Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How much can transport mechanism affect SQ?
Robin Bowes;581981 Wrote:
>
>
> That's not so. I recall a test in some photography magazine where they
> took two pictures of the same subject with essentially the same
> camera,
> except one had a digital body, the other was (high quality) film. They
> then blew up both photos very large. The digital one was far better.
> It
> had better colour balance and better resolution.
>
And to make matters more interesting: most places humans take film for
processing, it is converted to digital for printing, not the old
"darkroom" method and chemical mixes. So the difference is where the
'analog' real world is converted to digital: at the camera itself or
at the photo processor.
This is similar to how many home receivers convert all their analog
inputs to digital to process the signal in dubious ways. ("Lets make
it sound like an arena... why?")
So using the SB's internal DAC may actually be worse depending on where
the signal goes.
--
snarlydwarf
snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82520
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] S-Booster
furonfour;571565 Wrote: > > If they work as advertised, I guess they would provide a plug-and-play > way to enhance a Squeezebox setup. The review does not provide any > measurements or details on the workings of the devices, which leaves me > kind of skeptical. > > Any thoughts? snake oil, especially with the touch. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=81454 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Newbie questions on Duet / Touch
Porschefan;570709 Wrote: > > I bought a Squeezebox Radio a few weeks ago as a replacement for my > bedside radio/alarm in our new home. We moved from Los Angeles to > Albuquerque and I found myself missing the wide variety of radio > stations I had in L.A. Well, the SBR opened my eyes up to a whole new > world of staggering possibilities/varietynow I'm hooked. The SBR > works great except that I find its audio quality even less than the > $100 Boston Acoustics radio I had before. So I ordered a Boom. The > Boom is a lot better than the Radio, but still just about on a par with > my previous radio--maybe a bit better. > Odd: the Radio and Boom both have great sound. Perhaps the stations you're listening to are using a small bitrate to keep bandwidth down? A ton of stations are at 64kbps, and talk radio can often be even lower. Pandora should be 128kbps and sound much better -- but it's still not at all "cd quality" The usual response I get when people hear mine is "how the heck does something so small sound so good?" > > So...is the "Touch" just a controller and doesn't have any way to hook > up to an A/V receiver? If that's the case I guess the only choice I > would have is the "Duet"? (Ruling out the Transporter.) How does the > Duet (and/or Touch) connect to an A/V receiver? I have a Yamaha > HTR-6160 receiver on my main system and I'm thinking of moving that to > the bedroom, with appropriate speakers and getting that hooked up with > the Duet. It has only 3 HDMI connections--all used, but all the other > connectors are not being used. > The Touch is a controller. It is also a player. It is also a server. Ie, you can use it to control other devices if you want, hence it's a controller. It can also control itself... It is a player: it has both analog and digital outputs. It can be controlled by itself, with an IR remote, with a web browser, or with the SB Controller... It is also a server: you can attach a USB hard drive and have it share music to other players, including itself. The duet is two parts: a controller and a player. It can't be a server, but it's sort of like a Touch ripped in half function wise. (Ie, the Controller can control the Receiver.. or any other SB device... and the player can be controlled by the Controller or Web Browser or even a Touch.. gets confusing, no?) Both connect to your audio system using standard connectors for analog or digital. > > As must be apparent I have a very low-level confusion going on which > could be summarized as "what's the difference between the Duet and the > Touch," and "how do these interface with an existing A/V setup"? Also > whether the combination of the Touch with the powered speakers on sale > might be a good interim solution. I've got $200 into the Boom and I'd > rather spend a bit more to get some decent audio for when I'm playing > music. > Check the bitrates of the stations and music you're listening too: the Boom has great sound quality, but it can't make netradio sound good if they insist on serving 64kbps streams. Try Pandora or Slacker for somewhat better sound, or a local server with some high quality rips (mp3 of at least 200kbps or better still, flac). -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=81374 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Can Squeezebox play streaming radio at 320 kbps?
basslover;553161 Wrote: > Thanks for checking! Assuming you're on a Squeezebox Classic or > something that would produce a similar result to the Classic, this is > great to hear. > > Is the sound quality better? Better than 128kbps? Yes. Better than 192k? Hrm, probably, if I knew what the heck they were playing. Somewhere around 210kbps or so I can't tell much of a difference with most music, though FLAC still sounds better. (Ie, I can usually hear that a copy of Dark Side of the Moon is lossy, but above 210k or so I can't tell the difference between various lossy bitrates... 128k-192k is still pretty blatant.) ERT FM is apparently in Turkey... so no clue at all what they were playing. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=79452 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Can Squeezebox play streaming radio at 320 kbps?
I just searched Shoutcast for '320' and saw some odd stations that had '320kbps' in the name... chose one at random and it's playing. No clue what it is, "ETR.FM"... but it works fine at 320kbps. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=79452 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How to fight clipping due to high (recorded) volume?
michael123;548993 Wrote: > Phil, > I did again, and analyzed 6-channel WAV file in Audacity. > There is clipping there. > > So, then, maybe the disk is not good, and I return to original question The first 90 seconds of that graph looks fine. The rest looks like poop, but that may very well just be an illusion based on the 'zoom' of the graph. Zoom out and see if those flatlines go away. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=78964 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How to fight clipping due to high (recorded) volume?
michael123;548965 Wrote: > I opened Money For Nothing (FLAC) from Brothers In Arms (DVD-A), and > using Audacity/Find Clipping found a lot of fragments.. > > Running sox on the server is an option, but I do not want to do that > for high-rez files, it will be very heavy > > BTW, some other DACs know to overcome this.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipping_%28audio%29#Repairing_a_clipped_signal Key part: It is impossible to restore a clipped signal to its original state because part of the original signal was lost. If you wish to reduce the "digital amplitude" then turn down the digital volume. It won't change the clipping at all, though. You'll just flatline at a lower volume. The flatline will still be there. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=78964 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How to fight clipping due to high (recorded) volume?
michael123;548958 Wrote: > Hi > > I am using Transporter with Behringer DEQ2496 in FX loop. > I can now see clearly that certain albums are recorded with clipping. > How can I reduce digital amplitude of the signal before it fed into > DEQ? You know that won't work? Once the signal has been lost by idiots in the mastering and recording stages, it's.. gone. Ie, assuming a 16bit value (because I have no clue what 2^23rd is, and cd's are 16bits...), the cd is just a series of ranges between -32768 and +32767. If the digital signal is clipped, that means instead of having nice "occasional" spikes to either end, you have flatlines. There is no way to remove those flatlines -- even turning down the volume in the digital domain won't allow "some" of those samples to stay at an extreme -- they will still be flatlined, just not as loud. The data is gone forever and nothing you do will get it back. Think of it this way: if someone totally overdrives a tape and makes it sound like poop... you can't get that dynamic range back either. The dynamics are gone. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=78964 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Monster cables.
TiredLegs;548772 Wrote: > > By the way, check out the posting here by Patrick Vitagliano, regarding > the outcome of Monster Cables' suit against his Monster Mini Golf > company: > http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/monster_vs_monster_pits_goliath_cable_maker_against_davidsized_mini_golf_company#comment-19025 So in January 2009 Monster Cable said they were not going to be, well, Monsters... Note the date on this article: http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/09/monster-cable-learns-nothing-sues-monster-transmission/ So, yeah, "Monster Cable stepped up and promised change" Promises that seem to be pretty empty. I frequently confuse my car's transmission with my interconnects. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=78593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hard facts supporting the quality of Touch digital out.
peterw;546953 Wrote: > Even the digital outs? Sean made some serious claims about the SB2 > digital out quality (jitter and all that). What's happened in the last > 5 years to so dramatically improve *digital* outputs? I'm just honestly > curious. It's been 10 years since I've spent any time in boutique hifi > shops and while I can always DAC and analog improvements, it's hard to > imagine how there could be significant differences in the digital > output. My guess would be that the edges of the transitions would be cleaner. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=78736 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Monster cables.
