Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transcode and upsample at once?
Can we get back to the topic on how to upsample FLAC to 24/96 and outputs it in WAV? Whether someone can hear the sonic improvement is a very subjective thing. It depends on the gear, the plackback materials and your hearing. Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 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] Transcode and upsample at once?
lake_eleven wrote: Do you mean decoding FLAC and WAV on the LMS server by setting Server Setting - Advanced - File types - setting decoder to disabled except for PCM?. I heard setting decoding on server is really not beneficial. Yes, one can use File Types to disable native FLAC streaming and this forces the server to do the decoding and stream in WAV. It does make a difference in sound for Touch. You do need high resolution system to hear it. I use SBT+EDO and outputs to Anedio D2 DAC via USB. I used Stax electrostatic headphones and I can clearly hear the improvements (ie: vocal is more velvety/emotional, transient and bass dynamics are faster). Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 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
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transcode and upsample at once?
I want to transcode FLAC to WAV and upsample the output to 96K. First I
changed FLAC output to Disabled under Advanced-File Types, so that all
FLAC files will be forced to transcode to WAV. Then I added a
custom-convert.conf file. The content of the file is:
flc pcm * *
# FT:{START=--skip=%t}U:{END=--until=%v}D:{RESAMPLE=-r %d}
[flac] -dcs $START$ $END$ -- $FILE$ | [sox] -q -t wav - -t wav - rate
-b 85 -Lv 96k
The conversion appears to work, but my Transporter is still thinking the
output is 44.1K instead of 96K, so the playback is run with the wrong
clock. How do I tell TP that the output is 96K?
Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701
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] Transcode and upsample at once?
I want to test the sonic quality of SBT+EDO. So far, server side decode of FLAC instead of client side decode on SBT has provent to be better sounding for redbook material. I want to see if taking it to 96K would make it sound even better. Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 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
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Anyway for Transporter to support 24/192?
Assuming it is a limitation of Transporter's processing power, can we relax the fw a bit to support 24/192 WAV or AIFF? Or FLAC with lesser compression level? PS - title should read Any way -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87939 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] S/PDIF cables should be (a) - =1.5m or (b) as short as possible?
The reason for the =1.5m length has to do with controlling signal reflection due to impedance discontinuity on the receiving end. For example, my TacT 2.2xp has poor internal construction in terms of impedance control. A 1.5m cable sounded significantly better than a 1m cable from my Transporter (stronger, deeper bass, better dynamics, etc). It is because the longer cable will cause the reflection to travel a longer distance and it allows the original signal rising edge to complete the signal transition before the reflection arrives, preventing interference to the original signal rising edge. The cable length is a function of output pulse transformer's pulse rising time, cable dielectrics and cable inductance. 1.5m is probably on the best case scenerio. One can also put a 3db or 6db attenuator on the receiving end, to reduce the effect on signal reflection. If the signal receiving gear has well controlled impedance, then little or no impedance discontinuity occurs. A shorter cable is preferred in this case. It is because longer cable will have a longer signal rising edge. Usually, the addition signal delay is 1.4ns/ft. In general, we want shorter signal rising edge for better performance. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84751 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Popping noises with Transporter firmware 81 and 85
andyg;624155 Wrote: Sooner than you might think, I've just checked in updated 7.6 firmware (v86) that should fix this problem. :) I tried 7.6-32271, fw 86, the bug is still not fixed. The same Spanish Harlem at 24/96 still chokes the Transporter. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84133 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Popping noises with Transporter firmware 81 and 85
andyg;610642 Wrote: If you are having popping on the current 7.5.3/firmware 82, please send me a file that causes it. http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/Large_File_Upload I can reconfirm that the popping noise problem is not solved with firmware 85 in 7.6.0-32229 nightly build. The song to test is from this album: https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetailvalbum_code=HD090368032362 Just try the very first one Spanish Harlem. The popping noise occurs at about the 55 secs point. I found that turning off the VU meter (blank display on the right side) will prevent the popping. So it is definitely the CPU running out of juice trying to decode 24/96 FLAC file. Once it is decoded, I can seek back and forth and no popping sound is heard. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84133 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter failed to play 24/96 files from www.2L.no?
I downloaded some sample 24/96 HiRes files from http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html However, my Transporter fails to play any of them. Either no sound or cracking / poping sound and then playback stops. I'm using SBS 7.5.1 and 7.5.0 failed the same way. Try downloading Britten: Simple Symphony, Op. 4 and see if you have the same problem. Other HiRes files I got from other places seem to work fine. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=81805 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter failed to play 24/96 files from www.2L.no?
