Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New 24bit/192kHz Squeezebox Product
On 06/14/2011 01:50 AM, Mnyb wrote: ... one could argue that acoustically 2 sound sources is the worst in creating acoustical interference etc use 1 or many instead. You could, but you'd be wrong. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Jitter article
I stumbled across this today: http://www.eetimes.com/design/analog-design/4216225/Tutorial--Clock-jitter-measurement-and-effects Thought some of you may find it interesting/enlightening. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
On 05/25/2011 07:48 PM, Phil Leigh wrote: You need to grow a sense of humour. You just make yourself look silly with comments like this. +1. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Linear PSU into Touch
On 18/05/11 09:57, JackOfAll wrote: Robin Bowes;631905 Wrote: I had a trawl through your posts but couldn't find that. Any chance you could provide a link? I'm not John, but think this is what you are looking for http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=586042postcount=35 Yes, that's the one. Thanks. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Linear PSU into Touch
On 17/05/11 22:48, JohnSwenson wrote: The thing is that not all linear supplies are created equal. MOST commercial linear supplies will actually inject more noise back into the AC mains than a good switcher does. I have a design which gets around all these issues, but you have to build it yourself. Its posted in one of the linear supply threads around here. This will beat any switcher and probably any commercially available linear design. John, I had a trawl through your posts but couldn't find that. Any chance you could provide a link? Thanks, R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
On 09/05/11 08:52, Phil Leigh wrote: Where does PasTim state he is using a wired network? On 07/05/11 19:50, PasTim wrote: My ethernet (wired) network is less than ideal... It doesn't sound like PasTim is all that confident in his network. He should do some simple testing to establish how reliable it is. I wouldn't rule out network issues at this stage. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Upgrade from touch+cambridge 840c
On 26/04/11 09:16, soundcheck wrote: I'm running a 250$ full-digital DIY amp nowadays Hey, I'm interested in that. Got any links, etc? R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Digital vs. Analog (again)
On 07/04/11 04:29, brjoon1021 wrote: My belief is that there is too much there for current digital parameters to capture as well as analog can. Actually, that's not the case. The A/D process is relatively simple and easy to do right. Digital recordings can easily capture everything that analog can and much more. Indeed, pretty much *all* recordings are done digitally these days, even those destined for vinyl. I would say almost certainly that you prefer the filtering effect that vinyl reproduction has on sound - a smoothing effect, with a slight change in the overall frequency response. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Digital vs. Analog (again)
On 07/04/11 12:33, Soulkeeper wrote: During the weekend, I listened to a test print of my band's upcoming 10 vinyl. It sounds ten times better than the digital master tracks. All the microphones and other inputs were plugged into a sound card and A/D-converted. From there, everything was done digitally. The record manufacturers in Poland received the master tracks via the Internet. The result? Analog! Amazing. It must be magic. :) No, it's called mastering. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Is touch a better sounding unit than SB3 ?
On 05/04/11 18:28, magiccarpetride wrote: It was a belated April Fool's joke! Lighten up, people;) Ah... a joke... Funny, it sounded just like the rest of the drivel you post. Is that all a joke too? R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Digital vs. Analog (again)
On 03/04/11 18:09, darrenyeats wrote: So we did. Same track, via a £13.5k DAC (!) and the reel to reel. All of us preferred the reel to reel! The digital had spitty vocals and the drums were less catchy. Afterwards we found the reel to reel was a recording of the same digital file via a much cheaper DAC. This is another experience supporting my belief that digital doesn't have any less musical information than analogue (in fact the opposite). However, it's just less comfortable hearing accuracy in certain set ups. Indeed. Recording to, and playing back from tape is essentially processing the signal, eg. rolling off (very) highs, slight compression perhaps. Perhaps as digital filter that does the same thing would be a good idea? :) R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Active Crossover as plugin or otherwise
On 29/03/11 08:26, cliveb wrote: I'm not usually this blunt, but someone has to say it - this is a CRAZY idea. People like Phil have been gently and politely trying to point out the futility of this scheme for a while, but it seems not to have got through. Crossovers that operate from a full range stereo signal are well understood (regardless of whether they operate in the analogue or digital domain) and need not cost a lot of money. The cost of the crossover in an active system (which requires one power amp per drive unit) is not that significant. Contemplating doing all this as some sort of SBS plugin and hoping to use multiple sync'd Squeezeboxes to deliver the split signals is frankly bonkers. C'mon Clive, this is the *Audiophile* forum! ;) R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Pissing contest
On 28/03/11 14:33, adamdea wrote: In principle it seems to me that a Very Clever Programmer could possibly work out a way of tricking SBS into using the ability to stream different signals to 2 different devices to produce a woofer and tweeter stream. Then all you would need for a 2 way speaker would be 2 squeezeboxes and 2 amps. Would any VCPs care to comment? The problem you have with that idea is that each stream would have to be synchronised, ie. played back at exactly the same time. I may be wrong, but I don't think that would be possible. That is an interesting idea for a niche SB product though - a SB with 2 or more DACs. Maybe modular, with the firmware that does the filtering in the digital domain. Interesting... Probably best with a separate digital x-over though, fed from a SB SPDIF output. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter discontiuned?
On 28/03/11 16:32, islandsound wrote: So I have been looking on and off for another one of these units, I have one of the original Slim Devices Transporters, but I heard they were discontinued? I now see that it's back on Logitech's sit for sale for $1299. I also searched the threads here and saw there were some promo codes. Are there any more of these codes out there? Are they still making these things? I searched a few months back and found they were going for like $2200 now a grand less, why? Any differences between the original units and Logitech's units? Smack me in the face for all the questions I wasn't able to find them all searching. Thanks guys. The only difference is the badge on the front. There is zero mechanical/electrical difference. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter discontiuned?
