Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Blind listening - TT3.0, HWmods and Teddy Pardo PSU
magiccarpetride wrote: > We live in a free society Yup. With angels & trolls and everything. NoRoDa's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=49139 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94418 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Blind listening - TT3.0, HWmods and Teddy Pardo PSU
lake_eleven wrote: > Did you make any changes on the system running LMS, like running > Fidelizer? I believe that the server is running Fidelizer, but I'm not shure. NoRoDa's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=49139 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94418 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Multichannel streaming, anyone? 'Transporter Ultimate' fantasy :-)
a hdmi only squeezebox reciever for 100$ no other output :) (8*spdif would be interesting to me but very few people other than meridian owners could benefit from it ) Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94710 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Multichannel streaming, anyone? 'Transporter Ultimate' fantasy :-)
Yep! foobar does this wonderfully! TheOctavist's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=52700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94710 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Blind listening - TT3.0, HWmods and Teddy Pardo PSU
NoRoDa wrote: > The tests: > > WLAN SBT factory w/Teddy VS WIRED SBT/HW/TT3.0/TEDDY > - SBT factory preferred in all repetitions > > WLAN SBT factory w/Teddy VS WLAN SBT factory + HW w/Teddy > - Not possible to hear a difference > > Toshiba HD DVD digital output VS WLAN SBT factory w/Teddy > - We believe we heard a small difference, but it was not clear enough to > be able to point out what we listened to. --> Not possible to hear a > clear difference > > WLAN SBT factory w/Teddy VS WLAN SBT factory Woriginal PSU. > - Clear difference. > Comment: Some may actually enjoy the original PSU with it's > "dynamic'n'fresh" sound, more noise and more "energy". But after several > repetitions the preferred while listening blind was the Teddy. Both > calmer and with a greater sense of dynamic range. > Regards > Rolf Did you make any changes on the system running LMS, like running Fidelizer? lake_eleven's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=48979 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94418 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Digital-In with DEQ2496 in loop
cliveb wrote: > And you can also go Airport Express > NAD, and use the NAD's remote to > select the appropriate digital input - job done. > > It strikes me that if you do go this route, you can think about selling > the Transporter (whose DAC and I/O flexibility you won't be using) and > replace it with a Touch. Of course, you need to audition the NAD before > you do this, to make sure you like the sound of its DAC and power amp. Some argue that better choice would be HK-990 better features but class A/B. I don't know if C390DD would be able to drive Magnepans 1.7. My current NAD C272 struggles on lower frequencies. They are extremely inefficient speakers. I have two C272 and had them bridged, which sounds much better but they are not 4 ohm stable when bridged. NAD is also overpriced, I can get DEQX-E with Emotiva XPA-2 and still beat NAD on price, feature and performance. MediaCenter's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32623 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94592 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Blind listening - TT3.0, HWmods and Teddy Pardo PSU
magiccarpetride wrote: > That's yet another myth promulgated by the haters. I have both SBT and > Duet feeding into the same DAC, and there is no, nor could ever be any > difference in the osund quality between these two digital transports. I didn't say there was a difference...just that many people here have asserted a difference. But I'm a bit surprised at your response as you've previously reported massive improvements from TT2.0/3.0 mods on your TOUCH, which is entirely inconsistent with your statement above. garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94418 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Blind listening - TT3.0, HWmods and Teddy Pardo PSU
garym wrote: > I didn't say there was a difference...just that many people here have > asserted a difference. But I'm a bit surprised at your response as > you've previously reported massive improvements from TT2.0/3.0 mods on > your TOUCH, which is entirely inconsistent with your statement above. We live in a free society where a person has every right to change his opinion under the weight of amassed evidence, no? magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94418 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Blind listening - TT3.0, HWmods and Teddy Pardo PSU