I suspect it is a bug fix with SBS 7.6/new fw for the Transporter. What is the rev of the fw for your Transporter? So where do I download SBS 7.6? -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=81805 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter failed to play 24/96 files from www.2L.no?
michael123;575010 Wrote: I have latest beta of SBS and Transporter (with latest beta firmware), do not see any issue.. But I do not remember I had any also a year ago.. What is your storage? NAS? Local disk? My storage is local disk on a Win7 laptop. So where is SBS 7.6 beta? Since Logitech has removed the slimdevices.com website, I can no longer find the beta software. If you can try 7.5.1, the fw there for the Transporter is unable to play the files. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=81805 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter failed to play 24/96 files from www.2L.no?
Thanks. FW 84 for the Transporter did fix the playback problem. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=81805 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Antipodal filtering
Phil Leigh;514812 Wrote: Finally had time to check some FACTS. You are wrong. As I stated, the TACT RCS2.2X has 24/192 digital inputs and upsamples everything to that rate, regardless of its original rate. Internal DSP is indeed performed with 48-bit precision. http://www.tactlab.com/Products/RCS22X/features.html You're wrong. It is the ASRC that is capable of operating at 192K. It is an Analog Device AD1896 ASRC chip. It is there is accept input at 192K but it'll downsample if the input is 192K to 96K for the internal DSP processing. It also allows you to upsample the output to 192K to a DAC, since most DAC's reconstruction filter works better at higher sampling rate. Go to Yahoo TacT groups and ask the gurus there. They'll tell you that 2.2x and 2.2xp are all operating at 96K samples internally. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=69145 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
m1abrams;514158 Wrote: I thought they already cleared this up with you. TCP/IP over ethernet or wireless works the same. Plus there is no notion of jitter that can effect TCP/IP. Of course I understand what is TCPIP. The noise I'm talking about is data modulation noise. When a digital output is measured with no data (just clock only), the digital stream can be very low in jitter. When data is present, data modulation noise occurs and I've more than a few senior enginners witnessing 2-4x increase in jitter on the output. I use jitter induced by electronic noise so as to make it easier for some of you to understand. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74721 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Antipodal filtering
Phil Leigh;515248 Wrote: The ASRC process incorporates a polyphase PLL operating in the analogue domain (within the chip), not pure DSP maths, as would be used in a software-based resampler. There are pros and cons. Jitter-based impacts in the AKM chip will manifest as data errors in the lowest bits, rather than sample timing errors. Random low-bit errors sound like... dither. Bottom line is: it sounds superb and feeding the same track upsampled to different rates all sound identical. It is because of the analog nature of the ASRC chip, it is behaving like a DAC and therefore sensitive to input jitter. The ASRC will be good sounding if you feed it a very clean low jitter data stream. I agree with you that there is no difference in sound whether we're feeding 44.1 or upsampled 96K tracks once you have a clean input. For us TacT users, this thread is pointless. So it seems you're using the 2.2x on the effect loop on the Transporter? I'd be very careful not to rely on the 2.2x as volume control in this configuration. The 2.2x volume control on digital domain does degrade the sound slightly. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=69145 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
Phil Leigh;515300 Wrote: Andy + Krochat Thanks - Yes, I'm familiar with that paper - I was seekimg confirmation from Kuro that he was talking about correlated jitter, as it wasn't clear to me from his post. This paper is the basis for the slaving transport to DAC clock is the best jitter management strategy Sorry guys, I should be more precise in my wording. Yes, I mean no audio data on the output stream, so all zeros in this case. In additional to data correlated jitter, the spur of electronic noise can increase the jitter on the output too. I believe this is the only logical explanation of what earwaxer is hearing. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74721 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
Phil Leigh;515201 Wrote: You need to see that video that CliveB posted, then come back and we can continue... Hi Phil, Can you point me to the video CliveB posted? Thanks. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74721 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
Two years ago, I set out on a quest to understand why certain cables/CD transports, DACs, etc. sound better than others. One of my long time audiophile friend, who happens to be in high-end audio bussiness for 30+ years and he himself an audiophile told me its partly because of the power supply and jitter. He is no engineer, so he is unable to explain to me why this is the case. What he was telling me was the truth based on his 30+ of experience in the audio business. I was very skeptical then: how is the power supply going to cause an audio circuit to sound better than another? Especially for a CD transport when all it does is moving bits from one medium to another? In audio, the precise arrival of digital audio data to the DAC is very important. You can have two transports outputting the same data bits, but the one with high jitter will sound substantially inferior. Jitter causes earlier or later arrival of the data bits in the data steam. It is a very small timing difference, but as it turns out, human can discern