Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transcode and upsample at once?
I doubt that this is doable within the transcoding framework. It just wasn't designed with that sort of flexibility in mind. One thing I do know is that you don't want the output type in SoX to be WAV if PCM is the target. You need to use the output type 'raw' in SoX, as the Squeezebox will be expecting a headerless stream. With type WAV you're probably hearing a click at the beginning of each track, which is the WAV header being played. JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=95051 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audiolabs M-DAC
gw43 wrote: I'm thinking of getting the M-Dac, and I also have an Arcam A85. Did you try it in power-amp mode, and if so where there any benefits over using the A85 as an integrated amp? Either way sounds great. I'm personally using it in Power mode once you've purchased it you can then Install Triodes plug in and experiment with Usb v Coaxial. I'm still undecided as currently there is very limited amounts of 192 material. Coxial can handle it but usb cant tank121's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17169 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92112 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Low Jitter mods
Archimago wrote: Even without bringing out the 'measure' word, I'd like to know how the OP KNOWS the mods affect jitter at all? Lacking measurements, I'll settle for anything that corroborates the claims regarding jitter. alfista's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32396 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94644 ___ 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
Make no mistake: I'm not singling it out as flawed, just saying that it was probably also flawed. I'm very much on the worthless claims are worthless bandwagon. Willakan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=56124 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
Willakan wrote: I can't seem to work out whether the test was between the digital or analog outputs though... In other words; The test's 'reproducibility' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility) can be expressed in a non-non-zero number. Soulkeeper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35297 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] How old are these audiophile reviewers???
mlsstl wrote: The mental image of an audiophile in the 1960s was a handsome young fellow in his smoking jacket, holding his pipe while pulling out a hot jazz album to put on the turntable to impress the beautiful young lass sitting on the sofa nursing a highball. What's the mental picture of an audiophile in 2012? An aging, paunchy fellow, sitting all by himself, wondering which set of magic cables will expand the soundstage of the 10th remaster of a multi-miked and overprocessed classic rock album by 6 inches. And one wonders why the hobby doesn't have much appeal for the young trendy types these days. The world has simply moved on. ;-) You must be joking! it's 2012 and at over a weekend the end of May, as we have done since 2006, my fellow DIY valve amp hobbyists will be having our six monthly meeting in a local pub function room. We have a great time and we certainly DONT believe in exotic wires or any of the other foolery that goes with the outer limits of this hobby. This is how I'll be dressing for the occasion. [image: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7181882/81693.jpg] SteveCresswell's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13120 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94485 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How old are these audiophile reviewers???
A modern audiophile has little in common with a DIY hobbyist. One of the biggest differences is that the DIY hobbyist needs to know something about how things work, while the modern audiophile only needs a computer keyboard and a dictionary of superlatives. Soulkeeper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35297 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94485 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How old are these audiophile reviewers???
SteveCresswell wrote: You must be joking! It's 2012 and over a weekend the end of May, as we have done since 2006, my fellow DIY valve amp hobbyists and I will be having our six monthly meeting in a local pub function room. We have a great time showing and listening to our latest creations and we certainly DONT believe in exotic wires or any of the other foolery that goes with the outer limits of this hobby. There are always exceptions to any rule, but that doesn't change the reality that audiophilia is a shrinking hobby for an aging male population. I note you admitted that you are a DIY tube amp hobbyist, building your own stuff. Now that's a subsect of a subsect! ;-) It's neat that you have some fellow travelers and get out and about with them, but that hardly makes it a widespread popular trend. Unfortunately, the magic wire and tweak got its foothold in the hobby for two reasons. First, the price competition, especially with big box stores and internet sales, for speakers and gear got so intense that those remaining on the sales side desperately needed some high-margin stuff. Second, the level of technical interest in the hobby (particularly at your DIY level) subsided over the years which left a base of consumers who were perhaps a bit more susceptible to the pitches for magic wires. It is certainly a more complex phenomenon than that with lots of other factors to consider, but the hobby certainly isn't what it used to be, nor will it ever return to what it once was. mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94485 ___ 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
Willakan wrote: Make no mistake: I'm not singling it out as flawed, just saying that it was probably also flawed. I'm very much on the worthless claims are worthless bandwagon. I can't seem to work out whether the test was between the digital or analog outputs though... A lot of people find it tempting to denote things only as black or white, with no possible territory in the middle. The perfect blind test will never exist, but that shouldn't keep us from drawing conclusions regarding the cumulative weight of the somewhat less-that-perfect tests that have been performed over the years. The conclusion I've drawn from everything I've seen over the years is solid proof that we are human. Under sighted conditions (i.e., with knowledge of the make/model we're listening to at the moment), our comments are dramatic and full of hyperbole. As the knowledge-of-conditions slider moves slowly toward blindness, the differences reported get smaller, less certain and sometimes even disappear. Anyone who doesn't admit the obvious - that we are easily susceptible to subjective factors - is whistling past the graveyard. mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598 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] How old are these audiophile reviewers???
