Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Loss from Ethernet Cable?
Mnyb;251462 Wrote: > I'm also thinking about the OP's ripping process ? could be something > wrong there to? > I rip mostly using EAC with all bells and whistles, I also have CDex > and dBpoweramp. > I'm using SB3 as digital transport, and if I compare it with my > Meridian G98DH transport, i have a hard time telling them apart. > > If the sb3 is correctly set upp with no transcoding or digital volume > controll, That leaves the ripping process. > > And modern dac's or processors have very good dejittering/reclocking. > That should minimize source differences even more. > > This was not the case in the "old days" of digital the 90's :-) you > could have all kinds off trouble trying to match certain drives to a > dac. > > I once had a dac/drive combination that did'nt lock correctly unless > the units where warm, some kind off clock drift so i left it on all the > time. > > I also owned a CD drive that had been modified by the previus owner, > the punter had stuck a large blob off bluetack around the clock > crystal, thinking that this should help with vibrations ? but some > crystals are temperature sensitive so the bluetack blob prevented all > cooling on that circuit part. Other than dropouts and other issues associated with missing samples, how would the ripping process make the overall sound inferior? assuming the final file is in a lossless format... -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41268 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] WiFi or Ethernet?
darrenyeats;251614 Wrote: > This is the reason I joined this thread in the first place. Really my > point is, these statements need to be qualified. I know where you're > coming from and I agree but the conclusion wireless isn't good enough > is too strong. Maybe it depends on the presence of other APs nearby, or > the quality of the signal. It can and does work well for some people, so > perhaps people should try for themselves first. Luckily, these days most > people have wireless networks so that's an easy and cost-free option. > Darren Obviously this is purely subjective once you prove technically whether 11g can support streaming of various bw. I decided that the aggrevation of the occassional dropouts and the menu latency were too much for me. Since streaming media is a permananent requirement in my house, I ran Cat5...even through pure masonery walls! I realize my priorities are different than others. If I was renting or didn't want to spend the $, wireless would work fine the majority of the time. Then there are those who live in a hostile 2.4GHz zone. They may have no choice. I still recommend dedicating an AP for your SB3 and other deterministic traffic devices if you decide to go the wireless route (i.e., not your PCs). That's a reasonable in-between solution I've been using for mine (although my TP is hardwired). One thing is for certain. 11g is not particularly reliable (not the technology itself, but the fact that the radiowaves are free and open for use), and any "engineering" of the bw requires very conservative estimates for the bw available at any given time. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41365 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] WiFi or Ethernet?
There is the issue that the unit is slightly more responsive working through the menus when wired than wireless. Not a big deal, but I hate latency of any kind personally. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41365 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Loss from Ethernet Cable?
musicinmind;251155 Wrote: > If anyone knows of a better (but not price prohibitive) way to get an > ethernet cable interface to a DAC (either balanced or unbalanced), > please let me know. Thanks for your input on this, and Merry Christmas! You are asking this question on a SlimDevices forum. There are 2 answers you can expect from here... SB3 or Transporter. The SB3 is very good if you've followed the guidance from the previous posts about using lossless encoding and the appropriate settings that keep the Slimserver from modifying the music on its way to the SB3. The Transporter is even better. If those answers don't satisfy you, then you should probably go to a product neutral forum for advice. I have no idea how expensive the gear is that you have bought, but if you are willing to spend $4k on a DAC, I don't see why you'd have a problem paying $2K for the streaming transport component of your system. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41268 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Super Audio Surround Collection Vol 3 sampler (Various Artists)
I believe they are two channel, but I honestly don't know. How would you play a 5.1 FLAC? In any case, they sound good aside from the "static" issue I'm having. I think I'll post on the SC7 beta area and see if there any ideas. Here's the link: http://www.linnrecords.com/recording-super-audio-surround-collection-vol-3-sampler.aspx -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=40977 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Super Audio Surround Collection Vol 3 sampler (Various Artists)
