Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 24bit/96kHz
No, you need a Transporter for 24/96. The SBR will do up to 24/48. -- radish radish's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=77 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57413 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 24bit/96kHz
Can you stream 24b/96kHz flac to the Duet and use an external DAC to play the file in full res? -- ronaldg ronaldg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12713 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57413 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Served music sounds better?
I hate to mention the obvious, but try the following... 1) Disconnect all cables from the CD player except the power cable. 2) Make the room nice and quiet 3) Play a CD Do you hear anything? Just because your CD player used to be dead silent doesn't mean it still is--and if the CD player is competing with its own mechanical noises, there's no wonder the Duet sounds better. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57173 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Served music sounds better?
opaqueice;377328 Wrote: > Highly unlikely. I have two cheap DVD-ROM drives in an old desktop, and > they both read unscratched CDs with zero errors, at about 5-10X real > time speed with zero error correction (other than what's built in to > the redbook standard) or re-reading. > > How do you know? > > --Steve -- bhr1439 bhr1439's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22189 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57173 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Served music sounds better?
JezA;377339 Wrote: > As opauqueice says, it isn't a difficult job for an unbroken cd mech to > get the digits off an undamaged cd accurately and consistently. I would extend this slightly, to "undamaged, and well manufactured, CD" I've had brand new, and pristine appearing CD's that EAC could not easily, or at all, extract accurately (ie many many repeat reads). While slightly outside the thrust of this discussion, the fact is that reading audio CD's is not as perfect as most would hope. That's the reason that data CD's have an extra layer of data error detection built in. Computer programs can't tolerate -any- faults. -- DCtoDaylight Audiophile wish list: Zero Distortion, Infinite Signal to Noise Ratio, and a Bandwidth from DC to Daylight DCtoDaylight's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7284 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57173 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] More Classical lossless FLAC downloads from DG
Vereina, I'll bet they are just the cd versions; still, don't complain, they're going to be a lot better than mp3, though it is somewhat ironic that many of the recordings will have originated from analogue tape! Another company doing FLAC downloads is www.passionato.com. Amongst others they are offering the superb London Symphony Orchestra live recordings, which are nearly all recent very high quality digital recordings: http://www.passionato.com/record-labels/LSO+Live+%28Special+Offer%29/ As many of these are also available in SACD, there's perhaps some hope that, if enough people ask, even higher resolution downloads could be made available. -- JezA JezA's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21219 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=55798 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] More Classical lossless FLAC downloads from DG
This is great! Well spotted! Let's hope that more of the back catalogue appears soon. And, what's more, DG currently have a "3 for the price of 2" offer at their web shop. Does anybody happen to know the spec of these recordings? (The display on my CD player, which I am using as the DAC for my SB Receiver, is showing 44hKz sampling rate, and I don't think my SqueezeCentre is downsampling, but I can't tell whether the word length is 16 or 24 bits. I suspect that these recordings are simply FLAC copies of the CDs.) -- Vereina Vereina's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22342 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=55798 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Served music sounds better?
bhr1439;377315 Wrote: > . > > So, no smoking gun yet that confirms or refute my impression, but at > least there's a plausible (to me) hypothesis on what's going on. > > --Steve Your hypothesis is that Path A suffers from incorrect and varying data, where Path B does not, and that this causes the perceived difference. You do not consider jitter to be the issue. Phils hypothesis is that Path A suffers from more jitter than Path B, and that this causes the perceived difference. Phil does not consider differences in the digital data to be the issue. These two hypotheses are different, and testable, yours quite easily as opaqueice suggests. So why speculate further? You can do that forever and get nowhere. Just do the obvious experiment and compare the data streams from the two front-ends. -- JezA JezA's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21219 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57173 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Served music sounds better?
bhr1439;377315 Wrote: > > As a previous poster suggested, recording and comparing S/PDIF data > should be able to confirm or reject the hypothesis path B data being a > more reliable representation of the music. What I would expect to see > is rock solid repeatability in the S/PDIF stream originating in the > server, and run-to-run variability in the datastream originating from > the CD player. Highly unlikely. I have two cheap DVD-ROM drives in an old desktop, and they both read unscratched CDs with zero errors, at about 5-10X real time speed with zero error correction (other than what's built in to the redbook standard) or re-reading. > Now, if only I had an S/PDIF recorder... Many consumer-grade computer sound cards will do that. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57173 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Served music sounds better?
