Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] squeezebox setup for audiophiles
On 03/18/2011 07:10 PM, JezA wrote: If the people who design and make products design and make them properly they shouldn't need tweaking. If they do need tweaking, why throw good money after bad? Why not just buy something that works right in the first place? I don't agree with this as a general concept. Any design has tradeoffs. Consider the hot-rod hobby, they modify cars to make them suit personal needs, often getting more horsepower and torque by trading off fuel economy or reliability. Its not hard to take a mass market American V8 and get 500 or even 600 HP out of it, but it will not last 100,000 miles. There is truth to the old can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear but sometimes, a few tweaks can make a serious difference. For me, stereo is about the music, not the gear, and I have no interest in tweaks other than properly positioning my speakers. YMMV -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Mac Mini as server?
On 03/14/2011 12:34 PM, Absinth wrote: As I understand it, the weak point of SPDIF is output from the source. No. There are many weak points with SPDIF. It is fundamentally flawed. It was designed as a cheap consumer mass market connection. It works fairly well at that. It was never designed for high accuracy in either a studio or audiophile world. And its never going to meet the needs of either a recording studio or a serious audiophile. Look elsewhere. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why do things sound the way they do?
And if this was NOT true, I would have been in NYC last week bidding on one of Eric Clapton's guitars. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/science/09guitar.html There is a good deal of similarity between the adoration people have for Stad and Amati violins and the adoration people have for Clapton and, by extension, for his guitars. There is nothing special about any of Clapton's guitars. By definition, the Fender Strat was designed to be cheap to mass produce. They are direct descendants of the log that Leo Fender made. Some wood, some simple pickups, and a decent neck. Paying big bucks for a signed Clapton guitar is insane while he can create one every night that he tours. On a Fender Strat, or most other solid body electric guitars, the shape of the body, material, etc have *nothing* to do with the sound. The sound of the guitar comes from the strings, pickups and amp (plus effects if you use them), but the sound you hear depends on that plus the way the guitarist plays it. In the 60s, there was graffiti all over London saying Clapton is God which might be a bit of an exaggeration, but the boy can play. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter $999
On 03/10/2011 02:26 PM, ralphpnj wrote: And what does OBE stand for? I always heard Overtaken By Events but in this case, perhaps Obsoleted By Europeans -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Attacking the problem at the wrong end
On 02/27/2011 10:31 AM, Daverz wrote: I've read about studies that show we're not that sensitive to phase. I could try to find a reference. You can find studies that show that smoking tobacco is not bad for you. Phase is how you know where the lion/tiger is, or the crack of a broken piece of grass when a warrior of the other tribe is sneaking up on you. I agree that most speakers screw up phase terribly. Its mostly the crossovers that do the damage. At least, that's my theory, and speakers like Quads and Maggies sound so good because they don't have the problem. Same with folks who love Lowthers and flee watt amps. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Attacking the problem at the wrong end
On 02/27/2011 11:05 AM, Daverz wrote: Phase is how you know where the lion/tiger is, or the crack of a broken piece of grass when a warrior of the other tribe is sneaking up on you. That's a cute just-so story, but it doesn't mean that we are very sensitive to lack of time coherence in audio reproduction. er, it means that the way our body works, the brain hears, the ear just picks up the signal. We have evolved so that phase is critical. We combine phase with things like amplitude (loudness) and frequency spectra (Thanks Kal) or the shape of the frequency distribution. While I canceled my subscription to The Absolute Sound in disgust, they are right one thing. The goal of music reproduction is to sound like un-amplified instruments and voices in real music halls. There are no crossovers screwing up the phase with a real singer in a real hall. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Attacking the problem at the wrong end
On 02/27/2011 11:58 AM, Mnyb wrote: The brain also has a beautiful time gating function ? or what to call it. I would call it signal processing. Even in the most undampened room or cave you can hear direction if someone talks to you even if the reflected sound has almost the same power, (it can ofcourse partly also be a learned response to identify the most correct sound as the original source ) It could be learned or even evolved. But its also selective. At a neighborhood picnic, all the folks are talking, and you can't hear anyone but those closest to you, the rest are a buzz. But if your kid calls mom or dad then you pick it out instantly. Everyone there answers to mom or dad, but they are all listening to something specific. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Attacking the problem at the wrong end
On 02/27/2011 12:45 PM, Phil Leigh wrote: To a degree, yes... but 80% of my collection comprises amplified instruments and close mic'd vocals recorded in studios that describes well all of the pop, rock, hiphop, county, etc. in the world. And at least 80 percent of my collection as well. But as audiophiles, I think we should aspire to a higher level. If you consider just electric guitars and synths, the guitars are not the instrument, its the guitar plus its amp (and any effects petals). You don't care about the sound of the guitar. With synths, there is no real sound there, all you can get are the non-real signals that the synth makes thought its amplifiers. Guitar amps are supposed to distort. Its part of the definition of an electrical guitar. How one tells the distortion caused by the playback chain and the distortion caused by the guitar/amp or synth is left as an exercise to the student. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Attacking the problem at the wrong end
On 02/26/2011 05:49 PM, Kal Rubinson wrote: OTOH, our auditory system has evolved for the signal detection skills needed for survival. These include distinguishing a significant signal from the background and localizing it. Notice how you can recognize a familiar voice on the limited bandwidth of a telephone link? This leads to my belief, not backed up by science, that as humans, we needed to detect the direction of the lion/cheetah before it got too close to us, and that made proper phase detection critical to avoid being lunch. Yet the usual measurements of hi-fi focuses instead on frequency. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Attacking the problem at the wrong end
On 02/26/2011 07:12 PM, mlsstl wrote: However, a trumpet played in the same room sends most of its sound directly forward. This opinion is not backed by facts. The whole trumpet vibrates. Sound is not a point source from some mythical point in the bell. Rather the bell and tubing resonate with the notes. Its not the breath of the player that comes rushing out of the bell. The breath vibrates the whole trumpet in resonance with the notes. I will agree that its next to impossible for a HiFi to replicate the sound of a trumpet. They are very loud. My daughter was a serious trumpet player, going to Interlochen Arts Camp, having private lessions for 5+ years, etc. I know very well what the sound of a trumpet is in my house. Playing Winton Marsalis on my very nice stereo is not the same. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] any ideas accepted
On 01/22/2011 11:05 PM, pski wrote: on 5 way speakers? Don't think about them. Making good crossovers is an art, deep voodoo. Making a two-way speaker's crossover is fairly easy. Doing it for a three way is a lot harder. Ever notice that a ton of high end speakers are only two way? As you add still more crossovers, it becomes more impossible to keep then phase correct. Get a Quad or Maggie instead, no stinking crossover. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What is a Transporter SE?