For those who haven't seen it, Linn released it's Super Audio Surround Collection Vol 3 sampler (Various Artists) in FLAC 24bit/96kHz. For those looking for high quality music examples, this includes 16 tracks of various Jazz and Classical tracks. It's only $13.50, which isn't too bad for a "demo disk." It's > 1Gb of disk space though. But, I get a static sound in the beginning of several tracks on my Transporter that's 100Mb/s ethernet connected. I'm wondering what the source of it is. I'm re-downloading the tracks just in case. I found that it doesn't matter if I use an external DAC or use the internal DAC, so it appears to either be in the files or maybe the streaming. What would it sound like if the buffers weren't full enough to begin play and then it catches up? I have 100Mb/s dedicated to the Transporter and GE to the NAS. It also appears inconsistent - it doesn't always do it. Other than that, the sound is astounding. Not sure about the music on some of the tracks, but the depth of the reverb and presence of the instruments is astounding. Of course I didn't buy the CD version to compare, though. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=40977 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] component cooling question
Pat Farrell;247792 Wrote: > thomsens wrote: > > None of the components I have now get very hot and I plan to allow > for > > vertical and rear exit venting. I guess the basic question is, how > > close can a pre-amp and the transporter sit next to each other? > > I've never noticed any heat from my transporter. Quite unlike my > Benchmark DAC-1, which got very warm to the touch. The Transporter > feels > completly room temperature to me. I run it all the time, never shut it > off. > > Do you mean next to each other? I can't see any heat concerns there. > But > I would not stack the Transporter on top of a tube preamp. Good Q. No tube anything in the system. My pre-amp is a Bryston BP26DA which is all solid state and is actually the component that puts off the most heat - which is still very little relatively speaking. I plan to put that next to the Transporter...right now it's below it. My speakers are active with the amps integrated, so no amps in the cabinet. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=40920 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] component cooling question
I'm thinking about getting a cabinet custom build to house my Transporter and pre-amp. The only other thing I imagine that will be in it is a CD player and possibly a power conditioner of some kind. So no amplifiers or other hot gear at all. What is the minimum width the cabinet should be internal assuming I'd like to put the components next to each other horizontally and they are nominally 17" wide components? None of the components I have now get very hot and I plan to allow for vertical and rear exit venting. I guess the basic question is, how close can a pre-amp and the transporter sit next to each other? -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=40920 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What is connected to your Transporter?
Tranporter --Bal--> Bryston BP26DA Pre --Bal--> Linn Artikulat 350A I bypassed the Bryston to see if I could hear a difference and if there was one, it was negligible. I could get the TP to -10db before my windows started to visibly bow outward. I decided that for safety and flexibility of other sources, I'd keep the Bryston inline. I've A/B'd the balanced out vs. DAC in the Bryston and honestly can't conclude what differences there are and if I like it better one way or the other. The nice thing is that I have 3 DAC connections available for future digital sources...although I don't picture having anything other than a CD player I suppose. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33868 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Are you an audiophile or a music lover?
zano65;245867 Wrote: > What's the point of being an audiophile if you are not a music lover? > One might as well make electric trains or collect stamps. I consider > myself as an audiophile because i prefer to listen to the music i love > on the best system i can afford instead of the crappy record player or > radio i had in my teens (i'm 58). Audiophile has become a dirty word > for two reasons IMHO: > - first: the sillynes of certain audiophiles and high end dealers > advocating snake oil and putting ridiculous sums of money on useless > accessories. > -second: one of the many bad sides of human nature: jealousy. People > spending much more money than i do on audio must be showing off, they > can't be real music lovers. The same about work: people who work more > than me are greedy, people who work less are lazy. > best musicaudiophiles regards. > Jean Good post. Unfortunately it also seems people's sense of what something is "worth" seems to affect their argument a lot. It would not surprise me if a $5000 cable was better than a $200 cable, but it might surprise me if I thought the improvement was "worth" it, but then I'm not Trump. The $200 cable sounds pretty good. It's like comparing the $18K Linn Klimax DS to the $2K Transporter. If it is better, is it "worth" it? I have no problem saying something is better, ignoring whether I believe it's worth it, but it seems many folks can't. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=40553 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Volume regulation of transporter?