garym wrote: > Also consider the question of how digital feeding a DAC from a duet may > not be as good as from a Touch. That's yet another myth promulgated by the haters. I have both SBT and Duet feeding into the same DAC, and there is no, nor could ever be any difference in the osund quality between these two digital transports. magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94418 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Multichannel streaming, anyone? 'Transporter Ultimate' fantasy :-)
Archimago wrote: > Over the years of building my digital music server, I've been adding > 5.1/5.0/4.0 FLAC's along the way as I rip DVD-A and SACD's (haven't done > any Blu-Ray yet). They're either 24/96 or 24/88. > > I looked at the directory today and see that I already have about 100 > albums at this point of multichannel material. > > I'm curious, is anyone doing any multichannel streaming out there? I > assume the most likely way to do this currently would be a PC/Mac --> > HDMI receiver. I would certainly love to be able to integrate this > collection into my LMS library as a single point of access some day! > > If something like the following exists, I suspect I'd be set for life > :-): > - Decodes 16/24-bit, 44/48/88/96/176/192 kHz stereo > - Decodes 16/24-bit, 44/48/88/96 kHz 5.1 multichannel > - Analogue Output: RCA and balanced with quality close to the > Transporter (quite hard to beat based on measurements) > - Digital inputs: gigabit Ethernet, TosLink, coaxial, HDMI, USB, WiFi > 802.11ac (coming later this year I think) > - Digital outputs: TosLink & coaxial downmix, HDMI passthru for > multichannel to outboard DAC > - A good screen that's dimmable / switch off - like the Touch, maybe > higher res and larger, no need for touch screen function > - A few buttons would be nice like on the current Transporter (no need > for the feedback wheel despite the coolness!) > > - Integrates into the LMS server! > > Price: ~$3000 seems fair... Why not just use a $400 laptop (with HDMI out) and foobar2000 to drive it? Mike Sargent's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=48115 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94710 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Blind listening - TT3.0, HWmods and Teddy Pardo PSU
TheOctavist wrote: > PSUs make no difference. > > another tweak that comes up empty. > > the PSU in the touch is more than fit for purpose. Time to downgrade my PSU. I really don't need something in my system that is more than fit for the purpose. I want everything to be just fit for the purpose. Anyone wants to buy a stock SBT PSU off me? I'll cut you a deal. magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94418 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Is this a good way to go?
pippin wrote: > So > a) you are comparing different devices. The network connection > characteristic could be different. How is the Logi App behaving on your > iPhone? There are really only two possible reasons for a long latency: > 1. iPeng was quit in the background > 2. The network connection takes time to establish > Network connection behavior is different between iPhone and iPad because > iPad has a mch bigger battery to play around with so is not as > nitpicking with conserving power. > > b) Also, you are using an outdated version of iPeng. Please try 1.5.1, > it's got a newer memory management because it doesn't have to support > iOS 3 anymore which can help to keep it from being completely shut down > in the background. > > > You can download iPeng for iPhone on the iPad for free but if you want > to use the iPad version you'd have to pay again. You will get a discount > for the playback (on both devices) if you own both Apps, though. If you > have already purchased playback you can use it on the iPad, too (for > free), but you'd have to activate it in the iPhone App (on the iPad) > because on the App Store you can not share the same In-App-Purchase > between two Apps. > Just always use the green "Restore Previous Purchase" button instead of > the red "Purchase Playback" button to be on the safe side. > Here are the details: > http://penguinlovesmusic.de/2011/03/18/new-ipeng-versions-update-playback-change-discount-model/ Thanks for the clarifications and for the instructions. Mucho appreciated. I would love to get iPeng at near-zero latency levels, because that's the only less than stellar aspect of that app. Everything else about it is brilliant! magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94645 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] There is life after the Soundcheck TT mods..