Ikabob;546900 Wrote: > Wow. They sure have established a good reputation. > > Thanks for the advice. Google for 'monster cable sues'. Sad. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=78593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Monster cables.
audiomuze;545778 Wrote: > +1 for Blue Jeans, in fact I've never heard a negative sentiment aimed > in their direction. Blue Jeans will not sue you for wearing blue jeans. Monster Cable will threaten to sue you for selling automotive transmissions. Monster Cable is a great company to support if you believe our justice system is idle and we need to employ more lawyers. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=78593 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123;530007 Wrote: > I was not talking about graphs, that was my pure listening experience. > Then your citations to those articles was meaningless? I must not understand how you could be "not talking about graphs" when you cited them as proof of the "limits" of digital reproduction. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123;530001 Wrote: > > Many digital recordings have that 'edginess', vinyl sounds more > 'smooth' > > The catch is those graphs are not comparing "digital to analog" ... there is no analog source depicted for comparison: you are left to fill out the ideal curves in your head. Believing those ideal curves are representative of how an analog source would display, however, is an error. All they show is that digital is an approximation and at enough of a 'zoom level' you can see the edges of the line. So what? Zoom in that close on a real world analog signal (which medium? Vinyl isn't the only analog medium) and you will see distortion. It's not even a question of "is it audible", it's a question of implying that analog sources somehow make a magical sine wave with no distortiona at all, which is plain and simply not true. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
pfarrell;528958 Wrote: > > While the 'high end' audio folks have a longer time frame, anything > computer related that is four or five years old is economically > obsolete. > With the fast rise of ARM processors in the last few years, that timeline is accelerated for 'embedded' applications. cheap, low wattage, reasonable cpu speed and a wealth of options on chip. Even my TV has an ARM processor in it (and runs Linux). -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123;528847 Wrote: > > My specialization is performance of cluster-based enterprise system. My > background is imaging processing and algorithms. Software system > performance can be always improved, this is matter of time and will. > This is my bread and butter. I got paid for it. > But I got my answer.. This is not true. If it were, it would be possible to run Windows on an 8008. Eventually you hit the wall on software optimizations. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Why cannot you make Transporter support 176.4 and 192Khz/24?
michael123;527539 Wrote: > I see that AK4396 supports up to 192/24. > Isn't the limit of 96/24 artificial? No, it's a limit of the speed of the CPU. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] It's Now Official: Computer Based Audio Goes High End
Phil Leigh;498113 Wrote: > Could someone explain to a poor Brit the meaning of the Hip Wader? We > use them primarily for fishing... Sewer workers wear them, as do farmers with piles of cowdung. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72768 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] It's Now Official: Computer Based Audio Goes High End
ralphpnj;496857 Wrote: > Unfortunately hip waders are NOT included. Of course they are included! They are just of such fine quality that uneducated masses may not be able to appreciate them for what they are! Of course the Emperor has a fine set of pants! -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72768 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Best settings for transcoding?
kphinney;496331 Wrote: > How may I check? Play a 24/96 FLAC on the SB3 and Transporter synced. The track information should show you if it's been transcoded for both or for just the SB3. Hrrm... simple test: I just set my livingroom player and bedroom to sync. I set the livingroom to be rate limited to 64kbps. that does appear (at least from the webui) to have them both at 64kbps transcoded. So, in the case of syncing, it seems to take the lowest common denominator to keep them synced. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72703 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Best settings for transcoding?
kphinney;496325 Wrote: > > To paraphrase the unanswered question in the Server forum: > Does my S. Server know or have the juice, or bandwidth... actually > let's just simplify it and ask: DOES the S. Server stream the "best" > format to all attached devices or just the one that fits all of them? For SB2 and later, it will want to use FLAC for lossless (or something it has to transcode). The SB1 it will use WAV for streaming. The 'capabilities' of the TP and SB2/3/Classic are almost the same, the difference is transporter supports higher sample rates and bit depths (ie, 24/96). In the case of such a file it will transcode the flac to 24/48 for the SB2/3/Classic and leave as-is for the TP. > > Will a sync'd SB3 and TP receive the same file or, let's assume they > are in FLAC, will they both receive a down-sampled version? > Hrrm, good question. Someone stole my radio, so can't check right now. (The bad part of bringing the radio to work is they keep stealing it to show off cool networking toys. I should get a commission on sales of the damned thing, but nooo... I just have to have no music for 3 hours...) -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72703 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Best settings for transcoding?
The defaults should be fine. By default: "lossless files will be sent with the best lossless method the device knows how to handle (best meaning 'FLAC' or 'WAV', in that order); lossy files will be sent directly if they are a format the device knows, else they will be decoded on the server and sent in the best lossless format available" Ie, FLAC and WAV will be sent as FLAC. AIFF will be slightly modified (I believe the main difference between AIFF and WAV is the header and byte order.. transcoding is lossless of course) and then sent as FLAC. MP3's will be sent as mp3's (no reason to decode them and re-encode as flac), etc. On things like the SB1 that doesn't do FLAC, things get sent as WAV instead of FLAC, unless it's mp3, which the SB1 can do natively. Oggs on the SB1 will be decompressed as well, and sent as WAV, since it can't do FLAC or OGG. This changes when you use bit rate limiting, which forces everything to be sent as mp3. Some people believe that FLAC and WAV sound different. This has yet to be proven, though. I've never seen a reason to switch from this logic. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72703 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sound quality between wav and flac
marcoc1712;494051 Wrote: > This sound like a good explanation to me, but... > > Actualy (7.4.1) you could not operate FF/REW in WAV -> WAV (at least if > you are using a .cue file, you can in a single wav file - just tried > after your post, strange, is'nt it?), but is possible in FLAC converted > to WAV (regardless results...) > For much the same reason: the cue sheet confuses SB, it would then have to apply offsets to each and every seek. In this case it would be doable, but is very very low priority considering how many people use cue sheets to begin with, let alone with WAV's... > > IF (remember, 99% probs is up to my suggestion) there is a difference > should be generated by the process (from the conversion in the server/SB > to the playback in SB, or somewere else in the system, maybe due to > different signal path, ingenerated EMI or else, I'm not qualified to > investigate this). > If running flac on your PC to convert a file to or from flac/wav generates sufficient EMI to alter the sound at your SB, you should evacuate your house: it will have serious health effects. > > Maybe is an issue only in my system, that's why i'm asking if you can > ear it in other systems, if noboby can, OK, it's just my problem and > i'll solve someway, if yes, maybe could be pointed and solved sooner or > later. > The issue is in your brain: the effect you are experiencing is entirely psychological. > > I'm (or better I was...) an IT engineer now managing my consulting > company, but in the past I was operating in the software quality > assurance, I know very well the first role about users claims... but > often the bug IS somewere, normaly in place were you ever think it never > flows in! And often the bug is with the user. Your assertions make no sense: the TCP packets from flac decoding on the fly -must- equal those made from the wav or it would not work. And, if EMI output from your PC varies enough to create serious EMI in your house, you have much greater concerns than audio quality. Your brain is a very complicated audio processor: the catch is that it is VERY easy to fool your brain. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sound quality between wav and flac
marcoc1712;494002 Wrote: > > IF for SB is exactly the same to play a WAVE or a FLAC converted to > WAVE in the server side, why in the first case the FF/REW is disabled > and is working in the second? > Because transcoding makes it hard for the server to know where exactly it is in the bitstream it doesn't have a fullblown API to talk to flac's decoder to say, "okay, decode the next 20930 samples", nor is it possible to tell the flac decoder "hey, please go back 20930 samples" or get samples of the samples to do the fast-forward with sound. So FLAC -> FLAC works with FF/REW. So does WAV -> WAV. You can run the flac decoder yourself to create a WAV file on your disc, and then you can seek -that- file. You just can't seek transcoded material because that is FAR more complex and flac.exe does not allow it, nor does SBS have a way to tell it how/where to seek while decoding. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Personal Introductions: Please Make This a Sticky!
steveinaz;491976 Wrote: > > My name is Steve, been an audiophile since the ripe ol age of 11 (1973) > when I was bit by the bug. Why does that sound like an intro at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting? -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30141 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The end of the CD player :-)
The demise of CD players isn't related to the demise of CD's though. I retired my CD player when I bought my first DVD player... "hey, it plays CD's too, why do I need two things in my cabinet when one will do? One less remote, too!" The CD sales problem is that most music today has at most 2 "hot" (not good necessarily, just selling well) tracks on an album, so picking and choosing them from iTMS or Amazon or wherever is more cost effective: why spend $10 to $20 on a CD when $2 will get the songs that suck less? Of course RIAA hasn't figured this out... if you make an album worth buying the whole album then there would be less picking and choosing the singles off it. CD sales may still suck but -album- sales via physical and download would go up. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71619 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The man in the hi fi shop said...
ashmore;469722 Wrote:
>
> I've always reasoned that a bit perfect rip, conveyed to the Squeezebox
> (by whatever means, wireless or not) should be, well - bit perfect,
> should it not?