I finally decided to connect my transporter's balanced outs directly to my Linn Artikulat Aktiv powered speakers. I think it sounded great regardless of the fact that I used the digital volume to control the volume for the speakers. I never had to go much lower than -25db and if I did, it would be such a background level that sound quality would not be important. I was easily able to get to -15 to -10db when listening. If it could sound much better, I don't think I was missing much. If someone is debating this setup, I'd probably simply try it first before spending time and effort on some analog attenuation inline. My pre-amp does give me the ability to attach other sources to the speakers with minimal sound degradation, but I think the TP direct would be a perfectly acceptable solution if I didn't want the flexibility of other non-digital sources. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39611 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Linn Tune-dem
Linn used Tune-dem to demonstrate the Klimax DS to me. When it was described, one of the basic premises was that the more you hear something and the more familiar you become with it, the better it will sound. I thought that was interesting because they always played the Unidisk before the Klimax DS...with the idea that the Klimax should sound better. He played about 20 seconds of a piece twice then switched systems and played it twice again. I did think I could detect differences with the approach. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39560 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] HD Music Downloads from iTrax
I was thinking about downloading a couple Linn 24/96 studio master songs just to see what they sound like. Anyone like particular examples that demonstrate quality? I was thinking of a Claire Martin and maybe one of the classical ones. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34870 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] HD Music Downloads from iTrax
I'd like flac as well, but it's easy to convert between any lossless format and flac, so I suppose it doesn't really matter. Unfortunately, it's probably smartest for them to bet on lossless WMA and have folks who want FLAC convert it since most people who know enough to choose FLAC probably are technical enough to convert WMA to FLAC anyway. The reverse is not necessarily true...FLAC would render the files useless to most folks who probably use MP or iTunes. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34870 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Can't hear the difference between lossy and lossless!
fred7;233970 Wrote: > I did an accidental blind test when I first got my SB3. I was ripping my > 1500+ CD collection in batches and I would listen to the CD's after they > were loaded assesing the SB3's sound. Everything sounded great to me but > then one batch sounded like something was 'wrong'. I looked into it and > I had somehow ripped that batch to MP3 instead of FLAC by mistake. I > noticed right away but I had ripped to 192kbs so at that bitrate it was > probably easy to tell the difference. 192Kb/s is obvious on a decent system. It's fine for portable and even most car systems...that was my first rip level several years ago. I moved to the highest MP3 VBR I could next (ave 250Kb/s - one notch below 320Kb/s CBR) and it sounded great, but if you listened very carefully you could pick out rough areas sometimes...only on a very good system, though. It actually bothers you much more knowing it's MP3 than actually hearing problems, though. Now I'm all FLAC. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39112 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Can't hear the difference between lossy and lossless!
pablolie;233561 Wrote: > ... > It gets more interesting between 320kbps MP3 and lossless, though. > While there may still be a difference, it is barely perceptible and > sometimes I tell myself I could live with my entire collection at 320k > MP3. But then again, why do it when I can have it lossless. It's tempting, but since there are tools to easily convert between formats, I think FLAC is the way to go - just re-encode for streaming or portable players. That way you never have to rip again (big plus in my book considering I've ripped some 3 times now). And, doesn't re-encoding an already compressed format essentially multiply the bad effects? So it would be much better to re-encode FLAC to 192Kb/s MP3 than the 320Kb/s MP3 to a lower bitrate for portables. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39112 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Linn Klimax DS - Network Music Player
dennis55;233255 Wrote: > Thomsens, being a "typical Linn Products customer" i resent your comment > about not being competent using EAC or in my case > DBPoweramp/Flac.you then confess to owning a pair of > Artikulates.. > > dennis Not sure why you "resent" it. I don't have statistics to back it up, but even going in blind, I'd bet big money you are not a "typical Linn customer" if you rip your own and manage the tags, etc. I sat and watched the Linn rep, the store owner, and a Linn customer who "owned every source they've made" discuss ripping music at the most basic level...and still getting some facts wrong. I suspect that's still quite common. And, many folks with the money to blow on Klimax gear probably don't see the time spent ripping worth wasting. The only reason I do it is because I know I'd have to "fix" whatever a ripping house would do anyway. I wasn't confessing to anything. I was making it clear that I'm not against Linn in any way by saying I own some of their pricey gear. I didn't want to be taken as a basher because that isn't my angle at all. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38815 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Linn Klimax DS - Network Music Player