On 01/18/2011 12:30 AM, JJZolx wrote: (I never use the knob either. I was just playing with it and the front panel buttons to see what they do and completely locked up the Transporter. I suspect that the front panel functionality hasn't gotten a lot of use or testing over the years.) I have one of the first production Transporters. I was not in the beta program. I played with the knob the first days I had it. Its a cool technical tour-de-force, dynamically programmable force feedback. I've never touched the knob in the years since. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
On 01/11/2011 02:44 PM, Phil Leigh wrote: firedog;601760 Wrote: specifically stated that the 16/44 is a downsample of the 24/44 master. They have exactly the same number of samples :-) And as beloved as the ancient tape machines in the 60s were, its highly unlikely that there is actually any signficant bits in the last 8 bits of any 24 bit sample made from it. Those machines barely had 70 dB of SNR. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hifi rack: wood or glass shelves?
On 12/30/2010 10:22 AM, konut wrote: Glass has the potential to vibrate. I stick with wood. The stuff that they use to make guitars and violins? -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] My perfect audiophile box
On 11/12/2010 04:08 PM, blu.vulcan wrote: ...so why not Logitech? Duh, because Logitech is a mass market brand. They make speakers and mice and expect to sell tens of millions of them. And if it works, the Google TV/Review will sell tens of millions (probably in version 2). I have zero expectation that Logitech will make any products aimed at audiophiles and not at mass market. They might make products that happen to meet many audiophile's needs (like the Touch), but they sure are not going to aim for a product that is only appreciated by audiophiles. For most brands, things aimed at audiophiles cost $1,000. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Best place to see my Benchmark DAC1
On 11/11/2010 11:40 AM, tomjtx wrote: BTW Pat, what are you replacing the Benchmark with ? I did it a few years ago: Slim Devices Transporter. I could not tell which was better in my AB testing, so I kept the Transporter because it looked better than separate SB and Benchmark. Pure WAF, which is important when the music room is also the living room. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Best place to see my Benchmark DAC1
On 11/11/2010 11:58 AM, tomjtx wrote: I did it a few years ago: Slim Devices Transporter. Seems like you might be as bad as me about selling old gear :-) Yes, I'm terrible. But I'm getting into taking more photos with my DSLR and need lights, stands, etc. And to keep the WAF high, some of the old stuff gets sold. I'm even thinking of selling some of my 30+ microphones. I still have a pair of 70s vintage Large Advent speakers, my 40 year old 35mm film darkroom, . -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Best place to see my Benchmark DAC1
On 11/10/2010 02:46 AM, JJZolx wrote: eBay obviously gets a lot of traffic. I'm not sure why the BIN sales or the new gear should be a concern. Well, to me the worthless BIN are indications that folks are not using auctions. To me, the BIN puts private sellers at a disadvantage. I've only got the one DAC, its not like I need a store. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Best place to see my Benchmark DAC1
After a few years of thinking about selling it, I've decided to actively sell my DAC1. The two obvious places to sell it are eBay and audiogon. I've looked at eBay, and its fairly clear that most of the sellers do not use auctions anymore. Most of the stuff is buy it now and a lot is new. While my DAC1 is well taken care of, its been used daily for a couple of years. So I then looked on audiogon, and I even registered. But I still can't see a lot of the information that I'd expect to see, like prior selling prices. They want me to become a subscriber and it fairly expensive. So what do you think is the best place to sell used audiophile gear? Thank Pat -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] High definition digital vs red book
On 10/29/2010 11:57 AM, Phil Leigh wrote: Bear in mind that differences between different sample rates/bitdepths are always going to be quite subtle...whereas differences between masters can be MASSIVE! This thread admirably demonstrates this. For sure, and the big difference in high/wide mastering, in those cases where there actually is any difference, is that the customer told the high-wide mastering dude to not screw it up. Far too many Redbook recordings are butchered in the mixing and again in the mastering stages. A properly done Redbook recording can sound damn impressive. But too many are mangled by marketing, idiot producers, etc. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Review II: What conclusion can be drawn from the Measurements?
On 09/23/2010 01:51 PM, mlsstl wrote: My frank opinion is that we need to send a lot of recording engineers and producers back to school to learn to use what we already have as opposed to investing in high-rez so we can hear poor recordings in even greater detail. Your opinion is uninformed. There is no school for producers, they are marketing people, not technical ones. The recording engineers know how to, and usually make, great sounding tracks. The Mastering engineers know how to avoid the loudness wars. Its the artists, managers, and record labels that thing that quality does not care. That folks won't pay for better quality. Its a market thing, not education. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Review II: What conclusion can be drawn from the Measurements?
On 09/23/2010 03:29 PM, mlsstl wrote: I'm not particularly interested in a debate over the job title of those responsible for the general state of recordings these days. And I'm not particularly convinced that some in the industry are blameless; pressure to conform may be an explanation, but it is not a justification. If you read the trade magazines aimed at recording professionals, they are filled with pros complaining that they are forced to ruin music. When you are a working professional, and you don't do what the client wants, you are soon no longer working. Its the golden rule, he who has the gold rules. There are lots in the industry responsible, but its not because the engineers are uneducated. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Unbalanced Analog Cable Help
On 09/22/2010 01:56 AM, Nonreality wrote: Thanks Pat, that at least gives me a visual on the whole idea. So you need to have special input and outputs to use those correct? Also probably a pretty high end system to hear a difference. You can get adapters from balanced to un and back, but I don't see much value for them except in special cases. You start to see XLR connections on amps that cost a grand or so, on up. Balanced are much better at eliminating several classes of noise, but that only makes them better if you have noise sources. The balanced cables can go hundreds of feet, whereas unbalanced are usually under 3 feet long, and get pretty wonky after 10 feet or so. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Unbalanced Analog Cable Help
On 09/22/2010 01:17 AM, Nonreality wrote: What is balanced or unbalanced outputs and how do you tell. The classic RCA plug/jack audio connection is unbalanced. There is a signal that is the potential (difference) in voltage between one lead and the ground. Its a two wire connection In a balanced connection, there are three wires, an electrical ground and two signal wires. The audio signal is the potential between two pins, independently of the ground. Balanced connections, at least in audiophile circles, are three pin XLR connections. Unbalanced are RCA jacks/plugs In a pro-studio, you can also send balanced signals down a 1/4 TRS jack (looks like a stereo headphone jack). This connection takes up less space in a rack than XLR connections. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Review II: What conclusion can be drawn from the Measurements?