If that was not the case, then email and everything else on the 'net
would explode. ("Oops, sorry, no checks on CRC's, so our payroll data
was mangled in transmission, so no paychecks for anyone this week.. hope
this memo actually gets out, too..")
But, yes, the connection between a SB and a server is error-checked and
retransmitted until it is correct. If the rip is losslessly encoded,
then it will come out the digital outs exactly as it was ripped.
>
> The quality of reproduction being influenced by the DAC and other
> components onward in the chain (interconnects, amp, room acoustics
> etc...). Is that more or less correct audio people?
Yes.
>
> Would it be fair and reasonable then to conclude with the following
> statement: a £150 SB is equivalent to CD player costing, say £800. As I
> don't need such a CD player I effectively have £650 more to spend on my
> speaker upgrade...
>
> D'you think the wife will buy it? ;)
Your speakers are arguably the most important part of the chain... so,
yeah, it makes perfect sense.
--
snarlydwarf
snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=69480
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Is Slim Server Bit Perfect?
Phoenix;425777 Wrote: > As an audiophile, I was sold on EAC because it could create a bit for > bit perfect copy of what was embedded on a CD. Likewise, I've been told > that FLAC is a benign compression scheme because when decoded it yields > a perfect bit for bit copy of the original. But what about Slimserver? > In playing these digital files does it deliver a perfect bit for bit > copy of the digital file or does it alter the bits before delivering the > file to the DAC? I recently read a article in Positive Feedback online > which raised concerns that not all digital playback software is created > equal, and that certain programs such as Foobar alter the bits as the > digital file is played through them, thereby degrading its sound. > Specifially, Issue 41 online asked this question of a number of digital > hardware and software designers, and I will quote the answer of Vincent > Sanders of VRS Audio Solutions: > Yes, it is, assuming you don't turn on things that would interfere with that (ie, crossfading, replay gain and even volume: all by nature interfere with the digital bitstream). Assuming that (which is why there is an option to lock the digital volume to 100%), then, yes, the digital outputs will match the encoded bitstream. This is true to the point that if you pass it a file with DTS encoding to a DTS-capable decoder, it will light the light to say it is DTS and decode it properly. That is plain not possible if the bits changed. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=63646 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The Blind Testing Controversy
cliveb;411838 Wrote:
> If the placebo effect enhances one's listening pleasure, that's fine:
> accept it as a benefit.
But if you can save money by having a cheaper placebo ("Those 10gauge
zip cords from Home Depot work great!") then it is even better.
--
snarlydwarf
snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=61877
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The Blind Testing Controversy
ModelCitizen;411476 Wrote: > I am blind and S Club 7 sound the best wherever I am. > > MC They sound much better if you are deaf. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=61877 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sound issue, Duet. Will an external DAC help?
efroy;409972 Wrote: > Unbalanced output from CDplayer. > > When I set volume to max on my SB controller the volume (used to have > volume at 3/4) is getting closer but still a bit off the cdplayer > output. A guesstimate (im not home now) i would say i have to turn > volume up from 1/4 to a 1/3 to get the same levels. Well there's the difference. Your CD player has a volume control, too, even if it's not on the front panel: it's a tiny pot inside that was set at the factory... It's set at some nominal value to make the connectors a fixed db value (would like to say it's a standard, but I bet CD makers sneak it up a db or two just to sound 'better' than their competition...) You have, in effect, turned down the volume on the SBR by running it at 3/4 volume. So, yes, it would sound quieter. Volume controls are a pain in the butt: think of a PC where your media player has a volume, your soundcard mixer has a volume, your speakers have a volume, and if you plug speakers into your monitor to reduce cable clutter... you may have yet another volume... It is best to stick with one device providing volume. If you want to use your amp's volume control (which you may want depending on your usage), don't use the volume on the SB, set it to max and let the amp figure it out. Or, with my usage pattern (almost always music), I set the amp to a fixed value (52/100) and use the SB to set the volume.. which you do is up to you. (The audiophile way is to let the amp do it: it will mess less with the S/N ratio to have volume as late in the chain as possible.) -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=61755 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter on the way vs my exsisting SB3
bigbwb;385459 Wrote: > Interesting thoughts. I would have thought some of the replies would > have been the opposite. Truly I do hope to notice a difference > (hopefully improvement) when the transporter arrives. I just was more > intimidated by all the folks who feel strongly that DAC's are all the > same. > > Any more thoughts from either side of the fence:) > Depending on how much of a believer in Jitter you are, the DAC internal to the Transporter will have another advantage to an external DAC: you won't need all the transcievers. Taking a digital electrical output and converting it to optical, sending it down a wire, and then converting the light back into electricity is going to insert some level of jitter into things. LED's don't switch instantly: they switch fast, but not instant. You have the same problem with a coax connection, it isn't just about light, but about the need to use additional circuitry at both ends of the wire or fiber. Removing those components will certainly affect the DACs ability to avoid jitter. (And, yes, I know many high end dacs have jitter-reduction circuits..) Whether you hear it or not, well, that's another question. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=58311 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezebox vs Xbox 360?
BlueScreenJunky;381837 Wrote: > > Your ear is getting less sensitive, especially in higher frequencies, > but it doesn't mean you'll be less likely to tell the difference > between High quality sound and lower quality : It's actually your brain > that does most of the job. Some people can't hear the difference between > 128kbps mp3 and lossless, but it's probably not because of their ears, > just that they don't know how to listen ^^ Well for what it is worth, that high pitched squeal that was being touted on the news a year or two ago as "a way to force teens to stop loitering around your business without annoying others" (was it 17khz? supposedly older people couldnt hear it).. was truly annoying. I still have reasonably good hearing at the high end, so I am not all that worried. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=23614 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezebox vs Xbox 360?