amcluesent;231792 Wrote: > >The big problem for non-techie users will be ripping and tagging.< > > I guess anyone paying £9,600 will have 'people' do to these mundane > tasks for them ;-) Surprisingly, the Linn rep talked about EAC for a ripping approach. Somehow I don't picture the typical Linn customer as someone with the knowledge and patience to use EAC...let alone the Twonky software. While I agree that it probably doesn't make sense for Linn to build a completely proprietary server approach, I do think they need to offer more value on top of these open approaches they are suggesting. The Linn GUI was very basic and seemed like a very limited effort given the cost of the unit. Also, they should build a network of acceptable ripping houses for their customers who might not want to do it themselves. My overall take was that the launch will ill-conceived and they are assuming the name will sell the device. Don't get me wrong, I own some Artikulats, so I'm aware of the sticker shock that comes with Linn products, but I can't justify the leap to the Klimax from the Transporter given the lack of usability and the fact that the pricing seems much more what their market will bear than COGS oriented. Interestingly, I decided to buy a high-end system because of the Transporter. I knew I could have my whole collection available through one device. This justified the cost for me. I actually chose the Aritkulats because they were fully activ and kept that minimalist feel. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38815 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Linn Klimax DS - Network Music Player
I had a personal demo of the Klimax DS last week. It's all business. Ethernet only, no other inputs either. It relies on UPnP and comes with (or at least suggests you use) Twonkymedia. They built a very basic Linn GUI for a front end on a PC or handheld as the case for my demo. The Linn guy played a CD on the Unidisk 1.1 and then switched over to the Klimax DS. I can say they sounded slightly differently. I do think I liked the Klimax DS more, but the differences didn't exactly jump out at you. When the Unidisk played, I didn't think it needed improvement. What it comes down to is that they needed an updated CD12 and decided to make it a network player instead. There's no way it's worth the $18,500 vs. the Transporter at $2k, but then I didn't compare them side-by-side either. The store owner said I could borrow it for a side-by-side if I wanted to. He was intrigued by the Transporter when he came over to setup my system originally. I don't know if I'll take him up on it because even if it is much better, I can't imagine buying one (vs. waiting for Transporter 2 or something). After all, it's basically a specialized PC with a DAC. We know there aren't many ways to make the PC part expensive, so the DAC is basically at least $18K of it. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38815 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Here is why no FF/RW
bephillips;218457 Wrote: > Like I said a few pages earlier, this "problem" has been "fixed" by the > plugins SongScanner/Looper and the clickable progress bar in the > Fishbone skin. Hooray for the plugin programmers, and hooray for Sean > for having the wisdom and foresight to make this an open source > platform! And Sean seems to be exceptionally in tune with the end users > of his product. The system just keeps getting better and better, and I > expect this will continue. Without better integration, songscanner certainly isn't a fix - it's a workaround at best. If it could be tied to the FF button then maybe you are getting cloer. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 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] Transporter listening test
My thought on this whole thing is that it proves one important fact. Technology is advancing so rapidly that the divide between audiophiles and audio enthusiasts is diverging more than ever. If we have to figure out whether a guy sitting in front of the cabinet or if the levels are exactly matched to the nth degree to determine which product is just slightly better, then the answer is clear. There just isn't enough difference between good gear and fantastic gear these days. And apparently good gear can start at $300. I had my dealer A/B the Transporter vs. a Linn Unidisk at my house with my new 2 channel Linn Artikulat system. If there was an obvious difference, I think I should have noticed it since the system is more than capable of demonstrating flaws. I didn't. He said the transporter sounded amazing - and it was not in his best interest to admit that, obviously. I've also A/B the TP DAC balanced out into my Bryston DP-26 vs. using the DAC in the DP-26 and honestly, they sound only a hair different, but I can't even tell you which one is better. Certainly I wouldn't pay good money for that difference. So, yes I could have eliminated all the possible reasons that it wasn't obvious, but then I'd have to take a step back and ask why do I need to go to such great lengths when I will never actually experience a difference day to day? I do sit and listen as a hobby and I do often listen analytically unfortunately (instead of just listening to the music). But I still don't think the differences are earth shattering. Only the dedicated audiophile would let it bother them enough to go through all that and certainly to pay the difference. Obviously if you are loaded, you'd probably just buy the best sounding gear you can regardless of price, but that is a special case. The others just have a special bug for audio perfection that most of society doesn't. I'm more and more inclined to believe placement/room are your biggest bangs for the buck. Of course I say that having my room as my biggest deficiency... -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35068 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Here is why no FF/RW