On 28/03/11 22:56, garym wrote: JJZolx;621562 Wrote: Badge? As Gary said, they're missing the navigation knob. I think Robin was referring to the question of the difference between the original slim Transporters vs the later Logitech transporters (not the current SE's). Correct. I forgot about the SE. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Pissing contest
On 26/03/11 19:57, Curt962 wrote: That's cool...but all the differences in capacitors demonstrates why at least some of us have gotten rid of the problem altogether. Actives. :) My next speakers will be active. Not sure what yet. Too many children to e in a position to embark on the procurement voyage just yet... :) R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] squeezebox setup for audiophiles
On 18/03/11 23:10, 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 disagree with your sentiment, but commercial products are usually built to a cost, ie. compromises are made in the design process. If money were no object then yes, the product designers should make them properly in the first place. But that rarely happens, if ever. And certainly not on a mass-market product. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Raise your hand if you're convinced that speaker cables make no difference to sound q
On 15/03/11 17:53, Howard Turkster wrote: I'd be interested in how many people who believe there is no difference in sound quality between Radio Shack speaker cable and premium-labelled (and priced) speaker cable have A/B demoed the same in their homes. When I first broke in to the hobby, I listened to those who said there is no difference. After demoing A/B in my home, I abandoned that camp. And I'm very grateful that I did. My system is exponentially better than it had been IMO (and my wife's opinion, who didn't want to believe it) because of it. Note: I'm not advocating for $1,000 speaker wire over the standard audiophile-grade wire. I'm advocating the latter over the RadioShack variety. Ah, OK. So we actually agree. My view is that cable needs to be good enough (ie. standard audiophile-grade wire in your terminology). R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Raise your hand if you're convinced that speaker cables make no difference to sound q
On 16/03/11 14:04, JezA wrote: If you can't hear the difference buy the cheapest. If you can hear a difference, ask whether the cable is good, or defective; or whether your hifi is good, or defective; or whether your hearing is good or defective. This is classic audiophile reasoning: if I can't hear a difference it must be because there's something wrong somewhere. Could it possibly be that I don't hear a difference because there *isn't* any difference?? R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Raise your hand if you're convinced that speaker cables make no difference to sound q
On 16/03/11 15:31, JezA wrote: Robin Bowes;618495 Wrote: Could it possibly be that I don't hear a difference because there *isn't* any difference?? Of course it could. But then again, there might be many other reasons why you don't hear a difference that does exist. Don't worry about it. Oh, I realise that. I did some DAC comparisons a few years ago and couldn't hear any difference between them. I then upgraded my amp (tweaked it myself by disconnecting the tone controls and upgading the op amps) and, apart from improving the sound, I was then able to hear the differences between the DACs. R. Ps. Don't worry, I'm not worried. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Raise your hand if you're convinced that speaker cables make no difference to sound q
On 16/03/11 17:38, JezA wrote: Hands up who can hear where the edits are in (say) a classical music recording? Does that mean there aren't any? Point taken. However, when we say differences ( in this context ) we generally mean audible differences. And yes, that raises the question audible to who?, ie. some sonic differences may be audible to some people on some equipment but not to other people on the same equipment, or the same people on other equipment or other people on other equipment. Let's be clear about the issue that we're discussing here... I am not suggesting that all speaker cables are equal; I am saying that a good quality audiophile-standard cable will not sound different to a $30,000 boutique cable. ie. as long as the cable is electrically suitable for the purpose for which it is being used then there is no point spending $$$. I would say something similar for interconnects, but with the rider that interconnects are more susceptible to differences in capacitance due to different materials used and physical construction. This is why some cables sound brighter or duller than others. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Raise your hand if you're convinced that speaker cables make no difference to sound q
On 14/03/11 15:22, JezA wrote: Where else does the experience of music exist if not in your mind? I absolutely agree - the enjoyment of music is a cerebral experience. However, we're conflating two separate phenomena here, ie. a change to a music reproduction system vs. a change in the enjoyment of music reproduced through that system. The effect of the former can be measured. The latter is subjective and influenced by many factors other than any changes to the reproduction system. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Raise your hand if you're convinced that speaker cables make no difference to sound q
On 15/03/11 16:24, JezA wrote: Simon Marius' claims to have seen the moons of Jupiter were dismissed by his critics as syphilitic hallucinations. Everyone knew the sun went round the earth. He must have imagined them, mustn't he. Don't hear what you don't want to hear. Any your point is...? Which part of my post do you take exception to? R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Raise your hand if you're convinced that speaker cables make no difference to sound q
On 15/03/11 16:28, magiccarpetride wrote: JezA;618222 Wrote: Simon Marius' claims to have seen the moons of Jupiter were dismissed by his critics as syphilitic hallucinations. Everyone knew the sun went round the earth. He must have imagined them, mustn't he. Don't hear what you don't want to hear. Good point. Arguably, one could make an interesting sociological study based on the huge backlash against the cabling industry. When did the backlash begin? Why are people foaming at the mouth whenever someone reports hearing differences between two cables? You're missing the point entirely. But then, you knew that already because you're a troll, and I don't care, so where's the surprise? R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Raise your hand if you're convinced that speaker cables make no difference to sound q
On 15/03/11 16:29, magiccarpetride wrote: sigh And your point is? R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Raise your hand if you're convinced that speaker cables make no difference to sound q
On 15/03/11 16:47, Howard Turkster wrote: I'd be curious to know how many of the cable nay-sayers have demoed some of the more expensive speaker wire vs. the standard Radio Shack wire in good quality home set-ups. Howard, I don't believe I've seen any cable nay-sayers around here. Do you have some examples? The most common opinion seems to be that there is an exponentially diminishing rate of return the more you spend on cable. ie. once you reach a certain quality then further expenditure does not increase quality. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Raise your hand if you're convinced that speaker cables make no difference to sound q
On 13/03/11 23:20, konut wrote: My perceived preference is probably not scientifically measurable. Can someone invent a pleasure meter? If your preference is not scientifically measurable then it almost certainly exists only in your mind. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Raise your hand if you're convinced that speaker cables make no difference to sound q
On 14/03/11 12:42, Phil Leigh wrote: Robin Bowes;617867 Wrote: On 13/03/11 23:20, konut wrote: My perceived preference is probably not scientifically measurable. Can someone invent a pleasure meter? If your preference is not scientifically measurable then it almost certainly exists only in your mind. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ You realise that ~75% of the Audiophile industry hinges on NOT believing that statement... Absolutely! It's essentially just marketing. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.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?
On 11/03/11 17:03, ralphpnj wrote: garym;617109 Wrote: 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. I'm not sure I agree with you there. You're mixing up the tone of the instrument and the playing of the musician. People don't love Clapton because of his tone - they like his playing, his musicianship, etc. His tone is actually nothing particularly special; Clapton is all about phrasing and feel. It's in the music, not the sound. Just as it can be easily shown that a Stad or an Amati sound no different to the vast majority of listeners, it can be easily shown that Clapton is no better a guitar player than scores of other guitarists. Go on then - show me. So why all this insane Clapton-philia? Disclaimer: Obviously I'm not much of Clapton fan although I do like and enjoy some of his work. I'm a fan, but not a fanboi. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quality of digital outs from the Squeezebox
On 11/03/11 17:59, magiccarpetride wrote: stop-spinning;617156 Wrote: ...I have borrowed a Squeezebox Touch and the sound (as a transport at least without any fancy tweaks) is top notch. Much more air, and sweeter treble than the Duet. So sorry for doubting you chaps - my plans have changed to have the SBT as my transport, so it's now looking more like this: SBT Modified DPA Little Bit 3. BUT - John - I would really love to try the USB mod to get async working from the SBT - then my next step would be: SBT Musical Fidelity V-Link Modified DPA Little Bit 3 (if the async USB mod works reliably John - here's hoping so because I like the SBT - and thanks for your hard work!). Then later on, a further progression (or addition) to the family might end up being: SBT HRT Music Streamer II (via the software modified async connection of course). Lots of fun to be had; starting with the SBT. So please do your business async USB hack, that'll be the best SBT software hack of all! Do yourself a huge favor now that you have the Touch -- apply ALL Soundcheck's mods (including ttvol100). You won't believe your ears! It'll make the Touch sound five times better (at least:) After doing that free and easy upgrade, if you have some extra cash, go for the liner PSU. *yawn* More hyperbole - please ignore. By all means try the mods, but don't expect massive differences. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.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?