those tiny differences. The typical effect of high jitter is brighter sound, less bass, less sound stage depth. So how is the power supply going to affect the audio circuit? There is noise on our household AC line. On the same circuit, your neighbors may have florescent lightings, motors in electric fans or air conditioners and poorly designed switching power supplies that emit kH of frequencies into the AC line. These noises cannot be filtered by a simple cap or the run of the mill 7805 regulator in the power supply circuit. And yes, the Transporter has super regulator, but unfortunately, it does not have super regulator in the digital circuits. And many other audio gears in our systems do not have super regulators at all. The AC noise has serious affect on how a capacitor or conductive AC and component interconnect cables may sound. This is why audiophiles often change cables and even caps in their gears to fine tune the sound. They are effectively changing to a component that has less/better noise conduction characteristics (ie: less noise being conducted). This would work in one home, but may fail completely when moved to another home, but the set of AC noise in another home is different. So they change cables again. So how is noise going to affect digital circuits? Jitter. Although the buffer holding the data from the TCP protocol is 100% accurate, the output of this buffer will be affected by jitter induced by electronic noise. A steady state electronic noise produce a steady stream of jitter. But a spur of electonic noise will cause more jitter in the circuit. If the packets received via Wifi is in spur due to various reasons (latency, poor signal range, etc.), then more jitter will happen on the output buffer. Going to a wired connection is better, because the packets are coming in at a more steady pace. I believe what we need is a double or triple buffering design with the final output buffer (a very small one) having a very steady stream of input. The circuit designed around this final buffer should be relatively noise and jitter free. Some high end gears are beginning to implement multiple clocks and buffers in their transports/DACs design. PS Audio Digital Lens is one. Some of the latest Mark-Levinson DACs have special purpose input buffers in them. I think Esoteric has triple clocks/PLLs buffers too. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74721 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
seanadams;513117 Wrote: It's called TCP. Now, do you have testable claims or do you expect me to address your hand-waving on the subject? Ah, I thought you were saying the data is being pulled on demand out of the buffer. You actually meant it on the buffer receiving side. I don't mean to challenge you. I'm trying to understand these effects that me and others have heard, as they're not quite explainable using conventional engineering means. Just as some of us can hear the difference in sound for a certain brand/type capacitor in an audio circuit, and it cannot be easily backed up simple theories/experiments. Sometimes there is an empirical approach to things... The only testable claim I've with me is that the Toslink out from Duet is different sounding than the Toslink out of the TP. That's why I bought the TP after using the Duet for a year, beacuse I wasn't entirely happy with the sound. I know it is not related to this thread. I'm just a leecher on the Slimdevices forums, and I've read on some threads that some folks also claim the same and other said they can't hear the difference. I think this also boils down to the resolution of ones system and the ability to discern those small differences. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74721 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Antipodal filtering
Phil Leigh;513332 Wrote: I'm pretty certain that the 2.2X upsamples to 192... especially as it can output at that sampling rate. Anyway, I've gone back to not bothering with SOX to upsample everything as I can't hear any difference and even feeding 48 into the TACT does NOT involve simple integer upsampling since the ASRC chip works (in the analogue domain) on the ACTUAL sample rate which could be 47.999 or 48.0001 - you get the idea. Sean pointed this out to me a while ago and ( as usual? ) he was right. The jitter sensitivity of the ASRC chip is dealt with by a linear PS for the TACT. No need for Big Ben or similar. The TP is a low jitter source and the new Touch is at least as good IME. No, TacT only upsamples to 96K, you can read the specs on 2.2xp on their website. There is yet another ASRC on the output, which allows you to upsample or downsample on the output. It is because of the analog nature of the ASRC, it makes them behaving like a DAC and is very susceptible to jitter. I've an external linear PS for my 2.2xp too. But Big Ben still offers improvements. But the default BB doesn't improve much of anything from the Transporter, unless the SMPS is replaced with LPS too. Also, in my experience, such last little bits of improvements require you first dealt with noise on the AC (common mode and differential mode noise). I've a custom made Balanced transformer with Faraday shield and a PS Audio PPP for AC regeneration. Without such devices, you won't be able to hear the difference offered by BB. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=69145 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
