the labels won't provide it, so sensible companies won't make gear to make it easy and suitable for mass market. If they had used any brains, and done something simple like defining a standard mixing/mastering approach that used two big front speakers, a sub, and some small rears with good WAF, it might have had a chance. My wife had a cow with two Sonus Faber Concertos, which are great looking and small. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optical connection - inferior by default?
Phil Leigh;238608 Wrote: I must be missing something...the ORIGINAL sampling frequency is a given...let's say it's 44.1 kHz. So all you need to do is read those frames out at that frequency. Why exactly is that so hard? Assuming you never run out of frames to read. As far as I can understand things, the whole clocking problem comes about if - and only if - there is no buffer. If the design is synchronous end-to-end I can see how the clocks and clock drift and jitter can really mess things up. It's just that no two oscillators give you exactly the same frequency. So suppose the DAC clock is slightly faster. Then when you hit play, maybe there's a slight pause to let the buffer fill a little, and then away you go. Since the DAC clock is faster after a while the buffer is completely empty, and then you have a problem. Listener;238610 Wrote: 2. How big is the effect? For example how far off would an SB3 clock be from an perfect clock? I looked this up once, and don't remember the numbers - but the answer is that it's big enough to cause problems, particularly on long tracks. Making the buffer bigger doesn't help you when the local clock is faster - unless you're willing to have a long pause before the music starts. And you have to remember that a good commercial DAC should be able to deal with quite a wide variety of digital sources. It wouldn't be a very good design if it depended crucially on how accurate the clock was in the source. How audible any of this is - that's another question :-). -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33146 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