On 11/03/11 18:05, magiccarpetride wrote: MichaelJ;617132 Wrote: After 30 years as a production editor for a television network, I have more than a passing knowledge regarding monitor alignment and calibration. Your ongoing vitriolic attacks on anyone who doesn't see/hear the world as you do is getting tiring. Excuse me, but I wasn't talking to you. I have no interest in talking to television people. This guy is either: 1. a troll 2. clinically insane 3. a complete tosser Or possibly all three! R -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.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?
On 11/03/11 18:40, Stratmangler wrote: Phil Leigh;617302 Wrote: The standard number of springs is 3... (or if you want one that stays in tune, 5!) Mine stays in tune, it only has 3 springs -and- the bridge is floating too. It does have a graphtec graphite nut and string tree on it ;) Me too. Graphite saddles too - makes all the difference. I have 5 springs on mine - I don't actually use the trem. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quality of digital outs from the Squeezebox
On 11/03/11 19:21, mlsstl wrote: magiccarpetride;617308 Wrote: sigh Just a comment that there are those of us who tire of the endless hyperbole that populates the vocabulary of some audio enthusiasts. To me, a massive or stunning or whatever [insert exaggeration of your choice] difference is comparing my pocket transistor radio from 1965 to a nice stereo. Sure, one nice system sounds a bit different than another nice system - and I often have a preference - but the verbal extravagance some use is worn so thin these days it actually makes it harder to give any validity to their observations. Exactly my point. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.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?
On 11/03/11 18:19, maggior wrote: Robin Bowes;617294 Wrote: This guy is either: 1. a troll 2. clinically insane 3. a complete tosser Or possibly all three! So what you are saying is he's really Charlie Sheen :-). lol! R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.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?
On 10/03/11 20:24, magiccarpetride wrote: Those instruments are prized not only for their rarity, but because they sound better — leagues, worlds better — than any others. No they don't. There's as much snobbery and Emperor's new clothes in the violin world as there is in the audiophile world. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.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?
On 10/03/11 23:45, magiccarpetride wrote: If you ever get to the point where you professionally calibrate your Mac screen, you'll be delighted to see how much better everything looks on a calibrated screen. The colors are much deeper, the blacks are much blacker, etc. At that point, flip back to your 'box store' vanilla screen profile and experience the shock coming from the pale, lifeless images that a poorly calibrated screen gives you. sigh Yes, but presumably both Safari and Firefox are both displaying through the same perfectly calibrated screen? If you have two different pieces of software displaying the same photo on the same screen and they don't look identical then one of them is clearly doing something to the image, ie. some form of signal processing. This has *nothin* to do with D/A conversion. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.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?
On 10/03/11 20:35, magiccarpetride wrote: Robin Bowes;617050 Wrote: On 10/03/11 20:24, magiccarpetride wrote: Those instruments are prized not only for their rarity, but because they sound better — leagues, worlds better — than any others. No they don't. There's as much snobbery and Emperor's new clothes in the violin world as there is in the audiophile world. So, to your enlightened ears all violins sound pretty much the same? sigh If that was what I meant then that was what I would have said. Over the years, a mythology has been created around instruments from makers such as Stradivari, Guarneri, Amati, etc. leading people to believe that they sound fantastically better than other instruments. This has led them to become highly desirable, so much so that they are usually only owned by the top players in the world, or bought as investments by rich individuals or investment groups who often allow the top players in the world to use them. This in turn perpetuates the myth because you only ever hear these instruments being played by the very best players, who invariably have a superb technique and would sound fantastic on most professional-standard instruments. Yes, these instruments certainly do sound fantastic and, arguably, they do indeed sound better than other instruments, both old new. However, they are not leagues, worlds better — than any others. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.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?
On 11/03/11 02:08, MichaelJ wrote: magiccarpetride;617110 Wrote: Have you calibrated your Mac screen? I'd be willing to bet large sums of money that you haven't (you've probably never even heard of such a thing as 'calibrating one's screen'). . After 30 years as a production editor for a television network, I have more than a passing knowledge regarding monitor alignment and calibration. Your ongoing vitriolic attacks on anyone who doesn't see/hear the world as you do is getting tiring. Ah, it's not just me then, Michael? R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.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?