On 09/17/2010 02:46 PM, seanadams wrote: I haven't read the review yet but if the touch is resolving 17 bits that is probably the correct maximum capability of the DAC chip. All things have a noise floor... it is not realistic to expect that performance from a $300 device employing a single-chip, single rail DAC + output stage. Let alone recognize that 17 bits delivered is probably enough. Once you get to 100 dB SNR you are doing better than the recording chain. It can make sense to have 18 delivered just to keep the audiophile from geeking out on the meaningless numbers. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sound quality between wav and flac
On 08/17/2010 06:49 PM, earwaxer9 wrote: I thought about ripping to flac but I cant control the resolution in the same way as with a wave file. This makes no sense. The resolution of a flac file is exactly the same as the input wave/pcm file. Flac is lossless. You can uncompress the flac file and get exactly the original file, bit for bit. Perhaps you are confused by the common use of the term rip In reality, its a two step process, you extract the data, and then you compress the data into a storage format. The early programs did it in one step, and the term ripping became popular, but not a good description of what actually happens. There is no difference in sound quality, there is no difference in the decompressed files. Its easy to test for yourself. Any person who claims otherwise is blowing smoke. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Digital OUT encoding on TP, now AES S/PDIF together
On 07/28/2010 08:07 AM, Andy8421 wrote: Just for a bit of historical perspective, the AES/EBU spec was designed so that digital audio could be handled in a studio environment just as if it was analogue. So not just mic cables, but patch panels and permanent wiring could all cary the 'new' digital audio. For sure, and putting a digital signal through a TT patch panel is going to do wonderful things to the wave forms. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Confused between options - any advice welcome
Proper active speakers (not just speakers with amps inside them) are an expensive proposition... Yes, but IMHO, they are the future. I don't think you save money, but the amp engineer can deliver what the driver engineer wants, how, when, what flavor, etc. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's next or is this it?
On 07/09/2010 09:21 AM, michael123 wrote: Sean had some price range in mind, so he could not test capacitors that cost 200$, right? [snip] If you take Vitus for example (I saw tons of these amps in Munich), then you can realize that it uses 16 capacitors of Duelund Silver Cast-PIO.. it costs accordingly.. Do you seriously think that replacing a $2 cap with a $50 cap will greatly change the sound? Does the term eye candy for rich people mean anything to you? -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's next or is this it?
On 07/09/2010 10:03 AM, michael123 wrote: So, you say that the audio design ends at 200$? No I am saying that if you expect significant improvements in audio quality by changing a $1 cap with a $200 cap, you are drinking All IMHO, YMMV, etc -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's next or is this it?
Would not think that it would take much to continue it's evolution and I sure would guess that it was successful. Are you serious? Its old platform, it would have to be completely redesigned from the ground up to use the current platform. It was a fun lark for Sean and Dean, but never sold in any volume, and was too computer for the audiophile purists, and too high priced for consumers. Suppose someone wanted to make a TP-2, it would be what percent better than the initial TP, in what area would you put the engineering? He's dead, Jim -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's next or is this it?
Interesting perspective. I do not know the difference between platforms, sorry. What is this? The SB1, SB2, SB3 and Boom use essentially a hardwired specialized controller, which was pretty dumb. The Touch, and maybe the Radio (can't remember) are real full Linux computers running a special internal OS, with programs, etc. Do you know that it did not sell in volume or is this your assumption? I do not have official sales numbers, never heard anyone talk about it. But one can get a good feel from hanging in this forum. I'm sure they sold 100, I have no idea if they sold 1000. I'll bet more than a few beers that they sold way under 10k My personal experience, with many, is that they more than excepted it and had been pretty much embraced...me included. You are entitled to an opinion, but if you look at the reviews in TAS and Stereophile, they lust after tubes and vinyl records. I do not have any notion on how to improve it but would guess that the dac could be as well as the analog section. Actually, Sean put a ton of effort into the analog section, after the DAC. Sure, it could be improved, but not without a ton of engineering. You could put in a different DAC chip, might be better. But it won't be a night and day difference. The current DAC is impressive. Dan Wrights changes to the analog section certainly were well received. By a very small niche group, but you can't run a business that way. The cost of electronics is not the cost of the parts. Its the engineering, NRE, non-recurring engineering expense. The only way to lower the impact of the NRE is to move more units. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Lossless download sites?
On 07/03/2010 05:55 PM, Henry66 wrote: I am not a fan of classical, jazz, blues or country. This tends to make my choices limited at the above sites. What do you like to listen to? The ones you list, esp classical and jazz, are popular with audiophiles. A lot of rock/pop/hiphop/dance/etc is so processed that lossless is not that important. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Lossless download sites?
On 07/03/2010 07:37 PM, Stratmangler wrote: Buy CD's online at Amazon - go for the free delivery option, rip CD when it arrives, put CD in a box with other CD's and place box in the attic/cellar/under bed etc. It often works out cheaper than downloading lossless files. This is what I've been doing for 5 or so years. No arguments possible from the evil goons at the RIAA, I have the cd, case, all that crap. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Lossless download sites?
On 07/03/2010 09:10 PM, Robin Bowes wrote: On 04/07/10 00:59, Pat Farrell wrote: No arguments possible from the evil goons at the RIAA, I have the cd, case, all that crap. ...except that is technically not legal in the UK. Well, here it is technocally illegal to talk about what goons the RIAA are and how to get around the idiotic DMCA. *rolls-eyes* -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Yet another Touch vs. Transporter thread
On 06/22/2010 01:28 PM, michael123 wrote: Logitech - Wake up!! What about Transporter 2? We want 384/32!! Why? there is nearly zero 192/24 recordings out there. Going from 24 to 32 bits is a complete waste of space, there is zero chance that there is more than 24 bits of signal ever, anywhere. And, IMHO, there will never be a Logitech TP 2. Perhaps a Sean's Garage TP 2, if he hasn't gone off to spend his retirement surfing. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Yet another Touch vs. Transporter thread
On 06/22/2010 02:23 PM, michael123 wrote: Anyway, most, if not all DAC chips, are now 32bit. Maybe nobody needs it now.. Nobody needs it now, and nobody will need it in the future. There simply is not 32 bits of data in audio. something like 20 bits is all that equipment can detect, and 16 bits is not far from all that humans can detect. As for 192/24, most of LINN classical high-res catalog is now going as 192/24. Pure marketing fluff. Linn is famous for it. 88.2 makes a lot of sense. I'll accept that 96 kHz makes some sense. But there is simply no there above that. The rest is marketing BTW, I see some benefit when transport works as 32bit, it is more appropriate when fed by computer. Eliminates conversion. There is no conversion. PCM data is integer data. You just truncate it. Zero conversion at all. Again, pure 100% marketing hype. They are not changing the physics. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Yet another Touch vs. Transporter thread
On 06/22/2010 02:39 PM, michael123 wrote: Internally, processing is performed as 32bit. Output signal as 32bit is less conversion, and faster. No, not true. No DAC will waste 32 pins for output. Way too much board space, and that is the expensive part of electronics these days. Signals go out one wire. No conversion takes place. As Phil wrote, if writing 16 bit data from 24, just dump 16 bits and then 8 zeros. If someone in marketing thinks 32 sells better, just pump out the bits and padd with zeros. There is no conversion. Not faster. Its actually slower to send 32 of something than 24. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Vintage equipment: Opinions?
