Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter balanced outputs
Andy8421;399481 Wrote: > Ligald, > > I have driven my Krell poweramp direct from a TP via balanced > connections. To be honest, it sounded the best I have ever heard the > TP or my system sound. Ditching the pre-amp between the TP and > poweramp eliminates additional distortion and noise, no matter how good > the preamp. I only went back to the preamp as I needed its switching > capability. > > Using the TP volume control does work with balanced, but at low level, > the maths behind the volume control will introduce noise. Strictly speaking, it does not "introduce noise." However, since the noise floor is constant, reducing the signal will reduce the signal to noise ratio. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60495 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Attention Audio Mythbusters!
Phil, Many thanks for conducting these experiments. I find this to be a fascinating topic. Reason is highly underrated, lol. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60041 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sony SS2300 DAC or SB Rcvr DAC
The best advice is to listen to both and decide for yourself. The same DAC chip can sound very different depending upon the surrounding engineering. Do bear in mind, though, that unless the Sony has a "direct" mode, it will convert the analog signal from the SB to digital, then back to analog, and you will be using the Sony's DAC. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=59297 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Should I use replaygain ?
badbob;385408 Wrote: > What about if using digital outs? Both of my SB'3 are fed to external > DAC's (stereo and multi channel processor) Replaygain will work fine, using the 24-bit volume adjustment, regardless of whether one uses the analog or digital outputs. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=58274 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audible vs inaudible
pfarrell;373730 Wrote: > jeffmeh wrote: > > Student: Then I suppose that I really cannot tell the difference. > > Master: Exactly. > > Which does not prove that no grasshopper can tell the difference, just > this one. If you used 400 Kung Fu students, instead of one, you would > conclude that as a group, they guessed. But that doesn't mean that one > or two couldn't tell every time. > > -- > Pat Farrell > http://www.pfarrell.com/ Absolutely correct. It is impossible to prove the negative, that nobody can discern the difference. With a large enough sample size, when nobody has been able to discern the difference, it becomes reasonable to conclude that the difference is negligible. Note that that does mean that there is no audible difference, as the next test subject might prove that he can discern it. However, those who claim that they can hear it, but cannot demonstrate it, truly have no logical grounds upon which to make that claim. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=56712 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audible vs inaudible
darrenyeats;373511 Wrote: > The test was carried out over a period of weeks and the result was that > the coffee lovers as a whole identified the origin correctly for 200 > cups out of 400. > > My question is, what conclusions would you draw from the test? > Darren Student: I like Coffeemaker A better. Master: Ah, so then you can tell the difference between Coffeemakers A and B, then? Student: Of course I can. I just told you I like A better. Master: Well then, here is a cup. Does it come from A or B? [Student answers] [Repeat 400 times over a period of weeks] Master: Grasshopper, you correctly identified the coffeemaker 200 times out of 400. Had you guessed without even tasting the coffee, probability dictates that you would likely have been correct 1/2 of the time. Student: Then I suppose that I really cannot tell the difference. Master: Exactly. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=56712 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] jitter
Themis;373210 Wrote: > I say that there ARE differences. When two amplifiers have a 0,01% > diffrence of THD, it means that the sound is not the same. It's as > simple as that. > I don't pretend that you, me or anybody else can actually find this > difference, or even hear it. But there IS one : that's for sure. > It's the definition of the word "distortion". And this is what it > measures : differences. > > So, what I say, is that when we do an ABX test, we actually measure the > probability that some (any) auditors can find this difference. If they > don't find any, the test means nothing. I would suggest that "if they don't find any," then it shows that the differences are not audible for that sample group. "If they do find some," then it shows that the differences are audible. "If no one has ever found any," then it is very likely, though not certain, that the differences are not audible. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=56425 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Good sound from Squueezebox
So there must be something very wrong with your original switch, if your new router sounds significantly better. Regarding WAV sounding better than FLAC, this has been discussed before. The only explanation that is plausible is that when the SB3 natively decodes the FLAC, the act itself causes some change in the device's electrical properties that affects sound quality somewhere in your audio chain. Certainly possible, and some swear that it is true, but others cannot distinguish any difference. Personally, I'm skeptical, unless someone can reliably distinguish the difference blind. But if you prefer to transcode to WAV, good for you. No worries. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=55950 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] I'm really confused
Thanks all for the great explanations. Can anyone point to a good layman's definition of impedance? I am math-oriented, but I am not an electrical engineer, and the definitions I can find on the web seem to assume much pre-existing electrical engineering knowledge. Many thanks. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=56068 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] I'm really confused
Thanks Dave and Clive. Buffer to boost, attenuator to attenuate I missed the obvious notion that the impedance mismatch is not always a case of a source with output that is too hot for the target input. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=56068 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] I'm really confused
In the case of an impedance mismatch, what are the comparative advantages of a buffer over a passive attenuator? I assume that the buffer will be much more expensive. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=56068 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Good sound from Squueezebox
If the switch is causing noise on your power lines, you could try direct-connect to the NAS, but leave the switch plugged in where you normally keep it. If you still think the direct-connect sounds better, then you can probably rule out the hypothesis that the switch is introducing noise on the power lines. If the switch is introducing noise to the SB3 across the ethernet cable, you could either try wireless or try a different cable. In any case, the only hypothesis that does not violate the laws of physics is that the switch is introducing noise somewhere. If the network packets are getting there in time to keep the SB3's buffer from emptying, it is EXACTLY the same as direct-connect, and the timing does not matter. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=55950 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Good sound from Squueezebox
maxrob200;366685 Wrote: > Hi Robin > I don't think that I am imagining it. I did read somewhere that the > quality of the switch does effect overall audio performance due to > inadequate transfer speeds or similar delays. > This is incorrect. A (working) switch and a (working) direct-connection will sound identical, as the timing of the packet traffic in TCP/IP is independent of the timing in the audio chain. A broken network connection would cause the SB's buffer to empty, and the music would stop or stutter, not become subtly different. maxrob200;366685 Wrote: > > I have listened to both combinations and there is definitely better > audio playback when connected directly just to the NAS It is possible that the switch is introducing some type of noise that the SB is sensitive to, but that would be a broken switch. It is more likely that you are imagining the difference. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=55950 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Direct to power amp?
A poll associated with this post was created, to vote and see the results, please visit http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=55246 Question: Direct to power amp? - Yes - No sxr71;363737 Wrote: > Okay so you set the attenuator to the maximum listening level you would > ever want and then you're stuck with digital volume control again. So > what's the solution? Preamp? Stepped attenuator? No, the solution is to use the digital volume control with the attenuator providing the safety required to not blow your speakers. If you are so concerned with losing quality with the digital volume control, perhaps you should try it to see if you can detect a difference. Admittedly, it would be difficult to seamlessly switch between, say, 80% digital volume with attenuation and 100% digital volume without (assuming that these created the same volume, as I haven't done the math). I would be surprised if one could tell the difference in a blind test, as Slim's implementation of digital volume control in the 24-bit domain is a very good implementation indeed. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=55246 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] "non-audiophile audio enthusiast"?