cliveb;513271 Wrote: There is a huge body of scientific research which very nicely explains why you and your friends hear what you hear. But it's nothing to do with engineering - it is in the domain of psychology. You know something has changed, and think it might make a difference, so you hear one. Yes, I know about the psychological effect, and I've been very careful with my listening tests. FWIW, in my old system, I was not able to hear such differences because either the resolution is not high enough, or there is a higher noise floor. My current system offers such high resolution that I can discern such small differences. In my experience, 2 main issues muffle the music you hear: noise on AC and jitter. Noise from switching PS is especially bad and can cross pollute other components via the AC sockets. You need component isolation on the AC. Jitter can be induced by noise on the power supply. I've a custom made balanced transformer with Faraday shield and a PS Audio PPP AC regenerator (cascade connection). These take care of common mode and differential mode noise on my AC line. PPP's output offers component isolation. The jitter is dealt with using linear PS on all components (my TacT 2.2xp and Big Ben). BB is really just the icing on the cake, it takes TP to the last little mile where it cannot do by itself. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74721 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
Phil Leigh;513323 Wrote: It's really easy to prove that different capacitors in the audio path have an impact on the sound. AudioDiffMaker can prove that in seconds. Which you prefer is a matter of...preference. I doubt AudioDiffMaker is going to be able to measure certain attributes of sound, such as airiness or ambient. The capacitor is just an example, you can think of it as why your speakers manufacturer put certain kinds of caps in your speakers' crossover. They were the results of many listening tests besides calculations. I believe there is a body of knowledge that we are not quite sure how to do measurement yet. And these are audio qualities that are currently being dealt with empirical approach, namely, listening tests and fine tuning components. Pass Labs, Ayre, you name it, all such high end manufacturers fine tuned their products with empirical approach besides superb engineering. FWIW, I've done a speakers placement experiment awhile ago. I placed my speakers 12 ft apart in an equilateral triangle, so I'm also sitting 12 ft away, but they were not toed in. I used my TacT 2.2xp and performed a room measurement/correction. The frequency response curve is flat. When I listened to this configuration, the sound stage and imaging were aweful. Then I toed in my speakers 30 deg completely facing me and performed the room correction measurement. The sound stage and imaging were back and they were very pleasing. If you just go by measurement on freq response, both setups have flat response, yet the sound is very different. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74721 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
seanadams;513493 Wrote: 2/10 I think we should start scoring the trolls. This post lacks originality - you were doing better earlier with the bath tub business. I beg to differ. I'm simply stating my real world experiences. Many audiophiles and companies producing such products would agree with my findings. I know certain things are snake oil, like expensive interconnects. There are usually some positive effects to be heard for expensive AC cables and conductive interconnects. This is all due to the noise conduction characteristic of the material used in the cable. Certain cables will conduct less noise than others. However, once you kill your AC noise, expensive conductive cables will no longer matter much. Let see a hand of people who use audiophile grade cables for better sound in their systems. Are you saying these people are trolls too? -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74721 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
seanadams;513493 Wrote: I think we should start scoring the trolls. BTW Sean, between me and my brother, we have 2 Duets, 1 Boom and 1 Transporter. I speak of the products to my friends so highly, and they got 1 Duet and 1 Transporter. I'm (we're) your paying customers. You do not call your paying customers trolls. I support the product and I'm here to share experiences and learn from others. I think you owe me an apology here. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74721 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
pfarrell;513511 Wrote: I called you out as a troll on Feb 03 at 10:43. Specifically: Please troll elsewhere. Nothing about TCP/IP can cause jitter in any SqueezeBox device. You have been told this, pay attention. I've already put in another msg that was a mis-read / mis-understanding of Sean's post. What's the big deal with you? -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74721 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
Themis;512841 Wrote: No digital output is jitter free. Big Ben or whatever, you can only reduce jitter, not eliminate it. In the same way that you can only reduce (and never eliminate) distortions. Now, to come back to the PLL, your friend (senior engineer) must surely have some measures to back up this theory ? Yes, even BB is not jitter free. I shouldn't have used the word free, maybe nearly jitter free is the better way to express it. When jitter is below a certain threshold, it becomes inauditable to our ears. No, my friend hasn't got measurement to back it up. It was a theory. He was able to tell the sonic difference on his SB3 when streaming wired or wirelessly. When streamed wirelessly, the sound is brighter and more brittle. This was done with WinXP and Vista. I've asked him to redo his tests with Win7 and see what happen. So far, he reports that Win7 is a much better OS for streaming servers. Last night, I pulled out my Duet, connected the Toslink output to my BB and had a listen. I use Toslink because it offers electrical isolation. The sound is closer to TP, but not the same. The piano note/vocal finish is not as long lasting and is a bit more bright and brittle. Imaging is less precise. When I switched back to the TP, immediately, the sound is more engaging and relaxed. If all digital bits are the same, then why is TP sounding better than the Duet on Toslink? -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74721 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