On 06/07/2010 10:46 PM, RonM wrote: good condition, high power (true 90W/channel rms). Lots of fanatics liking this stuff. There is lots of other good solid state equipment out there from years past. Opinions on its worthiness, assuming good condition? If (and this is a big if) they have been used continually over the 35+ years, and its working fine now, they should be fine. Old gear has lots of capacitors that go bad over time, and when you plug them in the first time, they may work. The caps dry out, leak, and all sorts of other ugly things. Most of the time, if they work over a day, they will work for years more. Many of the old solid state amps from the 70s and early 80s had great specs, but actually sounded pretty bad. The Dynaco Stereo 120 amp was a classic example. The tube'd ST70 was and is a great amp. The ST120, not so much. And the Dynaco ST400 was famous for blowing up. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The sound of jitter
TiredLegs wrote: Audio critics have conjured up more adjectives than wine tasters to describe the sonic impact of power supplies, cables, capacitors and even resistors, so why can't they answer this simple question: What does jitter sound like? It doesn't. It all hype, a way to sucker audiophiles out of their money. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hard facts supporting the quality of Touch digital out.
bhaagensen wrote: by now these forums are swamped with claims that the digital output of the Touch is better than the SB3/Receiver and almost on par with the Transporter. Which is completely consistent with the time. The SB3 is just a SB2 in a better looking case. Its an ancient design using ancient DAC chips. If the Touch was not a lot better, I'd be gobsmacked. I have without luck been trying to track down these 'mother'-posts for hours now. I'm guessing John S and Phil L are involved, but even this haven't been of any help. You have the right sources. But I don't keep the email archives, and I hate using the Forum software, so I can't help you there. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DAC Resolution Test and Don't EVER use Digital Volume Control
darrenyeats wrote: mswlogo;543633 Wrote: The DSP processing is done in 48bit. I can understand how 48 bits helps the DSP to be more transparent (less rounding errors). Its not just rounding errors. Nearly all DSP is done by converting the time-doman signal to the frequency domain using a FFT. DSP chips are notable because they do a combined multiply-and-add function quickly, usually massively parallel processing. Nearly all of the time, they are actually working on floating point numbers, not the 16 or 24 bit integers that most audiophiles are used to talking about. When you do as many multiply and add functions as a typical DSP does, and we are talking about tens of thousands, you need to be very careful with the numerical analysis. Its much more complicated than simple rounding of a few bits. This whole thread has been off in the weeds for weeks. A digital volume control is talking about a nearly trivial single multiply or shift function. DSP is more like dealing with quantum physics rather than Newtonian physics. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DAC Resolution Test and Don't EVER use Digital Volume Control
Phil Leigh wrote: Don't disagree with any of this... my Beatles point was that the multi-tracks are inherently pre-eq'd by the nature of the equipment in use at the time Cute phrase. That is what all the knobs on studio consoles are for, many of them are a per-track EQ. You setup the EQ and hit record. Perhaps a few guys would ride the EQ, but most of the time it was set and left alone. The big point about Beatles era recording was that it was done to tape, and all analog tape has a built in soft limit, hit it too hard, and it doesn't go all square wave, it just gets nearly flat. Using the natural roll off of an analog tape was part of the art of audio engineering. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DAC Resolution Test and Don't EVER use Digital Volume Control
Phil Leigh wrote: Ah - the happy days when I traded my 32-channel analogue desk and twin 8-track machines for a 32-channel digital desk with full automation and unlimited channels of 24/48 DAW... In hindsight it wasn't progress - it was a VERY expensive mistake. Would it still be a mistake today? I know it was VERY expensive, but the modern ADC and DAW workstations seem to have recovered from most of the early digital evilness. Well, 24/48 smells of ADAT, which has thankfully been obsolete for nearly all of this century. To my ears, current 24/88.2 stuff sounds fine. Those old 24 and 32 track desks were expensive to maintain themselves. Too many moving parts, issues with alignment and bias I used to use a tape-head saturation emulation plugin, but it wasn't as good... Funny how the emulations don't seem to match up with the old LA-2 compressors and tape saturation. I would think that it could be perfectly matched with enough DSP power. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DAC Resolution Test and Don't EVER use Digital Volume Control
Robin Bowes wrote: You understand what happens when you simply clip a peak, don't you? You know about the high frequency content in square waves? Robin, stop pulling you punches. The frequency bandwidth of a square wave is infinite. Even if one used a stupid high frequency sample rate, you are forcing distortion. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DAC Resolution Test and Don't EVER use Digital Volume Control
mswlogo wrote: You guys are clueless. Now you resort to personal insults. That lowers your SeanTrollScale to 0/10 You are still a troll Do not feed the trolls. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Display problems
mlsstl wrote: That's a pretty pricey product to treat as a throw-away! While the display is nice, having a broken display is no reason to throw away a Transporter. I rarely pay any attention to the displays on mine. Of course, if you really want a display, the one from a salvaged SB1/g, SB2 or SB3/Classic will work fine. Or, one could buy a couple of Touch units, and use the displays from them in the TP housing. Its huge and mostly empty. This is a trend not just for the TP, but for nearly all stuff with non-trivial electronics, and that includes any car made this century. Years ago, I could rebuild the four-barrel carb on my Pontiac 389 V8, as well as nearly anything else on the car. With modern fuel injection and mixture and spark advance systems, they are considered black boxes that are replaced. Even TVs have become like toasters, use and throw away. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Display problems
mlsstl wrote: I understand that one can cabbage parts from other SB models. The question is whether that's appropriate one month out of warranty. And as for using a Touch screen in the Transporter cabinet, who wants their $2,000 high-end toy looking like it was a jerry-rigged entry in a You might be a redneck... contest? For the prices one has to pay for (to buy and to fix) other high end audiophile stuff, there is no reason for a Touch's screen to not look perfect. Its about the same size. As for the carburetor on your Pontiac, I bet you can still get it rebuilt. I'm sure that it can be for a price. But what you can't do today that you could when I had it, was go into any local autoparts store and buy not only all the parts, but all the other needed stuff, like the evil carb cleaner fluid. For one, there are far fewer autoparts stores. More importantly, the local autoparts store no longer carries such parts. Back in the day, everyone had to rebuild carbs, now only a few specialists know what a carb looks like. For me, I don't have a Transporter, so I think I'll cease worrying about how to fix what I don't own. ;-) Seems a bit weird that you were so concerned, while the TP is still for sale, its no longer a $2000 product and its not getting any press. Even audiophiles like their tail fins. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Display problems