Themis;357776 Wrote: > Audiophiles don't hear : they just imagine things, based on the air > displacement coming out of their speakers... ;) So THAT is where all the air is coming from.... :) -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54791 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Not all 24/96 flac's are created equal
Themis;350875 Wrote: > I get your point and Pat's one. But I strongly disagree about your > distortion level example : If a lot of people can hear differences > between -say- different speaker cables or even between microphones, > although CCIR/ITU-R ABX tests prove that no-one hears any differences > of that level anyway, then, probably, the famous ABX tests methodology > is broken and/or there's a factor that we forgot to consider. > Also, I happen to know some high-end amplifier designers, and I can > tell you that when they go as far as 100kHz and 0,001% and 0dB > frequency responce deviation (although the... tests say that no-one > hears differences of 0,1dB), it is not for marketing purposes. > It is because the sound of their product is better with than without. > Go figure. At the risk of opening up the classic objectivist/subjectivist black hole, I have never understood this argument. With all due respect, if: 1) A specific individual claims he can hear the difference between A and B when he knows which one he is hearing, and 2) That individual cannot differentiate A from B in an double-blind test, and 3) This scenario is repeated every time, for many tests, with many individuals, and 4) Countless studies across disciplines have demonstrated that the placebo effect is real Then why is it reasonable to conclude that there is something wrong with the tests, rather than that none of these individuals can really hear the difference? -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41144 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] This is something you dont get fromdigital
pfarrell;347456 Wrote: > Themis wrote: > > > I was talking about the METHOD which is lossless. Is there > > any theory saying that a non-transforming METHOD is lossy ? Can you > > please enlighten me ? > > Can you enlighten me on what you mean by "METHOD" here? > Do you mean method acting? or something else. > > I'm not following any of this recent section of the thread. > Analogue microphones (1) transform the signal and (2) are lossy. > > They are the first thing in the recording chain. If you want no > transformations and nothing lossy, go to a recital. That still will not achieve the goal. Human hearing is lossy. Just ask my dog. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53355 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] This is something you dont get from digital
It appears to me from reading the article that they did a blind comparison among four digital sources, picked the group's best-scored two, then went to analog as a non-blind comparison. "After the listening session of the second pair of digital contenders finished and I informed the audience that there was no need for a third round between the 2 winners since we had made this test earlier on, we went straight to vinyl and the Chabrier's classical piece recording by MERCURY..." It is not clear whether the comparison between digital and analog was blind or not. If not, then I do not think we can draw any conclusions from the test. Also, I agree with opaqueice's point: the mastering lineages of the CD and the LP can be completely different, so strictly speaking they were not even comparing the same material. One would never compare two digital sources by playing a well-mastered, dynamic-range preserving CD on source A, with a loudness-wars induced, poor mastering of the same material on source B. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53355 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does a better CD drive make better sound?
smarco;326191 Wrote: > > 1. Is the $3K or $30K CD transporter better than $20 CD drive in > pulling out the digital data from a CD? Is there any $1K CD drive for > Hi-Fi ripping? (I mean $1K for the CD drive itself not for the > automated machine.) > > 2. Is the loss of data in streaming or storing really significant? > Yeah... I see some digital cables priced over $1K. If so, the shorter > paths like the option 2 and 3 are supposed to be better than the option > 1. Is it true? > > 3. What makes the $3K transpoter worth other than the minimized loss > (if so) in its circutry? > 1. No. If a CD drive gives you a bit-perfect rip, it cannot get any better than that. You do need to use ripping software that can do bit-perfect rips if you want to ensure this (e.g., EAC, Dbpoweramp). 2. If you store lossless files, then there is no loss in storing. If you stream using a network protocol like TCP/IP, as you do with SqueezeCenter, then there is no loss in streaming to the transport. In general, any digital cable that is not broken will get all the bits from the transport to the DAC. However, spdif has an inherent weakness in that the clock signal is embedded in the data, and this can result in timing variations (jitter), depending upon the specific equipment involved. This may or may not be audible, depending upon your equipment, your listening environment, and your ears. There are numerous threads here devoted to explanations of jitter. 3. A very expensive transport may have better components, better power supplies, better engineering, or it may just have a higher price. It may go to greater lengths to minimize jitter, by using a master/slave clock, by avoiding spdif altogether, etc. Whether it is worth the $3k or $30k is very subjective. I can think of better ways to spend my money. :) If it is a CD player, and has to read the physical disc every time, there is always a potential for read errors and data interpolation/extrapolation, which does constitute data loss. In this respect, an accurate rip stored in a lossless format is a better read. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=50690 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does a dedicated music server make a difference
A poll associated with this post was created, to vote and see the results, please visit http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48430 Question: Does a dedicated PC/music server sound better than a PC used for other duties? - Yes it does. - No it doesn't make any difference. With all due respect, you do not seem to understand that the placebo effect is not something one can "rule out" because of perceived "major differences." Additionally, perception is not fact. You heard a difference, and that difference may have truly existed, but it has nothing to do with different sound quality based upon different computers running SC. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48430 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Bi- and vertical-amping
To throw another configuration into the mix, I used to use a separate, passive crossover (high-pass filter) that filtered out frequencies below 80Hz. This filter had 1 set of stereo RCA inputs, and two sets of stereo RCA outputs (1 filtered and the other unfiltered). I ran it between the preamp output and the amp input (for the filtered run), and a powered subwoofer with an 80Hz crossover/low-pass filter (on the unfiltered run). This effectively reduced the load on the amp driving the main speakers, as it no longer received input signal below 80Hz. It certainly made a difference to my ears in this system. Given that there were two amps (one in the subwoofer), I suppose it is bi-amping of a sort. :-p -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=46354 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Newbie question: what's the better DAC? SB2 or amp?
If you try the SB analog outs, be sure to set your receiver into "Direct" mode, or whatever is required to get it to bypass any digital processing. If you do not, the receiver is going to end up converting the analog to digital and using its DAC anyway. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=43080 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Best sound possible
There is really no need to belabor this. The SB or Transporter receives network packets from the SlimServer that make up the music file (FLAC, MP3, WAV, or other natively suppported format). The SB or Transporter plays the file. The server has to get the data there, but it has nothing to do with the quality of the music. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=42867 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audiophile Music File Protection
So if my math is correct, and you get 2Mb/s upload speeds, and everything goes perfectly, it will take about 20 days (24/7) to upload 400GB. And if you periodically run a test to make sure you can recover the data, and get 8Mb/s download speeds, it will only take about 5 days (24/7) to run the test. I still do not see this as practical, particularly if anything goes wrong and it cannot run in unattended mode. However, if you try it I will be very interested to hear how it goes. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=42358 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audiophile Music File Protection
Copied from an earlier post: I looked into online backups, but unless one has tremendous upload and download bandwidth it would just take too long to backup and recover. Let's say that you have 768Kb/sec upload speed. To backup 500 GB: 500G bytes x 8 bits/byte x 1 sec/768K bits X 1 min/60 sec x 1 hr/60 min x 1 day/24 hr =~ 60 days. Some of the services also limit your download bandwidth, so check that out also. But if you achieved 8Mb/sec, it would still take about 6 days to get your data back. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=42358 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] CD Player as DAC recommendation?
While I love my Squeezeboxen and the Slim architecture, and would heartily recommend that you buy one, I see no good reason to bother doing so if you are going with the computer soundcard. There are a myriad of music players that will run on a PC and give you an interface at least as good as what you get with SqueezeCenter. Perhaps that will change with the controller, but I have yet to use one so I am not qualified to say. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=42020 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 6moons preview ModWright Transporter
seanadams;256048 Wrote: > Maybe. Or maybe based on what I know of the Transporter and of > electrical engineering, I can be quite confident in my position with > just the information at hand. > > Here's an analogy: Suppose I sell bits of string which are 3" in > length. Perfect for tying up very small parcels, attaching notes to > pigeons' legs, etc. > > Then someone claims that by simply tying one of my bits of string into > a knot, he has increased its length to 4". Now, based on what I know of > string and of knots, I can safely say "no way". > > Is the onus not on the tier of knots to demonstrate that he has in fact > increased the length of the string by his method? He could at least show > a picture of this magically knotted string so that we can see that at > least _something_ of interest has been done to it... > > The length of a bit of string, like the amount of jitter in a clock > signal or the number of bits per sample supported by a digital audio > device, are observable things. But not only are they easily tested, > they can also be predicted and understood without even having to lay > hands on the thing, because we have theory to tell us how this stuff > works. > > However, nobody has seen, heard, or measured this claimed 4" bit of > string. Nobody can explain how one might tie a knot in such a way as to > make it 4" in length. Perhaps the first few people to buy such a string > will never take the time to hold a ruler against it and see how long it > really is. They will just be happy to have a longer bit of string > because they were told it is longer. That is exactly how these scams > work! People are gullible. The snake oil salesmen would be out of > business if people took time to test this stuff or learn how it works. > > > > You don't think I have better things to do? the only reason I post in > threads like this is because I don't want my customers to be misled. > But after a certain point, if someone insists on believing despite all > evidence to the contrary, I give up! What if the 3" string was moving at the speed of light? :-P -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41756 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Loss from Ethernet Cable?
