Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > At 14,000,000 to 1 odds or worse, your lottery statement is a fact. It is a fact because it is based on some reasonable assumptions. Just like my assessment of your observations. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
drmatt wrote: > Does any conversation on the internet, ever, result in people changing > their minds? I don't think so. > > Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk No. Never in the history of the internet has anyone replied with a sentence like... "You know what? You're absolutely right. What was I thinking?" Fizbin's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=58734 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
On reflection, I'll leave you guys to agree with each other... Bye for now. Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Julf wrote: > Have I? Please explain... "It's unlikely to justify... " Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
alfista wrote: > Who knows, but he obviously knows how to cater to a specific market. > Granted he did quite a bit more than just add bling to the product, but > a shiny box, some fancy interfaces and, just as important as the > engineering, a rather obscene price tag is what made it sell to that > particular clientel. Those who only cared about function and what > actually comes out of the speakers were just as happy with an SB3 that > for most purposes did the job equally well. > The Transporter is a very cleverly engineered device that would never > have appealed to the intended market without some of the cleverly added > trim. The Transporter WAS expensive: that's why I bought my first one second-hand (it still works perfectly), & my spares as end-of-line fire sale items on eBay. Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Does any conversation on the internet, ever, result in people changing their minds? I don't think so. Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk -- Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with Debian+LMS 7.9.0 Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x 24/44k albums.. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
alfista wrote: > Who knows, but he obviously knows how to cater to a specific market. > Granted he did quite a bit more than just add bling to the product, but > a shiny box, some fancy interfaces and, just as important as the > engineering, a rather obscene price tag is what made it sell to that > particular clientel. Those who only cared about function and what > actually comes out of the speakers were just as happy with an SB3 that > for most purposes did the job equally well. > The Transporter is a very cleverly engineered device that would never > have appealed to the intended market without some of the cleverly added > trim. I think I'd notice the difference between a Transporter & a Squeezebox 3 with my gear. What are you listening with? Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Has anybody who hasn't already made their mind up got anything to say? Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > It's prejudice... So if someone ask me about the lottery, and I say "it is unlikely that you will win", is that prejudice? "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
arnyk wrote: > So you can't think of any purpose for an external word clock connection > except to reduce jitter? OK. > > Here's a little studio craft for you. > > In a situation where there are a lot of devices with their own clocks, > the slight differences between those clocks can cause audible problems, > and clocking them all from a common source can make those problems go > away. > > For example, if you are recording multiple channels from various > sources, having all those sources use the same identical clock means > that their clock frequencies are identically the same, and they then > stay in synch. > > Simply having multiple clocks with slightly different frequencies can > lead to them inadvertently mixing and forming beats and spurious tones > and whistles. > > and so on. > > It is the same kind of bogus argument that speaker systems with separate > woofer and tweeter connections were "obviously designed" for biwiring. > In fact they are often set up that way to facilitate active biamping > which can actually make a difference, unlike biwiring which is pure > snake oil. Who uses a Transporter in a studio? Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
arnyk wrote: > If so, you must be highly pained by your energetic arguing on the side > of audio mysticism. > > > > Well then you have contradicted yourself, because the simplist thing is > what I do - listen to music for pleasure. Thing is, from time to time I > may inadvertently hear new detail, or not. > > However, there is some interesting relevant science. Our brain's ability > to remember small details in sound is so limited (just a few seconds) > that we forget most of it a few seconds after we hear it. So, every time > we hear what seem to us to be new details when in fact nothing changed > but us. > > > > No, it is well understood, but apparently not by you. > > > > Dave :) > > No need for help testing that because it is a known fact of science. I > personally encountered it back in the late 1970s. I've seen it in books > and papers written after 1985. > > > > > That's good because they don't exist! > > > > Well, I am now 70 and I know for sure that things I heard easily when I > was in my 30s are not so easy or impossible for me now. > > > > I predict that you will continue to resist the facts of science that I > post here. That how it always seems to work. People want me to be more > open minded, when it is they who are both ignorant and closed minded. I'm hardly being energetic. If you knew everything in the 1970's, then you're hardly open to new ideas. Please don't call me ignorant: it's rude, & by your own admission, you're old enough to know better. Just for reference, I'm 62, so don't talk down to me... Dave (still :)) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