Pat Farrell;216147 Wrote: > thomsens wrote: > > To suggest based on a limited sample of this forum combined with > your > > opinion that a feature is not required is silly. > > This forum is where customers who have bought SqueezeBoxes and > Transporters talk among themselves. The forums in total are for people > > interested in SD/Logitech audio products. > > There is no overwhelming demand for this feature in the forums. > > I have not said that you are silly, or your request is silly. > I know you want it. But there is no groundswell of support for it. > > > Instant access to all my music and other media > > files increases the need for the feature for me. > > CD players had 'index' support from the start. The idea was the > movements or breaks to the chorus, or other musically significant parts > > could be indexed, so you could instantly go to them, forward or > backwards. When CDs came out, reviewers noted with players did this > properly. It was an expected feature. But hardly anyone used it, and > few CDs carried index markers in their meta data, so over time the > feature disappeared. > > Much like "pre-emphasis" in the audio tracks. > > >> What Sean said was that it is not easy. He decided not to do it. > >> What changes because you want it anyway? > > > > Great point. What changes is where I spend my $$ over time if the > > product does not continue to evolve (so far $2600 spent with SD). > I'm > > sure given the choice, Sean would rather have me buy the T2 when my > T1 > > dies. For that matter, I'm sure he's just hoping for the ability to > > build a T2 one day. Clearly without the base of users to support > it, > > that will never happen. So, the average joe will need to start > buying > > this thing and regardless of your or my opinion, the average joe > will > > definitely expect this feature in a usable format. > > I was with you up until the last sentence. It depends on your intended > > use of the word average. > Given the sample of the folks posting to the forums, if you select a > customer at random, they won't notice this missing feature. If you > select a random sample of users, you would expect that the majority of > > folks selected don't care. > > If lots of Joe Customers bought SB's or Transporters, and returned them > > because this feature was missing, I am sure Sean and others would > notice. If the "average" meaning more than half, so that most of the > units were returned, I am sure Sean and others would find a way to fix > > it no matter how hard it is. > > Never say never, but when evaluating what features and functions to put > > in the next unit, a smart company has to listen to what the majority of > > its customers want. Or, if they can know, what features kept a large > portion of the potential customers from purchasing the unit. > > Sony had better music players than the iPod in many dimensions many > years before the iPod. Sony screwed up the interface with fascist DRM > that made it unusable for mere mortals. Now, no one remember Sony was > there in 1999 and 2000. > > I have no inside knowledge, but I bet if the SqueezeBox had exactly > today's feature set, cost $200 and had a strong national marketing > campaign, Logitech could sell four to ten times as many. There are > people who want FF/RW, and would be happier, buy more, tell more > friends, etc. but I don't think it would increase sales by more than > 10%. > > IMHO, YMMV, etc. > > > > -- > Pat > http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html We're just going to have to agree to disagree. My goal is simply to improve a feature that needs to be improved. I don't believe the need is lost on Sean - he's just in a tough spot because as he said, the path between here and there isn't easy. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 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
opaqueice;216150 Wrote: > What is this thread about? There's a perfectly good FF/RW function > called songscanner, and a jump-to-a-point-in-the-track function in the > fishbone skin. IMO both should be incorporated into the main SS builds > as they are far superior to the standard FF/RW feature (which I think we > all agree is broken). Meanwhile you can download songscanner as a > plugin in 5 minutes. It doesn't act exactly like a CD player FF/RW - > it's much nicer. I'm going to try that...problem is I use both standalone XP as well as Infrant NV version of SlimServer, so I don't like being out of sync between them (issue is that I have 2 libraries). But, I might add this simply to give the functionality to my TP (XP SS). -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 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
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? :) > > 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, I suppose I cheat because I have GE to every port in the house, but obviously the TP drops that to 100Mbs. I'd be ok with a per client setting to enable a feature based on wired or not. It would be even better if a network health monitor set that capability automatically so the user just gets the best the unit can do at any time...but I'll settle for basic improvement first. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 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