Did you rip to lossy AIFF or Apple lossless (ALAC)? If you ripped lossy, then you are comparing lossy on the SB3 to lossless on the CD Transport. Try ripping something to ALAC or FLAC and comparing. Also, be sure to match the volume levels between the SB3 and the CD Transport. Otherwise, it is virtually impossible to compare them. If you do all of this and make sure your SlimServer settings are as stated above, and you still prefer the CD Transport when doing a blind comparison, then you will have proven that you find the CD Transport to be superior to the SB3 (through the current interface cables). Good luck. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41268 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Annoying tick when fridge turns on/off
Robin Bowes;239164 Wrote: > tyler_durden wrote: > > > If you replace a refrigerator you spend $800 or more to reduce your > > electric bill by $5 per month... > > [snip] > > > It might pay for itself in the power savings in about 30 years. > > > Erm, simple mathematics would dictate that if you're saving $5/month > after an outlay of $800, it would take 800/5 months to recoup the > initial investment, i.e. 13 years 4 months. > > Yours pedantically, > > R. What's the discount rate? :) -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39691 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optical connection - inferior by default?
Newtonian physics is also inferior to Einsteinian physics. While that is an important distinction when trying to precisely calculate the paths of celestial bodies, it is not a consideration when playing billiards. I have no doubt that in some audio applications Toslink's technical deficiencies matter, while in others they do not. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33146 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SB3 Bolder Mods
tyler_durden;238348 Wrote: > I think that says it all. > > It is very much like the psychics who can't work their miracles under > scientific test conditions because the effect is "shy". If everyone > involved just takes a few deep breaths, suspends their critical thought > processes, and puts their attention elsewhere, the miracles will > happen. > > How much did this lesson cost you? > > TD B-I-N-G-O.. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39684 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Million dollars to provecables areworth money
SumnerH;235432 Wrote: > You think? I find relativity to have more "magic" formulas than > quantum; the one "unaesthetic" thing about QM is accepting that the > physics is not deterministic, but that strikes me as being perhaps a > human bias rather than a real objection. Well, I certainly realize that judging each based upon "aesthetics" is subjective by its nature. However, QM feels to me like, "wait, we found another particle, let's append some new equations to the math." GR feels more like, "look at this simple, elegant explanation." Of course, the fact that each breaks down when trying to describe the other's domain leads one to believe that there is more there to discover. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38902 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Million dollars to provecables areworth money
Best of luck trying to explain quantum mechanics to a layperson, lol. I qualify as such, although I have a higher math background and have done a fair amount of reading on the subject. I realize that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" (Tower of Power, anyone), but QM appears to me to be an ugly, awkward mish-mash of data points, although it is uncannily correct according to experimental outcomes. The math for the gravitational force is much more aesthetically pleasing, and you would have a better shot of explaining general relativity to a lay-audience without having to lie. Herein lies the quest for the theory of everything. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38902 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SB3 digital output quality
Denny, The timing does matter here. The same bits with different timing can yield different audio output. Jitter does exist, although one can argue about its significance. If you read up on the SPDIF protocol and understand how the clock is obtained from the data signal itself, you will see that it is indeed different from moving a data file across a network. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39113 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Million dollars to prove cables areworth money
servies;234628 Wrote: > Geez... still living in the 1940's? > @adamSlim, > maybe, the microphones aren't perfect, but that's the case for both > tests (cable A and B) > and that also would be eliminated if you go for option B (comparing the > signal at the entrance of the speakers), but ofcourse there will be some > invisible elves who enhance your hearing when you use the superduper > expensive cables... whatever, if it gives you a comfortable feeling... You are still missing the point. If I have two identical cardboard boxes, one filled with gold and the other with lead, and the measuring device available to me is a camera, the boxes measure equally. Obviously, they are not equal in a relevant way, but my measurement system is not sophisticated enough to detect it. It is certainly likely that there are limits to our current measurements for audio, so some relevant difference could be undetectable by those measurements. In practical terms, you may be correct. Perhaps there are no limitations in our measurement technology that can account for meaningful, audible differences. However, the possibility clearly exists. Intellectually, I do favor double-blind testing. If someone can tell the difference in a well-constructed, double-blind test, then it exists (statistically speaking). If your instruments cannot measure a difference, then it is a limitation of your instruments. If they can, then perhaps that difference explains the difference in human perception, but perhaps it is something else that your instruments cannot detect. In no one can tell the difference in a well-constructed, double-blind test, then for all practical purposes the difference does not exist. If your instruments can measure a difference, then it must be a difference that is not audible. If they cannot, fine, but they still may be limited in detecting factors that are not audible. Finally, I am very skeptical regarding mega-expensive cables, and I can think of virtually no circumstance under which I would value them given their cost. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38902 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Million dollars to prove cables areworth money
servies;234469 Wrote: > Apparently you have such excellent hearing that you can hear the > difference between a cable with a length of 90.001 cm and a cable > with a length of 90.002 cm, you must be a true 'audiophile' > then... > > Yawn... I believe Robin's point is that there may be factors that we cannot yet measure, and that these factors may turn out to have audible consequences. Reductio ad absurdum: If the only measurement we had available were length, the measurement could not distinguish between two 90cm cables, even if one were severed. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38902 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Devolo / Homeplug - noise on the mains
m1abrams;234086 Wrote: > Question regarding Homeplug and like devices. How do they fair on power > networks in homes where their is no HF bridge across the phases? > > Many homes have half the house on one phase and the other half on the > other phase. I would think in order to make network over mains work in > all parts of the house you would have to have some type of HF bridge > across the phases. How do they solve this issue? I do not use a homeplug solution, but I ran into this with some X10 control modules that I used to use. There are a number of ways to solve it, but each involves some type of coupling. I had an electrician install a bridge across the phases of the panel. You can also buy a coupler that you plug into a wall socket. Some of these devices are passive, while others offer amplification. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39102 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Million dollars to prove cables areworth money
IMO, it is all really "in the ears of the beholder," i.e., if someone feels that an expensive cable makes his system sound better, that is great. For my money, I want to know that the difference is perceivable. 1) Demonstrate that someone, somewhere, on some system can reliably tell the difference, and then I am more than willing to discuss 2) whether that difference constitutes an improvement, and 3) whether that improvement is worth the cost. Does that make me an objectivist/subjectivist/subjectivist? :) I also note that beyond a certain price point, I am predisposed to answer 3) negatively. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38902 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SB3 digital output quality
russelk;233525 Wrote: > Replay gain is disabled. MP3 and FLAC streamed in their native formats, > AAC streamed as FLAC. Is your comparison between a) MP3/AAC tracks and b) audio CDs playing on your CD player? If so, you are comparing lossy files to lossless files. Certainly, a fair comparison is your CD player vs. FLAC on the SB3 with no replaygain or DSP. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39113 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 16/44 vs. 24/96 Format Comparison
amey01;232189 Wrote: > Absolutely! > > But there is just so much that science and DBT tests (which have been > proven inaccurate) can't explain. > > If you enjoy it then go for it (placebo or not), but just remember that > we are not at the pinnacle of reproduced sound quality yet - recordings > sound nothing like the live event. > > Science (or anything else) can't explain this as yet, but it doesn't > mean we should stop trying to get better sound quality. Out of curiosity, do you have a reference regarding a well-constructed, statistically significant, double-blind test that has proven to be inaccurate? -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38596 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Someone tell me I am crazy!