arnyk wrote: > What's foregone is your ability to read. > > Here's what was written: "All I can say is that the differences you > report are unlikely enough that it justifies verifying them with > controlled double blind listening." > > Your false transformation of that into a "foregone conclusion" is > itself often the consequence of a foregone conclusion. What's unclear > about the word "unlikely"? It's prejudice... Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > Hi all. > > Just to be clear, I'm not on here to argue with anyone. > If so, you must be highly pained by your energetic arguing on the side of audio mysticism. > > I use my music system simply to listen to music: but I am consistently > hearing new detail in familiar recordings, which is in a real sense > quite sufficient for me. > Well then you have contradicted yourself, because the simplist thing is what I do - listen to music for pleasure. Thing is, from time to time I may inadvertently hear new detail, or not. However, there is some interesting relevant science. Our brain's ability to remember small details in sound is so limited (just a few seconds) that we forget most of it a few seconds after we hear it. So, every time we hear what seem to us to be new details when in fact nothing changed but us. > > It's simply that having an enquiring mind, I am curious why this is the > case. It may be an unexplained mystery of the universe, in which case > I'll let it go. > No, it is well understood, but apparently not by you. > > I was hoping that someone would be able to at least come up with a > plausible hypothesis for the phenomenon: I would be delighted to assist > in rigorously testing any decent suggestion. > No need for help testing that because it is a known fact of science. I personally encountered it back in the late 1970s. I've seen it in books and papers written after 1985. > > I don't have golden ears or a closed mind. > That's good because they don't exist! > > It is in fact equally possible to attempt to refute a proposition by > claiming an unimpeachable knowledge of "science" as it is to say I can > hear something you can't. > Well, I am now 70 and I know for sure that things I heard easily when I was in my 30s are not so easy or impossible for me now. > > A rational approach lies between these positions, otherwise we cannot > have a genuine discussion. I was hoping to bring this thread back to an > interesting discourse after the earlier shenanigans... > > Otherwise, I'll just enjoy the music! > Dave :) I predict that you will continue to resist the facts of science that I post here. That how it always seems to work. People want me to be more open minded, when it is they who are both ignorant and closed minded. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > Hi Julf. > > I think that your second sentence justifies my comment. > > Properly conducted scientific enquiry frequently produces unexpected > results: this is how we gradually increase our imperfect understanding. > How else could there be any progress? > > That's false because the only experiments that reasonably produce unexpected results are those that have not been done before many times. In the case of jitter there have been a raft of experiments related to audibility that have gone before, and had consistent results. It turns out that listening tests involving jitter are particularly likely to have null results. When it is possible I provide musical samples that have overemphasized jitter of the kind being investigated because in fact almost nobody knows what jitter actually sounds like. They never actually heard digital gear with audible jitter because it is so rare. Ironically, they may have heard tons of jitter relatively speaking, because audible jitter is endemic with analog media, both magnetic tape and vinyl. How often have you heard people complain about hearing jitter there? So you have a conundrum - people obsessing over audible jitter where it is unlikely (digital), and not caring about it where it is likely (analog). Go figure. ;-) arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > I was hoping that someone would be able to at least come up with a > plausible hypothesis for the phenomenon: I would be delighted to assist > in rigorously testing any decent suggestion. First we need to find out if there really is a need for a new hypothesis - and you have already rejected a priori at least one very plausible hypothesis. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > I think that your second sentence justifies my comment. Ah, yes. So the fact that I know the physical reality of the situation biases me? > Properly conducted scientific enquiry frequently produces unexpected > results: this is how we gradually increase our imperfect understanding. > How else could there be any progress? > "Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out". The first thing yo do when you get unexpected results is verify them. Then you get independent replication of them. Only after that do you come up with theories - and ways to test the theories. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > I wholeheartedly agree with the methodology of double blind testing. > > However you have already persuaded yourself that the result would be a > foregone conclusion. That is hardly a scientific approach, is it? > > Dave :) What's foregone is your ability to read. Here's what was written: "All I can say is that the differences you report are unlikely enough that it justifies verifying them with controlled double blind listening." Your false transformation of that into a "foregone conclusion" is itself often the consequence of a foregone conclusion. What's unclear about the word "unlikely"? arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > Hi all. > > I know that Sean worked hard in 2005 to keep the jitter on the > Transporter to a minimum, but if you think he thought 20ps was > sufficiently low to be inaudible you might ask why he then also gave the > Transporter a word clock in connection. > So you can't think of any purpose for an external word clock connection except to reduce jitter? OK. Here's a little studio craft for you. In a situation where there are a lot of devices with their own clocks, the slight differences between those clocks can cause audible problems, and clocking them all from a common source can make those problems go away. For example, if you are recording multiple channels from various sources, having all those sources use the same identical clock means that their clock frequencies are identically the same, and they then stay in synch. Simply having multiple clocks with slightly different frequencies can lead to them inadvertently mixing and forming beats and spurious tones and whistles. and so on. It is the same kind of bogus argument that speaker systems with separate woofer and tweeter connections were "obviously designed" for biwiring. In fact they are often set up that way to facilitate active biamping which can actually make a difference, unlike biwiring which is pure snake oil. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Hi all. Just to be clear, I'm not on here to argue with anyone. I use my music system simply to listen to music: but I am consistently hearing new detail in familiar recordings, which is in a real sense quite sufficient for me. It's simply that having an enquiring mind, I am curious why this is the case. It may be an unexplained mystery of the universe, in which case I'll let it go. I was hoping that someone would be able to at least come up with a plausible hypothesis for the phenomenon: I would be delighted to assist in rigorously testing any decent suggestion. I don't have golden ears or a closed mind. It is in fact equally possible to attempt to refute a proposition by claiming an unimpeachable knowledge of "science" as it is to say I can hear something you can't. A rational approach lies between these positions, otherwise we cannot have a genuine discussion. I was hoping to bring this thread back to an interesting discourse after the earlier shenanigans... Otherwise, I'll just enjoy the music! Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Julf wrote: > Have I implied that you are deluded? All I can say is that the > differences you report are unlikely enough that it justifies verifying > them with controlled double blind listening. > > Unfortunately I live in the home country of Golden Earring (the band) so > it is a bit impractical for me to come over and verify the observations. Hi Julf. I think that your second sentence justifies my comment. Properly conducted scientific enquiry frequently produces unexpected results: this is how we gradually increase our imperfect understanding. How else could there be any progress? Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > However you have already persuaded yourself that the result would be a > foregone conclusion. Have I? Please explain... "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Julf wrote: > Have I implied that you are deluded? All I can say is that the > differences you report are unlikely enough that it justifies verifying > them with controlled double blind listening. > > Unfortunately I live in the home country of Golden Earring (the band) so > it is a bit impractical for me to come over and verify the observations. I wholeheartedly agree with the methodology of double blind testing. However you have already persuaded yourself that the result would be a foregone conclusion. That is hardly a scientific approach, is it? Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > With respect, I did ask for explanations which did NOT imply that I am > deluded. > Have I implied that you are deluded? All I can say is that the differences you report are unlikely enough that it justifies verifying them with controlled double blind listening. Unfortunately I live in the home country of Golden Earring (the band) so it is a bit impractical for me to come over and verify the observations. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Hi guys. With respect, I did ask for explanations which did NOT imply that I am deluded. If you have no explanation, there is little point in posting. I don't know if either of you are anywhere near the south coast of England, but if you are you're welcome to come & listen for yourselves before you imply that I am imagining an improvement just because I've bought myself a DAC that will in any event do plenty of things that the 12-year old Transporter DAC won't do. For what it's worth I wasn't expecting much difference to the sound before I hooked it up. Have you read my other thread? Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