Andy8421;513012 Wrote: I think we may be at cross purposes here. Are you driving a DAC with the transporter? or listening to the transporters analogue outputs? While I still can't see how wired vs wireless would make any difference (all other things being kept the same), I can see how using the word sync input on the transporter and the local clock from a DAC would tidy things up. With your EE background, you should search this forum. There are links to a very interesting paper about how SPDIF can introduce code correlated jitter in a bandwidth limited link. So even if the transporter had a zero jitter clock, by the time it has gone through your DAC's input circuitry and the clock recovered from the SPDIF datastream, it will exhibit jitter. So dont assume that the transporter has a dodgy clock because your DAC recovers a jittery clock from the SPDIF stream. Still doesnt explain your wired vs wireless difference though. Andy. Hi Andy, Thanks for the info. I'm not using any DAC, not the DAC inside TP or external DAC. I'm using a TacT digital amp, it does PCM to PWM conversion. It is by far the best DAC I've heard as there is no analog audio signal involved during the conversion, it is all done mathmatically. The TacT amp does require AC line isolation and loads of ferrite clamps on the speakers cables in order to kill the EMI noise. Once you do this, the sound is pure and precise. It is not cold or edgy. I got warmth and relaxing music. My preamp is the TacT 2.2xp. It is a digital preamp. Its input is sensitive to jitter due to the ASRC used. My TP is connected to the BB and then to the 2.2xp. All connections are done via Toslink to eliminate electical noise. I found this better than coax or AES/EBU. I've also replaced the SMPS inside 2.2xp and BB to a Linear PS. I have tried using TP's word clock in via coax with clock supplied by the 2.2xp's subwoofer digital out. I'm not using a 2+2 system, so the sub out has no audio data or jitter induced by data modulation. The sound is a bit harsh and edgy. My conclusion is that there must be noise entering the TP via an electical connection (coax). Now I've the TP using the clock from Toslink input and that also comes from the 2.2xp's sub out via Toslink. That sounds a lot better than using coax word clock in. In fact, a bit better than TP using its internal clock. I still cannot quite explain why this is the case, as TP using its internal clock should offer more jitter free output than an ext. clock, but it doesn't seem to be the case here... -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74721 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
earwaxer;512903 Wrote: This description of sound improvement by Kuro is pretty close to what I have experienced. Hi Waxer, Is it possible for you to try a different Wifi adaptor (say a USB 802.11G)and tell us whether the sound is different? -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74721 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
seanadams;512847 Wrote: This is totally wrong. There is no PLL and that is NOT how network streamers work AT ALL. (although it has been done that way for satellite, isochronous USB, and VOIP). In SB/TP, the outgoing data is clocked directly by a fixed crystal. The incoming data is pulled on demand. There is no feedback from the buffer fullness to the clock rate. Hi Sean, I know Logitech lists TP having crystal clock, but it never mentioned whether there is a PLL anywhere in the design. It is good that it doesn't. Can you explain the meaning of incoming data is pulled on demand? Because this would imply you're doing it in packets and sudden movements in an electronic circuit can produce jitter. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74721 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Antipodal filtering
Phil Leigh;503281 Wrote: For example my TACT uses an ASRC to up everything to 192k, whereas my DAC uses an ASRC to up everything to 384k... My (debateable) theory is that by feeding my TACT 96k exclusively via SOX I have given the TACT chip an easier life. I know that Sean feels this may not be the case. Listening tests are inconclusive. I can't hear any difference between 44.1 upped to 96 by SOX vs raw 44.1. Hi Phil, TacT does resampling to 96K regardless of input. All internal DSP processing are done at 96K samples and 48-bit precision. It is actually worst to feed it 96K as the ASRC is not bypassable, so it'll resample 96K to 96K. Peter Lyngdorf has stated that resampling at the same frequency will cause artifacts. I can tell on my system that 96K input to my 2.2xp is not as good sounding as 44.1K or 48K. The best is actually to feed the TacT with 48K, as the ASRC can do a must easier job with integer multiple of upsampling. 44.1K and 48K are nearly identical sounding if you're like me having an Apogee Big Ben in the loop. Otherwise, 48K is tiny bit better sounding that 44.1K. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=69145 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
Andy8421;512437 Wrote: Should network traffic, PC server response or Wifi latency cause the input data stream to falter, the squeezebox can dip into its buffer for data. One way of looking at network streamers is as a large tank with a hole in the bottom. The data (water) empties out of the tank at a steady rate, controlled by the local clock. Every now and then the network dumps another bucket of water in the tank to keep the tank topped up. Hi Andy, I've an EE degree, I sure know about buffers and TCP/IP protocol to ensure data correctness. However, just as the engineers invented SPDIF didn't think people can hear the effect of jitter some 30 years ago, I'm suggesting that latency will cause more jitter to be produced on the PLL. It is a theory from my friend, who is a high-end audiophile and senior engineer by trade. To quote him: The latency causes the uneven filling of the buffer may lead to PLL perturbations, ending up in jitter at the output of the PLL. Imagine you have a tub with a drain hole at the bottom. Your job is to keep the flow rate constant. So you use a valve and adjust the valve to regulate the flow. At the same time if you add water to the tub by throwing cups of water into it, the flow rate through the valve will be affected, even if you are at the control. The effect of what earwaxer hears is consistent with what I've heard when jitter is removed from the system using Big Ben reclocker, removing noise induced jitter on AC line by isolation transformer and power regenerator, etc. In my case, wired or wireless is the same, because I've a Big Ben with a custom made linear power supply for removing jitter from the Transporter. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74721 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