tyler_durden;231494 Wrote: > You're making a common logic error. Just because a large number of > people say something is true does not actually make that thing true, > especially when a lot of those people earn their living selling the > thing they are talking-up. For example, look at astrology. There are > many millions of people who believe their lives are controlled by such > silliness as where the stars and planets are in relation to each other > and the earth. Are they right? What about psychics? Do you think any > of them really can see the future? A lot of women who live in trailers > do. How about Naziism? A lot of people were convinced that there was > an ultimate solution to all of mankind's problems. Were they right? > Look how many people voted for W, not once, but twice! That alone > should tell you about the wisdom of crowds. > > All of this still ignores the dangers of handling CF and especially the > danger of CF fiber fragments getting into your audio equipment and > wrecking it. You can make all the arguments you want about stealth > technology and whatever crap you read on some internet forum populated > by religious fanatics disguised as audiophiles, or in marketing > literature from companies trying to sell expensive stuff to > audiophiles. In the end, if you wrap your equipment in CF cloth it is > unlikely to keep working for very long. > > If you are lucky, no one including you, your children, spouse, guests, > or pets will have the mind-bending experience of inhaling any of those > flying fiber fragments. > > What makes more sense, listening to a salesman whose next boat payment > depends on your believing what he says or believing what the MSDS says, > and what people who have handled the material say? > > I think the public school system in this country needs to put a lot > more effort into teaching critical thinking skills... > > TD Hear! Hear! -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38628 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] plug and play linear supply (part 2)
Phil Leigh;229795 Wrote: > Sounds like your replacement supply developed a fault to me. Indeed, that may be the case. However, since I spent all of $25 on the linear supply, and I am satisfied with the stock switching supply, I guess that I will just stick with the stock one. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32231 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] plug and play linear supply (part 2)
tyler_durden;229468 Wrote: > The human mind is simply astounding! > > TD I am not quite sure how to interpret this remark. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32231 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] plug and play linear supply (part 2)
Well, when I first tried this PSU at the beginning of the year, I did not hear any difference. At some point in the last month or so, we noticed a faint, scrolling, horizontal line on the TV. Yesterday, I heard some relatively loud background noise when no audio was playing. I unplugged the linear PSU and the noise disappeared, as did the TV ghost line. I am back to the SB3 stock PSU. Apparently, in my system, with this linear PSU I get more noise than with the stock switcher. Go figure. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32231 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Affordable Audio review of SB3
Meatwad650;228970 Wrote: > Sorry, but I gotta call BS on that. I think the only real signal loss > for some of this stuff is between the auditory nerve and the auditory > cortex. :) > > For those that would suggest the digital path sounds different then > basically you're suggesting that something is causing signal errors > when decoding flac? > > And if the analog path sounds different then it sounds like your DAC is > faulty. Input of the same bitstream to a DAC (and the bitstream is > provably the same) will cause the same output. > > Maybe I need to get out of this audiophile forum - I can't turn off the > engineer side of my brain enough to drink the kool-aid. :) No, the hypothesis is not that there are decoding errors. The hypothesis is that since the CPU must perform different work when processing FLAC than it does when processing WAV, that that difference results in different physical properties (e.g., differences in radio frequency emissions), which then results in audible differences. FWIW, I am extremely skeptical. However, there is nothing wrong with the logic of the argument. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38258 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Power Supply Upgrade for SB3?
gdg;226118 Wrote: > I understand that a number of reviewers have criticized the SB3 power > supply and suggest an upgrade to improve the sound quality from the > analog outputs. > I intend to stick with the digital output to feed a Benchmark Dac1. > Would a power supply upgrade be worthwhile in this case? Maybe. Some people have found it to make a difference, others have not. The most plausible hypothesis is that the RFI generated by the stock switching supply presents no problem for the SB3, but it can affect other components more sensitive to this RFI. I bought an inexpensive, linear, regulated PSU and could not hear any difference. YMMV. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38271 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Amp shutdown when power cycling Transporter
MikeFish;224199 Wrote: > I haven't really read that whole link just a couple of posts, but what I > read said that the replaygain is not a lossless process and that file > will be different after processing. That kinda rules it out for me. I > spend a great deal of time and effort to make the path and files sound > as good as possible. I don't want to add more processing just so I can > listen to everything at the same level. Mike, Replaygain just writes tags to the metadata, so the actual audio data is unchanged. MP3Gain has an option to write tags or change the audio data. I use replaygain with FLAC and find that it works pretty well. If you want to turn it off, you can do so with SlimServer and it will simply ignore the tags and not apply the gain. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=37890 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Amp shutdown when power cycling Transporter
MikeFish;224116 Wrote: > It does make a thud in the speakers as it cycles. > > Sean, perhaps you are right. Problem is that my normal listening level > is around -20db, but with some tracks it can be as much as -4db. I'm > not aware of any levelling for FLACs so if I attenuatted by 10db I'd > find myself short of volume on some tracks. > > This is not really a problem now as I'm using Slimserver 7 and have not > power cycled since installing it! > > Think I might try some sort of attenuattion anyway, & see how i get > on. > Thanks everyone for your input! FLAC does support replaygain. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=37890 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SB digital out level ?
michel;224145 Wrote: > I just don't get what difference in sound pre-gaps and offset could > make! :-) I believe Robin was responding to the suggestion that the burned CD would be a "bit perfect" copy of the original. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38024 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] This Is An Improvement
egd;218345 Wrote: > interesting observation seeing as the flac is decoded to the bit perfect > original pcm wav and then passed through the same dac as any wav file > would. it's like arguing that a document stored in a zip archive and > then unzipped is not a bit perfect copy of the original. Not exactly The files can be bit perfect but the act of decompressing on the SB could change the sound. I do not think it likely, but it is certainly possible. As an extreme (and silly) example, what if when the SB chip natively decoded the FLAC it indavertently created an audible pink-noise tone on the analog out? As a more plausible example, what if it created some EMF that affected the jitter on the digital path? Again, I am skeptical, but I must concede the possibility. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=37251 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] This Is An Improvement
mister pig;218154 Wrote: > Thaks everyone for their insights. Between reading posts, and a couple > of directed questions to tech support at Slimservers, I think I have > this properly configuired. > > i-tunes is music is ripped into wav files. I disabled the wav to flac > setting on the slimserver program, so it wav to wav. I have no skipping > or lock up issues. > > How does it sound? In my opinion its a significant improvement to wav > to flac conversion. It is within spitting distance to the cd transport > I am using. There still seems to be a bit of a loss of high frequency > energy. The top end is just not quite as open sounding and detailed as > the CD player. I will explore this more, but from what I can see the SB > is now properly configuired. > > Regards > Mister Pig It would be very interesting to find out if you really can hear a difference between streaming WAV and FLAC. This has been discussed before. While it is certainly possible that the act of the SB decompressing the FLAC could change the sound, the bits are the same as WAV once it is decompressed. It seems unlikely that there would be audible differences. Of course, if someone were to consistently identify the difference in a proper blind test, I would have to concede the point. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=37251 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Performance Upgrades
mister pig;217726 Wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > I am ne to this forum. And am probably going to ask a question that has > been answered many times. > > I will put this up front. I write for an E-Zine...Affordable Audio. I > have a SB 3 that I plan on doing a review on. > > My digital front end consits of an Audio Magic Kukama DAC and JVC > XL-Z1050 TN CDP used as transport. Its been my experience that the TOTL > Japanese machines of this era make a darn fine transport. Digital cable > is Audio Magic Illusions 4D. > > The computer music server is set up on a pair of Western Digital 250G > external hard drives. I-Tunes is the format. A Benchmark media tech > worked with me to get it properly set up for what they call "bit > transparent" playback. > > So far I love the way ease of use the SB3 has. Wonderful product in > this regards. But I have not got it to equal the sonic perfomrance of > my traditional transport yet. So where can I go from here to get this > unit optimized so i can write a review on it? > > Regards > Mister Pig First, if the music files are in ITunes, are they in Apple Lossless format (ALAC)? If not, then you would be comparing lossy files that have thrown away music data to achieve better compression to the uncompressed music from your CD player. Second, if they are already lossless ALAC files, the SlimServer has to transcode them for the SB3 to play them. The SB3 does not play native ALAC files. You need to make sure that the SlimServer is transcoding them to a lossless, compressed format (FLAC) or an uncompressed format (WAV). If they are being transcodeded to MP3, then you are again comparing lossy to uncompressed. So, to do an "apples to apples" comparison (pun intended), you need to make sure that the SB3 is receiving either FLAC or WAV, so that the bits coming out of it are the same as those coming out of your CD player. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=37190 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] First shot at using Inguz
adyc;217717 Wrote: > Forgive me if this has been asked before. Is Inguz's linux plugin can be > used in ReadyNAS? Infrant controls what you can install on their NAS devices, and the Inguz plugin is not available, as far as I know. Even if it were, I do not believe that the NAS would have sufficient processing power to run Inguz successfully. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35615 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Design miss in SB3 digital output? or Slimserver problem ?