When the inquiry is in response to someone else's claim, I would mostly, but not totally, agree. Sometimes a claim, even if it may sound odd or spurious, can stimulate someone to a path of inquiry that ultimately ends in new discovery. And, as I know has been brought up previoiusly, to blanket-apply an arbritrary rule that says, essentially, if you don't meet whatever I (or somebody else) define as the "burden of proof", we will all deem your idea as moronic and unworthy would seem, at least in a historical context, to have precluded some of the great scientific lines of inquiry. But I certainly see your point. Indeed, science does not require one to follow all leads---vetting what one believes is reasonable, vs. what is not, is appropriate---if for nothing else but time management. But, the *original* (which is what I really should have emphasized, in my first reply) researcher, working in his/her lab, isn't necessarily responding to someone else's need to convince him that something is or is not "worthwhile" to pursue, nor is he attempting to prove or disprove someone else's theory(s). So, in that case, the burden of proof is not in the decision as to whether or not to pursue the inquiry, but in the proving of the results of the inquiry, itself. At that point, it most certainly is matter of others verifying and replicating your results. But--again, at the origin of an idea, to simply not try an experiment because you have an unfounded expectation that it won't work does, potentially, cut off what might otherwise have been a productive line of inquiry. Soulkeeper wrote: > I'm not a scientist, but I like to think that I know a thing or two > about the process and standards of science, so here goes: > > Some homeopaths seem to demand that genuine medicine researchers spend > all their time trying to support the homeopaths claims about homeopathy. > But the vast majority of medicine researchers are not interested in > doing that, because they feel homeopathy has had its chance, and failed, > and they've got better things to spend their time on. > > Is it reasonable to say that this means that the vast majority of > medicine researchers are being unscientific? I don't think so. > Scientific inquiry doesn't require you to follow all leads. Only those > who seem worthwhile. > > What seems worthwhile to me may not seem worthwhile to you, and vice > versa. But if *you* think it is worthwhile, then it's up to *you* to > come up with some objective studies that can convince *me* to use *my* > time to confirm or refute your findings. Unsubstantiated claims like > "this quantum pebble placed on my speakers magically made the sound 1000 > times better" are simply not convincing. (I won't go into details about > the reasons why it is not convincing, that is, unless you insist.) > > Not being convinced by specious claims is simply not unscientific, and I > think claiming the opposite represents a straw man version of the > standards of science. > > > > Not unless a convincingly executed double blind tests says there is a > difference. Then it would be inconsistent to refuse to (provisionally) > accept the results without conducting your own double blind test of > equal or better quality. > > But -if the original claim is not backed up by a double blind test to > begin with, refusing to spend time on doing your own double blind test > would not be inconsistent-. And if you think it is, you should probably > read up on the concept of 'burden of proof' > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof). (The > Wikipedia article is short, but the 'Internet is big' > (https://www.google.com/search?q=burden+of+proof).) rgro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94770 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Digital-In with DEQ2496 in loop
cliveb wrote: > And you can also go Airport Express > NAD, and use the NAD's remote to > select the appropriate digital input - job done. > > It strikes me that if you do go this route, you can think about selling > the Transporter (whose DAC and I/O flexibility you won't be using) and > replace it with a Touch. Of course, you need to audition the NAD before > you do this, to make sure you like the sound of its DAC and power amp. That would be the winner if the NAD C390DD is as good as it is claimed to be , it has unusually good spec for a switchmode amp and for an amp of any kind ,it has highish output impedance in the treble (sine reconstruction filter ) but counter that with a setting for speaker impedance that rectifies some of the deviation because of that. Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94592 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] There is life after the Soundcheck TT mods..