BlueScreenJunky;381614 Wrote: > (Yeah I know, that topic is old ^^) > > Anyway, I'm considering switching from X360 to Squeezebox for these > reasons : > -X360 is noisy > -You can't control the X360 w/o turning the TV on. > -X360 doesn't decode FLAC > -There's not much you can configure about the way ths 360 handles your > library. > All very good reasons. > > However, I have no idea what to expect about the sound quality. I use > the analog outputs of the 360, and will use the analog on the SB3 too > since I don't have a DAC... Do you think I can hope a substantial > improvement ? > > thanx ! As a 40+yr old, my hearing is supposedly sucky. (The irony of audiophilia is that the majority of people suffering from this disease are in the declining years of their hearing...) But it's very easy for me, without tossing a ton of money at speakers, dac or other audiophilia to tell the difference between a Squeezebox and a computer sound card. I can still tell the difference between mp3 and flac on most things, unless the mp3 is encoded in 'extreme' mode when it can be a bit trickier: I can still hear artifacts at 192 if I listen for them. I know this isn't exactly what you asked for.. but I dont have an Xbox to compare it with... just that the SB is really really nice quality audio, and while I don't think I could hear the difference at my age and with my equipment between an SBClassic or Receiver and the transporter... I am pretty confident I could detect the Xbox (even if the fan noise was zero). There is a lot of fancy junk inside the xbox that makes for more noise sources and any of that making it to the audio before amplification would be bad. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=23614 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Apple ends DRM and improves quality
Robin Bowes;381123 Wrote: > > Dylan can convey more reality/emotion in his croaking than many > "singers" ever can. > > Sinatra wasn't a particularly good singer either, but he is a legend. > > There are many more examples. > Tons more: there are some incredible singers that are technically borderline: Stevie Nicks has a voice that technically sucks... but it worked incredibly well for her, the tone became almost seductive instead of nasally. The edge is what makes it stand out. Or even from the American Idol genre: when Kelly Clarkson sang "A Moment Like This" immediately after being pronounced the winner of the first Idol, it was good: her voice cracked with emotion and she actually felt every word she sang, and that came through. Months later when it was recorded, she'd sung the song a hundred times and the vibrancy was lost. The radio version is poop: emotionless and boring. Or for the most extreme example: William Shatner. His "Has Been" album is one of the best albums I have ever heard: if you value music as a method to express emotion, anyway. He doesn't even really sing on it, but the lyrics and his delivery convey his personality very well: both humor and sadness. It gave me a new respect for the man. What other 70+ yr old man can hold his own with Henry Rollins? -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57806 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The Absolute Sound reviews AppleTV and Squeezebox Duet
marc0716;368308 Wrote: > your right it's state your opinion forum which is all i have done... No, if you look at the top of the page, it says "Squeezebox : Community : Forums"... Your posts have nothing to do with Squeezebox, or the SB community. It's not a free speech forum: it is for the Squeezebox community, and your shilling is abusing the resources of others. If you want a "state your opinion forum" go start one instead of wasting the resources of others. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=49614 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Interesting Articles in The Absolute Sound
marc0716;368297 Wrote: > can i be both? An uninformed troll? Sure. But go shill your wares elsewhere. It is incredibly tacky to use someone else's forums for your advertising. Hint: using someone else's resources to repeatedly advertise your product is called spamming. Do you think Qsonix approves of your shilling using someone else's resources? -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=40707 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] The Absolute Sound reviews AppleTV and Squeezebox Duet
marc0716;368290 Wrote: > Qsonix is Lord, how much is Qsonix paying you to shill their products? -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=49614 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] "non-audiophile audio enthusiast"?
Themis;357699 Wrote: > A "non audiophile audio enthusiast" is a young audio enthusiast. :) And therefore actuallly still have the hearing to hear subtle differences. I always find it amusing that Audiophilia tends to strike males just as their hearing starts fading. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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] Does computer influence Sound from Transporter?
kimballhouse;306217 Wrote: > > In the course of sorting this out I spoke to an audio dealer who > assured me that the computer system has a huge effect on the sound > quality coming from a Transporter. This sounds like a canard and I > would welcome the input of the forum. His statment was that the > 'K-Mixer' in Windows XP wrecks the sound, even if the digital file is > transfered to a wireless player and stored there. He further > maintained that the sound quality from the Transporter would depend on > the choice of computer system, with Mac better than Vista, better than > Windows XP, even if all were storing and sending the same uncompressed > music file. Is this nonsense? The audio dealer has no clue what he is talking about. Ie, that would be true if you were using the PC's sound card and the myriad of layers of software... But you're not. Does he believe that if you download a song from iTunes Music Store on a Mac, it will sound better than the same song downloaded to a PC? At the core level, the various music players basically do: "GET /something" from SqueezeCenter, using HTTP which is exactly how iTunes downloads work... So, really, this dealer is arguing that if you want to use an iPod, you will get better sound quality on a Mac than on Windows. The analogy above is exactly what he is arguing. He is nuts or, perhaps, he has a vested interest in something else and wants you to buy that and is either a fool that can not see reality or he is a liar that doesn't care about reality, only the sale. I wouldn't buy anything from him ever. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48214 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Q: 'Alternative' CD formats..SACD, HDCD, XRCD
Phil Leigh;290388 Wrote: > > I just don't understand why people never consider the example of > movies. Once you get to about 25fps, you can't "see" the frames... Because people like to flatter themselves and believe they see and hear more than they can... ignoring that their head contains an incredibly fast and powerful (and totally capricious) analog signal processor called the brain. It manipulates and twists everything we see and hear. Usually this is for our 'good'.. but sometimes it just behaves in what appears to be a random manner: coloring our senses wrongly because our mood is different.. or we had too much or not enough coffee, or we are mad at the kids on the lawn... I don't get why people insist their ears are so golden but don't admit that perhaps their brain is even more golden, detecting subtle differences in the way the tester says, "okay, what does this sound like?" and using that to infer what the source material is with no effort at all. The brain is really scary sometimes at the signals it picks up, processes, and uses to taint everything, all subconsciously. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=45839 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter paired with Squeezebox Controller
gsawdy;263992 Wrote: > Ths SBC may not tell the device what to do, but doesn't it require the > device to receive the RF signal and transmit it to SqueezeCenter? This > is a question as I'm confused as to how it works. Given this > discription of the SBC, can someone please explain and compare how the > SBC is different from using the PSP or Nokia 800? Are all the same > speed? I have neither but I think the Nokia/PSP interfaces have an > alphabet screen. > The SBC requires a wireless RF connection... which can either be through an existing home wireless network, or directly to the SBR itself. So you will either need an SBR or a wireless accesspoint/router. The SBC should be faster than the Nokia or PSP... since it isnt using HTML, but talking directly to the server. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=42761 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter paired with Squeezebox Controller
The SB Controller isn't released with the SB3. It is released with the SB Receiver, which is mostly like an SB3 with no display. You can (or will be able to, to be more precise) buy it separately as well. The SB Controller works with any device that talks to SqueezeCenter (ie, even SliMP3's and SB1's) since it tells the server what to do, not the device. So no need for a transporter-specific version, the SBC works fine with the transporter. The display in the SBC is color and sits in your hands... so if you like album art, yes, it is much more useful than the two displays of the Transporter... If you don't, then perhaps that it is RF not IR would be a bonus. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=42761 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] FYI - mp3 file quality audibility
Well it was on typical computer speakers, and those who had upgraded their speakers to something other than the $5 speakers that came with their system were more likely to hear the difference So, yeah, on $5 speakers, you're unlikely to hear the difference, but that isn't surprising at all. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41120 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Posible bug in built-in MP3 decoder - please verify
dcolak;245879 Wrote: > Thanks. Where did you get madplay from? I visited a thousand open source > sites and never found a simple option to download win32 executable. :-(( So it's rare? See Rarewares.org then: http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-others.php 'This thread' (http://forums.slimdevices.com/archive/index.php/t-13677.html) makes that appear to be a Windows executable. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=40409 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] verify possible bug
but.. mp3's are lossy. They are going to have artifacts. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=40411 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SB+ info please
haunyack;240488 Wrote: > > To call any member a "Nazi" is untenable, no matter what the > motivation. > "Audio-Nazi" is the permutation to use...for those with tender > sensibilties..."A.N." > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39815 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New Transporter vs Old Transporter
sjparsons;237326 Wrote: > Haunyack; > > I am also in Hood River. If you have time please come over and give it > a listen. I would value your opinion. Also if you are interested we > could compare the TP's side by side. > > If interested please send me a private email with your contact info. > > Hood River, OR USA Perhaps you would have piqued his interest more if you promised him Hood River Pears... -- just down I5 in Springtucky. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39577 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] itunes v SB3
Pat Farrell;226995 Wrote: > > I hate to say it, but I don't see any audio difference at all. > Now the SB lets you move it away from your computer, but that isn't > what > you asked. > And it lets you control it from the sofa, instead of the desk, getting you away from the computer, too. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38372 ___ 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 ?
P Floding;225715 Wrote: > You implied that it was the end user's responsibilty to hand info on a > plate to the manufacturer in order to be able to reproduce bugs. I did no such thing. I said it was perfectly valid to ask for information in order to reproduce the report. > > I can't remember saying anything at all about who invented automatic > system status reporting? Well you seemed very impressed by it. As I said, it was irrelevant to the discussion. > > The SB is a complex multitasking device, just like a PC. It can have > hard-to-diagnose issues just like a PC. And in the case in question, the dependencies consist of the files in question and the firmware version. It is "just like a PC" in the same way that a bacteria is just like a human. Windows bug reporting mechanism has nothing to do with it. Please file an enhancement request for "Automatic Bug Reporting" addition where anyone can send in an automatic bug report with their entire system configuration, the tags from their library, etc, and have the same swift response to their bug reports that Microsoft provides. I am sure you have used that "Send Bug" thing and have heard back from MS about how useful the information you provided was in making the Windows Experience what it is. They certainly wouldn't silently discard all those reports, would they. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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] Design miss in SB3 digital output? or Slimserver problem ?