I cannot resist http://www.ghsn.net/powerpoint/snrs_gif/sld040.htm -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36503 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] First shot at using Inguz
I have not used Inguz DRC, though one of these days I hope to try it out. In the past, I have used equalization to flatten the frequency response in the room, and I did find that it took some listening over time to get used to the flatter response. In my initial A-B tests I liked the uncorrected sound better. After listening to the flatter sound for a few weeks and doing an A-B, I liked the flatter sound better. Your mileage may vary, but you may wish to listen for a few weeks and then see what you think. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35615 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] is ASIO still advantageous through squeezebox?
needanamp;204069 Wrote: > so in a word, there is 'absoloutely NO POINT' in getting digital mods if > using external DAC via coaxial? > I believe that "digital mods" normally refer to modifications to the digital output stage, so the intent of digital mods is to improve the SB when using an external DAC. The intent of analog mods is to improve the SB when using its internal (perhaps modified or swapped out) DAC. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35506 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Different servers sound different
Georgie;203712 Wrote: > ceejay, mswlogo, > Thank you for your answers. I assume that the reason of the different > sound is caused by different parameters, but I don't know which > parameter and which value. I'll tried to have the same configurations, > but there are a lot of parameters, from disk access to CPU cache and so > on, and I really don't know enough to have the same parameter values on > different pcs and different operating systems. That is the reason why I > ask for soemone with the same experiences here in this forum. > > cliveb, > You mentionned a good point. I have no air fans in the listening room, > and the hard disk access is not audible. The environment noise during > night is near zero. Therefore no influence. > > Pale Blue Ego, > Three of the four cases have the same serial ATA interface, two of them > even physically the same interface (same PC with 2 operating systems). I > could imagine that another interface causes other sound, but I would > restrict to my 4 cases. With all due respect, just make sure the slimserver settings are identical and try the test blind. If server configuration variations(OS, CPU, memory, hard disks, etc.) were really changing the bits going over TCP/IP, then we would have much larger problems than audible variations with the Transporter, as TCP/IP networking would be unreliable. Make sure none of the Slimservers are doing any type of transcoding or bitrate limiting. If the slimserver settings are the same, and you are streaming identical files, then it is extremely unlikely that there is any audible difference. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35382 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DRM lessons from the Squeezebox
The other ridiculous notion posted here is that the "force of law" will prohibit people from circumventing DRM. Just like gun laws prevent people from obtaining guns, alcohol prohibition prevented people from drinking, and drug laws prevent people from using drugs, right? Never in human history has prohibition worked where there is both a desire and an opportunity to circumvent it. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34928 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Tried the Mac Mini directly to the DAC
creativepart;196243 Wrote: > I have all the equalization and volume controls turned off in iTunes on > the Mac (and set to fixed on the SB3 as well). There was no difference > in the files or the volume between the Mac directly and the SB3. > I do not mean to be snippy, but how did you confirm that there were no volume differences? If you used a sound pressure level meter then you can be certain, if you used your ears then you cannot. It is certainly possible that some sneaky digital processing is taking place somewhere on the Mac, but I do not know enough about it to know whether it is likely. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34592 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
darrenyeats;195312 Wrote: > Jeffmeh, > Yes I use flac. As for sound pressure levels, I don't have a scientific > way of measuring it. I didn't change volume levels between comparisons > (they sounded pretty much equal although I perceive the Monarchy's tone > as "darker" in the mids and highs). I did my best on that score but in > the end this isn't a scientific test, it's one person's opinion...I > don't claim it is more. > > If it helps the differences I've heard were apparent at middle and loud > volumes. > > Anne, > You read it right, in that I did change my mind over time. My point is > that, at first, I wanted the SB to sound as good. But in the end, after > a more lengthy comparison, I've changed my opinion and now I feel the > Monarchy sounds better. > > Let me explain what I am NOT saying. I am not saying the SBv3 as a > transport sounds bad. It doesn't! It's just that I hear the Monarchy > sounds better overall - but I should say the Monarchy has sounded > better than several other CD transports I tried at the time of purchase > and since. So, also, I am not saying anything about SBv3 versus CD > transports in general. I can only talk about my transport. > > I don't know the reasons and I would be more than happy for advice on > tweaks or possible solutions to make the SBv3 sound better as a > transport. > > Also, if anyone else has a different experience to me I would like to > hear it. I want to get the SBv3 sounding the best I can in my set up, > and I am open to all ideas no matter how "crazy" since I gave up long > ago trying to figure out why digital audio is such a black art. > > More opinions are important since as you've pointed out there might be > a flaw in my test or some weirdness in my system which changes the > result. However, I have been quite honest about what I hear in my set > up. > > Thanks, Darren One thing you could do is buy an inexpensive sound pressure level meter from Radio Shack, or someplace comparable, match the levels with a test tone, and see if you still hear a difference. In general, people perceive louder as better, so volume matching is a good idea. The other thing you may wish to try is a linear, regulated power supply with the SB3. Some claim to gain dramatic improvement with this, others claim no difference. Personally, I think both camps are correct, as it likely depends upon how the radio frequency interference of the stock switching power supply affects your system as a whole (all components in the chain). If you do test this, be sure to unplug the switching supply when you are not testing with it. Best of luck. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter Review in Hi-Fi News (UK)
darrenyeats, You did not mention it, but is it safe to assume that you are streaming from a WAV or lossless file, and that you matched sound pressure levels for the comparison? -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33276 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So what are the 'audiophile camps' anyway?