Pat Farrell;216028 Wrote: > thomsens wrote: > > Pat Farrell;216023 Wrote: > >> A modern PC has a gigabyte of RAM, which can hold a complete CD, > >> uncompressed, in memory. Serious PCs for either Vista or development > > >> have two or three gig. > > > If it's really a matter of inadequate hw, then my original assertion > > that initial architectural decisions (i.e., hw specs) were the > problem > > is true. Sean says that is not the case. > > Er, I wasn't talking about the SqueezeBox. The question was why can a > Windoze Media Center handle it properly, and the reason is that it is a > > powerful generalized system. > > I don't quite get how you jump from Sean's initial post in this thread > > to your conclusion. > > The SqueezeBox and the Transporter are embedded systems. That is a > totally different design space for software than generalized PCs/Mac, > etc. > > What you seem to be asking for is that the price to everyone be > increased to meet your needs for FF/RW. I never use it, never tried. > Never tried it on the CD players I've had over the decades. > > I used to do all sorts of stuff when I was a radio station DJ when > there > were vinyl disks on turntables, but that was long ago and far > away.[/url] To suggest based on a limited sample of this forum combined with your opinion that a feature is not required is silly. CD players have had the capability (note I said capability, not interested in the exact implementation) on just about every unit ever made. That's a better sample for me to believe it is a feature folks desire. Combine that with the fact that you now have other common media such as podcasts, etc. that you might want to jump to a certain section in, and in my opinion, the need is greater now than before. I rarely used it on my CD players, I've tried to use it many times on my SD products and have been left frustrated. Instant access to all my music and other media files increases the need for the feature for me. As you should have noted, I believe the memory should be adequate based on what I paid - I don't see how adequate memory should drive the price higher. In any case as Sean's next post indicates, memory is apparently not the issue. > What Sean said was that it is not easy. He decided not to do it. > What changes because you want it anyway? Great point. What changes is where I spend my $$ over time if the product does not continue to evolve (so far $2600 spent with SD). I'm sure given the choice, Sean would rather have me buy the T2 when my T1 dies. For that matter, I'm sure he's just hoping for the ability to build a T2 one day. Clearly without the base of users to support it, that will never happen. So, the average joe will need to start buying this thing and regardless of your or my opinion, the average joe will definitely expect this feature in a usable format. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 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
snarlydwarf;216019 Wrote: > 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. My understanding was that the problem was technical implementation, not architectural decisions made on the hw. And, for $2K, the transporter should come with adequate RAM for the task. Even FLAC files are < 50Mb typically. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 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;215317 Wrote: > MCE2005. So if I understand correctly, DVR-MS is just MPEG2 with a > metadata wrapper. So, I assume it's an MPEG-2 file. > > Just to be sure, I just went and tested an SD and an HD recorded file > accessed from my Infrant NV across the network to the MCE. Both work > fine in both jump ahead/jump back mode. I have it setup to skip 7 sec > back (missed what just happened) and skip 30 sec forward (skip > commercial) - both work somewhat instantaneously and for multiple > clicks. It also works fine for both formats for fast forward or rewind > in multiple levels of speed. It can get into trouble if you leave it > too long in those modes, but it falls very squarely into the acceptable > implementation range for all practical uses. Obviously the audio is > silent during the video jumps, but it does come back instantly when > playback resumes. There's no reason to think this is anything more > than user experience issue since it's really the video you are > searching anyway and the chipmunk sound would just be annoying anyway. > It may be technically challenging too, but it strikes me that the > buffering challenges would be much greater in the HD video scenario > than the audio only scenario. > > For grins, I also checked the music portion of the MCE. For reference, > MCE's music capabilities are laughable and in my opinion, the PM for > that portion of the product should find alternative employment. > However, the FF function works well for MP3. There apparently isn't an > option for RW since it does nothing when you press that button. So for > MP3, the MCE has proven that a workable and CD-like verion of FF is > possible. I can't say the lack RW function is technical since the > overall implementation for music in MCE is so bad, I'd assume poor > product management first. 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. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 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