mlsstl wrote: pfarrell;542057 Wrote: Seems a bit weird that you were so concerned, while the TP is still for sale, its no longer a $2000 product and its not getting any press. Seriously, in these forums I see lots of people with lots of opinions about lots of things posting their thoughts when they have only an indirect interest in the issue. Yes, but your grounding and standing is pretty weak since you don't have a unit and aren't looking to buy one. I might complain that a Ferrari gets crappy gas mileage, but folks in the market for one won't see things the way I do. My indirect interest is as a Squeezebox owner for almost a decade. The way Logitech has handle a few things the past year has been a disappointment. No doubt they have what they feel are good business reasons for doing what they do, but that doesn't mean I need to be a fanboy for every move they make. The people who designed the Transporter left the company. The new company has a different culture, different priorities. Perhaps they will be interested in an niche audiophile product, but I expect not. It was more of a an engineering exercise by a few talented folks, as are nearly all audiophile products. Nearly all audiophile products are made by companies with under $5 million in sales, and often they are under $1 million. I don't know of any high-end brands that are multi-national, even the well known ones, like Meridian, or Wilson Speakers, are tiny in the normal world of commerce. I expect that today, I would not buy another Transporter if mine goes belly up. I never use the fancy knob, and the dual displays are just fun eyecandy. Its sure not worth $1700 more than a Touch to me. I'd rather have two or three Touch units. But back when the Transporter came out, there was nothing like it. And it still sounds pretty darn good. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Display problems
mlsstl wrote: I didn't know they were interviewing candidates for the position of forum cop. Guess I need to watch my step from here on out and keep my opinions to myself 0/10 -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DAC Resolution Test and Don't EVER use Digital Volume Control
mswlogo wrote: I work with analog and digital signals at data rates that would make your head spin. Specifics please? Replies like yours are priceless. I'm sorry that the clipping I'm referring to is beyond your grasp. 1/10 -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DAC Resolution Test and Don't EVER use Digital Volume Control
mswlogo wrote: We determine the speed at which IONS fly through a vaccum in order to determine their Mass. I did that in high school physics class, over 40 years ago. You are still a troll, and your score is no higher than 1/10 on the SeanTrollScale -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DAC Resolution Test and Don't EVER use Digital Volume Control
darrenyeats wrote: 1. I tried a comparison at high digi volume too. The difference in character described above remained constant! This indicates that it is not the digi volume changing the character of the signal but quite the opposite - the Krell's pre is changing the character of the signal. Did you exactly match the volume each way? Sometimes the ear's non-linear sensitivity to volume does all the changing when the sound out of the gear is the same. Some speakers are also very non-linear. For years, I used Large Advents, which were famous for being great price/performance deals in the 70s. But they had two characterists that were not talked about nearly as much as their great performance: 1) they were amazingly inefficient, and needed serious power to drive 2) they sounded great when loud, but totally unimpressive at low volume (say background music levels). -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DAC Resolution Test and Don't EVER use Digital Volume Control
Phil Leigh wrote: and so on. Any sound no matter how complex can be represented by the correct sequence of numbers. Or more exactly, Joseph Fourier (1768–1830), French mathematician and genus showed that any signal, audio, light, etc. no matter how complex, can be exactly represented by a by sums of simpler trigonometric functions. Well, there wasn't much audio in existence in his lifetime, so others built on his foundation. The analysis of these functions leads to Fourier series, Fourier transforms, and in specific, Fourier transforms, which for practical reaons, means FFT (Fast Fourier Transforms) To perform DSP other than basic level control such as volume or fade-in/out (e.g. EQ) requires much more complex mathematics than just adding or subtracting a FIXED number to EVERY sample. The DSP function determines by how much to alter each sample. All of the fancy stuff is done using FFTs. What the bread and butter DSP functions do is implement FFTs in hardware, or the basics of the FFT in hardware so that firmware/software can do magic. The math is not that complex, anyone with college level calculus can understand the basics. Its one of the fundamental concepts of modern science. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DAC Resolution Test and Don't EVER use Digital Volume Control
rgro wrote: Again, my apologies for being stupid, but I find this rather fascinating. Assuming your example of properly recorded music at 16 bit---having a DR of 96db..is that 96db something one can measure with a decibal meter or is that measured via some other methodology? realistically, no. At least not safely. It is exteremly hard to get a space with a dBa-scale level below 40, most quiet living rooms are about 50 dBa. If you had a signal that was 96 dB louder than the base, it would have to be somewhere in the 130dB range, and that is about when blood runs out of your ears. The value is calculated. The calculations are simple. I've got a write up on this page: http://www.pfarrell.com/prc/bits.html The calculation is driven by the number of bits in the signal. Each bit gives you about 6 dB of range. 16*6 is 96. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DAC Resolution Test and Don't EVER use Digital Volume Control
Phil Leigh wrote: Pat - I believe it's been done in an underground anechoic chamber - I can't find the reference now - but basically I agree! I've been inside two anechoic chambers, and can say that there are not many of them, they are expensive, and being in one is very weird. Neither of them were underground, but they were weird enough that I couldn't stand being in either for more than a few minutes. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optical out;no optical in question.
Phil Leigh wrote: Ikabob;538552 Wrote: My pre-amp has only RCA inputs. Please just just use coax unless you have a hum problem. Sorry, Phil, he should just use the RCA analog and be happy. If he spends mega dollars on a new preamp, then it may have other input approaches. If all you have are analog RCA, be happy. There are coax digital connections terminated with RCA, but they are pretty rare. I haven't looked at my Touch carefully recently, but I don't remember it having a coax digital output. Toslink, sure. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporters Future?
richardw wrote: sorry you struggle reading my lack of interest in the shift key. I share Robin's view that your words would be easier to read if you took a nanosecond to use proper capitalization. But then, perhaps you are not really interested in communicating. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] RC (Inguz etc.)
