Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Aperion Speakers & Peachtree
I have a Nova and a Touch but not the speakers mentioned. I think very highly of the Nova. The DAC is very good (not as good as my own DIY ones, but very good). The preamp section is actually quite good. The tube is not just window dressing, it actually sounds quite a bit better with it running. The Tube is only on the variable outs, thus the variable outs with the tube on sound a lot better than the fixed outputs. The power amp section is good but not great. Its not going to blow away $5k amps. I've put it up against some lower cost amps and its about on par with other well done $500 amps. I'm listening to a Nova driven by a Touch as I type this and the results are really quite good. Its interesting to compare the DAC in the Touch and the Nova, they are very close. I can put both analog outs and digital out from the Touch to the Nova and switch between them and only hear a slight difference. The digital into the Nova is very slightly better, but only after they have been on for several hours. Before things have warmed up I can't hear any difference. BTW the digital out from the Touch to the Nova is quite a bit better than the digital out from the SB3. Thats interesting since the Sabre DAC is supposed to be immune to external jitter, but thats not what I hear. BTW Peachtree says they have improved the performance of the power amp over the version I have, but I have not heard this. John S. -- JohnSwenson JohnSwenson's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5974 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76284 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
On the main subject of this thread there IS a reason that 176/192 might sound better, but the explanation is somewhat involved and I don't have time right now to put it all down. Maybe tomorrow I'll take a couple hours off from DAC design and give it a try. John S. -- JohnSwenson JohnSwenson's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5974 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Phil Leigh;527990 Wrote: > John - what's your view on after-market power supplies for the > SB3/Touch? > I'm pretty much convinced that there MIGHT be a very small benefit for > the SB3 s/pdif but I'm darned if I can find any benefit for the Touch > using its digital outputs... I've measured big differences using a linear supply for the SB3, but its not in the signal coming out of the DAC or digital outs. The switcher that comes with the SB3 injects a huge amount of noise into the power cord which winds up in the other boxes in the system unless you have very good power filtration in your system. The frequencies that come out of this switcher are rather pernicious, they are low enough that most "RF" filters don't touch them and high enough that they sail right through the stray capacitances of most power supplies. This is not just conjecture, I've measured it several times with many different pieces of equipment, power bars, power filters etc. Its rather interesting that the only equipment which does a good job filtering out this noise is boxes which also have switching supplies. The switcher has filters designed to keep its own noise out of the electronics which also does a good job blocking the noise from the SB3 supply. The result of this is that the effect of the noise from the SB3 switcher in general is far more noticeable on high end gear that uses good linear supplies than it is with "consumer" gear using swithing supplies. In my system the good linear supply does make a significant difference with the SB3. With the SB3 supply even if the SB3 is not providing the signal it makes a difference, which seems a pretty good indication that its not direct signal related but some other vector. Just plugging the switcher is not enough to cause the problem, it has to have a significant load (the SB3) in order for this to be an issue. I have not tried just a resistor as a load to the switcher and see if that degrades the sound from other sources. The switcher that comes with the Touch is vastly better than the one that came with the SB3. With it I cannot hear any difference using the switcher or the linear supply. When I have the touch in the listening room I just use its own switcher. One test I have NOT done, but probably should is to use the Touch's supply with the SB3. In addition to the noise injected into the AC line there IS noise radiated from the wires and the supply box itself which can get picked up by interconnects and other boxes. My measurements show this to be significantly less importance than the power cord born noise, but its still there. If an audiophile is using unshielded interconnects (which are popular in some circles) this source of noise can wind up being significant. Th SB3 itself also radiates a lot more RF than the Touch, but thats irrespective of what power supply you use. So yep, using a linear instead of the switcher that comes with the SB3 CAN make a big difference to sound. How much is going to be quite system dependant. For some its going to make a big difference others won't hear it at all and others will be inbetween. That little switcher that comes with the SB3 is so bad that it makes my skin crawl just thinking about it. I keep one on the floor in my listening room and stomp on it everytime I go in or out. I've been trying to come up with a good use for one, such as testing the ruggedness of a sledge hammer etc. That little thing is amazingly resiliant, I have not been able to damage it yet. A 15 pound sledge hammer with a really good swing would probably do it. John S. -- JohnSwenson JohnSwenson's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5974 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Michael, perhaps you should change your ID to "Don Quixote". But you do get a gold star for persistency ;-) -- mlsstl mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Pat, 1) Downsampling introduces artifacts, right? 