CatBus;194734 Wrote: > No need to be respectful, I was wrong. Just say it ;) Perhaps it would > be more accurate to that that if CDs were mastered like DVD-Audio or > SACDs, they may sound just as good (or at least we'd finally be able to > prove one way or the other!) > > I think that regarding the general theme, however, we're in agreement. > Someone who prefers vinyl may actually be preferring quality mastering. > Nothing about vinyl is inherently better. Well, I would think that one could argue that vinyl is inherently better in that analog reproduction is not limited to 44,100 samples per second. At a high enough sampling rate though, the argument falls apart, since there must be some sampling rate that is beyond human auditory perception (even through golden ears). -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34379 ___ audiophiles mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Club1820;194182 Wrote: > Bob, thanks for the quick reply. > > So is the item I posted a link to what I need and what the original > poster of this thread stated as Mod #1?. Replace the wallwart. > > I have my squeezebox connected to my Rotel 1068 Pre/Pro which then > feeds to a Rotel 1095 amp. Its connected via coaxial. So, correct me > if I am wrong - but through this connection, isnt the DAC in the Rotel > Pre/Pro being utilized instead of the Squeezebox's? Thus no need for > an external DAC? ??? > > Thanks for your help and responses. Yes, if you are using the digital coax output then you are using the DAC in the Rotel. For an inexpensive linear power supply, check out this thread. http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31971) -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ripping CD's
BigTony;192530 Wrote: > Jeff, > > Maybe I'm missing something.. How do I get accurate rip to work in > EAC? > > BT >From your earlier post, it seems like AccurateRip is telling you that the tracks are not accurate. If that is true, you may be set up fine but have not yet ripped a CD that AccurateRip has in its database. I am not at the computer that has EAC and AccurateRip, but my recollection is that to install it you just put the AccurateRip DLL in the EAC directory. You also have to have the correct offset for your CD drive. AccurateRip should be able to configure that if you put in one of its "key discs." If you haven't already, check out www.accuraterip.com. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34156 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ripping CD's
BigTony;192517 Wrote: > Ok, > > So I guess that its back to EAC for good, ran a few more disks in > accuraterip and found they either wern't in the database or were > inaccurate! > > BT FWIW, I use EAC in secure mode, test and copy, and accurate rip. Many of my disks do not show up as the same pressing in accurate rip, but, given the identical checksums in test and copy and EAC reporting no errors, I have confidence that the rips are good. In my view, doing it once and doing it right is worth the modest time and effort. YMMV. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34156 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ripping CD's
chill;192458 Wrote: > If you are ripping to individal tracks using EAC, and the FLAC > compression is proving to be the bottleneck, you might want to look at > the 'EAC options' -> 'Tools' tab. There is an option to allow the > external compressor to start in the background, with a further option > to specify the number of simultaneous compressor threads. Correct me > if I'm wrong, but I think this would allow the ripping to continue > without waiting for the compressor, and you could allow, say, 4 > compressor threads to run in parallel. Each one would be a quarter of > the speed of a single thread (because of the CPU dependence, and > ignoring any advantage you might get from multiple cores), but I think > the point is that EAC would not pause the ripping process unless all of > those threads were busy. I'm not certain about this - please chip in if > anyone knows better. > > I've been ripping CDs to FLAC images (not individual tracks) using EAC. > With this approach, FLAC starts up after the entire CD has been ripped. > I find the FLAC compression is usually finished in less time than it > takes me to create the EAC log file, eject the CD and put the next one > in - it is definitely quicker than the ripping process - at a guess I'd > say about 30 seconds to compress an entire image. I'm using the latest > FLAC (1.1.4?) with the default compression option, and running on an > AM2 Athlon 64 4200+ dual core processor with Windows XP 32-bit - not a > particularly 'high end' setup. > > Even in C2 secure mode, EAC rips most CDs in 2 to 3 minutes - the > ripping speed increases with the later tracks on a disc, and the last > few tracks are often ripped at close to 40x. This is with a fairly > cheap LG DVD-RAM drive. I already run FLAC compression in the background, 1 instance. EAC keeps ripping as the FLAC tasks queue up, so it does not slow down the ripping itself. The computer is a P-4, 2GHz, 768M RAM, running XP. The drive is a LITEON DVD-ROM LTD163. I compress FLAC 1.1.4 to -8, the highest compression setting. On my system an individual track certainly takes 30 seconds or more to compress, so if you can compress an entire CD in that time consider yourself fortunate. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34156 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ripping CD's
ron thigpen;192313 Wrote: > jeffmeh wrote: > > I always find that the FLAC compression takes longer than the EAC > rip, > > so I do not worry about the ripping time. > > This will vary depending on the speed of the host machine. > > Before upgrading my box with new mobo, cpu and ram, FLAC took longer to > > run and EAC+FLAC took about 7 or 8 minutes per CD. After the upgrade, > > the FLAC encoding almost always finishes before the following track is > > ripped - it's no longer the bottleneck. It now takes about 4 to 5 > minutes to rip and average CD. Same CD drive and interface, EAC error > > correction enabled. > > --rt Yes, it is dependent upon CPU constraints. It also depends upon the speed of the CD drive, and the level of FLAC compression specified. Actual mileage may vary, lol. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34156 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ripping CD's
haunyack;192265 Wrote: > Has released a "minor" upgrade (1.1.4) FLAC and boy-howdy - it's very > quick now. > > . I run FLAC 1.1.4, and with my computer, while it is faster than previous versions, it is still slower than the rip in all cases where the CD is not damaged. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34156 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ripping CD's
I always find that the FLAC compression takes longer than the EAC rip, so I do not worry about the ripping time. If you are concerned about bit accuracy, I suggest that you stick with EAC. After all, you should only have to rip once. There are certainly other ways to approach it, so if you are more concerned with speed than accuracy then go for it. You could try EAC burst mode and accurate rip. Anything verified by accurate rip is accurate anyway. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34156 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Apple Lossless a compromise?
No, as you will have to setup the SlimServer to transcode the ALAC files "on the fly." If you transcode to WAV, the SB will be receiving data packets identical to your original WAV files. If you transcode to FLAC, you will save some bandwidth, but since you are already streaming WAV there is probably no need. Obviously, if you transcode to MP3, you will be using lossy compression, so the audio properties will be affected. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34122 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SB3 vs SB3/Elpac vs SB3/Lavry
Pat Farrell;191397 Wrote: > jeffmeh wrote: > > Is that not the gist of what I said? All a negative test indicates > is > > that the subject could not discern an audible difference in that > test. > > To make a broader general conclusion would be incorrect, but to > dismiss > > this outcome as meaningless would also be incorrect. > > Yes, of course, I was agreeing with you and expanding it. > > -- > Pat Farrell > http://www.pfarrell.com/ Ah, I must have misinterpreted your tone. My apologies. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SB3 vs SB3/Elpac vs SB3/Lavry
Pat Farrell;191340 Wrote: > jeffmeh wrote: > > P Floding;191291 Wrote: > >> Let's just stress that a negative AB or ABX means very little. > >> Certainly proves nothing in the general sense. > > > > Agreed, but let's also stipulate that it does prove that the > SPECIFIC > > subject of the test CURRENTLY cannot discern an audible difference. > > Note the emphasis, as it says nothing about other subjects or even > that > > subject in the future. > > > Well, we could say > that at the time of the test, that specific person found X. But it says > > nothing about whether they would fix X again if tested again, or if > they > would find Y. > > -- > Pat > http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html Is that not the gist of what I said? All a negative test indicates is that the subject could not discern an audible difference in that test. To make a broader general conclusion would be incorrect, but to dismiss this outcome as meaningless would also be incorrect. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SB3 vs SB3/Elpac vs SB3/Lavry
P Floding;191291 Wrote: > This is most likely the case. Seems, for exmple, that TacT RCS equipment > is generally sensitive to EMF noise issues. Potentially any type of > equipment can be sensitive however. > > Let's just stress that a negative AB or ABX means very little. > Certainly proves nothing in the general sense. Agreed, but let's also stipulate that it does prove that the SPECIFIC subject of the test CURRENTLY cannot discern an audible difference. Note the emphasis, as it says nothing about other subjects or even that subject in the future. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Cheap tweaks that really work
ron thigpen;191210 Wrote: > jeffmeh wrote: > > > Would my audio sound better if I had a cat that was neither alive > nor > > dead? > > The hifi always sounds better with the house cat in a box. No > bothersome mewling at the door, or using the speaker cloth as a > scratching post. > > --rt I cannot tell whether the cat is mewing or scratching in the box, as I have to isolate it from the external environment to prevent quantum decoherence affects. Hey, I wonder if this isolation could be beneficial to the switching PSU? -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33956 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Cheap tweaks that really work
PhilNYC;191120 Wrote: > Is proper speaker setup/placement really something to be considered a > "tweak"? Considering that, for me, proper speaker placement would require moving the system to another room, that I do not have such a room, and that I would be required to buy another house, it is certainly not a "cheap" tweak. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33956 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Cheap tweaks that really work
CardinalFang;191091 Wrote: > The double slit experiment is fundamental to quantum physics, but the > wave/particle duality could only apply to electrons, not sound waves, > which are obviously sound pressure waves and never particles. > > The really weird part for me is that the Copenhagan Interpretation, > which is probably the most widely accepted explanation for the > experiment, is that electrons and other quantum objects exist as > probability waves until they are detected, when they become particles. > In other words, nothing really exists as a particle unless someone is > looking at it. If you try to watch the individual electrons passing > through the slits, they appear as particles, if don't, you see an > interference pattern. It's called "collapsing the wave function". > > Taken to its extreme, that also implies that if there wasn't someone or > something observing the universe, then it would still exist as > probability waves, and therefore it proves the existence of God, > because something has to be observing the universe to collapse the wave > function. Either God, or the flying spaghetti monster. > > Or in Peter Belts' world, if you avoid measuring or looking at the > electrons in your HiFi system, they won't exist as particles any more, > and your HiFi won't work properly. Or is it the other way round. In any > case, you should ask for a refund if your HiFi becomes a probability > wave. > > It also means that your TV has no picture on it unless you are looking > at it, and you really can't be sure if the light really does come on in > your fridge if you are not watching. > > Hello nurse, time for my shot already? Would my audio sound better if I had a cat that was neither alive nor dead? Maybe if I drew a picture of the cat with a pen treated by the Belts? -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33956 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Cheap tweaks that really work
ceejay;191069 Wrote: > Thanks for posting those links. Following my nose, as one does when > surfing, I came upon > > http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue1/beltpen.htm > > which has to be the funniest thing I've come across in a long time... > > Edit: well, it was the funniest thing until I got to the explanation of > how it works, at http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/product/redxpen/rxp.html > > > Ceejay Well, from a quantum mechanics standpoint it is possible that this could work. Of course, it is also possible that an elephant will quantum tunnel to a position above my head and strike me dead before I finish typing thi -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33956 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Q: Inexpensive Linear power supply
I also seem to remember reading something about more than one type of switching PSU being shipped as the "stock" PSU. If that is the case, clearly there could be differences between them. It is conceivable that one could generate much more problematic EMI than the other. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33547 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Nearly got SB3 but...