Robin Bowes wrote: The DEQ2496 only has optical and AES/EBU digital connections - I use AES/EBU with a couple of bog standard balanced microphone cables. Sss! its a secret. AES/EBU was designed to use bog standard microphone cables for use in professional studios. There is no need for megadollar interconnects. I probably have 30 suitable cables in lengths from 3 feet to 50 feet in my basement/studio. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Memristance in interconnect cables
DCtoDaylight wrote: Naim have some very specific idea's on grounding and shielding and their cables are made to follow those idea's. For example the shields are only connected at one end, and that end should at the signal input connection. So that sets a preferred direction. Things like this can make a small but measurable improvement in SNR. Its not really a direction but a hint to avoid ground loops. And in computer science, we call such things a hack Electrons don't know which directions they are flowing in. Or as a proper Electrical Engineering professor would say, the electron holes, which flow for electrical current, don't know direction. Shields are good, which is why RCA connectors are lame. Use proper balanced connections, like the Transporter supports. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Memristance in interconnect cables
pski wrote: Can I trust the instructions to connect RCA to balanced inputs on my various amps like the attached PDF from JBL? Why would you do that? If you want balanced, you should have gear with balanced connections and use proper balanced cables and connectors. There is a reason that the JBL amp uses XLR connectors. I also used ferrite at the ends of line-level-to-line-level wires. It helped hum but otherwise was the signal involved? Thats just another hack. You are putting a filter for some frequencies on the line. If its a 50 or 60 Hz hum, and you cut it, you are cutting all the frequencies within an octave or so around 50/60. And most cheap filters simply are high pass, so they kill everything below 50, or maybe 80 hZ. Not what one wants for audiophile listening. RCA connections were used in early HiFi (pre-stereo) because the EE's who went to college on the GI bill in the early 50s had access to a lot of war surplus gear with RCA connections. They were cheap and adequate for the time. Its not like they are actually a good connection. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 7.5 Transporter
michael123 wrote: few questions: 1) Did anyone installed it in conjunction with Transporter? 2) Shall I expect faster performance (scanning, navigation, playlist) 3) Other useful features or important bug-fixes? I've been running 7.5 beta since September. That's when I got my production Touch. I've been running 7.6 beta ever since it was first released. I have not noticed any difference when using it with my Transporter. Or my Book or Radio. Perhaps the scanning is a small amount faster, but I do that so rarely that how long it takes is not important. While there are bug fixes, and probably some features that I have not noticed, the heart of 7.5 is support for the Touch. Its been a non-event as far as the rest of my SlimDevices collection is concerned. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Themis wrote: To add to that, the industry was against CD for the same reason : copying. At the time they were claiming cassettes were destroying their sales and that CD would give the final blow. Er, no. For the first decade or so, the CD was loved by the Music Industry because it was ReadOnly. There was no way to have consumers copy music. They loved it. The CD was designed specifically to be better than cassettes. In the late 70s and early 80s, everyone had a cassette player in their car, and made copies from LPs. Or even shared them. The horrors. I'm a hardcore geek, and I saw me first CD burner in 1996. A major reason that the labels pushed to DVD-A and SACD was that they had built in DRM. There was not much time between the popularity of DVDs and the cheap consumer DVD burner. But by then, most importantly, selling physical media with music was going the way of the dodo. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: Right..but probably a good surgeon has the best knife available, right? Sometimes. When the surgeon is in his preferred hospital with his trained crew, sure. Whether he wants a $10 knife or a $100 one is all personal choice, and the surgeon makes the call. But if the circumstances are different, and all the surgeon has is my pocket Swiss Army knife, I bet the surgeon will do better than an intern. Its about the music, not geeks claiming mine is bigger -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Themis wrote: Phil Leigh;52 Wrote: This is just silly. Analogue has some lovely added distortion that a lot of people like. Accurate it simply isn't. Well, not quite true. A lot of quality recordings are made on analogue gear, and, having them on CD doesn't make them more accurate... ;) Well, there are two kinds of accuracy here, often confused. If a CD/DVD-A is properly made, it can be accurate to the source per the Nyquist frequency. It can be engineered to be as close to accurately replicating the vinyl signal as you want. Audiophiles often claim accuracy when they like something. And most audiophiles love the added even harmonic distortions that tubes/valves and vinyl have in spades. As for the rest, you're right: there can be fine digital recordings. Although it took the industry some 20 years to get them right. I wouldn't say it took 20 years to get right. It did take five to ten years. The problem is that the music industry (and the RIAA) have no interest in music. They care only about sales and revenue. Its only the boutique folks that care at all about quality, accuracy, etc. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Switching to slow rollof filter in AK4396
Wombat wrote: Sadly i have the feeling the Transporter is seeing EOL soon and no one from the devs want to change anything on the Transporter anymore. Well, its been documented that the diplays are EOL. And Logitech has moved to a new fundamental platform for the internals. I would expect that there is no business case for putting much effort into the Transporter. I have no idea what the suitable definition of much is, but I expect its close to zero. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Phil Leigh wrote: tcutting;529198 Wrote: So, do you know the difference between Hardware and Software? ??? I see this as a perfectly valid question. These days, a lot of hardware is really defined by software and so the ancient distinctions are vague and occasionally meaningless. I expect that in time, there will be very little hardware differences in even high end audio equipment. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: Shall I continue? No You have become a troll. And your SeanTrollScore for these recent posts is 0/10. See http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76315 -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: When you will have something meaningful to say on the subject of this thread, say it.. We have fully explored this thread. You are asking for stuff that will not be answered. You want stuff that can't be done. If you hate the Transporter so much, and have half the skills you claim, built your own. Otherwise, please, go away. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: 1) stop insulting me I will bring this to attention of Logitech guys You should go away as your posts are ignorant and irritating I have not insulted you. I have said that your posts are pointless and you are a troll. You act like a troll, you write like a troll, you listen like a troll. As a wise man once said, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck 2) You are misleading.. Transporter can be upgraded and improved, that's the point.. As with every component. All audio designers are DIY-ers and modders. If you hack it up, its no longer a Transporter. Its like someone who has a 32 ford and puts a Chevy V8 into it. Its now a hot rod, its not a Ford. The Transporter is old, Electronics moves with Moore's Law. If you want to hot rod it, why are you here in the commercial product forums and not in some DIY site? 3) I am a legitimate (paying) customer of SlimDevices and Logitech. You're not going to shut me off Of course not, I am asking you, politely to shut up. 4) People asked me about the mod, so I provided some questions.. What people? You seem to be just asking the same thing over and over. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
Robin Bowes wrote: On 29/03/10 23:34, Themis wrote: Sorry, Phil, my English is not good enough to know what throw tin means... and search engines were not of much help. I would be grateful if you could provide a synonym, if you don't mind. To throw tin at something means to upgrade the hardware. Back when I drove near junker cars as an impoverished student, we would talk about how to best fix up the car. Sometimes, the best approach was to jack up the radiator cap, and replace everything under it. A more serious version of upgrading the hardware While the 'high end' audio folks have a longer time frame, anything computer related that is four or five years old is economically obsolete. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