2) Of course, Wave sounds same as flac. The purpose was to save CPU cycles on Transporter by doing the decompression on the server. What would be the CPU load on the Transporter for 192/24 raw wav file? -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: > regarding silly sampling rates, tell it to Linn, Lindberg, Classic > Records and others, ok? As P T Barnum said, no one has ever gone broke underestimating the intellegence of the American public. I have no problem with 88.2/24 or 96/24. I can't hear it, but I can believe it could be better. But I can't see any possible theoretical improvement for twice that rate. None. I have more than 30 microphones in my recording studio. None of them claim any response over 20kHz. They might have something over 20.0 kHz, but its going to have at least a 6 dB per octave rolloff, and more are more likely to have a 24 dB per octave rolloff. The point of higher rates is to avoid the brick wall filters needed at 22 kHz for redbook. You do that fine with 88.2 or 96 kHz. > Working with Wave files on the server reduces the load on the > Transporter. What are you talking about? There are no "wave" files that are more than RedBook. You can have PCM files at any rate/size you want, but it is not going to make it actually sound better. > >> Give it up. >> >> You have become a troll. And your SeanTrollScore for these recent posts >> is 0/10. See http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76315 You can't get a negative score on the SeanTrollScore, but we may have to change the rules just for you. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Pat, regarding silly sampling rates, tell it to Linn, Lindberg, Classic Records and others, ok? Working with Wave files on the server reduces the load on the Transporter. By which degree? is it enough to lift the limitation of higher bitrates? -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: >> What is the point of your continual posting in this thread? You are not >> going to change any facts. The firmware is not open source, the CPU is >> too slow. >> >> Accept it and move on with your life > If that's a pure software issue, it can be profiled and optimized. Its "software" in the TP, not in the server. You could have the server do any kind of transcoding you like, but it won't make the hardware/firmware support your silly sample rates. The firmware in the TP is not open source, its not going to be changed by anyone not employed by Logitech. And I bet its not going to be changed by anyone emplyeed at Logitech either. Give it up. You have become a troll. And your SeanTrollScore for these recent posts is 0/10. See http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76315 -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
If that's a pure software issue, it can be profiled and optimized. There was a post by Sean Adams, saying that different Flac compression ratio's generate different CPU load (make sense..) so, if the limitation would be to use pure wav files, while SqueezeCenter will decode? -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
If that's a pure software issue, it can be profiled and optimized. There was a post by Sean Adams, saying that different Flac compression ratio's generate different CPU load (make sense..) so, if the limitation would be to use pure wav files, while SqueezeCenter will decode? -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Thoughts on Parasound Halo amp/preamp potential purchase
It is a bit warm, not hot, even after 4-5 hours of continuous use. A21's first 10W are in pure Class A, then in Class AB -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76561 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Thoughts on Parasound Halo amp/preamp potential purchase
Aha. this makes sense. For my purposes I don't need the $10k+ amplifier. Running some older B&W speakers, but will likely change those as well. Speakers will be a much more extensive search/test. Thanks again. very useful info and nice to hear directly from a user of the parasound product. By the way, how hot would you say it runs. it would sit in a cabinet with lots of space/air around it, totally open back and vented (mesh) front doors. Currently running an ADCOM 5500 amp which the parasound would replace. the ADCOM has been very nice for an inexpensive amp. -- garym garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76561 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: > My choice was greatly based on the fact that Transporter is an open > platform. There is a good chance that your choice was