Oh yes DIY tube amp building is definitely a subsect of a subsect, but of our 30 strong group, there are younger members the youngest being 18. Plus there is my son, who is 28, has built several of his own tube amps and has a small business making and selling hand-crafted wooden chassis. There are others who also have small businesses making and selling self designed and built loudspeakers. I totally agree that the hi-fi business is doomed if it carries on as it is doing and peddling voodoo to the gullible. I know that in the UK there is something of a return to the roots of hi-fi as it was in the fifties, with enthusiasts building their own gear. The days of mass market hi-fi have gone forever and the industry will have only itself to blame when the end comes. It is salutory to note that all of our DIY group once used nothing but commercial gear, but have rejected it completely as it was nothing more than a money pit, that produced mediocre sound quality. Here is a sample set of pictures of the stuff we do First my system comprising home designed and built valve amplifier feeding my own design Metronome tapered quarter wave loudspeakers. [image: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7181882/801asystem.jpg][image: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7181882/801aglowshot2.jpg] Below is another fellow DIY hobbyist's hand crafted speakers that he builds to order. [image: http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f296/Dingsking/IMG_2756a.jpg] Yes I suppose we are part of an underground movement but in our neck of the woods it is getting bigger. There is still life in the old Hi-Fi scene, if you know where to look. SteveCresswell's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13120 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94485 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How old are these audiophile reviewers???
mlsstl wrote: Unfortunately, the magic wire and tweak got its foothold in the hobby for two reasons. First, the price competition, especially with big box stores and internet sales, for speakers and gear got so intense that those remaining on the sales side desperately needed some high-margin stuff. Second, the level of technical interest in the hobby (particularly at your DIY level) subsided over the years which left a base of consumers who were perhaps a bit more susceptible to the pitches for magic wires. Great insight! I never thought of the Magic/Monster Cable phenomena from the sales/margin prospective. That goes a long in helping to explain why the mass market audio retails so willingly push overpriced cables onto the unsuspecting public. Mass market Blu-ray player: $79 with a razor thin profit margin. Magic HDMI cable: $79 with a super wide profit margin. Total: $160 with a workable profit margin. ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94485 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Low Jitter mods
alfista wrote: By what method have the jitter been measured and how much did it improve? Archimago wrote: Even without bringing out the 'measure' word, I'd like to know how the OP KNOWS the mods affect jitter at all? I've tried all these years and have never been convinced I've actually 'heard' jitter... alfista wrote: Lacking measurements, I'll settle for anything that corroborates the claims regarding jitter. But gentlemen the effects of and sound of jitter has to exist and be a very BIG problem otherwise why would the audiophile have its collective panties in a knot over asynchronous USB? ;) :) ;) :) Current state of the art audiophile approved computer music playback system: Apple MAC mini: $600 - $800 Apple approved external hard drive: $130 USB cable (MAC mini to external hard drive): $200 External DAC with asynchronous usb input: $600 - $6000 USB cable (MAC mini to external DAC): $200 Additional software to ensure a bit perfect digital audio data stream: $700 Total cost: $2430 - $8030 Lower cost semi-audiophile approved alternative: El-cheapo desktop computer: $300 External hard drive: $80 Generic USB cable (computer to external hard drive): $10 Squeezebox Touch: $300 External DAC without asynchronous usb input: $400 - $6000 Digital coax cable (Touch to DAC): $20 Music server software to ensure a bit perfect digital audio data stream: included with Squeezebox Touch Total cost:$1110 - $6710 Notes: 1) Both systems assume that there is a working ethernet/Wi-fi router available. 2) Touch system only audiophile approved for background listening to low bit rate internet audio streams. ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94644 ___ 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
mlsstl wrote: A lot of people find it tempting to denote things only as black or white, with no possible territory in the middle. The perfect blind test will never exist, but that shouldn't keep us from drawing conclusions regarding the cumulative weight of the somewhat less-that-perfect tests that have been performed over the years. The conclusion I've drawn from everything I've seen over the years is solid proof that we are human. Under sighted conditions (i.e., with knowledge of the make/model we're listening to at the moment), our comments are dramatic and full of hyperbole. As the knowledge-of-conditions slider moves slowly toward blindness, the differences reported get smaller, less certain and sometimes even disappear. Anyone who doesn't admit the obvious - that we are easily susceptible to subjective factors - is whistling past the graveyard. Agreed, but I still don't see why more emphasis wasn't placed on discussion of the test conditions from the get-go, to establish whether it could be classed as meaningful and/or to attempt to reproduce it. Willakan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=56124 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] Triode's USB 24/192 plug in - sound quality impressions