earwaxer;512719 Wrote: I use a new draft N router, and it does use the same IP address in wired and wireless. Are you using a wireless card with Atheros draft N chipset? I know that their AR5008 chipset has high latency and will have a burst of 8 seconds of 3000uS of latency every few minutes of transmission. If you have another Wifi adaptor, even 802.11G, try it, and tell us if the sound improves when a different Wifi adaptor is used. This may proof a jitter theory caused by uneven buffer filling on the Transporter side due to Wifi latency. I highly recommend you use this utility: http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml to check for high latency of your PC that is streaming data over Wifi. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74721 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
Andy8421;512765 Wrote: I think you will find that the transporter has a stable master clock that is divided down to generate the sample clock that controls the speed that data leaves the tank. Hi Andy, In my finding, the TP's digital output is not jitter free, despite its claim of a very stable clock. Putting an Apogee Big Ben with a linear PS can still make a significant improvement in sound. Also, by asking TP to use/sync the clock from my TacT 2.2xp preamp's digital out via Toslink improves the sound as well. The improvement is less harsh/edgy treble, stronger bass. The sound/tempo feels slower and is best described as more relaxed. The TP's clock is not quite top notch. Many high end CD transports beat it handily. I've listened to a couple CD transports that had TP beaten. I'm not saying the TP's design is bad. It is not. It is just not as perfect as some would believe in here. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74721 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter sounding better with clock sync on Toslink, why?
Hi Phil, The clock from 2.2xp is fed into the Toslink input of the TP, not word clock in. I found that using conductive interconnect is noiser than Toslink (optical). Since you have TacT 2.2x and Transporter, how is your connection b/w them? I have everything connected via Toslink, and it sounds the best that way. I've added a Big Ben b/w TP and 2.2xp now. I've replaced the SMPS in BB with a Linear PS. It sounds much better. Now with the BB in place, I can tell TP to use its internal clock and there is not much of a difference if tell TP I use the clock from 2.2xp. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74582 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
Yes, this effect is entirely possible due to latency in Wifi transmission. Please download the latency checker here: http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml It plots the latency of your PC against time. If you see latency over 1000 uS every so often on the SBS PC running on Wifi, then it may explain why your wired connection results in better sound. It maybe your Wifi router that has excessive latency, or the Wifi adaptor in your SBS PC. We cannot do anything with the Transporter's Wifi adaptor, but I beleive it is a good one that does not have latency issue. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74721 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter sounding better with clock sync on Toslink, why?
I've a TacT 2.2xp digital preamp and I found that if I feed the subwoofer toslink output from 2.2xp to the toslink input of the Transporter (TP) and tell TP to sync its clock on the toslink input, the sound is noticeably better. I don't understand why this is the case, as TP is supposed to have a better clock inside. And usually, having the clock as close to the source as possible (ie: using TP's internal clock) should make for a better sounding system. If sync'ing to ext. clock via toslink results in better sound, does it imply TP's clock is not really that well implemented? BTW, if I sync the clock to TP's coax word clock input, that didn't sound good at all and it is to be expected. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74582 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter and word clock base-rate multiplying support
adamslim;499385 Wrote: It does seem a shame that so much hand-wringing goes on about jitter, yet it is a problem almost completely solved by a clock from the DAC. If indeed it is an audible problem at all. Still, fills the hifi mags, eh? :) I've a TP and TacT 2.2xp Room Correction preamp. My TP is connected to the 2.2xp via Toslink. I found that the TP sounds a lot better if I tell the TP to sync its clock to the 2.2xp's sub channel Toslink output. The sound is warmer, bass is more dynamic, and more details everywhere. So jitter is a real problem despite TP's claim of high quality clock. What I found is TP performs better if it can sync to the DAC's clock or in my case the preamp's master clock. But as Sean was saying, it is best not to use an ext. clock to drive the TP and the DAC together, it is a very difficult task to do in eliminating jitter arriving at the DAC. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=73025 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter and Big Ben Clock
Anyone using the above combo? Any improvement in sound? -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=65978 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] You can say, I told you so...