Hi, I'm the original poster on this thread. Thanks for the thoughtful comments, everyone. First off, I appreciate Phil Leigh's insights; he pointed out two potential mechanisms that could potentially generate an audible difference, reminding me that that both paths start with the optical disc. That is path A: optical disc --> Nakamachi CD player optical pickup subsystem --> decoding and error correction (single pass)--> synchronous bitstreams --> S/PDIF waveform encoding --> TacT 2.1S processor --> Mark Levinson 360S DAC path B: optical disc --> computer CD-ROM drive optical pickup subystem --> decoding and error correction (with optical drive retry, if needed) --> harddrive --> S/PDIF waveform encoding --> TacT 2.1S processor --> Mark Levinson 360S DAC Path B will likely generate the more accurate data, as it can retry reading bad data, wheras it's typical for a CD player to "press on regardless" and use tricks such as interpolation to bridge over known bad data. Different data means different audio, and it's reasonable to think that more accurate data will correspond to a more appealing aural impression. As a previous poster suggested, recording and comparing S/PDIF data should be able to confirm or reject the hypothesis path B data being a more reliable representation of the music. What I would expect to see is rock solid repeatability in the S/PDIF stream originating in the server, and run-to-run variability in the datastream originating from the CD player. Now, if only I had an S/PDIF recorder... Another point Phil makes is that path A has potential for a noisier S/PDIF signal, due to EMI from the CD player's electromechanical components. Noisier S/PDIF signal can result in increased jitter in the recovered data clock, and increased DAC clock jitter is known to make for a less pleasing aural experience. JezA strongly suggests that I try taking my TacT processor out of the path and seeing if that makes a difference. That's a reasonable troubleshooting experiment, and I will try that as opportunity permits. I don't expect a difference, though. That's because I'm using the Tact processor in digital-in / digital-out mode and there never is any D/A conversion occurring inside the box. True, there is clock recovery happening as part of the conversion from S/PDIF waveform back to digital data stream for processing, but I do not expect that jitter is affecting the integrity of the bit stream content (i.e., I do not expect misclocking of data and changed data words -- this would be HIGHLY audible as impulsive pops in the audio when it is converted to analog downstream). Also, the Mark Levinson 360S employs a FIFO buffer and locally generated clock that obviates the S/PDIF waveform (generated at the output of the TacT) as a source of clock jitter. So, no smoking gun yet that confirms or refute my impression, but at least there's a plausible (to me) hypothesis on what's going on. --Steve -- bhr1439 bhr1439's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22189 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57173 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How best to upgrade by system
I owned an Arcam AVR300 for a couple of years. What I think is: - The (specialized) press usually says that the Arcam A/V receivers are more "hifi" oriented than the other (usual) brands. I don't know whether this was true at any time, but it's not sure right now, that is for sure. My Denon is one of the examples. - The AVR300 was uninvolving (that is: slow) but neutral. Not a great amplifier. - Its internal dacs (Wolfson) are not as well implemented as the Cambridge ones. A Cambridge 540C sounded much better through its analog outputs than through the Arcam receiver, although the 540 uses the same Wolfson 8740 chips. - The sound of the analog and digital sections of the Arcam have nothing to do with similar-priced Arcam CD players or Audio amps. Go figure. So, as a result, I think that getting an AVR280 or an AVR350 will probably change a little, but I'm not sure your problem will be really solved. I also think that your Denon is a bit too old. A more recent model of the same brand (or Onkyo, or Yamaha or whatever) will be a better upgrade than the Arcam, I think. BTW, the difference between the two Arcam models is very small, a few Watts more and 300 grams more : probably just different power transistors or a different use of the same ones, don't know. -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57314 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Served music sounds better?
Phil Leigh;377221 Wrote: > Next year I will be re-evaluating the Inguz-style solution... My comment is OT, I know, but as an Inguz user I am wondering what this menas...? -- tonyptony tonyptony's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3397 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57173 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Served music sounds better?
JezA;377233 Wrote: > I don't have any difficulty understanding you at all. But my conclusion > might be that the (extremely expensive) Tact is unacceptably sensitive > to jitter, especially as it claims not to be. So the difference that > the O/P hears, if it due to the cause you hypothesize, reveals at least > as much about the inadequacy of the Tact as it does about the inadequacy > of the Nakamichi or the superiority of served music. Incidentally, you > don't have any proof whatsoever, other than backwards reasoning, that > the Nakamichi produces more jitter than the SB, you are just supposing > it to be so. Removing the Tact from both chains, and listening again, > would reveal useful information. I have to agree with JezA here - if the TacT is audibly sensitive to moderate levels of input jitter, it's poorly designed (especially given its price point). Phil, whatever happened to those distorted square waves it was making? -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57173 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Served music sounds better?