seanadams;214132 Wrote: > Which DVR is it by the way? Are the files plain old mpegs or transport > streams, or are they in some kind of special container format? If the > latter, it is possible that they have some additional data generated > during the encoding process to facilitate scanning. Would be > interesting to do a packet dump... MCE2005. So if I understand correctly, DVR-MS is just MPEG2 with a metadata wrapper. So, I assume it's an MPEG-2 file. Just to be sure, I just went and tested an SD and an HD recorded file accessed from my Infrant NV across the network to the MCE. Both work fine in both jump ahead/jump back mode. I have it setup to skip 7 sec back (missed what just happened) and skip 30 sec forward (skip commercial) - both work somewhat instantaneously and for multiple clicks. It also works fine for both formats for fast forward or rewind in multiple levels of speed. It can get into trouble if you leave it too long in those modes, but it falls very squarely into the acceptable implementation range for all practical uses. Obviously the audio is silent during the video jumps, but it does come back instantly when playback resumes. There's no reason to think this is anything more than user experience issue since it's really the video you are searching anyway and the chipmunk sound would just be annoying anyway. It may be technically challenging too, but it strikes me that the buffering challenges would be much greater in the HD video scenario than the audio only scenario. For grins, I also checked the music portion of the MCE. For reference, MCE's music capabilities are laughable and in my opinion, the PM for that portion of the product should find alternative employment. However, the FF function works well for MP3. There apparently isn't an option for RW since it does nothing when you press that button. So for MP3, the MCE has proven that a workable and CD-like verion of FF is possible. I can't say the lack RW function is technical since the overall implementation for music in MCE is so bad, I'd assume poor product management first. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 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
Just curious...why do DVRs have no problem with a workable version of this feature? I would think that would be more challenging than audio only. Mine does it fine while streaming from my NAS over the network. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 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
seanadams;212683 Wrote: > I agree, but the fact that is does not work the same as a CD player has > been the overwhelming complaint WRT scanning. That is the point I was > trying to answer, and in particular, why it is silly to assert that it > should be a trivial feature on the basis that a 20-yr old product can > do it. Please read the original comment I quoted. If you want to have a > discussion about a different mechanism that does not have audible > feedback like a CD player, then I think that would be an excellent new > direction to explore. People who think that it should work like a CD player should just get over it. We just need a solution to move around songs easily. Any reasonable solution is probably ok. seanadams;212683 Wrote: > Interesting - can you explain? Are you saying > > a) network streaming is a useless technology, because it makes scanning > difficult. Instead of making a network streamer, Slim Devices should > have used an internal hard drive or something, and perhaps only > supported WAV files. > > b) scanning is not really difficult to implement in a network streamer > (if that is what you're saying, please tell me how you would do it). > > c) something else? I'm not going to respond to this snide stuff. Point is that you are arguing from where the product is. If you wanted to, you could have designed it day one to support it. Perhaps that would involved more complex buffering and memory required to do it...and maybe GE instead of 10/100. But, you chose not to and now the product has a deficiency. If I knew how to code it myself, I would have built the product myself and wouldn't be on this forum now would I? I mean no offense Sean - you've built an awesome product. But, it has an unfortunate flaw that does drive me crazy...apparently there are others too. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 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
Sorry folks...I'm not clear on why anyone accepts this answer. The implementation is broken. There are times when I want to skip back or skip forward in a song. Sometimes to hear a part over again. Sometimes to get to my favorite part of the song (especially long classical pieces). Right now, I have no idea where I'm going to end up in the song when I start the skip forward process. I've often ended up behind where I started or at the end of the song! It's just plain broken. It's counter-intuitive to use as well, but at least I'd learn it through repetition once it becomes more useful. I actually don't care if I hear any music at all when I'm skipping. I just want the ability to quickly move to a different portion of the song in both directions...and preferably in a way that's easy to do on the remote. I can learn the way it's implemented - I'm not so simple that it has to be exactly like some other device. Maybe if it had a clear readout of the change in the elapsed time as it's "scanning" that would be fine. Some kind of indication. No sound is needed as long as getting in and out of scan is easy enough to check progress. I think the key is addressing the capability and not past implementations. I'm surprised so much effort was spent discussing the way CD players did it. Who cares? Don't get me wrong - I really like Slim Devices products, but I really don't agree with the defensive tone of this thread. It's a feature that can and absolutely should be improved - there shouldn't be an argument about that. Saying it's not often used is just plain crap. It's not used because it's broken. If it's a very tough engineering challenge, then I'd say a mistake was made during the architectural design of the product. It certainly shouldn't have been a surprise that people would want this capability. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 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] Linn Records now doing FLAC