rgro wrote: > But the notion that, because you don't expect something to elicit a > change---good or bad, you refuse to try it, runs contrary to scientific > inquiry. I'm not a scientist, but I like to think that I know a thing or two about the process and standards of science, so here goes: Some homeopaths seem to demand that genuine medicine researchers spend all their time trying to support the homeopaths claims about homeopathy. But the vast majority of medicine researchers are not interested in doing that, because they feel homeopathy has had its chance, and failed, and they've got better things to spend their time on. Is it reasonable to say that this means that the vast majority of medicine researchers are being unscientific? I don't think so. Scientific inquiry doesn't require you to follow all leads. Only those who seem worthwhile. What seems worthwhile to me may not seem worthwhile to you, and vice versa. But if *you* think it is worthwhile, then it's up to *you* to come up with some objective studies that can convince *me* to use *my* time to confirm or refute your findings. Unsubstantiated claims like "this quantum pebble placed on my speakers magically made the sound 1000 times better" are simply not convincing. (I won't go into details about the reasons why it is not convincing, that is, unless you insist.) Not being convinced by specious claims is simply not unscientific, and I think claiming the opposite represents a straw man version of the standards of science. rgro wrote: > The audiophile/phool demanding that a :"scientific" double double blind > test be the gold standard of accepting as to whether a change is heard > and then refusing to conduct the same "scientific" test simply because > he/she doesn't *expect* anything to happen is, to put it mildy, just a > little inconsistent. Not unless a convincingly executed double blind tests says there is a difference. Then it would be inconcistent to refuse to (provisionally) accept the results without conducting your own double blind test of equal or better quality. But -if the original claim is not backed up by a double blind test to begin with, refusing to spend time on doing your own double blind test would not be inconcistent-. And if you think it is, you should probably read up on the concept of 'burden of proof' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof). Soulkeeper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35297 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94770 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
TheOctavist wrote: > oddly enough my forum language settings have changed to french. > > > now when I go to post, or confront someone in the forum, the page runs > away and surrenders. > > Odd behavior. U.this is in pretty poor taste/offensive. If I were you, I'd quietly delete. rgro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] There is life after the Soundcheck TT mods..
Well, on that point, you'll get no argument! But the notion that, because you don't expect something to elicit a change---good or bad, you refuse to try it, runs contrary to scientific inquiry. The audiophile/phool demanding that a :"scientific" double double blind test be the gold standard of accepting as to whether a change is heard and then refusing to conduct the same "scientific" test simply because he/she doesn't *expect* anything to happen is, to put it mildy, just a little inconsistent. Soulkeeper wrote: > Audiophilia can be many things, but science it is not. You rarely see > 'acoustic engineers' > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustical_engineering) bothering to call > themselves audiophiles, and you can't honestly call the majority of > audiophools acoustic engineers. > > Conflating audiophilia with science is like conflating homeopathy or > cryptozoology with science ... wait a minute, I saw 'a great comic > today' (http://www.treelobsters.com/2012/04/365-accomplishment.html) by > the way, 'via' > (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/04/16/tree-lobsters-accomplishment/) > 'Phil Plait's blog' > (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/05/09/science-fare/). > One should give credit where credit is due. rgro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94770 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Digital-In with DEQ2496 in loop
MediaCenter wrote: > If am using NAD C390DD, I'll just go TP > NAD and wouldn't buy DEQ. I'll > use the parametric in NAD to fix the room modes. And you can also go Airport Express > NAD, and use the NAD's remote to select the appropriate digital input - job done. It strikes me that if you do go this route, you can think about selling the Transporter (whose DAC and I/O flexibility you won't be using) and replace it with a Touch. Of course, you need to audition the NAD before you do this, to make sure you like the sound of its DAC and power amp. cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94592 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Digital-In with DEQ2496 in loop
Mnyb wrote: > If you plan to use the NAD C390DD why do you need the loop ?the DEQ2496 > does it not have digital in and out . > > Then , transporter -digital- DEQ -digital -NAD would be the obvius > connection . can the DEC be input switch ? or you could place one there > . > (in this config a transporter may be overkill as it's dac is no longer > needed,but yoy already have one ) If am using NAD C390DD, I'll just go TP > NAD and wouldn't buy DEQ. I'll use the parametric in NAD to fix the room modes. MediaCenter's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32623 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94592 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Digital-In with DEQ2496 in loop
Mnyb wrote: > If you plan to use the NAD C390DD why do you need the loop ?the DEQ2496 > does it not have digital in and out . > > Then , transporter -digital- DEQ -digital -NAD would be the obvius > connection . can the DEC be input switch ? or you could place one there > . > (in this config a transporter may be overkill as it's dac is no longer > needed,but yoy already have one ) Actually i think the NAD may have its own DRC (at least in the bass) so the DEQ may not be necessary (as well as the loop) adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94592 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Digital-In with DEQ2496 in loop
If you plan to use the NAD C390DD why do you need the loop ?the DEQ2496 does it not have digital in and out . Then , transporter -digital- DEQ -digital -NAD would be the obvius connection . can the DEC be input switch ? or you could place one there . (in this config a transporter may be overkill as it's dac is no longer needed,but yoy already have one ) Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94592 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] There is life after the Soundcheck TT mods..