P Floding;225699 Wrote: > This actually warrants a separate reply! It does? Why? > > I don't know if you have noticed, but today Windows gathers local > information about the problem on the actual computer where the problem > occurs. Wow, Windows innovated ' reportbug' (http://packages.debian.org/etch/reportbug)! Debian has done that since at least 1999. BFD. I don't see any relevance to the rest of the post either: wtf does have the right DLL's on your Windows box have to do with the firmware in a Squeezebox? -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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] Design miss in SB3 digital output? or Slimserver problem ?
P Floding;225689 Wrote: > You can never dismiss reported bugs/problems on the basis that others > would have seen this or that. Bugs are sometimes triggered by > circumstances that may be particular to just a few users. Bugs that are not reproducible are impossible to diagnose. This is true of computers as well as cars. "My car makes a funny noise, but stops when I take it to the shop" problems go back 100 years. It is actually more true of computers than cars: the nature of digital computers makes their behavior predictable excepting for very very few environmental factors (compared to a car, which has thousands of moving parts, tons of vibrations, etc). "Can you provide a test case where this can be seen/heard/diagnosed" is essential to fixing bugs... It is hardly a sin to ask for a demonstration. If a bug can not be reproduced or demonstrated, then how on earth is it to be fixed? -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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] Design miss in SB3 digital output? or Slimserver problem ?
The DT-Passthrough ability pretty well removes oddities like that from the digital outputs. If there was such a problem, encoded material would sound not just subtly off, but like noise. (The SB and Transporter are both dumb: they just decode flac and put it on the output... they don't bother with transforming it in any way...) No one has complained that playing DTS encoded flacs makes the second track go to white noise until you pause/play it. That would be a glaring error in the firmware... and it is exactly what would show up if the OP's observations were real and not imagined. Again, the SB/Transporter doesn't know if something is encoded or not: it just sends the uncompressed stream on. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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] Threads Deteriorating into Debates
haunyack;224238 Wrote: > I thought (perceived subjectively) the lack of corona effect made the > beer colder. > > . Well, certainly without Corona, beer is better. But it's better without Bud, too. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38041 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Sb4 ?
325xi;221138 Wrote: > :) > I'm more then reasonably technical, and yet I don't understand why > would I chose something that is not "as easy as Win/Mac", when I > actually have... Win/Mac? I find Linux easier than Windows or MacOS... but then I dislike gui's for anything other than "a way to have 20 xterms open". Mice seem very inefficient to me: why do i have to keep moving my hand off the keyboard and then back onto it...? Annoying. It really depends on what you are used to: we have recycled some aging computers here at work to be Linux boxes for people... they have little or no Windows or Mac experience (and no Linux experience). They think they are running Windows... and things just work for them. (The only problems have been things like resizing the "start bar" equivalent so that it no longer showed and other silly user tricks.) If I had set them up, I would have enabled ssh so that I could maintain them without moving my ass from the chair, but, they aren't my doing. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35881 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] This Is An Improvement
jeffmeh;218346 Wrote: > 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. If that were so, then DTS etc would not pass through. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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] Snap, Crackle and Pop
Mark Lanctot;218155 Wrote: > Is it just me or does this not make sense? What, you didn't understand that? See, you tune into 802.11g networks just like a UHF channel... doesn't your router have a fine-tuning adjustment dial? > > As far as this being the source of the static, you are the first one to > ever report it on this forum, and some here have pretty hideous EMI > environments (I'm less than 1 km from a 500 kW radio transmitter, for > example.) This is not saying that it isn't the source, just that it's > very, very rare. You simply cannot introduce audible static, pops and > clicks in an 802.11g signal, it'll drop out or go down in rate. You'd > have to specifically craft proper SlimProto packets and inject them > into the stream. And it is MUCH easier to have random crappola sounds in the normal radio spectrum that confuses amps. Gads, remember the days when CB radio was cool, and there was a pretty good chance that once a month or so some PA system in some venue would interrupt their quiet muzak with "breaker, good buddy" at full blast... > > As for your static problems, there's obviously something serious going > on in your preamp/amp/speakers. Have you checked connections on all > devices? Speaker terminals, interconnects? It doesn't make sense that > this situation would reappear once you changed sources from SB3 to > Transporter. Agreed. Or adjust the fine tuning dial on your router. (It is right next to the Bandwidth Throttle on most. I put a brick on my throttle so I get max speed.) -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36764 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Here is why no FF/RW
seanadams;216027 Wrote: > Not at all. You still have to _get_ all that data to the player. And you > still have to be able to generate some audible rendition of it as you > scan through the compressed stream. And you still have several of the > other issues I originally mentioned, such as supporting the myriad of > formats. So only if you had unlimited RAM, CPU, and bandwidth, and only > one format to support would it be "trivial". And as long as you're > having all that, why not a pony too? :) Sure, as long as someone else pays for feeding and housing the thing... :P How I would solve it given infinite memory: decode the whole track and then the position of the sound at X seconds is derivable via multiplication. A faster CPU would help, too, so that more of the track could be decoded in background to anticipate forward movemeent. That would keep ff/rew in the client. I am not sure if bandwidth would help that much in cases of short ff's and wouldnt help at all in rewinds. But then were specing a reeasonably hefty CPU and memory... RAM is certainly cheap, but CPUs can be spendy, and the market for a $1000 device is a lot smaller (and of course faster CPUs almost always mean more heat...) That is most likely how MCE does it, with a sliding window instead of the whole file to save RAM, but still there is a lot more RAM. > > Anyway if you could only change one of those things, I'd say the best > one would be the bandwidth. If you're guaranteed the throughput, low > latency, and zero packet loss of 100Mbps ethernet (as in the DVR > example) then the problem becomes a LOT more manageable. More RAM is > nice but certainly wouldn't solve the problem per se. Well the DVR example also allows for a lot more intelligence in the client, and this is not even universal on Windows apps. (For some reason WMP will play AVI's stored on an SMB-mount, but Winaamp rarely works... some need in Winamp to seek or something is not implemented the same for SMB as it is in local access) Given infinite resources, the problem is easy, but then so are most problems. (It would be possible to design a chess-playing computer much like the always-winning checkers machine announced this week... assuming infinite CPU power to process the entire tree of potential moves and infinite memory store the results... the 50-move rule ensures that there is an end to any game. A decisiion tree could never be more than 30*50 nodes deep.) But, yes, given the real world constraints throwing 1G of memory and a 1Ghz CPU and 100W of heat into a music player to solve this is silly. In the real world, it is a hard problem. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36446 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Here is why no FF/RW
thomsens;216015 Wrote: > I'd still be interested as to why MCE seems to be able to handle what > appears on the surface to be a much more challenging, but similar task. The typical PC has substantially more RAM to devote to buffering decoded frames than a Squeezebox. Throw enough RAM at the problem and it's trivial. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36446 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] advice on ripping cd's to hard drive
The only real difference between what CD drive you use comes down to Error Reporting (some drives are better than others at saying "oops, I think I got this, but not sure") and longevity (rip a thousand CDs and some drives will end up dying in the process). Software can correct for the first case most of the time. CD drives are cheap enough that by the time it melts, another drive isn't a big deal. In reality: whatever drive you have is fine. A quality ripper (like EAC) should be able to get the most out of a $10 CDROM drive, and things like WMP usually don't pay attention to the error codes anyway. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36817 ___ 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 ?