You should hear zero difference with Duet being powered by external linear PS. The Duet itself has additional switching PS inside based on the 9V DC input. I tried powering the Duet with AA batts. using a batt. holder via the DC input jack, there is no difference in sound at all. I've a TacT 2.2xp pre-amp processor, it makes a big improvement in sound once I changed the SMPS to a Linear PS :) timequest;423689 Wrote: That said (let me reiterate, the CI unit works just fine with the Duet), how does the addition of the aftermarket PS make the Duet sound? Cant tell. Without actually doing an immediate A/B comparison, my ears just arent that golden. Some people claim that they can hear an immediate improvement. For certain, the addition of the CI unit did not hinder the sound in any way it may have helped (I just cant say for certain). However, the new CI unit certainly looks impressive Im utilizing a nice Tara Labs PC and super-duper power umbilical .cool stuff, no doubt. And there is always the placebo factor- by golly, I think I actually do hear an improvement in the bass region. In reality, thats about as much as any audiophile can realistically expect from most tweaks Sorry for the false alarm! -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63374 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audiophile power supply / conditioning
cdmackay;404725 Wrote: I wonder if that model supplies power normally from the battery, or whether the battery is only there for backup? It seems to me that a simple battery really ought to be the cleanest source of power, and the cheapest. Has anyone tried this, for low-power sources, at least? cheers, calum. But APC does not make audio equipment. They only need to generate a useable AC for your computer equipment. So how clean the AC waveform can APC generate from the battery is anybody's guess. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=52348 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audiophile power supply / conditioning
darrenyeats;404783 Wrote: Maybe I should ask the question more specifically. By score 100 vs 5 do you mean: 1. The power filter filters all but 10% of the noise, but a power generator filters all but 0.5% (20 times better)? or 2. The power filter filters only 5% of the noise and the power generator filters 100% of the noise (20 times better)? Just want to quantify what you meant. As you can see, I can interpret two completely different scenarios. Darren The numbers are just a wild guess. What I'm saying is, sonically, the AC regenerator will give you a remarkable improvement in sonic quality, where as the low cost filter won't change much in the sonic quality at all. Try listening to your music with or without the line filter and tell us how much change in sound you hear. My guess is that you'll hear nothing different. With PPP, the changes are very noticable. Also, try comparing the sonic quality of your system during the day vs night. If you find it is sonically better night time, then it means your line filter is not doing much to filter noise. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=52348 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audiophile power supply / conditioning
cdmackay;404778 Wrote: Kuro wrote: cdmackay;404725 Wrote: I wonder if that model supplies power normally from the battery, or whether the battery is only there for backup? It seems to me that a simple battery really ought to be the cleanest source of power, and the cheapest. Has anyone tried this, for low-power But APC does not make audio equipment. They only need to generate a useable AC for your computer equipment. So how clean the AC waveform can APC generate from the battery is anybody's guess. Very easy to measure though, one would imagine. APC do claim to do power conditioning on the output, I note. I'm struggling to see why AC generated from a battery, with no other loads, would have much noise associated with it. As to my battery suggestion, for DC, I do realise that's no good for e.g. Transporter, but it would be fine for SBR. Although it's been noted elsewhere that power supply changing has little to no effect on an SBR. cheers, calum. It depends on the circuit that is generating the AC from the battery, how well is the conditioning and how well the waveform is maintained under load. I can tell you that most of the line conditioners are not doing much to the AC signal, they're really selling snake oils. PPP also has multiwave feature that generates special AC waveform so the caps in the power supply has a longer charge cycle. It is as if you have a bigger capacitor bank in your equipment. The bass improvement is very noticeable. If you want more info, please read this link: http://www.psaudio.com/ps/products/description/power-plant-premier?cat=power -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=52348 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The best power-amplifier for Logitech's Transporter?