alfista wrote: > Probably because it's a checkbox item for a purported audiophile > product. I have no idea where Sean stands on the audibility of jitter in > that region, but he clearly understood what constitutes "street cred" in > this niche of the market. A rear wing does nothing for the handling of a > Vauxhall Astra 1.2, but try convincing the 18 year old guy driving the > car he'd be just as good without it. Sean has never struck me as a Vauxhall Astra 1.2 type of guy, although after an illustrious career in the tech industry including a protracted stint as a VP at Google, he now appears to be working for a marketing intermediary outfit which presumably puts companies carrying coals to Newcastle in touch with other companies engaged in selling snow to Inuits. Nevertheless, he does look in rude health & happy to be back in San Francisco! I don't think there's much hope of a Mk2 Transporter supporting native 24/192 or 32/384 or DSD256 streams, which is a shame because my DAC could handle all those! Alas & alack... Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > I am not aware of any scientific principle that establishes a minimum > jitter threshold of inaudibility... > There is a scientific process - it is called double blind testing. But you can also analyse the noise/distortion that the jitter adds (very similar to intermodulation products) are and realise that it is so low that it gets masked by the noise in the source material. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > If anyone can offer an alternative explanation to my jitter suggestion, > other than that I am completely deluded, I should be most interested to > hear it. Is it possible that jitter in an incoming digital signal to a > DAC has more significance than jitter in an analogue signal chain? And > why did Sean put the word clock in on the Transporter unless he thought > it could make a difference Sean added the word clock output to be taken serious by deluded audiophools. Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA 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=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
arnyk wrote: > Note the recommendation of magic cables from Canford Audio. Note that > Canford cables sell many different kinds of audio cable. Which one, > specifically? Why not any of the many other sources of pro audio > cables? > > Just another friendly post encouraging you to do a sighted evaluation so > that preconceived notions about sound quality can dictate the outcome of > the evaluation. > > > No flame - just the relevant facts. > > The actual audibility of 20 psec jitter with musical program material is > generally non-existent. In fact, if transcribed from any analog > recording (analog tape or vinyl) , the recording will have many times > that amount of jitter "baked into" it from the analog domain. Ever hear > someone rant and rave about the jitter in analog tapes or vinyl? Funny > thing is that its there and generally in audible amounts, unlike the > usual situation with pure digital recordings. The only reason that I buy from Canford Audio is that they are suppliers of studio cables, not hi-fi vendors, & consequently their stuff is good quality at sensible prices. The specific cables I'm using to connect the DAC to the Transporter are a digital AES XLR balanced 2m cable for the 0's & 1's, and a BNC cable for the word clock feed. There is absolutely no doubt that this arrangement has produced a dramatic improvement in the context of my system. Since I agree with the general sentiment that the DAC in the Transporter is of sufficient quality, the only explanation that I can offer for the improvement is the slaving of the signal to the DAC word clock. I have described the effects on the sound & the other components of my system already in the other thread that I referenced in my previous post, but if you would like me to sum it up, I defer to Miles Davis who once said that it was the spaces between the notes that make the music. it is precisely those spaces which are emphasised... I was previously using the balanced analogue XLR outputs of the Transporter to connect to similar balanced inputs on my Pathos amp, strangely also using Canford Audio XLR interconnects, although this time ones intended for an analogue signal. If anyone can offer an alternative explanation to my jitter suggestion, other than that I am completely deluded, I should be most interested to hear it. Is it possible that jitter in an incoming digital signal to a DAC has more significance than jitter in an analogue signal chain? And why did Sean put the word clock in on the Transporter unless he thought it could make a difference under appropriate circumstances? "There are more questions than