based on incorrect understanding of the open license. The hardware has never been open source in any sense. None of the firmware has been open source, altho the Touch and other recent models have some pieces of software that is Open Source. > I agree about "marketing purposes"! > I know few people that do not buy it just because it does not support > 192/24 and 176.4/24.. Well, then they won't buy one. Are you really of the impression that the Transporter was ever a mass market device? It was an engineering tour-de-force, a flagship. And a labor of love by folks who are no longer part of the company. What is the point of your continual posting in this thread? You are not going to change any facts. The firmware is not open source, the CPU is too slow. Accept it and move on with your life -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Thoughts on Parasound Halo amp/preamp potential purchase
In A21, the signal from XLR input (balanced) got converted internally to unbalanced. It is not dual mono as well.. Some stereo amplifiers (but I am afraid not below 10,000$) actually contains symmetric halves for left and right signals, while each, in turn, contains identical circuits for + and - BTW, this is how Transporter is built. I just modded it, so I know.. Yet, be sure A21 sounds great, and beats many amps up to 5000$ (as I said, I tested few..) What are your speakers? -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76561 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
andyg;528229 Wrote: > No, it's already been said that it's not possible, I was just stating > that if it were, it probably still doesn't make a lot of sense, other > than for marketing purposes. I agree about "marketing purposes"! I know few people that do not buy it just because it does not support 192/24 and 176.4/24.. -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
No, it's already been said that it's not possible, I was just stating that if it were, it probably still doesn't make a lot of sense, other than for marketing purposes. -- andyg andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
andyg;528143 Wrote: > Of course it's not abandoned. But even if it were possible to support > 24/192 I'm not sure there's a real reason to do so. Can anyone > actually ABX accurately between 24/96 and higher sample rates? I have few HDAD albums by Classic Records with both 96/24 and 192/24 layers. If my comparison will convince the management to add support of new sampling rates, will do (how will I do that?) I just do not want to downsample anything. I have absolutely fabulous recording of Lindberg 2L in 192/24, why should I convert them? These recording were made in DXD (384KHz I think) And to the guys that do not (even) need 96/24, why did you buy Transporter? Good mastering of 96/24 has an edge over 44.1/24 and surely over 44.1/16 -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Thoughts on Parasound Halo amp/preamp potential purchase
Thanks. Interesting about the not fully balanced. I read something about that but I'm afraid I don't fully understand the implications. I understand (I think) balanced vs unbalanced in general. -- garym garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76561 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Thoughts on Parasound Halo amp/preamp potential purchase
I have A21 and love it! When bought my speakers (MSRP 22K US$), I checked Octave and VAC, costing few times more. A21 was the one that sounded most balanced, details, punchy bass, etc. Note though that while Transporter is fully balanced, A21 is not. It is still very clean and very dynamic. I think I was lucky that I bought A21, I did not know that much about the amp then.. It is year after year Recommended Component in absolute sound & stereophile.. -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76561 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Thoughts on Parasound Halo amp/preamp potential purchase
Seeking comments (or alternatives) to the possible purchase of these two items. Looking for mid-fi (meaning price) stereo and drawn to these units as I like the balanced inputs (at a relatively low price) and I actually do run a turntable, so the builtin phono inputs on the preamp are useful. Mostly will be using to run Transporter into preamp with Balanced Inputs. Parasound - Halo A21 Two-Channel Amplifier http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=PAHA21 Parasound - Halo P3 Balanced Preamplifier http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=PAHP3 -- garym garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76561 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
paulduggan;528201 Wrote: > There are consumer benefits to owning a powerful sports car that are not > psychological. > What are the consumer benefits of >96Khz sampling? (I'm not convinced > there are any benefits >44.1Khz given good mastering but 96Khz seems to > give some headroom for sloppiness). So why -should- you make the TP > support 192Khz? You shouldn't - its end of line. Buyer gets what the specification is makes choice, then shouldn't have major expectations of performance changes. Dave -- DaveWr DaveWr's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9331 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Robin Bowes;528198 Wrote: > On 26/03/10 14:43, DaveWr wrote: > > > > And Ferrari's exceed the UK speed limit. > > and are generally driven by dickheads, with more money than sense. > > :) > > R. OK Ford Focus - same issue. -- DaveWr DaveWr's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9331 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