snarlydwarf wrote: pfarrell;528958 Wrote: While the 'high end' audio folks have a longer time frame, anything computer related that is four or five years old is economically obsolete. With the fast rise of ARM processors in the last few years, that timeline is accelerated for 'embedded' applications. cheap, low wattage, reasonable cpu speed and a wealth of options on chip. Even my TV has an ARM processor in it (and runs Linux). Yes, the ARM is a great chip. iPhones have three of them. They are everywhere. I can't predict the future, but as all media moves to digital formats (vinyl lovers excepted) there is not a lot of room for the old style using of components for decades. I still have two Large Advents that I bought in 1971, but I don't use them for anything. My brother has my Dynaco preamp and amp from that system. Modern systems are going to be all DSP based, with an ARM or whatever replaces it in charge. The idea of putting a lot of time, money and effort into improving a piece of HiFi gear is going to look as silly as putting a lot of money into restoring a mid-70s vintage Toyota. Real computers (desktops, laptops, etc., as opposed to embedded systems) have gotten so powerful that 99% of the buyers never use even a fraction of their capabilities. Pat -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: My choice was greatly based on the fact that Transporter is an open platform. There is a good chance that your choice was based on incorrect understanding of the open license. The hardware has never been open source in any sense. None of the firmware has been open source, altho the Touch and other recent models have some pieces of software that is Open Source. I agree about marketing purposes! I know few people that do not buy it just because it does not support 192/24 and 176.4/24.. Well, then they won't buy one. Are you really of the impression that the Transporter was ever a mass market device? It was an engineering tour-de-force, a flagship. And a labor of love by folks who are no longer part of the company. What is the point of your continual posting in this thread? You are not going to change any facts. The firmware is not open source, the CPU is too slow. Accept it and move on with your life -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: What is the point of your continual posting in this thread? You are not going to change any facts. The firmware is not open source, the CPU is too slow. Accept it and move on with your life If that's a pure software issue, it can be profiled and optimized. Its software in the TP, not in the server. You could have the server do any kind of transcoding you like, but it won't make the hardware/firmware support your silly sample rates. The firmware in the TP is not open source, its not going to be changed by anyone not employed by Logitech. And I bet its not going to be changed by anyone emplyeed at Logitech either. Give it up. You have become a troll. And your SeanTrollScore for these recent posts is 0/10. See http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76315 -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: regarding silly sampling rates, tell it to Linn, Lindberg, Classic Records and others, ok? As P T Barnum said, no one has ever gone broke underestimating the intellegence of the American public. I have no problem with 88.2/24 or 96/24. I can't hear it, but I can believe it could be better. But I can't see any possible theoretical improvement for twice that rate. None. I have more than 30 microphones in my recording studio. None of them claim any response over 20kHz. They might have something over 20.0 kHz, but its going to have at least a 6 dB per octave rolloff, and more are more likely to have a 24 dB per octave rolloff. The point of higher rates is to avoid the brick wall filters needed at 22 kHz for redbook. You do that fine with 88.2 or 96 kHz. Working with Wave files on the server reduces the load on the Transporter. What are you talking about? There are no wave files that are more than RedBook. You can have PCM files at any rate/size you want, but it is not going to make it actually sound better. Give it up. You have become a troll. And your SeanTrollScore for these recent posts is 0/10. See http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76315 You can't get a negative score on the SeanTrollScore, but we may have to change the rules just for you. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: Since nobody is working on the transporter firmware, why not release it into public domain? That is not a realistic request. Sean and Dean talked in the past about making the firmware be under an Open Source license. But the sticking point is that the firmware needs a special compiler and linker, and the license for that costs solid five figures. So they thought that no one would spring for a legal license, so there was no reason to release the firmware source code. I have worked on other embedded systems, and expensive tools are frequent in the business. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123 wrote: Few bugs in firmware and optimization of the code is not something not possible. This makes zero sense. Its an EOL product. Live with the bugs, or buy a new product that does what you want. Perhaps if the TP was new, but its not. Moore's law has marched on. There are better DAC chips, faster DSP chips, faster and cheaper embedded CPUs, even faster NICs. Plus, why in the world would someone think that any time spend to support 176/24 and 192Khz/24 makes any sense when there is no source material out there. As a wish, this makes no sense. As a practical project, it makes far less. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] listening to HD Audio (24/96)
DCtoDaylight wrote: Well, the download page certainly say's it's unstable, in a big red warning box! That is the world that we live in with too many lawyers. Any official statement has to point out that it is beta. Which it is technically. But its hardly unstable, and its hardly early beta Even the tinySBS is stable and works well. In any event, you have both a Transporter and a Touch, are you experiencing problems with 24/96? Nope, no problems, but I don't have much 24/88.2 o 24/96 content. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] listening to HD Audio (24/96)
DCtoDaylight wrote: I didn't even know that there was a 7.5.0 build! You're dealing with an early beta there, so I'd say the chances are very high you've hit a bug. Certainly all bets are off! Its not at all early I've been running it for many months If you check the developers forum, you will see that 7.5.0 has been feature frozen as they beat down the last few high priority bugs. I'd be serious beers that it will be released by the end of March, this year. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Subwoofer for Active Speakers?
chn68b wrote: I spent the day at the Bristol Hi-Fi show on Sunday and listened to a REL subwoofer demo and was blown away. I've never wanted a sub for the Hi-Fi before as I always thought the bass would be too exaggerate, but this demo was superb. The soundstage grew as soon as the sub was switched on. I've had a REL Stadium sub for my main system for nearly ten years. Its great. The REL philosophy is not to do booming bass for movie effects, but to put a realistic level for real music. It can get loud, but only when the main gain is high. The REL setup that I have uses speaker taps, from the output of the main amp. They are high impedence, so they do not load down the amp. They also do not put a high pass filter in the main speaker leads, so they don't change the phase response of the main speakers. [they also do not prevent the low frequency signals that the mains can't handle from reaching the main woofers.] I don't think you could easily connect my particular REL model to active speakers. There are no speaker-level connections on most (all?) active speakers to tap into. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter troubleshooting question
cosmopolous wrote: I'll try that tonight. fingers crossed. Is this something that's common? It happens. I've had it perhaps twice in the many years that I've had my Transporter. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC - does it make a difference?
Curt962 wrote: Of course the best equipment will be capable of resolving the smallest subtleties better than will lesser components. For some suitable definition of best equipment Perhaps. Maybe. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DAC Upgrade. Weiss DAC202 (Minerva) or Berkeley Alpha?
michael123 wrote: Recent 24bit releases require more than 120db SNR provided by Transporter (e.g. 20 bit actual resolution) I call BS. No one can hear 120dB SNR. No one can hear any signal that is down 120dB. Even down 96dB is more than humans can hear. Go watch the video references in the An interesting video thread If you want to argue that we would be better off with 18 or 20 bit files instead of the RedBook's 16 bits, you would have at least a leg to stand on. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DAC Upgrade. Weiss DAC202 (Minerva) or Berkeley Alpha?
