[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Switching to slow rollof filter in AK4396
Hi, Would it be possible to make the choice between slow and sharp rolloff filter in the AK4396 (transporter) user selectable? Personally I would be very interested to compare (subjectively) the difference. Ronald. -- tingtong5 tingtong5's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9671 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76763 ___ 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;529507 Wrote: Transporter is a killer product, i think it deserves more attention. Michael, I appreciate you dogged pursuit of answers in this thread. That's really the only way good things ever get done. You ran into a bit of a no can do attitude but it resulted in one of the more interesting threads here for some time. -- wireless200 wireless200's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11887 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] Linn Classical Radio Uk
Thanks for the post. These streams are an excellent example of how satisfying 256-320kbs content can be when recorded properly. -- esbrewer Server: 2.4GHz Intel iMac running Mac OS 10.6.2, SBS 7.4.2, Inguz DRC Sources: SB3 (2), SB Boom, NAD C542, NAD T515 Amplification: NAD C720BEE Loudspeakers: Paradigm Studio 20 (v.1), SVS SB-12 Plus Headphones: Grado SR60, Etymotic ER4P http://www.last.fm/user/esbrewer esbrewer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12409 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76536 ___ 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?
Thanks, wireless200. mlsstl, If one is not mixing and editing multi-track files, what purpose is being served at 192K sample rates? Then why is the need to work with 192KHz at all? Why the industry adopts DXD, which is 384Hz, I think..? I saw few labels going this way, and there is hardware available of course.. There is one interesting article, comparing analog and different digital techniques: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles/427-a-secrets-technical-article.html Even with 192/24, analog still has an edge over digital recording (see here, for example - http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles/427-a-secrets-technical-article.html?start=3) I think the main idea of high-resolution is to provide a proper substitute to vinyl and/or master tape. HDAD by Classic Records indeed sounds very close, still older records sound much better on turntable than on computer. Recent (USB) release of Beatles was 44.1/24, but, as I understood, it was digitized on much higher sample rate, and will be re-released in the future. -- 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;529986 Wrote: Thanks, wireless200. mlsstl, Then why is the need to work with 192KHz at all? Why the industry adopts DXD, which is 384Hz, I think..? I saw few labels going this way, and there is hardware available of course.. There is one interesting article, comparing analog and different digital techniques: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles/427-a-secrets-technical-article.html Even with 192/24, analog still has an edge over digital recording (see here, for example - http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles/427-a-secrets-technical-article.html?start=3) I think the main idea of high-resolution is to provide a proper substitute to vinyl and/or master tape. HDAD by Classic Records indeed sounds very close, still older records sound much better on turntable than on computer. Recent (USB) release of Beatles was 44.1/24, but, as I understood, it was digitized on much higher sample rate, and will be re-released in the future. Problem is nobody cares. You'll have a few esoteric recordings from boutique studios that will sell six copies to audiophiles but the popular mainstream lables will continue to ship junk product. -- ghostrider ghostrider's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18959 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;529986 Wrote: Thanks, wireless200. mlsstl, Then why is the need to work with 192KHz at all? Why the industry adopts DXD, which is 384Hz, I think..? I saw few labels going this way, and there is hardware available of course.. There is one interesting article, comparing analog and different digital techniques: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles/427-a-secrets-technical-article.html Even with 192/24, analog still has an edge over digital recording (see here, for example - http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles/427-a-secrets-technical-article.html?start=3) I think the main idea of high-resolution is to provide a proper substitute to vinyl and/or master tape. HDAD by Classic Records indeed sounds very close, still older records sound much better on turntable than on computer. Recent (USB) release of Beatles was 44.1/24, but, as I understood, it was digitized on much higher sample rate, and will be re-released in the future. Problem is nobody cares. You'll have a few esoteric recordings from boutique studios that will sell six copies to audiophiles but the popular mainstream lables will continue to ship junk product. -- ghostrider ghostrider's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18959 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?