There are consumer benefits to owning a powerful sports car that are not psychological. What are the consumer benefits of >96Khz sampling? (I'm not convinced there are any benefits >44.1Khz given good mastering but 96Khz seems to give some headroom for sloppiness). So why -should- you make the TP support 192Khz? -- paulduggan paulduggan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=30396 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
On 26/03/10 14:43, DaveWr wrote: > > And Ferrari's exceed the UK speed limit. ...and are generally driven by dickheads, with more money than sense. :) R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
And Ferrari's exceed the UK speed limit. Dave -- DaveWr DaveWr's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9331 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
iPhone;528169 Wrote: > ...24/96 basically already exceeds most peoples listening range. Read: '-far- exceeds -everyone's- hearing range'. Unless you are a young dog (some breeds) or a dolphin. But hairy ears and water as a medium bring their own problems. -- paulduggan paulduggan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=30396 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123;528097 Wrote: > 192/24 is not the top goal for me, merely a (frustrating) limitation. > Is it completely abandoned product in Logitech? > What about few bugs promised to fix? (like pseudo over-voltage, > updating flac library so the device will not stuck on certain bitrates, > ..) > It is not so old product.. less than 4 years.. > Product in high-end arena live sometimes for 15 years.. > > Is there any possibility a developer with (little, but available) spare > time can help maintaining Transporter? I am with AndyG on this one. This is pretty much a waste of time. It is next to impossible to ABX 24/192 with 24/96. Sure if one starts doing stupid things like down-sampling the 24/192 to 24/96 then saving the down-sampled file for playback one might if one has super ears of a pre-ten year old notice some slight differences IE artifacts. But 24/96 native playback versus 24/192 native playback differences are all in ones imagination or ones brain is fooling ones ears in a vain attempt to justify the wasted money on buying such high formats and the equipment required to play them back. Besides most peoples home playback systems can't even start to take advantage of the minute slight difference between the two. Just look at all the effort you have already put into this for the 40 something titles. Keep collecting 24/96 and in ten years there might be a decent amount of available 24/192 material at cheaper prices plus a larger number of playback products to choose from. Until then, download the free Vortexbox software and buy a high end 24/192 audio card for your Vortexbox PC. Don't get me wrong, I think 24/192 is something to look forward to when technology can make the difference to 24/96 worth the trouble or when Obamacare starts paying for those free bionic ear replacements so seniors can drive safer due to perfect hearing which also happens to be better then current human hearing. Which I guess is really my main point, ones hearing range is just not able to hear the extra frequency range and further lowering of the noise floor that comes with 24/192 simply because 24/96 basically already exceeds most peoples listening range. As an example, do you really think with the best stereo setup you could afford that you could hear the difference between a 16 bit and 18 bit sample of the same recording. If you say you could, then you have proved my point. Once the bit rate gets to 24 and the sample rate reaches 96KHz, anything higher really only practically matters for making masters. With todays available playback equipment, ones own ears have become the limiting factor not the bit depth or the sampling frequency. -- iPhone *iPhone* Media Room: Transporter, VTL TL-6.5 Signature Pre-Amp, Ayre MX-R Mono's, VeraStarr 6.4SE 6-channel Amp, Vandersteen Speakers: Quatro Mains, VCC-5 Reference Center, four VSM-1 Signatures, Video: Runco RS 900 CineWide AutoScope 2.35:1 Living Room: Duet, ADCOM GTP-870HD, Cinepro 3K6SE III Gold, Vandersteen Model 3A Signature, Two 2Wq subs, VCC-2, Two VSM-1 Kitchen: Squeezebox BOOM Bedroom: Second Boom Bathroom: Squeezebox Radio Ford Thunderbird: Duet, Mac Mini Ford Expedition: SB Touch, USB drive iPhone's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13622 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Finally, the elephant in the thread gets outed! -- paulduggan paulduggan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=30396 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Of course it's not abandoned. But even if it were possible to support 24/192 I'm not sure there's a real reason to do so. Can anyone actually ABX accurately between 24/96 and higher sample rates? -- andyg andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