JohnSwenson wrote: I have a HRT Music StreamerII (not the +), it works very well with Triodes plugin and a hub. Adding TT3.0 significantly improves the sound, with this combination it's getting astonishingly good. (it's not the best, my homebuilt DAC still blows it away). The II with TT3.0 is sounding better than several other way more expensive S/PDIF input DACs I have. (except for my own design -- I'm not biased am I?) I had to do a little work to get TT3.0 to work with it, I had to set the buffer to over 5000, and I had to change some of the priority settings. The esiest way to change the priorities was to just turn them off all together. I didn't have time to figure out which one caused a problem. I tested the screen off part of TT3.0 and it didn't make any difference so I left the screen on. The part of TT3.0 that seemed to make the difference was the kernal settings, when I implemented just them I got the same sound improvement. John S. John, I have placed my order for HRT Music Streamer II+, hence very interested to learn the changes to your system with HRT. I have: - Installed EDO - Installed TT3.0 over it - Changed priorities in TT file to Logitech default - Made the changes suggested by SBGK on the various .lua files - My buffer setting in the .lua files are 4200 - Disconnected screen - Removed Toslink on SBT You are also suggesting kernel settings change. Can you share what the kernel changes are?. Also what buffer size is best. lake_eleven's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=48979 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94855 ___ 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
Willakan wrote: Agreed, but I still don't see why more emphasis wasn't placed on discussion of the test conditions from the get-go, to establish whether it could be classed as meaningful and/or to attempt to reproduce it. NoRoDa has provided a lot of the details of test conditions in various posts in this thread and the thread to which he linked when starting this thread. Btw, it is easy to find those posts by clicking on the link that shows NoRoDa's username, and then choosing View Forum Posts. Also don't forget to see the ancillary material by member baardbaard, who was also involved in the tests. Perhaps most important, NoRoDa has already said that the test ...wasn't double blind or very scientific in any way..., which may be why more details were neither offered or requested by other forum members. But now that you're a part of the discussion, feel free to ask about details that haven't been included yet. My take-away from NoRoDa's disclaimer is that that time would be better spent trying to improve the protocol rather than trying to reproduce it. Having two SB Touch players to test side-by-side seems to be a critical improvement over (almost?) every other comparison that has been posted on this topic in this forum, which generally compare the same Touch before/after mods. aubuti's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2074 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
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Display Off screensaver
I will post this here as its clearly unproven and something to discuss on the audiophile board I've just posted a new app to the repro for Squeezebox Touch - this provides an alternative to the built in Screen Off screensaver which disables some of the processing associated with the screen when the screen is off. It does the same as TT screen off + also disables some internals to the squeezeplay application related to rendering the screen when it is off (reducing cpu load for scrolling text etc when the screen is off). The intention is you may want to try it as a when playing screensaver which will bank the screen after the delay and hence use less cpu power. Whether this has an impact on the audio quality is unproven and the reason I am posting here... To install: On the player goto 3rd Party Apps, unselect recommended Apps only and then select Display Off [As an aside - I note that with the EDO app installed and the internal digital out selected so that the analog output is not enabled, if you measure the analog outputs on an oscillocope then you see a much lower noise floor than when the analog dac is enabled. At the limit of my simple scope's gain I can see noise which is related to cpu activity - I believe looking at this, that disabling the screen does have a measurable impact, but it is very much at the limit of what I can see and well below the normal noise floor of the analog output. Whether this impacts what you can hear is a completely different matter] Triode's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=95084 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Display Off screensaver
Triode wrote: I will post this here as its clearly unproven and something to discuss on the audiophile board I've just posted a new app to the repro for Squeezebox Touch - this provides an alternative to the built in Screen Off screensaver which disables some of the processing associated with the screen when the screen is off. It does the same as TT screen off + also disables some internals to the squeezeplay application related to rendering the screen when it is off (reducing cpu load for scrolling text etc when the screen is off). The intention is you may want to try it as a when playing screensaver which will bank the screen after the delay and hence use less cpu power. Whether this has an impact on the audio quality is unproven and the reason I am posting here... To install: On the player goto 3rd Party Apps, unselect recommended Apps only and then select Display Off [As an aside - I note that with the EDO app installed and the internal digital out selected so that the analog output is not enabled, if you measure the analog outputs on an oscillocope then you see a much lower noise floor than when the analog dac is enabled. At the limit of my simple scope's gain I can see noise which is related to cpu activity - I believe looking at this, that disabling the screen does have a measurable impact, but it is very much at the limit of what I can see and well below the normal noise floor of the analog output. Whether this impacts what you can hear is a completely different matter] Can this be installed over EDO and TT3.0 lake_eleven's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=48979 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=95084 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