seanadams;214252 Wrote: > I think what he was saying is that using the _same_ speakers and mics > that are used to amplify the live music, it sounds different live > (through the speakers) than when playing from a recording on the same > system (through the speakers). The question I guess is whether our > ADCs, DACs, and storage are "perfect" - the speakers, mics, amplifier, > and room are irrelevant because they're the same in both cases. Not quite: it is assuming that the only sound the audience hears is the sound from the PA system, which isn't true at all in a live performance. (And why a lot of recordings put microphones in weird places, to pick up the subtle "live" sounds like fingers touching guitar strings...) > > It's plausible, but I don't buy it as such because it seems impossible > to control the experiment. I guess one way you might try it is to > completely isolate (both acoustically and visually) the performer from > the listener so that neither has any idea whether the listener will be > hearing him live or recorded. Then play a few bars each way (random > choice each time) and see if there's a perceptible difference. The acoustic isolation aspect is essential... see above. :) -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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] Design miss in SB3 digital output? or Slimserver problem ?
cliveb;214047 Wrote: > With all due respect, my understanding is that CD rot (of the PDO type) > is completely different. The metallic layer under the lacquer gets > attacked and slowly turns a "bronze" colour. This happens from the > outside edge inwards. In extreme cases the metallised layer gets eaten > away, but again this is from the outside edge inwards. I've never seen > any reference to CD rot creating pinholes. Well then you haven't looked... from the first page of googling for "cd rot": "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD_rot"; Wrote: > > When the CD is held up to a strong light, light shines through several > pin-prick sized holes. This is especially noticeable in older CDs that > have a label of black text and a silver finish. "http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-05-05-disc-rot_x.htm"; Wrote: > > "I was kind of shocked to see a constellation of pinpricks, little > points where the light was coming through the aluminum layer," he says. "http://www.rdrop.com/~half/General/CDRot/CDRot.html"; Wrote: > > My friend Dan (also quoted in the article) noted another form of CD > deterioration, in which small pinprick holes appear inside the data > region, rather than at the disc's edge. Inspecting my collection > revealed several CDs with this problem, notably those on the Sire, > Warner Bros., and Elektra labels. It depends in general on the cause of the rot. We'll assume that discs are handled/stored well and just stick with manufacturing defects. In addition to the only admitted case of PDO, there are many other examples of CDRot, which seem to be caused by improper lacquering of the aluminum, or reactive inks in the label itself. These can start from anywhere and I have seen discs like this myself. (I havent looked at my own discs closely in ages, so don't know if they are rotting... I probably have some with pinholes... would be statistically probable at this point.) -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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] Design miss in SB3 digital output? or Slimserver problem ?
cliveb;213817 Wrote: > Pinholes in the aluminium coating on CDs was pretty common back then. > They were there from the start - it's not an ageing thing. I'd guess > that perhaps the sputtering technology used wasn't quite perfected at > the time. Although there is also the phenomena of disc rot which is real and document. (And leaves pin prick sized holes throughout the disc.) This is supposedly from a manufacturing defect (at least in the admitted case of Philips-DuPont) and has been corrected. It is certainly possible that other manufacturers had similar issues (and manufacturing defects seem to be the problem with various DVD-and-high-def discs as well). A CD with advanced discrot will often not play at all: the CD spec is not designed for shotgun-blasting-pinholes, and eventually enough of the reflective layer will be eaten that there is no way to correct the lost data. But all this is very offtopic. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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] rolling back slimserver
ratso;213733 Wrote: > yes the bolder analog mod removes the analog op-amp which effectively > reverses the phase of the unit. thus they recommend rolling back to > firmware 15 which as i see it can't be done on a mac. as for whether or > not you can hear it is up for some debate i guess. wayne from bolder > said he can easily tell when his speakers are out of phase, i know > others have a much harder time (hence the need for hundreds of dollars > gadgets to tell you whether or not your in phase or not). there also > appears to be a cult following for firmware 15, who seem to believe it > sounds better, but there's already one psychoaccoustics thread started > somewhere and i don't want to start another... And that change is on the analog outs. So you can reverse the wiring of your analog cables between the SB and the amp/preamp/receiver/whatever. $10 worth of parts at Radio Shack and you can dereverse (yes, I made that word up) phase in hardware. No active components, pure audiophile grade mod! If you do it on those cables, other sources won't be affected. Or use the digital outs... -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36715 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] rolling back slimserver
seanadams;213636 Wrote: > This is phase, or really _polarity_ he's talking about, not swapped L/R > channels. Right, so swap red/black (not red/white). -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36715 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] rolling back slimserver
Did someone mod your SB and reverse the phase? That is the real question... And if they did, just un-reverse it at the cables. (Or use the digital output.) -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36715 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] rolling back slimserver
Versions of the Squeezebox2/3 firmware after 15 -corrected- phase. Pre-15 the phase was backwards. If a modder reversed your phase, then you have a choice: 1) Correct it by reversing the phase on your cables. 2) Correct it by using an ancient version of the firmware that is no longer supported and doesn't support things like OGG or Squeezenetwork. If no one reversed your phase, then ignore the silliness. I will leave it up to you which solution you wish. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36715 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Direct connection to PC
Colin Reilly;212321 Wrote: > Is there any advantage in making an ethernet connection directly to the > PC versus connecting via a hub or router, other than the fact that > connecting to the router gives an extra connection ? Yes, if you do it that way, you won't be able to use Squeezenetwork unless your PC is on. It also complicates your network setup (now your PC is on two networks and needs to route). > > Anyone noticed any difference in sound quality ? Just wondered before > I go and make a crossover cable to try it. > It would make zero difference in sound quality. Ethernet is not an audio cable. Data is sent in packets, each with error checking, and retransmitted until it is correct. You will see this with a hub, switch, router or cable... it will behave the same way. But not using a hub means you will need to figure out routing on the PC so that you can listen to anything other than local music. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36565 ___ 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 ?
omega;212050 Wrote: > > If i listen to a hole record "the good sound" is there all the time. > So the fix is only needed when jumping between tracks > How have you configured ReplayGain? -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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] SB3 and proper 96kHz operation
Ron F.;210103 Wrote: > > The next trick is to be able to differentiate between a Transporter and > an SB3 based on MAC filtering. > A quick look at the source makes it seem that 'transporter' as the 3rd value will work. (Despite what the comments in convert.conf say.) -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36240 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SB3 and proper 96kHz operation
Ron F.;210004 Wrote: > > That said, as DCtoDaylight pointed out, it would still be necessary for > Slimserver to indicate whether it was streaming to an SB3 or a > transporter. I don't think there is a way to code rules in convert.conf > that are context-sensative in that regard. That is actually the bigger > problem. That isn't a problem at all. Convert.conf does let you convert based on destination device type or MAC/IP. It doesn't mention a device type for transporter, but perhaps my copy is dated. Certainly you could do it with the MAC ID, though a bit less pretty. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36240 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] modding digital of squeezebox (boldercables)
aberdeencomponents;209795 Wrote: > With Tact, The gear I use, 48khz works quite well with the ASRC chip > used by Tact, as the internal sample rate is at 96khz. > The sound quality, imo, is better, with my system. > > Is there another format you can suggest? > please advise. > > AP If your source material is 44.1khz, you are creating data out of thin air. And even worse, you are adding in effectively rounding errors as the clock slices change. CDs are 44.1khz. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35505 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SB3 and proper 96kHz operation
amcluesent;209805 Wrote: > Probably why the code for the SB3 is now licensed and proprietary, so > they can control these 'features' and maximise revenue from the > Transporter by withholding from the SB3. The firmware has always been proprietary. (And even if you had source, the development kit for the processor is not cheap.) If you want to make up conspiracy theories, at least make up something that has some grain of truth. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36240 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] modding digital of squeezebox (boldercables)
aberdeencomponents;209731 Wrote: > > I ended up ripping all my cd's in wave format @ 48, 8 TB expandable > with Raid 6, attached storage. > I am not saying this is the ultimate solution, but it sure helps me to > hear slightest differences with the associated gear used. With ripping > in Wave, if I ever decide to compress ( I doubt it), with any format, > It will be converted with the uncompressed wave digital audio, giving > me a piece of mind, nothing would be compromised.(hopefully). Quality was compromised when you ripped a 44.1Khz file to a 48khz. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35505 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Different servers sound different
tomjtx;203032 Wrote: > > > I WAS sleeping with the salesgirl...hm...was she > USING me? Now there is a business model. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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] SB3 interference due to titanium dental implant?