On 11/03/11 02:57, gizek wrote: Now, in my opinion man deserves huge respect since he played those instruments since he was 5 and spent countless hours manufacturing them. Nowadays he's over 80 and still has damn good ear. Not sure what to think Lovely story, but... R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quality of digital outs from the Squeezebox
On 08/03/11 16:59, Phil Leigh wrote: stop-spinning;616457 Wrote: I can't think of anything better especially when the formula can also be seen as: £200 £40 £100 £60 £100 to upgrade my DPA = quite cost effective for me and can scale well. versus Touch+modded DPA = 180+100? Strictly speaking, you still need to include the netbook (or something on which to store the music. Still cheaper than stop-spinning's solution though (£200 + £180 + £100 £200 + £40 + £100 + £60 + £100). R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Worst sounding album in your collection
On 07/03/11 17:42, Phil Leigh wrote: ralphpnj;616163 Wrote: Oh dear! How could we have forgotten about the caps. Please Phil do tell us which style and color cap works best with which type of music. White or black for jazz? Blue for Jazz. Kind of... -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quality of digital outs from the Squeezebox
On 06/03/11 12:23, JezA wrote: stop-spinning - you can't get high-end sound from cheap products. end of story. Not true. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quality of digital outs from the Squeezebox
On 06/03/11 16:01, JezA wrote: Robin Bowes;615833 Wrote: On 06/03/11 12:23, JezA wrote: stop-spinning - you can't get high-end sound from cheap products. end of story. Not true. R. So .. what's your actual suggestion? Others have already made suggestions. I didn't have anything specific in mind, but I think a Touch with a good amp/speaker combination, or a pair of good active speakers cna give you high-end sound for not an awful lot of money. Sure, you may be able to get better by spending more (Transporter, external DAC, etc.) but that doesn't mean that the less expensive option is not high-end. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quality of digital outs from the Squeezebox
On 06/03/11 20:15, JezA wrote: You still haven't made any concrete suggestions Robin. What part of ...I think a Touch with a good amp/speaker combination, or a pair of good active speakers... is not specific? R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Worst sounding album in your collection
On 06/03/11 20:41, Percival Sweetwater wrote: Henry, I'm sure a 24bit 192kHz version would sound infinitely better! Only if streamed as wav (not FLAC), and from a Windows server, not linux, and using a green cable, not red. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] HDTracks raises prices - again
On 04/03/11 23:17, ralphpnj wrote: I give it about a week or two until copies of the HDTracks Rolling Stones files are available on some of the usual download sites. My friend says he got them 3 days ago. ;) R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Digital vs. Analog (again)
On 28/02/11 19:59, magiccarpetride wrote: The issue with many live performances is also are we keen on reproducing the sound that's coming out of the PA (assuming that it is amplified performance), or are we interested in reproducing the sound as it is coming out of the instruments themselves? For example, we could record the drumkit by close micing, or we could record it as it gets reproduced through the PA. So which one is it? Same applies to vocals etc. One of my favourite performances (and stories I keep cranking out on here) is Rachmaninov playing his own Piano Concertos; I come back to this performance of No.2 time and time again despite it being a severely limited recording. There is so much more to a performance than the quality/timbre of the audio. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.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 27/02/11 00:12, mlsstl wrote: Any recording is going to capture sound from only one perspective. And, any speaker you have in your room, is going to radiate only in one fashion. It has no ability to change its radiation pattern to vary with each instrument. Similarly, arbitrary decisions need to be made by the recording engineer and artist when it comes to recording hall ambience. Since completely accurate replication is impossible, the alternative is to create an experience plausible enough to allow most people to have what fiction writers call a willing suspension of disbelief. The problem is there will likely never be universal agreement as to what elements in what proportions best achieves that. I'm not disagreeing with your general outlook here, but... The stereo recording process captures the nuances of the environment in which it was recorded. A good stereo recording through a reasonable quality reproduction system sounds awesome. I have a recorded orchestras with a stereo blumlein pair of good quality microphones and replayed it on a low-end audiophile system and the quality/reality/imaging/whatever is astounding. I wish I still had the recordings (long story, ex-g/f has them). I guess what I'm saying is that it's not generally not the playback equipment where the major improvements can be made. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.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 27/02/11 00:51, Pat Farrell wrote: 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. Good point, well made! R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.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 27/02/11 02:43, mlsstl wrote: pfarrell;614074 Wrote: 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. Are you saying that trumpets are not substantially louder standing in front of them as opposed to the side or rear? That's certainly not been my experience. Particularly when I've heard marching bands outside, there is a substantial change in sound as they come toward you versus marching away with their backs to the listener. I didn't say no sound emanates from the side, but they've always sounded much louder to me when in front of them. Sounds like this is worth a small experiment with a sound level meter. No need - checkout the appendix in Acoustics and the Performance of Music: Manual for Acousticians, Audio Engineers, Musicians, Architects and Musical Instrument Makers (find it on Amazon). The trumpet is clearly directional. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
On 25/02/11 13:24, soundcheck wrote: Yep. A Windows based server sounds better then a Linux based server on the same HW. *shakes head in disbelief* Totally bonkers. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Digital vs. Analog (again)
On 25/02/11 22:39, pski wrote: playback was almost identical to CD. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
On 21/02/11 19:26, magiccarpetride wrote: Robin Bowes;612349 Wrote: Mr. Soundcheck, I've not tried your mods, but I can see why some of them might make a difference, ie. they are at least plausible. Here is a guy who obviously knows what he's talking about because, hey, he hasn't tried the mods. Of course, that makes perfect sense, when you think about it. Meanwhile, some of us nutters have tried the mods, and, naturally, the joke is on us. As the saying goes: there is a sucker born every minute. Which I won't bother responding to as garym has already done so for me. On 21/02/11 20:19, magiccarpetride wrote: garym;612842 Wrote: But of course to be fair you took just a portion of his comment and used it out of context. He was not talking about the mods at all (and in fact he's agreeing that the mods *may be useful), but rather making a comment on the likelihood of the SERVER (Windows vs Linux) or ethernet cables affecting audio. Fair enough. I wasn't actually commenting on that bit, just in general talking about the absurdity of people who, having not tried the thing they're commenting on, still feel entitled and fully justified to jump to conclusions. As another saying goes, What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
Mr. Soundcheck, I've not tried your mods, but I can see why some of them might make a difference, ie. they are at least plausible. However, there is *no* way that the O/S running on the server, or the type of network cables, or the brand of router have any effect whatsoever on the sound emitted from a SB device. tcp networking *is* lossless. It's how computers work. The entire world would grind to a halt if it wasn't (think banking). The only explanation I can think of for why you might hear differences that are not what (you'd) call subtle between a Windows server and a Linux server is that the SB server settings may be different, ie. may be you may be streaming different audio. So, I don't doubt that you are hearing differences but I can categorically tell you that they are not caused by the server OS, brand of router, or type of ethernet cable. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] If you can hear it, can you measure it?
On 17/02/11 21:33, magiccarpetride wrote: Ah, so that's why I can so easily trick my dog into thinking that real sounds are coming out of the speakers, while the cats remain singularly unimpressed! (note to self: get rid of the cats) ...or get a better system ;) R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Digital vs. Analog (again)
On 14/02/11 12:17, cliveb wrote: stop-spinning;610966 Wrote: I guess when you think about it (not that I'm an expert) - the best DAC in the world is no DAC, with the sound being analogue from start to finish without the need to convert from a digital domain to analogue - so no need to worry about those jitter nasties if you don't mind the odd snap, crackle and pop. Analogue equipment has jitter - it's called wow flutter. And it's orders of magnitude worse than the jitter levels of even quite modest digital equipment. I'm not a vinyl apologist, but that's not quite the whole picture. Sure, bad wow is awful, but that really only happens with broken equipment or badly damaged media, and even then I would argue that a record with an offset hole is still listenable compared to a corrupt digital file. In normal operation, the modulation frequency of any pitch variation is so low that it is barely audible, if at all. I believe jitter on the other hand has a less obvious effect on sound. I think it particularly affects higher frequencies which contain a lot of psychoacoustic cues, ie. positional information (width, depth, sound stage, etc). I find poor digital sound to be harsh to listen to, sterile, hard, tiring on the ears, etc. I think getting this right (or at least good enough) is more important than all other aspects of the audio chain (assuming of course at least a basic standard!). Of course, this makes the assumption that it is indeed jitter that causes these effects. So, in summary, I don't listen to vinyl - too inconvenient and digital can sound just as good (to my ears). But don't underestimate the importance of a good digital source. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] If you can hear it, can you measure it?