Phil Leigh;377221 Wrote: > The TACT ASRC is sensitive to jitter. The source with the lowest jitter > will sound better. Therefore the SB has lower jitter than the NAK mech. > I really don't follow why you can't understand this! > > I don't have any difficulty understanding you at all. But my conclusion might be that the (extremely expensive) Tact is unacceptably sensitive to jitter, especially as it claims not to be. So the difference that the O/P hears reveals at least as much about the inadequacy of the Tact as it does about the inadequacy of the Nakamichi or the superiority of served music. Incidentally, you don't have any proof whatsoever, other than backwards reasoning, that the Nakamichi produces more jitter than the SB, you are just supposing it to be so. Removing the Tact from both chains, and listening again, would reveal useful information. -- JezA JezA's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21219 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57173 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Served music sounds better?
opaqueice;376868 Wrote: > By "usually in very small, very subtle ways" you mean "usually > completely inaudible ways", I take it? :) erm..not exactly... depends on the connected equipment... sometimes yes -- 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+Stontronics PSU - Altmann JISCO/UPCI - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods)- Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Kimber & Chord cables Outdoors: Boombox+Creative Sub (If I remember to turn it on...) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57173 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Served music sounds better?
darrenyeats;376516 Wrote: > Or, of course, use an on-board DAC like in the SB3, SBR or Transporter. > :^p > Darren Yes Darren, but I was trying to avoid mentioning that :o) -- 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+Stontronics PSU - Altmann JISCO/UPCI - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods)- Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Kimber & Chord cables Outdoors: Boombox+Creative Sub (If I remember to turn it on...) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57173 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Served music sounds better?
JezA;376833 Wrote: > AND/OR that the Tact processor, despite the claims of it's manufacturer, > is incapable of remaining uninfluenced by that amount of jitter. So, > either the Tact or the Nakamichi, as I said, is either useless or > broken - or poorly designed or poorly manufactured if you prefer less > inflammatory terms. > > So, take the Tact processor out. Listen again. Difference gone? Then > Marc Levinson can do a better job from the same SPDIF signal than Tact. > Junk the Tact. Same difference? Then it is the Nakamichi that is poorly > designed or manufactured. Junk it. Either way there is no evidence that > "Served music sounds better", just that good engineering performs better > than bad engineering. > > (Incidentally, I have to say I can't understand why you would put a > Tact processor between an SB3 and a DAC - surely you should do the same > processing that the Tact does on your server/pc?, or use the Tact to > pre-process your stored music. If it is so sensitive to jitter, why put > it in the signal path when it doesn't need to be there?). > > What I am challenging more generally is the assumption that if, say, > one $500 speaker cable sounds better in a $10k Stereophile-type review > system than another $500 speaker cable, then one cable is 'better' than > the other and you should buy it. Obviously, Stereophile and it's > advertisers would like you to spend more money, but why not deduce > instead that the amplifier involved isn't worth the (probably vast > amount of) money, since it should be capable of driving a wide range of > loads without being influenced by them. (Assuming of course that the > cables aren't absurd or inadequate electrically, and that the amp > manufacturer hasn't specified a particular brand of cable to use). So, > when you switch one component in a system and notice a difference - it > may point to an inadequacy (broken-ness, useless-ness) elsewhere in the > system, rather than an inherent advantage in the switched component. I'm having trouble understanding what on earth you are on about: The TACT in this case is doing its digital room correction thing - it is not acting as a DAC. The Nak and the SB are both connected to the TACT via its multiple SPDIF inputs and the TACT is connected to the DAC via its SPDIF output. Therefore the TACT is common to both signal chains and is NOT the source of the difference (although it is helping to magnify the difference). The TACT ASRC is sensitive to jitter. The source with the lowest jitter will sound better. Therefore the SB has lower jitter than the NAK mech. I really don't follow why you can't understand this! By the way, what is broken is a transport that generates jitter and the wretched SPDIF standard which guarantees jitter. As for the TACT vs server-side DRC... server-side DRC was not an option in 2004... and still isn't an option for people using CD players... Next year I will be re-evaluating the Inguz-style solution... -- 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+Stontronics PSU - Altmann JISCO/UPCI - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods)- Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Kimber & Chord cables Outdoors: Boombox+Creative Sub (If I remember to turn it on...) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57173 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How best to upgrade by system
Very helpful! I guess the clue was in the name wasn't it regarding what type of connector to use between the DAC and the amp(!!). Well, I've decided my setup needs a bit of an overhaul. I've never been satisfied with the Stereo sound quality of my Denon AVR (I have a basic Cambridge amp also connected to a SB3 in another room that I know sounds better for a fraction of the price), so... I'm thinking of the Arcam recommendation above. The price of the AVR280 and 350 seems to have tumbled recently. So, which one (with the aim to have the best Stereo sound, surround sound is less of a priority for me)? Is there a big difference in the Stereo output of the 280 v 350 to justify about £300 price diff? Once I have made that upgrade, then hopefully the upgrade to the DAC will make more sense. Oh, I contacted the seller on eBay about their "Digital Upgrade" for SB3s, costs about £120, and is designed to improve output ready for connection to a DAC. Anyone know if this "upgrade" is worth it? (search eBay for "Squeezebox Digital Upgrade"). Thanks again to everyone, Steve. -- swarduk swarduk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=20371 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57314 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