answers" Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > Hi all. > I know that Sean worked hard in 2005 to keep the jitter on the > Transporter to a minimum, but if you think he thought 20ps was > sufficiently low to be inaudible you might ask why he then also gave the > Transporter a word clock in connection. > Probably because it's a checkbox item for a purported audiophile product. I have no idea where Sean stands on the audibility of jitter in that region, but he clearly understood what constitutes "street cred" in this niche of the market. A rear wing does nothing for the handling of a Vauxhall Astra 1.2, but try convincing the 18 year old guy driving the car he'd be just as good without it. alfista's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32396 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] HIGHRESAUDIO to stop offering MQA
RonM wrote: > I suspect that the impacts of climate change will be the BIG THING over > the near future. > > As is probably well known, the current US President is a global warming denier, and is deconstructing our environmental regulatory infrastructure. One of his major properties which he visits often is Mira Largo Florida, which is so close to sea level... arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=107118 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Golden Earring wrote: > Hi all. > > This has certainly been an interesting thread with a lot of > spleen-venting! > > As I have detailed in my own thread which started as "Unused Transporter > SE's on eBay.com" but continued into recent changes to my own system, I > am now using a Mytek Brooklyn DAC with my own Transporter. I don't claim > that its DAC itself is audibly superior (although it would measure > better in lab tests) to that of the Transporter's, but what does seem to > me to make a difference is slaving the Transporter to the Brooklyn's > word clock output. This reduces the jitter on the stream of 0's & 1's > feeding the DAC from around 20ps to 0.8ps. > > I know that Sean worked hard in 2005 to keep the jitter on the > Transporter to a minimum, but if you think he thought 20ps was > sufficiently low to be inaudible you might ask why he then also gave the > Transporter a word clock in connection. > > If you don't believe me, try it for yourself: no exotic cabling, just > standard "studio grade" cables from Canford Audio, which are probably > exactly the sort of interconnects used to make the recordings you're > listening to in the first place... > > I cheerfully wait to be flamed by someone about this, but jitter is the > only thing that can affect a digital signal (other than losing some of > the 0's & 1's of course). My brain, like the vast majority of musical > instruments, is an analogue device not a digital one - I am not aware of > any scientific principle that establishes a minimum jitter threshold of > inaudibility... > > Happy listening, > Dave :) Note the recommendation of magic cables from Canford Audio. Note that Canford cables sell many different kinds of audio cable. Which one, specifically? Why not any of the many other sources of pro audio cables? Just another friendly post encouraging you to do a sighted evaluation so that preconceived notions about sound quality can dictate the outcome of the evaluation. No flame - just the relevant facts. The actual audibility of 20 psec jitter with musical program material is generally non-existent. In fact, if transcribed from any analog recording (analog tape or vinyl) , the recording will have many times that amount of jitter "baked into" it from the analog domain. Ever hear someone rant and rave about the jitter in analog tapes or vinyl? Funny thing is that its there and generally in audible amounts, unlike the usual situation with pure digital recordings. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option
Hi all. This has certainly been an interesting thread with a lot of spleen-venting! As I have detailed in my own thread which started as "Unused Transporter SE's on eBay.com" but continued into recent changes to my own system, I am now using a Mytek Brooklyn DAC with my own Transporter. I don't claim that its DAC itself is audibly superior (although it would measure better in lab tests) to that of the Transporter's, but what does seem to me to make a difference is slaving the Transporter to the Brooklyn's word clock output. This reduces the jitter on the stream of 0's & 1's feeding the DAC from around 20ps to 0.8ps. I know that Sean worked hard in 2005 to keep the jitter on the Transporter to a minimum, but if you think he thought 20ps was sufficiently low to be inaudible you might ask why he then also gave the Transporter a word clock in connection. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself: no exotic cabling, just standard "studio grade" cables from Canford Audio, which are probably exactly the sort of interconnects used to make the recordings you're listening to in the first place... I cheerfully wait to be flamed by someone about this, but jitter is the only thing that can affect a digital signal (other than losing some of the 0's & 1's of course). My brain, like the vast majority of musical instruments, is an analogue device not a digital one - I am not aware of any scientific principle that establishes a minimum jitter threshold of inaudibility... Happy listening, Dave :) Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