On 14/02/11 22:31, magiccarpetride wrote: In other words, there is ALWAYS a difference. From moment to moment, things constantly change. Ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus said that a man cannot enter the same river twice. See what I'm saying? Even if you haven't changed any component in your system, and are listening to the same track again, something else in your surroundings has changed (including your own conditions), and that change influences how you experience the second replay of the same track. My question is: since you can hear that something is different, can you measure the difference? A very interesting example you give here, and I think you're on to something. I agree, hearing is a subjective thing. Your ears send msgs to your brain which interfaces with your conscious and sub-conscious thought and enables you to decide what you think you hear. Measurement can't account for that. It can only detect physical changes. Therefore, there are obviously going to be situations where you really do *hear* something different, but there has been no *physical* change. ie. the difference is all in your mind. That doesn't make it any less real than a physical change but goes some way to explaining the difference between the two camps in the audiophile vs. objectivist debate. Nice one. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
On 11/02/11 17:58, magiccarpetride wrote: (the usual load of emotive, paranoid rubbish) Once again, do you really think that someone else expressing an opposing opinion, or doubting your own opinion constitutes an attack? As far as I can see, *you* are the only attacking anybody. Please calm down. You've been warned once about your language, and may find yourself thrown out off this forum if you continue. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
On 10/02/11 14:50, pippin wrote: RadioClash;609987 Wrote: Klaus's amazing powers of mass suggestion even worked on your unsuspecting wife! upstairs!! All those who believe in telekineses, raise my hand. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
On 10/02/11 17:51, soundcheck wrote: Those people reporting their positive experiences were continuously insulted. You find it insulting if someone disagrees with your opinion? That's either arrogant, or stupid, or both. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quality of digital outs from the Squeezebox
On 08/02/11 00:10, stop-spinning wrote: magiccarpetride;609130 Wrote: If you couldn't hear differences between Duet and Arcam Alpha 6, wait till you compare Arcam to the modded Touch. Touch will blow it out of the water! Wow - that's some statement I am keen to follow up! I'd take it with a pinch (bucket) of salt, if I were you. macigcarpetride is prone to hyperbole. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Garage Conversion - Sound advice ?
On 03/02/11 14:28, ralphpnj wrote: JezA;607918 Wrote: Such speakers are a relatively small part of the budget being considered for the conversion, so could easily be changed; soffit mounting offers the opportunity to make a huge improvement in sound quality, and may mean less expense in other areas. At this stage of the project I think it's worth considering. And, to take up Phils point, although it does indeed give a 6db lift at low frequencies, putting the Dynaudios into the room will most likely give far bigger peaks and troughs all over the place - especially as placement is likely to be constrained by a dining table! Perhaps the OP would be better qualified to state what is in or is not in the budget for the project. There's nothing wrong with thinking out-of-the-box at the planning stage of a project. Maybe the OP didn't consider the possibility of wall-mounting; maybe he did and decided against it. Either way, I'm sure the OP is big enough and ugly enough to decide what he wants to do without you policing responses to his original request for advice. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Anyone sell a longer DC cord?
On 02/02/11 14:35, ismarketing wrote: Thanks Phil. I thought about that, but I have some nice aftermarket cords that I'd like to put to use. Those cords are all 1.5m - not long enough. Having presumably spent a not inconsiderable amount of money on an aftermarket AC cord, do you not think you should spend the same on a similar, matching DC cord - maybe twice as much (if it is twice as long)? R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Anyone sell a longer DC cord?
On 02/02/11 16:09, ismarketing wrote: Thanks Robin - that's what my post is about. I'm trying to find an aftermarket DC-to-DC cord. Nobody seems to make one that has a 2.5mm plug on both ends. :rollseyes: Sometimes, irony is wasted on the Internet. ;) R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] BBC iPlayer, sound quality
On 25/01/11 14:19, Soulkeeper wrote: Not many, I'm afraid. Radio Blagon Ambient (French pop/folk) Death Metal Radio (death metal) All Songs Considered 24/7 (various) NRK Urørt (Norwegian underground bands) These stations have no DJs talking at all, which is even better IMO. If anyone has more suggestions, it would be appreciated. French pop/folk? Death metal? Norwegian underground bands? Strewth, I think I'd prefer to listen to the DJs talking! R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quality of digital outs from the Squeezebox
On 25/01/11 16:56, diego wrote: chill;605186 Wrote: Ok, so let's accept that you think this additional 0.2% network traffic makes a difference to the sound quality. How much effect do you think the extra ~100% network traffic (from streaming WAV rather than FLAC) is going to have? Edit: Obviously I'm not trying to open up the argument about WAV vs FLAC streaming, just trying to put a bit of perspective into the issue of network traffic. Gosh... you measurement value believers are tough...! Well, if what you see (or hear) makes you happy, there is no point in trying to convince you that there is more you could hear, if you only wanted to open the ears (n please don't answer seriously, its not meant seriously either ;-) ) The point that has been made is nothing to do with measurement value. It is also not commenting on the relative merits of wired vs. wireless networking. It is pointing out the fallacy of your previous argument where you suggest that wireless networking requiring more Touch CPU than wired networking is a reason why wired sounds better than wireless. Can I suggest that, as well as your ears, you start to use: 1. your eyes ( to read what has been written accurately) 2. your brain (to process what your eyes are reading effectively) By following these simple tips I think you'll find that you will enjoy the discussion immeasurably more. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quality of digital outs from the Squeezebox
On 21/01/11 16:23, stop-spinning wrote: Thanks for that Phil. I've been surfin' the net (probably a dangerous thing to do) about the SB and notice various reviews and such like relating to better sounding 'modded' versions.. (there's even a highly modded SqueezeBox PLUS!); now after all I am in the Audiophile section of the forum here so I ask... is there any real benefit at all in modifying an SB especially if you are using an external DAC? It seems that many are changing the power supply for example. I also quite like the idea of the new(ish) Consonance Wireless 1.0 D/A converter - which allows you to stream music from your PC, plus it's a TDA1543 DAC, plus if you want to you can plug it into another external DAC of your choice. Quite an interesting idea from a brand that concentrates on Hi-Fidelity first and foremost. Whilst it's good to seek opinions before purchasing, sometimes there's no substitute for actually listening yourself. What sounds good to one mind (note: mind, not pair of ears) might not be right for another. If you have the chance of a cheap Duet, why not try it and see if you like it? If you do, listen to some music and spend the money you saved on something else. If not, try a standard Touch. Again, if you like it... job done. Really, there's a lot of crap spoken on these forums about what DAC is best/better, what PSU makes a difference, etc. etc. The only person who can tell you the real answers, and the only person that matters, is you. Listen, and choose. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quality of digital outs from the Squeezebox
On 20/01/11 19:50, magiccarpetride wrote: Wombat;603984 Wrote: Please stop here. This is getting plain stupid. I see I hit the nerve. It happens... No, you wrote a load of crap, as usual. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.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 30/12/10 15:22, konut wrote: Glass has the potential to vibrate. I stick with wood. I think you'll find that pretty much *everything* has the potential to vibrate. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] RC (Inguz etc.)