valeite;189757 Wrote: > at the last minute changed my mind and purchased a Transporter instead. > > I am really pleased that I did. I have now hooked up the digital > outputs from my satellite receiver and my ancient DAT Recorder and have > immediate benefits. (do not have a DAC). > > The Transporter was very easy to set up, just the time it takes to plug > in and push buttons. It connecting to my network immediately. I have no > stutter or drop outs and the sound is very good to my ears, I cannot > discern any real difference to the original CDs even internet radio is > very good on the better bit rate stations. > > Very pleased with my purchase even with the big difference in price. > (my retirement present to myself) > > I could see me wanting to buy a DAC if I had gone with the SB3 this way > I am happy and do not have to justify a further purchase with She That > Must Be Obeyed. I would imagine that "She" might object to being referred to as a "That" rather than a "Who." :) -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33848 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Bolder Cable Elpac Mods - First Impressions
325xi;189521 Wrote: > I don't know why do you guys still care about the power supply, > considering all the regulators in the box, as Sean pointed out long > ago, pretty much isolate it from the outside. I also don't understand > why so far no one suggested the best performing isolation platform for > SB - it desperately needs that - mine vibrates like crazy when I put it > on top of the freezer! I also would like to know where to apply some > snake oil to make electrons inside SB to move easier and faster... The most plausible hypothesis as to why a linear, regulated power supply could improve the audio is that the electromagnetic interference (of the stock switching supply) can negatively affect other components that are not as well isolated as the SB itself. If you have components sensitive to this EMI, a different PS might create a significant improvement. If you do not, it probably would not. I'm generally pretty skeptical, but this reasoning seems sound to me. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33707 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] my ripping tool of choice
Robin Bowes;189038 Wrote: > jeffmeh wrote: > > > > Ah, flac2x. Perhaps you could extend it further as x2y. Then if > > x=lead and y=gold we can anoint you head alchemist. :) > > I do indeed plan to make x2y possible, but I think lead2gold may be a > step too far. Perl is good, but not *that* good! > > R. Come on. I was going to ask for water2wine, but that would have put you in a different class than an alchemist. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32425 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] my ripping tool of choice
Robin Bowes;189010 Wrote: > P Floding wrote: > > mikeruss;177456 Wrote: > >> Hi all > >> > >> Just thought I'd let you know I have started using the new release > of > >> dbpoweramp to rip my cd's to FLAC. It's grat. Easy to use, gets > all > >> your album covers etc etc. > >> > >> http://www.dbpoweramp.com/ > > > > Thanks for the tip! > > Configuring EAC to rip to FLAC and AAC at the same time is a b*tch. > Any > > idea if that can be done easily with dbpoweramp? > > I'm in the process of re-writing flac2mp3 in a more modular fashion so > it should be relatively trivial to add a module to convert to AAC. > > Watch this space... > > but don't hold your breath! > > R. Ah, flac2x. Perhaps you could extend it further as x2y. Then if x=lead and y=gold we can anoint you head alchemist. :) -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32425 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] FLAC -> WAV or ALAC on iTunes. (With some AIFF thrown in.)
Any truly audible difference among WAV and the lossless formats would have to be an anomaly specific to the audio playback chain. From an audio quality perspective, it should not matter, as you can always transcode if you really think it makes a difference, or even if you just change your mind around which lossless format you want. I suggest that you choose your format based upon other factors, e.g., comfort level with tools, concerns around open vs. proprietary formats, etc. Personally, I would go with FLAC, but I am not an Apple/Itunes/DRM fan and I value the non-proprietary format. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33641 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audioengine 5 thread
325xi;188198 Wrote: > I thought you might want to make a closer comparison by connecting SB3 > and DAC to AE5 and listen to the same flacs... I was thinking along the same lines. Given that you (Moshulu) think that you "understand the limitations of the MP3 player and format," it should be clear that you cannot consider your comparison to be a fair one. If the Audioengines were so good that they revealed the MP3 limitations, then they would be punished for being so revealing. If you use the SB3 and FLAC as the source for both, then you may or may not arrive at the same conclusion. If you have the time, I would be curious to know what you experience. Thanks. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33632 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezebox on Steroids?
Skunk;187561 Wrote: > What I want to know is does the cord shrink when squeezebox is on > steroids? I don't know about that, but if you have put the SB on isolation feet I suspect they could grow by 3 sizes. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33548 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optical connection - inferior by default?
P Floding;186832 Wrote: > Two different connection methods are comparable to two different > sources. If one of the cases can sound different, so can the other. Of course they can, but I will stand by my point. It is negligible without a highly revealing combination of system, room, speakers, and ears. It is probably negligible in most cases even where such a combination exists. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33146 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Can you tell the difference between mp3 and wav?
joatca;186844 Wrote: > More testing and I still can't tell which I prefer. However, I just > played with Audacity to subtract an encoded/decoded MP3 waveform from > the original WAV, so what's left should be the differences. I have two > 30-second FLAC examples of the same piece, one the difference between > 320Kbps CBR and WAV and one of VBR and WAV: > > http://.ca/files/difference-320-short.flac > > http://.ca/files/difference-vbr-short.flac > > Just to be sure, I did the same experiment with decoded FLAC, and there > is no difference... so FLAC really is lossless. :-) Pretty neat. May I ask the artist and track you used to peform the experiment? -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32576 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optical connection - inferior by default?
AndyC_772;186765 Wrote: > Funnily enough, that's exactly what I thought about a year ago, when I > confidently ditched my (early, and rather expensive) DVD player in > favour of a cheap DVD recorder. I figured that all digitally connected > sources should sound the same, and therefore, that I could play CDs > using the DAC in my A/V receiver and they'd sound just as good as > before. My old DVD player used a coax connection, the new one used > Toslink. > > It took me about a week to realise that something was wrong. Music was > boring, the soundstage rather flat and instruments hard to pick out > individually - I just wasn't enjoying it any more. Sadly by this point > my old DVD player had vanished at the hands of Ebay. > > So, I bought another one - a newer model well reviewed for its audio > quality - and plugged it in with a coax connection. It sounds great, > normal service is resumed. > > This isn't a controlled experiment, of course, but it does prove (to > me, at least) that all digital sources are not equal. The same DAC and > amp combination really can sound different when fed with a different > source. Ironically it's the cheap recorder that's most tolerant of > discs in poor condition, so I don't believe for a minute that bit > errors are creeping in to cloud the issue. Actually, I was not referring to the differences between different sources, but between the same source connected via coax vs. toslink. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33146 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optical connection - inferior by default?
325xi;186755 Wrote: > The original question was purely technical, as stated in one of the much > earlier posts, I'm interested to know jitter difference regardless of > it's audible or not. No problem. I'm curious myself, but in my situation (mainly WAF constraints) it is merely intellectual curiosity, with little practical consequence. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33146 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optical connection - inferior by default?