Phil Leigh;201951 Wrote: > Or see if your dentist offers a Palladium upgrade... As long as you don't mix it with platinum... -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35150 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] SB3 interference due to titanium dental implant?
SteveEast;201140 Wrote: > And thanks to TD for setting it up. I wonder how long Sean has had that form lying around waiting for such a nicely delivered straight line setup. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35150 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DRM lessons from the Squeezebox
willyhoops;200958 Wrote: > Hence the move away from selling music to making money off live tv and > events being tested by the major lables. This is disasterous for > smaller artists. Um. Record Labels don't make moneey off live shows and events. That is how artists make money: and how they have made money for the last 30 years. It is hardly disasterous for smalller artists: smaller artists make virtually all of their money from live shows. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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] DRM lessons from the Squeezebox
opaqueice;200633 Wrote:
> You're right - but in the case of painting, I don't think it's the law
> that's really important. Once an artist becomes famous her work has an
> intrinsic value because it was created by her - and no matter how
> accurately I copy it, no one will attribute the same value to my copy.
> That's got nothing to do with the law.
Sure it does: it is illegal to pass off a fake Picasso as a legit one.
The word is "forgery" and is criminal. It is even illegal when there is
no copyright: knowingly misrepresenting a fake Van Gogh as real is
fraud.
Making an exact replica of Starry Night would be worthless: yay, you
copied.. what about creativity, which is the whole point of art?
People would pay the same amount for a print of someone else' work if
they didnt know it was a forgery since authenticity is much more
difficult to determine. This sort of violation is very common,
especially with photography. (How do you tell a legit Ansel Adams
print from a fake -- either an unauthorized reproduction, or
misrepresentation?)
>
> Another example is academics. While there are laws governing
> plagiarism, they're just about totally irrelevant, because there is a
> culture of attribution within the academy that is far more powerful
> than any law. If a historian gets caught having plagiarized something,
> the legal aspect is the least of his worries - the destruction of his
> academic reputation, probable loss of his job. etc. matter much more.
There is the concept of "Fair Use" (despite what some insist). As for
which is worse: perhaps that the loss of earning potential is far
greater than the damages in a copyright case. Losing a tenured
position and having a major mark on your job history is much worse
than paying a civil award of a few thousand dollars. ("Actual damages"
in most copyright cases is very small: except when RIAA make up numbers,
or when SCO lawyers just make everything up.
>
> In my field (physics) - when I "publish" a paper I put it on the web,
> freely available to all without any copyright, because I WANT people to
> copy it and work from it - so long as they reference me. And they have
> to reference me, because if they don't they will be forced out of the
> field. Just about every paper in physics and math now appears (and
> stays permanently) on a free web server long before it shows up in a
> traditional journal - here it is if you're curious:
Unless you specifically renounce the copyright, it is copyrighted.
(Knowledge is not copyrightable: the way that knowledge is expressed,
however, is. By default any creative expression is copyrighted. The
exception would be pure facts and data organized in a non-creative
manner: sorting names and phone number by last name or even by phone
number is not creative. Organizing the same items in a creative
manner, such as denoting relations between companies, however, would be
protected.)
--
snarlydwarf
snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179
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] DRM lessons from the Squeezebox
opaqueice;200623 Wrote: > > You mentioned visual artists, like painters - do they really make money > from copyright? They make money selling the original (often obscene amounts of money for the hip-and-trendy), as well as on each print. > I don't know, but certainly it's not necessary. You can't copyright a > painting, so far as I know - I can make all the (imperfect) copies of > Jasper Johns I want without breaking the law, but no one is going to > buy them. That's a great example of a market where artists survive > perfectly well without any copyright. ? Of course you can copyright a painting. Just as you can copyright a photograph. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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] DRM lessons from the Squeezebox
willyhoops;200474 Wrote: > > 3. Almost everyone here thinks music should be free of copyright. Not > one person on this formum thinks anyone should be prosecuted for > copying music files they don't own. Several here also think everything > should be free of copyright from music and films to medcine. > Willy, you are the one that admits that you steal music because "everyone else is". Personally, I spend a nice chunk of change at Amazon every week for music. (Every time I start to think I am "done" and only have a few things I want, I discover someone new and the cycle begins again...) No one except you has encouraged stealing music. You are not "almost everyone". If you don't want to keep stealing music: don't. Do you really need to rebuy all your audio hardware in order to stop? -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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] Prices rising / Transporter and SB3
Or more likely it is a result of a weak dollar. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35090 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DRM lessons from the Squeezebox
willyhoops;199404 Wrote: > If you had been reading the posts and stories you would know that's it > the smaller lables and artists that are getting killed currently. ... Where on earth did you get that idea? The independents for the most part are doing better than ever. They have managed to use the Internet to build listeners, giving them artists on Myspace and linking them all together so people can "explore" and find more music. Most of them -hate- DRM: since the Indies don't play the payola games that the Big4 play to get songs on the radio, someone sharing a file is the best way they have to get people to hear their bands. Yes, they know that some people are not paying for their music: but they also know that many more others will discover it and purchase it, making for a net gain. See http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=13739&Page=1&pagePos=2 and many many more. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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] DRM lessons from the Squeezebox
Indeed, and the current "forever" term for copyright is asinine. It means that there really is no such thing as folk music any more. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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] DRM lessons from the Squeezebox
willyhoops;199320 Wrote: > If people are real honest and think on it for a bit in a smart economist > like way rather than as a little man, then I think they will see that a > digital future without copy protection is a bleak future indeed. Why do you embed so many straw man attacks in your argument "little man"? -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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] DRM lessons from the Squeezebox
willyhoops;199124 Wrote: > well i like a good debate but this was not much fun. i wrote up my > thoughts on the subject and will email to various enlightened people to > see if i am really as mad as you all think. i have an academic friend > who contributed to the mp4 standard and is on the patent pool.. if he > sends me a great write up i will post here so you know you are all > loosers :-) and if he says i am mad you will hear no more :-) So because he contributed to a codec... that makes him an expert in public key encryption, key management, economics, contract law, international law and marketing? (Since all of those and more would be needed.) You don't need to be an expert in Key Management to see the problem: look at how fast DVD, HD-DVD and BluRay have been cracked. You don't need to be an expert in marketing to know that "oh, just buy a new PC with a SIM slot! and a new CD player for your car! And a new portable! etc.." would be a very hard sell for consumers. Not to mention the odds of getting all the hardware vendors to agree on a Single Standard (just whose standard? and how much will royalty payments be?), etc. Perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is and stop pirating yourself? I pay for my music, I don't see why you can't. "Everyone else does it" is not an excuse. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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] DRM lessons from the Squeezebox
willyhoops;198844 Wrote: > > Maybe they will fail and the future will become music on demand > services. Then you pay a monthly subscription and get access to > zillions of CDs. However its unclear if all the bandwidth that would > entail is feasible... and it still requires new audio formats and > standards. Or perhaps music sales are down because the Big4 catalog for the most part sucks. Indie labels are mostly growing: how come piracy isn't affecting them? Lots of bands have free tracks on Myspace, and they get people to buy their albums but that is mostly Indie acts. The "problem" to me seems to be more that society is more accepting of microcultures, that diversity is more acceptable in the current world... except for the Big4, who believe the only music worth producing is the double-platinum. You can see some of this in the fight for 'net radio royalties here in the US: the RIAA should be encouraging the most offbeat and weird stations, the stations that play stuff that has been buried in their catalog that 4 people found. Getting those songs onto last.fm, Pandora and other "discovery" services should be a priority for them. But they don't care. Instead, they will have consultants pay to get yet-another-Britney album onto the radio. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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] FLAC file size
It depends on the music. 50-55% is pretty rare, but possible on simple pieces. Oddly enough, the music that I find the most obvious to have artifacts with mp3 (solo piano pieces) seem to compress very well with flac. Complex pieces, where detail is less likely to be noticed don't compress as well. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33712 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ethernet vs wireless and jitter
No, because it is all packetized and sent via TCP. Barring some CRC collisions (incredibly rare, especially with a real data set), you will get exactly the same data on the SB as you sent. The only thing that really cheap cables would do is possibly lose or corrupt data, which will just be retransmitted. In very very extreme situations that could mean dropouts, but you have to try to get a cable that bad. (Or get a phone guy that doesnt understand "twisted pair" to make the cables... gah. Never again.) Even $8 cables from Walmart are fine. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33565 ___ 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 :-)
Skunk;185515 Wrote:
> I call, and raise you a doughnut.