On 28/12/10 16:38, Phil Leigh wrote: Phil Leigh;597749 Wrote: Does anyone know why the web controls for increment don't work for Quietness, Width etc (but decrement works fine!) So - it works fine in IE but not in Chrome... weird. The JS looks OK to me! Not sure what version you're running but the web UI doesn't even load for me in Chrome 10.0.612.1 dev using squeezeboxserver-7.6.0-0.1.31644. Also, I hid the player panel and it won't come back. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DACs : unmodded Transporter vs Perfectwave DAC?
On 06/12/10 22:25, TheLastMan wrote: In fact, I cannot think of an instrument that, on its own, occupies enough space to need stereo - unless ludicrously close miked. You're missing the point. It's not just the sound of the instrument - it's the ambience from the room as well. An instrument close-mic'd with a single microphone with sound unnatural compared to the same instrument recorded with a stereo pair positioned far enough from the source to capture the sound of the room as well. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DACs : unmodded Transporter vs Perfectwave DAC?
On 07/12/10 16:40, cliveb wrote: But all this is to be expected - the sound quality at rock concerts is routinely dreadful. Well, that's largely a result of the venues being acoustically terrible, ie. large and reflective. As far as recorded music is concerned, giving the drum kit a realistic ambience is entirely possible and would enhance the listening experience. But it never gets done. It's probably just a dogma these days that you record a kit with at least a dozen mics and then try to reconstruct it in the mix. Engineers and producers probably don't even give it a second thought. Sure it's possible to get a natural, ambient drum sound, but the rock/popular music audience has become accustomed to processed drum sounds - that's just what they expect to hear. And to get those sounds you need to close-mic individual drums. From an engineering perspective, natural is actually easier - stereo pair somewhere in front of the kit: job done. However, from a production perspective it's not so simple: need to find a room that sounds good, make sure the kit sounds good, etc. etc. I'd love to get back into it - I miss my time as an audio engineer. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DACs : unmodded Transporter vs Perfectwave DAC?
On 02/12/10 12:33, TheLastMan wrote: Reading this thread with great interest. Most of the equipment discussed is way out of my financial league, but I can pick up a Transporter for under £1k now so I am seriously considering it as an option in my system. There is a lot of discussion here about the bass and midrange levels of the Transporter vs PWD kit. However in my (long and varied) experience relative sound levels at the various frequency bands have *much* more to do with the speakers, amplifier and listening room. To my ears the differences between DACs with high quality analogue output stages are much more subtle. More to do with time-domain issues which affect harmonics, imaging and the realism of an instrument's sound (try listening to voices, piano, snare drum and cymbals). It will also affect the pace, rhythm and timing of music (yes, I own Naim stuff!). But a lack of tonal balance (boomy bass, strident treble, recessed midrange) has much more to do with the speaker model, design, positioning and stands. The amp can make a lesser difference to tonal balance but most critical of all is the room acoustic. Put any hi-fi in a small room with timber stud walls, heavy drapes, soft carpets, big sofas, pictures, book cases and any hi-fi will struggle to produce decent high frequency levels unless you are sitting absolutely at the sweet spot on-axis between the speakers. In such an environment the lower mid-range will dominate as high frequencies will be absorbed by the fabrics and bass standing waves and resonances broken up by furniture. A large and 'hard' room with bare brick/block walls, wood or stone floors and minimal furnishings will sound very live and dramatic but also confused by reflections, bass resonances and standing waves. Boom and tizz without a clear midrange is a real problem in that situation. So my point is... ...comparing PWD and Transporter in different acoustic environments with different amps and speakers is rather pointless if you only comment on tonal balance. You can only say what your own experience is if you have the luck to own both of these devices and play them through your own equipment. Somebody with different amp, speakers and acoustic environment could well have completely the opposite experience as regards tonal balance. So if you really want to be informative about how these players compare, How realistic does a drum kit sound? Or a choir in full voice? Or a solo piano? I want the live experience from my hi-fi, something the Naim amps give me in spades but they could do with a better player than the Receiver. Can someone please sticky this post? I've never seen such sense talked on this forum!! R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] BE DEQ2496Transporter connection
On 09/11/10 18:27, tomjtx wrote: I finally took the plunge and ordered the Behringer DEQ2496. I have 4 connection questions: Do I have to use the same type of connection for the loop eg. toslinktoslink or can I go , eg. Coax to DEQ toslink back to TP? For an AES/EBU connection can I use any XLR terminated balanced cable(like my interconnects) or is their a special digital AES/EBU cable. (I don't mean audiophile quality, I have at least learned something from you guys :-) ). And, finally, I seem to remember reading about early reflections in digital cabling and that one should use cable of more than 3 feet to minimize this. Does this apply to all the above types of connections? I think that covers it. I know Robin , Phil, Opaquece and Pat will know the answers so thanks in advance. If anyone who uses the DEQ2496 has tips on using it feel free to share My ears are burning... ;) Basically, Phil has answered all your questions. I'm using AES/EBU, using a pair of home-made balanced XLR cables. I bought a pair of Blue Jeans TOslink cables, but they wouldn't sit right in the DEQ sockets, and I kept getting dropouts. Eventually, I broke the flap off one of the sockets rendering it useless so I'm sticking with the XLRs! Anyone want to buy a couple of Blue Jeans Toslink cables??! R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] BE DEQ2496Transporter connection
On 09/11/10 21:13, tomjtx wrote: Someone posted some years ago about setting up the RC. I vaguely remember 1 speaker at a time etc. I did a search but haven't found the thread yet. Do you remember that thread? There are docs on the Behringer website describing how to set up the RC. You did buy a mic as well, right? R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] BE DEQ2496Transporter connection
On 09/11/10 22:15, tomjtx wrote: I have a fairly good condenser mike that I use for classical guitar gigs. The sound q seems good so I thought I would try that 1st. It was about 100.00 on sale. I have a friend who is a recording engineer who has some expensive mikes he has offered to bring by. You need a calibrated mic, ie. one whose response characteristics are known so the DEQ can adjust for it. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Crackling only through server?