That's not exact. The market of vinyl is booming. Records go for 30$, 50$, 100$, ... I see more audiophiles that switched to CD 10-15 years ago and now go back to turntable. Because of a sound. If there will be more material to buy, these guys will. There is no point to own 100,000$ stereo system and feed it with CD mastered with 'loudness wars' in mind. For me, turntable is simply impractical. I took a strategic decision to go media-less. I do not have any room to store these pancakes. -- 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;529986 Wrote: Thanks, wireless200. mlsstl, Then why is the need to work with 192KHz at all? Why the industry adopts DXD, which is 384Hz, I think..? I saw few labels going this way, and there is hardware available of course.. There is one interesting article, comparing analog and different digital techniques: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles/427-a-secrets-technical-article.html Even with 192/24, analog still has an edge over digital recording (see here, for example - http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles/427-a-secrets-technical-article.html?start=3) I think the main idea of high-resolution is to provide a proper substitute to vinyl and/or master tape. HDAD by Classic Records indeed sounds very close, still older records sound much better on turntable than on computer. Recent (USB) release of Beatles was 44.1/24, but, as I understood, it was digitized on much higher sample rate, and will be re-released in the future. That article you linked to is the same old misinformed rubbish that has been washing around the internet and in (some) hi-fi mags for years. Please don't show me another jagged sine wave... So you can't record a 10kHz sine wave perfectly at 44.1kHz, huh? Clearly Shannon et al were misguided fools... Why can't people learn that the way the wave gets drawn on the screen by some software says nothing - NOTHING - about how it sounds. There is NO veracity in that article. Nothing scientific in it at all. It's just trying to prop up the old agenda that digital ain't as good as analogue. This is just silly. Analogue has some lovely added distortion that a lot of people like. Accurate it simply isn't. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... SB Touch Beta (wired) - 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, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 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 1) Did you listen to quality analog rig? 2) If you did not read the article, please do. That's not black white. I am not a vinyl lover, but I do listen frequently to quality gear. Many digital recordings have that 'edginess', vinyl sounds more 'smooth' There are some measurements in the article, taken with Tektronix and Audio Precision (I think), I do not understand why did you have to call it 'old misinformed rubbish'. -- 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?
Phil Leigh;52 Wrote: This is just silly. Analogue has some lovely added distortion that a lot of people like. Accurate it simply isn't. Well, not quite true. A lot of quality recordings are made on analogue gear, and, having them on CD doesn't make them more accurate... ;) As for the rest, you're right: there can be fine digital recordings. Although it took the industry some 20 years to get them right. -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Croft 25Pre and Series 7 power - 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=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;530001 Wrote: Many digital recordings have that 'edginess', vinyl sounds more 'smooth' The catch is those graphs are not comparing digital to analog ... there is no analog source depicted for comparison: you are left to fill out the ideal curves in your head. Believing those ideal curves are representative of how an analog source would display, however, is an error. All they show is that digital is an approximation and at enough of a 'zoom level' you can see the edges of the line. So what? Zoom in that close on a real world analog signal (which medium? Vinyl isn't the only analog medium) and you will see distortion. It's not even a question of is it audible, it's a question of implying that analog sources somehow make a magical sine wave with no distortiona at all, which is plain and simply not true. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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?
Themis wrote: Phil Leigh;52 Wrote: This is just silly. Analogue has some lovely added distortion that a lot of people like. Accurate it simply isn't. Well, not quite true. A lot of quality recordings are made on analogue gear, and, having them on CD doesn't make them more accurate... ;) Well, there are two kinds of accuracy here, often confused. If a CD/DVD-A is properly made, it can be accurate to the source per the Nyquist frequency. It can be engineered to be as close to accurately replicating the vinyl signal as you want. Audiophiles often claim accuracy when they like something. And most audiophiles love the added even harmonic distortions that tubes/valves and vinyl have in spades. As for the rest, you're right: there can be fine digital recordings. Although it took the industry some 20 years to get them right. I wouldn't say it took 20 years to get right. It did take five to ten years. The problem is that the music industry (and the RIAA) have no interest in music. They care only about sales and revenue. Its only the boutique folks that care at all about quality, accuracy, etc. -- 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?
snarlydwarf;530004 Wrote: The catch is those graphs are not comparing digital to analog ... there is no analog source depicted for comparison: you are left to fill out the ideal curves in your head. Believing those ideal curves are representative of how an analog source would display, however, is an error. All they show is that digital is an approximation and at enough of a 'zoom level' you can see the edges of the line. So what? Zoom in that close on a real world analog signal (which medium? Vinyl isn't the only analog medium) and you will see distortion. It's not even a question of is it audible, it's a question of implying that analog sources somehow make a magical sine wave with no distortiona at all, which is plain and simply not true. I was not talking about graphs, that was my pure listening experience. In ideal world, I would simply have turntable for older recordings (like Miles Davis, Coltrane, etc.) -- 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] Switching to slow rollof filter in AK4396
I asked that already in another thread but none of the developers answered. In theory it should be set in the same way the Transporter chooses polarity. Only one flag in a register. Sadly i have the feeling the Transporter is seeing EOL soon and no one from the devs want to change anything on the Transporter anymore. -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76763 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Switching to slow rollof filter in AK4396
Wombat wrote: Sadly i have the feeling the Transporter is seeing EOL soon and no one from the devs want to change anything on the Transporter anymore. Well, its been documented that the diplays are EOL. And Logitech has moved to a new fundamental platform for the internals. I would expect that there is no business case for putting much effort into the Transporter. I have no idea what the suitable definition of much is, but I expect its close to zero. -- 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?