You must have not read the original post:
kjg Wrote:
> Out of curiosity, I had
> him run a blind comparison of the two streaming methods for me and he
> tallied the results. After about 10 rounds of ABX comparisons between
> FLAC and WAV streaming, the results determined that I couldn't
> reliably
> hear the difference between the two.
Which is a classic case of "when doing abx, I cant tell the difference,
but when I know there is a change I can hear it".
The ABX results imply that for this listener/equipment/music, there is
no -real- difference of the waveforms hitting his eardrums but
there is apparently a perceptual difference when that vibration is
processed by the brain.
Again, note that this is the same listener, equipment and room.
Perhaps the music changed, or more likely, the listener's
built-in-audio-processor is interpolating data. (ie, his brain is
futzing with the data.)
>
> Dismissing the effect of the processor outright seems foolhardy when
> one of the fundamental benefits of Sb3 (IMO) is considered- getting the
> sound out of the electrically noisy PC.
And dismissing that the -exact- same listener knows that he didnt pass
an abx test (not even a double blind!) is far more foolhardy. Are you
saying his abx test was faulty for him? (It may or may not have had
different results with someone else, or different equipment, etc... but
then those did not change between the test and the real world...)
The most likely explanation is very simple: "expectations" and the
magical power of the brain to mess with our senses. That is the
-only- thing that explains the single-blind ABX test results.
You can debate all day about whether running 1000 random listeners in a
double-blind test is valid ("they are all deaf it seems, I hear
differences!" or whatever). But that is not the case here.
Implying that the decoding of FLAC changes the sound.. but only when
his friend is not running a blind test for him... is ... nonsense. I
don't recall reading of an RFID reader in the SB and the original post
didn't say that the friend had an RFID implant... so why would the SB
behavior change only when being observed?
This is not quantum mechanics. The uncertainty principle doesn't apply
or all of science is pointless.
(And, no, I don't think Ken is lying when he says it sounds different..
it quite likely does: the question is -why- it sounds different when the
only change made is that he knows the source format. That, again,
points to the brain being the reason for the change.)
--
snarlydwarf
snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179
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] Do you use WAV or FLAC ? Pros vs Cons.....Please :-)
Ken;185202 Wrote: > > It's hard to say if the testing we did has its limitations or if my > head > just keeps playing tricks on me. But FLAC and WAV streaming do sound > different to my ears, and I'm pleased that Slim provides us with both > options :). > My bet is that it's your head. Take that as a compliment: you are too smart for your own good and your brain is helping you. If it knows there is a difference, then it will accentuate anything it can to make it different. (Sort of a brain-based room-correction thing...) Why I am glad to be an idiot some days. :) -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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] Blown away by Transporter
gregeas;184457 Wrote: > > If only more bands did this... King Crimson concerts are at http://www.dgmlive.com/ .. recording quality can vary quite a bit (a few are audience-donated former-bootlegs) but you can sample them and read comments about the quality. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32969 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] CD Treatments?
pablolie;183808 Wrote: > > It's a known fact that every SRAM built will have very high probability > of bit errors. The calculations on how often vary - there are several > presentations by Sun (those somewhat self-serving). The fact ou haven't > seen that does not prove basic facts about SRAMs wrong, and there's a > reason why high availability applications with utter zero tolerance for > bit errors (avionics, for one, among many) unerringly demand ECC. Define 'very high' Call me dubious, but it has been years since I have seen computers that used SRAM for main memory, so there is a definite credibility problem when the wrong type of RAM is being referred to. (Ah, the days of Godbout EconoRAM boards... DRAM still annoys me, so complicated... but modern chipsets make generating refresh easy). -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32993 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New SB3 review - Canadian!
alZmtbr;182900 Wrote: > It had to do with keying in the WPA pass phrase BEFORE any security was > in place. If anyone happened to be sniffing AT THAT EXACT TIME, then > fer sure -- compromised. > Actually, it was that the passphrase displayed on the screen if you went back to review settings. (The WPA is keyed in from the remote... so the only security there is "can someone snoop my IR"... but if someone can snoop your IR, they can generate IR for you and you have tons of other problems... It isn't sent on the wire since it is in the firmware networking settings, the only mode where the server never sees remote keypresses, since, well, networking isnt on...) Of course, by the same measure, if someone has physical access to your remote and your Squeezebox, you have more problems than whether or not your passphrase is displayed. Get them out of the house... oh, and get your remote back. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33034 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Logitech and Squeezebox
captain-insano;182614 Wrote: > Please tell me I am wrong. Okay, You Are Wrong. Anything else you need me to tell you? -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33006 ___ 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 :-)
ceejay;182540 Wrote: > > 3 - You can get more esoteric tags in if you want to (eg ReplayGain, > multiple Genre values, unusual tags like "Composer" or "Conductor", > nonstandard tags like "Performer"). And you can have "illegal" characters in your tags. Colons and such on Windows, slashes on I think everything. Not to mention some of my track names are really really long. Much easier to mess with in a tag editor than the file system. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 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] time for a DBT-free zone??
EFP;180881 Wrote: > I > I found this to be enlightening and enjoyable, hosted by none other > than Charlton Heston > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323339/ Yes, though it is interesting that it counters some of his earlier work on evolution in http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063442/. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32352 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
P Floding;180368 Wrote: > I don't believe I have fantastic hearing. > It may be better than average, but that doesn't mean much. Anyway, that > idea was foremost hypothetical to forward a line of reasoning. And that has nothing to do with anything? You said you heard a difference with those wood things, and I am not disputing that. You did. The question remains, then, "why?" Is it because of the properties of the wood? Is it because of something else? Understanding the effect will lead to replicability and possibly even greater improvement. That is how Science works. Perhaps the difference is that you have very little curiosity about such things. Whatever. Some of us do. I don't know why the fact that others have this curiousity pisses you off so much that you demand we can't talk about it. > > Your response is typical of people who have a hard time accepting > uncertainty. Life and the world is full of uncertainty. You will not > find certainty in subjective matters, and anything sensory is > subjective. You know nothing about me. I deal with uncertainty and Faith all the time, actually. But I also deal with knowledge and facts. But, then, this is a discussion of Scientific Method, not "let's try to psychoanalyze people based on words on the screen" Leave the ad hominem attacks out, thanks. > > Oh, and your last sentence sort of contradicts the two sentences before > that one... WTF? Last sentence: "And when did I demand anything?" Two sentences prior: "It is even provable that you can hear a difference..." Why on earth do you think they "sort of contradict?" They have nothing do do with each other: that something IS provable doesn't mean that YOU must prove it. Fermat's last theorem is provable, but don't expect me to prove it, let alone understand the proof. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32352 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
P Floding;180365 Wrote: > Look, it is not as if there is, or will be A TRUTH, that we can all just > look up in a nice book and go by. You won't find it, and I won't and it > is pointless demanding it. ... But see, that is incredibly anti-scientific. If something makes a discernable difference, then it should be possible to show that. Even if it is "wow, P Floding has incredible hearing, he can hear the difference, and we can -show- he can, though no one else in the world can" It is even provable that you can hear a difference... Why do you believe that it is not so? And when did I demand anything? -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32352 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] time for a DBT-free zone??
Eric Carroll;180342 Wrote: > > You can always mod something, or sell something on non-performance > features. Claims of performance and efficacy demand a higher standard, > if you want my money. And it may be a case of getting More For The Buck. If using some special disc from a hardwood reduces vibration (which is counterintuitive... a hard substance wouldn't absorb as much as a soft wood), then would any hardwood do? Does it have to be ebony? Or would something else do? Would a softwood be better? If the difference is demonstratable as discernable, then I can go to the hardware store, spend $10 and have the same improvement, saving money. -- snarlydwarf snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32352 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