On 12/10/10 00:11, mashley wrote: Everything is in Flac. What sample rate/bit size? And what flac compression setting? Transporter can struggle with hi-res (eg. 24/88.8) and flac --best R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.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 30/10/10 18:57, adamdea wrote: Robin Bowes;585780 Wrote: The point is that if there are two variables that may affect performance (mastering file resolution) then you can't ascribe any performance difference solely to just one of them - it could be either or both. On dear. I was rather hoping it could be taken as read that we had all got that point. Sadly, it would seem not. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.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 29/10/10 11:31, adamdea wrote: Hem Hem It still doesn't seem to be clear whether the argument is over a. whether variance in mastering quality is greater than improvement obtainable from increasing resolution beyond 16/44, so that we might be better off concentrating on the former b. whether there is any appreciable improvement in quality from 16/44 upwards. [not to mention the meta-issue c. whether any expression of performance not demonstrable in ABX is valid]. d. None of the above. I am quite sure that many of the people who are bashing MCP over a. do not in fact agree over b. and certainly not c. The point is that if there are two variables that may affect performance (mastering file resolution) then you can't ascribe any performance difference solely to just one of them - it could be either or both. Your points a,b c are all valid questions, but not the issue here. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New Transporter firmware 84
On 28/10/10 14:53, earwaxer9 wrote: firmware and software have to work together - they have to change together to work. Statement one: true Statement two: false. You can use firmware 84 with earlier versions of the SqueezeboxServer software if you know how. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] High definition digital vs red book
rant snipped I see andynormancx has already replied, and I'm sure others will too. You are totally missing a very important issue. Let's go over this again and see if you can get it. You made available two files, let's call them A B. File A is redbook - 16/44.1 File B is hi-res - 24/96 Both files appear to be versions of Track 2, Doralice from the Getz/Gilberto album by Stan Getz Joao Gilberto [1]. You say: file A ...was ripped off the regular Verve CD file B ...is a Chesky hi-rez master off the original studio master tape That suggests to me that file A was taken from the original mastering of the album, while file B was taken from a remastering from the original master tape (also released in Red Book form as MFSL UDCD 607, I believe). So, we have two possible sources of differences in how each file sounds when replayed: 1. the mastering process 2. the resolution of the audio file It is simply not possible to say that any audible differences are due to either 1) or 2). Now, listen carefully - this is the important bit... In order to evaluate the performance of the 24/96 file format, we must produce files in 16/44.1 24/96 formats from the same master source. You can do this by down-sampling the 24/96 file to 16/44.1; let's call this file C. Why don't you try doing that and see if you hear the same (obvious) differences between file B file C that you heard between file A file B? R. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getz/Gilberto -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.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 28/10/10 21:54, magiccarpetride wrote: Robin Bowes;585602 Wrote: Why don't you try doing that and see if you hear the same (obvious) differences between file B file C that you heard between file A file B? I've tried it and I hear the hi rez sounding different. Great! Of course, that is completely irrelevant because I WANT to hear those differences, right? You, on the other hand, may have an altogether different agenda and you may be wishing real hard that you don't hear any difference therein. For your own personal listening, the important thing is that you're happy with what you're listening to. It's only when you start posting stuff on public forums that contains potentially flawed logic that there is a problem. So what does this entire charade prove? Nothing at all. It's not a charade. The fact that you see it as such says more about you then you ever could. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.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 28/10/10 23:27, magiccarpetride wrote: There is a difference between me listening to the recording in a sort of a 'gestalt' way (where I'm listening with my entire body and soul and mind open to bask in the music), vs listening to it in a 'lab rat' mode. I detest and resent being put into the 'lab rat' position (the strictly controlled ABX experiment). Nobody is suggesting you listen to music as a lab rat. You are claiming to be able to hear a difference between the same material encoded as 16/44.1 and 24/96. There is no body soul involved in making such a distinction. Either you can hear the difference, or you can't. Listening to music in a 'lab rat' mode (i.e. under the strains of the ABX experiment) is akin to analyzing a painting by Rembrandt by using a microscope -- you may emerge from that experiment with some data, but the data you end up holding in your hand are completely irrelevant to the experience of Rembrandt's immortal art. You really do talk utter bollocks sometimes. I'm done - you can continue to live in your sweet little world as long as you like. I care not. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.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 27/10/10 18:24, magiccarpetride wrote: All I'm asking here is for people to stop, have a listen, and see what they think. Salient points notwithstanding. It's like wine tasting. Different people will have different expectation bias in that regard, but after all is said and done, all that really matters is what is it doing to YOU. Do you like it, dislike it, or are you in the 'meh' camp? So jump in, have a sip, tell me what you think. I think it's pointless testing tracks that have come from different masters. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] High definition digital vs red book
I think you need to go back and read what you originally wrote - your memory seems to take a revisionist approach. You concluded your original post with: I promise you, you'll be shocked and enthralled at how much better the hi-rez music sounds You have since claimed: I never said which master I prefer But that's my point exactly -- they DO sound different. I wasn't debating why is that. You clearly were suggesting that the hi-res formats sound better. Anyway, no-one is suggesting that it is not possible to hear *any* difference between *any* tracks - that would clearly be ridiculous. However, we are suggesting that *some* difference are inaudible, and are only heard in sighted tests because of expectation bias. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.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 27/10/10 20:53, magiccarpetride wrote: Something sounding better and me actually preferring it are not necessarily one and the same thing. I thought I've made that amply clear in my previous elaboration. Now you're just trolling. I defy you to find *anyone* who would read I promise you, you'll be shocked and enthralled at how much better the hi-rez music sounds and interpret it as preferring the redbook version. Please note that we're not trying to tell you how to enjoy listening to music, we're just pointing out that some of the reasons you enjoy it are not what you think they are! I can't speak for others but I'm personally perfectly relaxed and enjoy my listening experiences, and I'm glad you enjoy yours. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New Transporter firmware 84
On 28/10/10 00:28, earwaxer9 wrote: Funny - how buggy it is with only a few minor changes! I'm a programmer myself. The code should work basically the same with only a few changes. As a programmer,you should be familiar with the difference between firmware and software. The firmware is the low-level stuff that is written to EPROM inside the Transporter itself. It is not open-source. That is what I'm talking about. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New Transporter firmware 84
On 26/10/10 17:20, earwaxer9 wrote: Robin Bowes;585073 Wrote: On 26/10/10 00:53, earwaxer9 wrote:[color=blue] Did you change any settings, other than installing the new firmware? Nope - made sure the volume control was defeated - kept all the old settings OK, so do you realise that the only difference between firmware 84 and the previous version is the addition of the DAC Roll-off Filter option, which is set to the previously used value by default. If you didn't change that setting then the firmware you have just enthused about is exactly the same as the previous firmware. You expected to hear a difference, so you did. Only there was no difference, because there was no change. Ladies gentlemen, I give you a prime example of expectation bias! R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New Transporter firmware 84