michael123 wrote: Human hearing is adaptive. You do not hear 144db 'at once', but you can hear the micro-details while you adapt to the listening level. Again, BS Anyway, I trust my ears. If you do not hear the different between 24 bit recordings and 16bit, then.. I did not say that. What I said was that 24 bits is overkill, no one can detect it. No one can record it. Well done RedBook can be amazing, but its rarely done due to Loudness Wars. Commercial 24 bit aim at audiophiles, so they don't compress the hell out of it. But its not the word length that make it sound better. Weiss is definitely better than Transporter. The problem is that hooking up via SPDIF is not a good idea as it will introduce jitter :-( Weiss works the best via IEEE 1394, as Transporter prefers Ethernet This may be true, but I was commenting on your other paragraphs, which were pure hype. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
seanadams wrote: I guess you do have to know what to listen for. Most people probably focus on the tone and timbre in the foreground which is where mp3 has the least difficulty. The design goals of MP3 were to get the sound that most people focus on to be good, and ignore the subtle stuff. A standard jazz trio, of piano, drums and standup bass, has lots of the subtle stuff that MP3 does badly. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
Kuro wrote: 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. Please troll elsewhere. Nothing about TCP/IP can cause jitter in any SqueezeBox device. You have been told this, pay attention. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
Kuro wrote: 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 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. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
Kuro wrote: I'm (we're) your paying customers. You do not call your paying customers trolls. Sean is retired. You are not his customer. You are a troll. Do not feed the trolls. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Touch versus Transporter - beta testers chime in please
Have there been advances in the digital volume control on the new Touch to help with the problem of not losing resolution when running straight to amp? (I know there are pros and cons to preamp or no preamp) What do you mean? If you lower the volume, you have to truncate bits. Its a feature. Analog outputs.is the Touch the equal of the Transporter or is the Transporter better. I have not compared them, but those beta testers who have say that the Touch is competitive. Since it is a lot less expensive, that may be good enough for most folks. The Touch does not have balanced outputs, which are handy if your amp has balanced input. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter over ethernet
earwaxer wrote: In my comparison to various USB devices I was quite confident (and still am) that the wifi approach was superior in some very real ways - jitter being one. A very happy camper. What do you mean comparing USB devices with a Transporter being different WiFi and wired Ethernet? That makes zero sense. And jitter is not going to vary due to the network wiring. The network has nothing to do with the DAC's clock. I'm all for you liking one way or the other, personal tastes being personal. But your claim makes zero sense from any technically accurate view. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter come with rackmount ears?
jtf wrote: looking at buying a Transporter and it said that rackmount ears are available. It didn't say that they actually came in the box. They do not come in the box. Someone more plugged into the retail channel will have to address if they are still available ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter or wait for Touch?
iPhone wrote: The Touch is a killer Squeezebox and in my opinion is head and shoulders above the SB3. The Transporter has the advantage of a better supported (Power Supplies and components) DAC circuit layout in my opinion and is way above the Touch in the total Power Supply area. Head to Head as a Digital Transport into an upscale outboard DAC, I say buy the Touch. From a practical standpoint, it makes tons of sense to buy a Touch first. If you need that extra bit (especially the balanced output, which I use on my TP) you can always buy a TP later. Very few people can get along with only one SqueezeBoxen I have not done A/B comparison between my Touch and my TP, but the Touch is very nice. I have a TP, Touch, Boom, Radio, Duet, and have bought and used three plain SqueezeBoxen. So I'm a bit biased. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audiophile portable player - with some conditions
cliveb wrote: As iPhone said, you're listening on a train. I guess it all depends on how noisy the trains are in your neck of the woods, but if they're anything like the trains I use then worrying about the fidelity of the files is the least of your problems. Even using ear canal phones (I use Shure e2c), the background noise is sufficiently high on a train that in order to hear the quiet parts you need to turn the volume up so high that the loud parts are far too loud. (I have the same issue with listening in the car). The solution to this problem is to use a device with a playback AGC Alternative solution is to apply audio compression to the files before you load them onto the portable player. I've had CD players with audio compression for nearly two decades. You can't hear the dymanic range of a CD, so you might as well call up a compressor and reduce the range. Then you can hear the soft parts without the loud ones damaging your ears. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audiophile portable player - with some conditions
kphinney wrote: You're still missing the point: If you have a FLAC library and an MP3 library it can only take more physical space than a FLAC only library. 1+1 = 2, not 1, not 0. But its more like 1+1 = 1.4 And in these days of terabyte disks for under $100, a one time storage of two formats, or even three if you keep flac, MP3 and audio comppressed version, is not an issue. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audiophile portable player - with some conditions
audiomuze wrote: Robin, I've used flac2mp3 for a long time now and find it to be an excellent tool Yes, its a great tool, Thanks Robin Any plans make it multi-threaded to speed up the encoding process? Well, why not dream of the moon: flac2mp3 should be setup to detect and use multiple cores. Nearly all serious desktops these days are quad, and even most better than netbook laptops are at least dual core. Soon, all desktops will be at least 8 cores. Most of the time, if you use a cron job to make the parallel mp3 tree, you don't care how long it takes. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Speaking of marketing flops.. Lexicon rip-off
michael123 wrote: Incredible! As they said in the review, its not unusual to base a high end product on more prosaic stuff. But usually they at least change a cap or two to improve it, rather than just using it lock stock and barrel. I wonder of the THX certification is always that lame. It would not surprise me that they accept the fee and the vendor's claims, since testing is actually work. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Simaudio's new 32 bit DAC
Kellen wrote: Is 32 bits really needed or is this just a marketing ploy? Needed for what? Human's can not hear more than was a well recorded 16 bit signal contains. Its good to use longer signals when mixing, doing effects, etc. Its 99% marketing when they sell 24 bit recordings. 88.2 Hz sampling makes far more sense. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Simaudio's new 32 bit DAC
georgeh wrote: Seriously though, does anybody even publish 32 bit music? That can't be a serious question. If there is some audiofool who will pay more for 32 bit or even 64 bit, then someone will sell it. It may have only RedBook data on it, like many SACDs, but there is nothing wrong with selling it. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Simaudio's new 32 bit DAC
michael123 wrote: I think 32 bit is mostly used to lower noise floor. Huh? RedBook has a SNR of 96dB. That is already way below audible. 24 bit takes the SNR is 144 dB. In absolute silence, 144 dB will cause ear damage. Not probably, will. Or as OSHA says, maximum allowed exposure to 115 dB is about 30 second. For every 3 dBs the permissible exposure time before possible damage can occur is cut in half. 118 dB ~ 15 second 121 dB ~ 7 seconds 123 dB ~ 3.5 seconds 126 dB ~ 1.7 seconds See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Simaudio's new 32 bit DAC
Themis wrote: I think the word length used (32bit) has to do with the more recent chip used, NOT the music signal itself. It's used to lower artifacts, not SNR. Which specific artifacts? I doubt 16bit chips will still exist in a few years... Externally 16 bits? I will bet that they sure will. There is no mass market demand for more than 16 bit audio. I can see in ten years, a combination DAC and DSP chip, and it will internally use wide numbers, but only because doing any real DSP needs extra bits to handle rounding, scaling, etc. Once the value is calculated and properly dithered, there is no reason for more than 16 bits of width. Well, one could argue in theory that 18 bits would be a better number, but even 24 bits is wild overkill. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