misterburns;371870 Wrote: Thanks for the reply. I must admit that my knowledge in amps etc. is not as good as I would wish for. I have tried to find out about the Lyngdorf's: - input sensitivity (less than 1.5V (less than 1V even better) You'd be much better off to get the TDAI2200 or TacT M2150X. Use the coax digital out of the TP and feed the 100% unmodified digital signal to the digital amp and use the amp's volume control. TacT M2150X will not scale down the digital input for volume control, the volume is controlled by the supply voltage rail. So you get the full unscaled / original digital signal, not one that is scaled down using the volume control on the TP. The scaled down digital signal will lose resolution at lower listening level. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=56628 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audiophile power supply / conditioning
cdmackay;403521 Wrote: Kuro;403381 Wrote: You do not hear noise per se in your music, the noise manifests itself as loss in micro dynamics, less sound stage depth, loss of bass tautness, loss in harmonics and increased high frequency content in the music. I always struggle somewhat with these descriptions, sorry :( what is micro dynamics? and bass tautness? I used to be a bass player, but I'm not sure how taut I was :) and loss in harmonics and increased high frequency content sounds a little bit contradictory? thanks much. cheers, calum. Micro dynamics are the details usually associated with instruments in the background with much lower volume. Without AC regeneration, these details can be muddy, lacking definition or sense of direction. When you got noise cleaned out, you'll hear lots of little things in the background and these little things can be quite dynamic and having direction/movements in the sound stage. High freq noise content is not the same as harmonics. Those HF content can sound similar to harmonics, but they're not. They are noise. When noise is removed, you get a pitch black backgound and gained clarity. The actual harmonics will get more pronounced (in relative terms) and you'll hear the actual harmonics, not noise induced ones. Have you ever found music sounded slightly different during the day vs at night? AC line usually has less noise during the night time. With AC regen in place, there is little or no difference when music is played in day vs night. PPP can measure and display the THD in the AC line and the THD after it has cleaned the power. A typical incoming THD is 3-5%. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=52348 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audiophile power supply / conditioning
NewBuyer;403597 Wrote: Actually what I would really appreciate, is if somebody would ever explain exactly HOW the unconditioned power on our average home power lines, can possibly cause our audio systems to sound bad. Do the transformers and capacitors in the gear not filter out any of the crud? If not, how exactly then can this cause an audible problem? Is any of this improvement actually measurable from our speakers? I really have never received a good or plausible answer to any of this - all I ever seem to find or receive are repeated marketing-line claims about how home power somehow is bad. It can make a naive person (like me) wonder: Do some audio vendors tend to sell power conditioners simply to increase their profit margin? Yes, those transformers and capactors are not sufficient to filter out all the AC noise. Different metal and metal structure used in the power cords and various components have different noise conduction characteristics. Some conduct noise better than the other. Ever experiment with different power cords and found some sounded brighter, or some with lacking clarity, or some with wider sound stage? This is due to different noise conduction characteristic in the cables. Once noise is removed/suppressed, many power cords will sound similar. Likewise for interconnects and even DACs. For instance, the Benchmark DAC1 will sound almost identical to the TP's AKM 4396 DAC, once PPP is in placed. Otherwise, you may hear Benchmark being inferior to the TP's DAC, all because TP has a better power supply than the Benchmark. This is because TP's super regulators helped reduce noise better than those 7805/7818/7918 regulators in the Benchmark. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=52348 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audiophile power supply / conditioning
darrenyeats;404502 Wrote: I use an inexpensive power filter (£40) which has an inductor in it to filter out higher frequency noise. AFAIK this will give you 90% of what you need in terms of clearing out the noise from AC. I am hardly an EE so if someone knows better please correct me. Darren The inductor core does not work well. It is far from the performance of the PPP. If PPP scores 100, your power filter probably scores a 5. Just my $0.02 -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=52348 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audiophile power supply / conditioning
AC noise is every bit as real and is found in practically all our homes. You do not hear noise per se in your music, the noise manifests itself as loss in micro dynamics, less sound stage depth, loss of bass tautness, loss in harmonics and increased high frequency content in the music. The only reliable and well known product in the audiophile world is PS Audio Power Plant Premiere (AKA PPP). PPP is an AC regenerator and it'll regenerate clean AC power from DC. The improvement you'll hear will be all of the points I described above. You do need reasonably high-end amp and speakers in order to hear those improvements. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=52348 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Duet PSU upgrade..?
I'm about to do an experiment by using 8 1.2V rechargeable AA batts to power the Duet. I want to see if it can bring the digital section close to the Transporter level... -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=59855 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter + TacT RCS 2.2XP - how to hook up?
No, I'm using the Transporter's DAC, not TacT's. I don't even have the analog board for my TacT. The TacT is just a pure digital device for effect loop hook up for room correct. I've listened to the Lyngdorf DAC, it is better in some areas and worse in others. Sound stage for one is not was wide as the Benchmark DAC1... -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=59024 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter + TacT RCS 2.2XP - how to hook up?
I'll be receiving the Transporter and TacT RCS 2.2XP next week. I already own a Duet, but I want to use the Transporter's DAC for its superior sonic quality. So what I want is to replace the Duet with the Transporter. I want to take the Transporter's digital out, feed it to TacT for room correction, and then take the TacT's (room corrected) digital out and feed it back to the Transporter's DAC. Is this possible? -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=59024 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Loss from Ethernet Cable?
musicinmind;250911 Wrote: My files are primarily 16/44.1 aiff (Apple computer) that I have ripped from my own cd's. I also have a few hundred hours of 24 bit/48 aiff files that I've recorded at shows myself with two Neumann U89i's. Thanks again... The problem is your rip. Apple iTune does rip CD tracks correctly as it does not know the read offset of the DVD drive. Use dbPowerAmp or EAC with the correct read offset and rip the file in FLAC. I know because I made the same mistake with Apple lossless and ended up having to re-rip everything later for a bit accurate rip. -- Kuro Kuro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41268 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