michael123;530007 Wrote: I was not talking about graphs, that was my pure listening experience. Then your citations to those articles was meaningless? I must not understand how you could be not talking about graphs when you cited them as proof of the limits of digital reproduction. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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?
snarlydwarf;530013 Wrote: Then your citations to those articles was meaningless? I must not understand how you could be not talking about graphs when you cited them as proof of the limits of digital reproduction. Measurements might be the proof to the listening experience. Listening per se is very subjective. RE: Distortion and tubes - that's again not exact. There is some very good quality gear that by combining both tubes and solid state gives very impressive results. Talking about 'tube sound', 'vinyl distortion' is prejudgment. I was listening to some Brinkmann 30,000$ turntable on last Munich HE Show year ago, you could not tell you were hearing to to vinyl. -- 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;529998 Wrote: That's not exact. The market of vinyl is booming. Records go for 30$, 50$, 100$, ... I see more audiophiles that switched to CD 10-15 years ago and now go back to turntable. Because of a sound. If there will be more material to buy, these guys will. There is no point to own 100,000$ stereo system and feed it with CD mastered with 'loudness wars' in mind. For me, turntable is simply impractical. I took a strategic decision to go media-less. I do not have any room to store these pancakes. My reply addresses points from a couple of different posts, but the above is as good a place to start as any. 1. Sure, LP sales are up, but compared to what? Vinyl record sale are estimated at 2,8 million for 2009. That's less than 1% of album sales. I can also spend a lot on a horse saddle, but that doesn't mean horses are on track to replace cars in the next couple of years. 2. Sound quality - I've converted well over 2,000 LPs and open reels in my personal collection to digital for my server. (That's been an 8 year project that is still underway.) As such, I've compared a lot of vinyl directly to digital. The other day I converted a 1979 Nancy Wilson LP to CD for a friend. One track on the LP was damaged so I downloaded the track from Amazon so she could have a complete album. The difference was dramatic so I downloaded a copy of one of the undamaged tracks. While both the LP and the download were from the original 1979 master tape, the (proudly declared) remastered download had been overprocessed and sounded aggressive and hot compared to the LP. Note that my digital conversion sounded just fine. The point is it wasn't the format! It was what the producers and engineers had intentionally chosen to do in their remastering. I've got any number of CDs that are well recorded and a delight to listen to. I've got a bunch of LPs that are downright nasty sounding. Forget the storage format - I like recordings that are good music and that have been handled by producers and engineers who care about sound. That doesn't require a return to analog open reel masters and LPs or everyone switching to a 192K sample rate. It takes artists, producers and engineers who are willing to buck the current fads and fashions of recording. As far as sample rates, where does one stop? If 192K is better, why not 1,028K, or 2,056K? I know I spoke of Dan Lavry before, but he makes a very strong case that super high bit rates are little more than a novelty in many ways, and may well be solving a problem that is a non-issue and creating other problems. In multi-track mixing there is the issue of noise levels when mixing tracks with disparate volume levels, but that is not an issue in playback of a released recording with a set mix. Personally, I've heard enough music on ordinary formats to know the results can be outstanding. For me, I'd just as soon have them forget chasing 192K sample rates and just have them learn to reuse the old equipment! Far too many audiophile recordings are an excuse for an examination of a pop singer's tonsils or a too-bright classical recording with highlight mikes balanced in a way one would never hear at a concert. Sorry for the rant, but in light of the prevailing fads in music recording these days, worrying about 192K sample rate is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. -- 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] Thoughts on Parasound Halo amp/preamp potential purchase
garym;528215 Wrote: Parasound - Halo P3 Balanced Preamplifier http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=PAHP3 This Preamplifier is not very good. I had it some years ago. There is a lot of functions in it, but sound is not very good, and there is a small noise. It would be better for you to find another preamplifier (maybe passive preamplifier). -- Mr.Vlad Mr.Vlad's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=36017 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?
pfarrell;530005 Wrote: Audiophiles often claim accuracy when they like something. And most audiophiles love the added even harmonic distortions that tubes/valves and vinyl have in spades. This is a caricature, as you know. My tube amplifiers have no more distortion than the ss ones. No properly designed tube gear has distortion in spades. That's funny, replying to a caricature (cold CD sound) by another (harmonic distortions is spades). :) -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Croft 25Pre and Series 7 power - 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=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?
mlsstl so, how would you compare the rip played through Transporter to original LP record? I also have few rips of my friends, and there is some loss in resolution, separation and clarity (given that the rip is done using 24/96). It is very close, though. -- 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