Whichever is subject to more jitter, unless you have an extremely revealing system, very good speakers, a room with good acoustics, and some very keen ears, it is likely to be negligible. If you possess all of the above, I'm envious, lol. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33146 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SB3 Power Supply
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31971) -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33443 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sonos with Transporter
sting;186669 Wrote: > Stereophile review on Transporter said that Transporter alone was better > than SB3/DAC combination so I'm interested in the DAC inside the > Transporter. I wonder if adding a Sonos ZP80 frond-end (hence one > additional digital connection between the ZP80 and the Transporter) > would compromise the sound quality somewhat? Are there flaws for such > combination (Sonos ZP80 plus Transporter)? I really like the > multi-room feature of the Sonos. > > Thanks. The SB3/DAC combination has to send the digital signal from the SB3 to the DAC over S/PDIF, and therefore is subject to jitter potential inherent in S/PDIF. The Transporter alone does not use S/PDIF and its architecture should have less potential for jitter. If you go with the ZP80/Transporter, you would be be subject to the same S/PDIF jitter potential. You would not be getting the benefit of the Transporter's "closely-coupled" architecture, and you would pay more than you need to to get a comparable DAC. Now, whether you personally can hear the difference among any of these alternatives we do not know. Personally, if I were to spend $2k on a Transporter I would use it for transport and DAC. If I already had decided on a transport and I wanted a better DAC, I would find a DAC that I like for much less than $2k. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33454 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] $1000 DAC: Lavry DA10 vs used MF Trivista 21
mlsstl;186331 Wrote: > > I would not want to do business with an entity with such low > integrity. > > I think you are rushing to judgment. I own a DA-10 and think it sounds > marvelous. I've also followed the discussion over at diyhifi.org and at > lavry.com. Several points to consider. > > 1. The fellow who started the debate (JohnW) basically admits he does > not fully understand the design. Much of his criticisms is based on his > projection of what he thinks may be happening. > > 2. The "measurements" taken from the DA-10 were mid-circuit. This is > kind of like commenting on sausage making being a messy process without > regard to whether the final product is any good. No review or > measurement I've seen published anywhere states anything other than the > final output of the DA-10 is outstanding in all respects, whether jitter > or another parameter. > > 3. JohnW also refers to a 1997 white paper (On Jitter) than Dan Lavry > wrote in which he introduces his "Crystal Lock" design theory. This is > the specific design used in the Lavry DA924, which is a $8,500 > professional studio model. JohnW implies that since the identical > circuity used in the $8,500 model isn't used in the under-$1,000 DA-10 > that there has been misrepresentation. That is a silly allegation. > > There are many manufacturers who release very expensive, first > generation products. Then over the years, they find ways to implement > those ideas into less expensive products. The reduced cost generally > requires compromises. Lavry cut the cost of the DA-10 by 88% compared > to the DA924. Can you argue with a straight face that the circuits > should be identical? > > Dan Lavry has an outstanding reputation in the high end audio and > professional recording studio industry. He has written a number of > serious and highly praised white papers and makes himself available to > his customers in as open a manner as I've seen. The criticism was > started by one JohnW who seems to be somewhere in Czech republic, > France or Hong Kong (take your pick) and lists his qualifications as > "consultant." > > Given the above, it is interesting to see how quickly one is awarded > more credibility than the other. I don't know how I could have been any clearer that my statement only applied in the case that the allegations of misrepresentation are true. I wrote: "Additionally, it may cause one to wonder whether they have made any other misrepresentations. I would not want to do business with an entity with such low integrity. Assuming these allegations are true, of course" -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33304 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] $1000 DAC: Lavry DA10 vs used MF Trivista 21
P Floding;186311 Wrote: > I would care a great deal, as in one case I can forget about > interconnect problems, noise entering the SPDIF link, etc, etc, and in > the other case all things that should not matter suddenly do matter. > What a bummer. Additionally, it may cause one to wonder whether they have made any other misrepresentations. I would not want to do business with an entity with such low integrity. Assuming these allegations are true, of course -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33304 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] AVS transporter review.
davidcotton;186243 Wrote: > Hi > > Not read it yet, but www.avsforum.com have a review of the transporter. I believe that that is just a post linking to the audioholics review mentioned in another thread. http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/digital-media-servers/slim-devices-transporter-digital-music-player-review -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33397 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] An end to A/B/X (DBT) debates? (No, but...)
At http://libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm, it states that the software can "record sounds at various sample rates and bit resolutions up to 24bit/192kHz..." -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33127 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Do you use WAV or FLAC ? Pros vs Cons.....Please :-)
Actually, it is within the realm of the possible that there could be audible differences between WAV and FLAC just because the CPU processing patterns are different; it need not be because of different CPU loads. Of course, Opaqueice's hypothetical "phases of the moon" effect is also possible. Personally, I do not think either of these is likely, but let's not confuse possibility and probability. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32999 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Please recommend best quality solution
regalma1;184943 Wrote: > You wrote that you had an RCA connection between your computer and your > receiver. I am assuming that this is an analog connection, not SPDIF. > Most computer sound cards are pretty poor quality. Why not make a > connection to your receiver from your USB port. You can either buy an > external DAC or you could get a USB to SPDIF convertor (coax or > Toslink, either is dirt cheap compared to a good DAC). > > I would buy the convertor first and see how you like it. And create > some lossless files to do an A/B comparison with your MP3 files. I > don't know what, if any, losseless files Winamp supports, though I have > read that there is a FLAC plug in for it. For the time being try > downloading www.monkeyaudio.com. It is free. I just started using it > and am pretty much impressed so far. Much easier than the other > favorite here, Foobar2000. Be sure to rerip your CD for the lossless > files. Converting MP3 to lossless is pointless, though I am sure you > already know that. > > I am using USB connection to a MP-Audio Transit ($80 on EBay), which > converts it to Toslink, feeding that into my pure digital equalizer > then into my receiver where it it converted to analog. I am pretty darn > happy with this. > > If you are still not happy with this setup buy a DAC with a USB input. > There are lots of audiophile versions available from about $500 on up. > Just do a search in this forum on the subject. Though there are people > who participate in this forum who feel USB is awful there are high end > DAC designers who think USB from a computer with lossless files is the > best possible way of playing digital music, better than any CD player. > > > There are also people who think Toslink is horrible, yet I can't find a > single test to confirm this. These people may very well be happy > listening to their SB or Transporter through WiFi. If they were > familiar with the circuitry involved with electrical to RF and RF to > electrical conversion, and the compromises needed I think they would be > amazed. Electrical to optical and O to E is such much simpler and less > compromised. > > Anyway, my feeling is don't let all our opinions color your listening > experience. Decide for yourself. > > One other thing. I would recommend against the Transporter. I am sure > is very good electronics. But, ater living with the Squeezebox for over > a year I have abondoned it and Slimserver because of the overhead. When > they work they work very well. But I have found Slimserver to not be a > robust program. It seemed everytime I tinkered with my computer I would > lose Slimserver and have to play around till I got it back up. Some > people like doing this, some of us are tired of always working on their > computers just so we can use them. I read a definition of technology > recently that went something like: technology is an idea that doesn't > work well yet. I recognize the inherent issues with Toslink, but I agree that these certainly can be worked through and that it is not "horrible." However, the comparison between Toslink and wireless networking is inappropriate. The former has stringent synchronization requirements that make a difference in the audio output, where even small disruptions in the timing can cause the dreaded jitter. The latter is asynchronous and can easily recover even when it drops entire network packets. In the case of wireless streaming to a SB or Transporter, as long as the next sequential packet arrives in good order before the buffer runs out, the audio output should be unaffected. If it does not arrive in time, you get an obvious drop-out or stutter. >From an underlying protocol standpoint, they are apples and oranges. -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33197 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Please recommend best quality solution
I believe Phil Leigh meant to quote regelma 1 -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33197 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Do you use WAV or FLAC ? Pros vs Cons.....Please :-)
Hey, I'm pretty much of an audio objectivist, so I share your skepticism. However, I cannot categorically rule out that someone might be able to hear a difference on some system. An ABX test would be pretty enlightening. :-P -- jeffmeh jeffmeh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3986 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32999 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