rgro wrote: > I wholeheartedly disagree, sir. Science of all kinds, including the > empiricism we all adore here, would be in sad shape if this was one of > its core principles. Audiophilia can be many things, but science it is not. Soulkeeper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35297 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94770 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] There is life after the Soundcheck TT mods..
magiccarpetride wrote: > I know. But theoretically there is no chance that making changes on SBT > could result in measurably audible differences. Or let me put it this > way: we haven't seen any metrics that would corroborate such a > hypothesis. So you claiming to be able to hear those differences can > only raise eyebrows. Even if it's raised eyebrows with closed eyes. You have to read more ;) Phil Leigh has already shown that TT3.0 "all-out" does change the output measureably. NoRoDa's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=49139 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94770 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Blind listening - TT3.0, HWmods and Teddy Pardo PSU
TheOctavist wrote: > PSUs make no difference. > > another tweak that comes up empty. > > the PSU in the touch is more than fit for purpose. > > Buy more music. fix your room acoustics(actually room acoustics make a > bigger difference than ANY component ever could) and this you know from listening tests? Close your eyes and open your mind. It's not what you believe that matters, it's what you hear. ;) NoRoDa's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=49139 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94418 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Blind listening - TT3.0, HWmods and Teddy Pardo PSU
baardbaard wrote: > Hi > I can perform a listening test this evening. Since this blind test was > done over my setup and I'm one of very few here that actually have 2 > Touch, one vanilla and one clock upgraded. It will not be a blind test > tough. Rolf lives in another town and is not here to assist me :-) > > Baard If you decide to try this blind, please be careful. Wouldn't like to se you get injured from walking around in your living room blindfolded! :D Regards NoRoDa's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=49139 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94418 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Blind listening - TT3.0, HWmods and Teddy Pardo PSU
NoRoDa wrote: > Hi John > > No, I haven't. I guess, and hope, that the HW modded Touch is > measureably better than the stock Touch. > Our findings is only that in the system we listened, it was not audibly > different using the digital out. > > Regards JohnSwenson wrote: > Hi Rolf, > have you tried listening to the analog outs of the two Touchs? My > experience with putting lower jitter clocks in SB boxes is that it does > affect the analog outs. I haven't measured the clock mod that was done, > but I HOPE that anyone who is making a 3rd party clock board is going to > be producing one that is much lower jitter than the factory oscillators. > > > John S. Hi I can perform a listening test this evening. Since this blind test was done over my setup and I'm one of very few here that actually have 2 Touch, one vanilla and one clock upgraded. It will not be a blind test tough. Rolf lives in another town and is not here to assist me :-) Baard baardbaard's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=36420 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94418 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Digital-In with DEQ2496 in loop
MediaCenter wrote: > What I was hoping for is if someone can connect their DEQ2496 in a > digital loop and connect any digital source to TP to see if switching > digital input keeps the loop intact. You have clarified quite a few > things, but as you said they are not factual. Do you see any hope here? > may be a firmware update request? I'm afraid I am out of ideas. You clearly understand the issues involved. Now it's a matter of finding the device(s) that will do the job for you - and as I said earlier, I haven't tried doing any of this. One thing I am 99.9% certain of is that you won't see a TP firmware upgrade to support this. The TP is end-of-life and I doubt there will be any more firmware versions unless someone discovers a serious bug that has to be fixed. cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94592 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