On 27/10/10 00:55, earwaxer9 wrote: Robin Bowes;585236 Wrote: On 26/10/10 17:20, earwaxer9 wrote:[color=blue] You expected to hear a difference, so you did. Only there was no difference, because there was no change. Ladies gentlemen, I give you a prime example of expectation bias! R.l] -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes [url]http://www.theshackshakers.com/[/ur Ok - good point - I did experiment with the sharp and slow filter. Not much of a difference. I think I like the slow filter better. The sound - in general is better - IMHO I couldn't hear any difference between the two, but I've not done extensive listening. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New Transporter firmware 84
On 27/10/10 00:37, JJZolx wrote: Robin Bowes;585236 Wrote: OK, so do you realise that the only difference between firmware 84 and the previous version is the addition of the DAC Roll-off Filter option, which is set to the previously used value by default. If you didn't change that setting then the firmware you have just enthused about is exactly the same as the previous firmware. I'm not sure that's quite true. The previous firmware was version number 80, which would mean that there were at least three other changes checked in between the two. How significant the others are, I don't know. There was this change, which I think is in the 84 firmware: http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=15693 The documented changes between 80 and 84 Transporter firmware are: #3932 - (Transporter) Discrete IR codes for power_on, power_off and digital_inputs #4682 - Send WOL while in connecting state and receiving discrete power_on IR code #15693 - (Transporter) Fix for spurious AC voltage readings #16442 - (Transporter) audr command to change the AK4396 rolloff filter Of those, only the rolloff filter is audio-related. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New Transporter firmware 84
On 26/10/10 00:53, earwaxer9 wrote: The 84 forces me to take some time before installing my ELNA electrolytics. They should be here tomorrow! I'm liking what I hear! Analog. I find I am cranking it more. Not sure what thats about. It just sounds clean. Did you change any settings, other than installing the new firmware? R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] S-Booster
On 20/10/10 18:18, soundcheck wrote: Dear iPhone. You might guess that I expected such an answer. Phil will be the next chiming in. Perhaps Mynb last. I know 5V are 5V, bits are bits. And a buffer is just a buffer. I heard that before. There'll always be a group of people like you. And there'll be other people like me who just ignore people like you. The same way you ignore people like us. Though with people like you we wouldn't see any progress in the world. Stick to your little world and don't blame others passing its borderlines. I do understand that there can't be a world outside your little world - because somebody else told you so. I can tell you, your horizon is not the end of the world. There is hope. soundcheck, You are, of course, free to spend your money on whatever you see fit, and to report your findings and opinions wherever appropriate. Similarly, we are free to be critical of your spending decisions and to question your opinions when you post them in a public forum. After all, we have our opinions too. Being obnoxious and condescending will *not* serve your cause. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
On 20/10/10 19:20, magiccarpetride wrote: In a similar fashion, interferences that may occur while transporting digital bits that carry audio signal will inevitably result in the degradation of the sound quality. And that will interrupt our enjoyment of the playback. Er, yes, but as opaqueice has already pointed out, opaqueice;583990 Wrote: Except we can be absolutely certain that doesn't happen. All you have to do is record the digital stream as a computer file - ones and zeros - and compare it to the original file. I've done that, as have many others, and they are absolutely identical, down to every single bit. If you're getting bit errors in a digital transport, it's broken. The level of jitter in a decent digital source connected by a reasonable cable ($5 at Radioshack, for example) is far below the level that could cause bit errors. We talk about the signal-to-noise ratio, not sound-to-noise ratio. Do you get it now? Right, if we assume that the bits get to the input of the DAC correctly then SNR can only be an issue in the analogue stage of the DAC. So, I would conclude that the reason for your perceived improvement in sound quality after switching from Duet to Touch is *not* due to SNR. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] S-Booster
On 20/10/10 19:23, soundcheck wrote: Dear ralphpny. !!!Fairness People who never tried a device or tweak, judge about people who have that device right in front of them -- listening to it at the very moment. That you call fair. I have *never* listened to my Transporter with my right trouser leg rolled up and my left foot in a bucket of cold rice pudding, so in all fairness I can't say that it won't improve the sound. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] S-Booster
On 20/10/10 19:44, soundcheck wrote: This discussion is not about opinions. This discussion is about respect and attitude! Some people experienced and reporting something - hard facts. Some others have and express a more then questionable opinion about that. (This is not the first time this happens.) That's the situation. Don't mix things up. You are *not* reporting hard facts, you are reporting your opinions. The only disrespect and poor attitude that I'm seeing is from you because not everyone has the same opinion as you, or accepts your opinion as hard fact. If anyone's mixing things up it's you. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] S-Booster
On 20/10/10 20:03, soundcheck wrote: Robin Bowes;584132 Wrote: You are *not* reporting hard facts, you are reporting your opinions. The only disrespect and poor attitude that I'm seeing is from you because not everyone has the same opinion as you, or accepts your opinion as hard fact. If anyone's mixing things up it's you. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ That's your opinion accompanied by your attitude. It's my opinion, yes. There is no attitude, unless you equate not agreeing with you to having attitude ? I'll cut this nonsense off here. This is getting ridiculous. Heh. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
On 20/10/10 22:14, magiccarpetride wrote: Robin Bowes;584128 Wrote: So, I would conclude that the reason for your perceived improvement in sound quality after switching from Duet to Touch is *not* due to SNR. All right, WHAT is it due to then? Well, as I'm sure you're aware, the S/PDIF data stream is a biphase mark code - a form of Manchester encoding. So, the clock signal is embedded in the signal and must be recovered from the encoded data. If the data stream is anything other than perfect then there is the possibility that the timing data is not recovered correctly - a phenonenon known as jitter. Jitter is often blamed for differences between digital audio components. However, there is a lot of speculation over the level of jitter that may be audible. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
On 15/10/10 09:27, Phil Leigh wrote: I've just run the 24-bit USB version of Come Together vs the 16-bit remaster (ripped as 44.1/24 with DBP). The diff is -81dB (or about 13.5 bits) The difference file boosted by 50dB is full of random noise as you'd expect but the track is still there within the noise - words and music clearly discernible. I'd say that equates to a potentially audible difference for some people. The 24-bit version sure sounds better to me too and no it's not the 0.203dB of gain that makes me feel that :-) Phil, I think some folk are suggesting that the 16-bit version is not a simple down-sample of the 24-bit version. Can you try down-sampling the 24-bit to 16-bit and re-doing the test? R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
On 15/10/10 13:17, Wombat wrote: I just wonder why still no one has tried the 24bit version directly with a 16bit version from these files, not the cd release. I Hope Robin Bowes now does :) No time just now - I have asked Phil to try with diffmaker. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
On 15/10/10 13:41, Robin Bowes wrote: On 15/10/10 13:17, Wombat wrote: I just wonder why still no one has tried the 24bit version directly with a 16bit version from these files, not the cd release. I Hope Robin Bowes now does :) No time just now - I have asked Phil to try with diffmaker. The main issue is I'm not confident in my understanding of sox, ie. I'd want to read up on what it does to make sure I use the right dither process. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