jt25741;206998 Wrote: > The SB doesnt properly process 24/96 --- this is not a bug...this is > just the way it works due to insufficient processing power. To > resample properly, you must provide digital low-pass filtering above > the new nyquist frequency -- the SB doesnt do any filtering -- just > drops samplesso what you may be hearing are high frequency > artifacts somehow effecting your system. These ultrasonic components > are noise and should be removed form the signal. This is why it is > always best to downsample outside and just feed it 24/48 native. Couldn't this be an enhancement to slimserver...like other transcoding it does on the fly? -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34985 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Idiots guide to FLAC vs WAV vs MP3
rick's cafe;77551 Wrote: > Could someone give me a brief idiots guide to FLAC Ripping vs WAV vs > MP3. I will be playing all my music on SB3 thru a Cambridge Audio 540R > ... any advice or recommendations welcomed. > > Also on avg what is the file size for a CD ripped as FLAC vs the rest > and what rippers do you recommend I use. > > thanks As I'm sure many have pointed out, lossless is the "audiophile" approach. That being said, high bitrate VBR MP3 sounds great on all but fairly pricey gear and saves a ton of disk space. So, my advice is to rip in lossless (FLAC), and convert to MP3 for other uses (iPod, PC, or other non-critical listening). The reason I say this is that disk space is cheap and once you encode in lossless, you never have to go through the mechanical process of doing the CD swaps in order to rip again. That's a big deal (I say that having ripped several thousand CDs though, and having to do it twice was what it took to convince me to go lossless). I also say convert to MP3 because almost everything can play it - FLAC is limited in some areas (i.e., WMP, MCE, iTunes - though many alternative players exist). I originally ripped in 192K back MP3 in the day because disk space wasn't that cheap relative to the size of my collection. Now it is...and plenty of utilities exist to do conversion to your favorite format of the day from FLAC. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19976 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Mark visits Bryston
Bummer...my BP26-DA was being built while you were there. I could have had pictures of it actually being assembled! Cool thread and timely for me! -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35553 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter analog into Amp
Mark Lanctot;196697 Wrote: > Were you looking at this? > http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?DIYPassiveAttenuation Yes - and it means nothing to me. I'd ideally like to buy a fixed or stepped balanced attenuator that enables me to get to full volume on the transporter when I'm rocking, but stay in the top part of the volume range for normal listening. When I read about R1 and R2 and everything else on that page, I think I should just go buy a pre-amp. I don't have an electrical engineering background and as simple as that page is, it scares me to experiment with my $$$ gear. The problem is that a pre-amp that would match my amp/speakers is an extremely expensive proposition and I only have 1 source right now! The "pop" from the transporter also concerns me...I'd prefer not to leave my amps on all the time. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34484 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter analog into Amp
I found out the input impedance to the amp is 7.8k on balanced inputs, which sounds like it's really low. Not sure what that means in terms of my ability to hook up directly. If I understand, the Transporter is 100. I have no idea how to chose resister values (R1 & R2) to get to a fixed attenuator. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34484 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter analog into Amp
seanadams;195470 Wrote: > The most elegant solution would be to get a fixed in-line balanced > attenuator. > > Or you can use the internal RCA output attenuators and a RCA->XLR > adapter on the speaker side. The adapter just ties one side of the > balanced input to ground. You don't get the benefit of a balanced > connection but that's less of an issue for a short cable run. Ok - but if I was to skip the attenuator approach, the issue would be that I'd have to keep the digital volume too low on the Transporter which would significantly impact sound quality, right?Is the other issue the fear that somehow it comes on at full volume? -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34484 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter analog into Amp
seanadams;195373 Wrote: > Does the amp _only_ have balanced inputs? Yes. It's actually a set of Linn Artikulat 350As speakers. One balanced input. http://www.linn.co.uk/artikulat/specifications.asp Looks like UPS is at the door with my transporter now! -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34484 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter analog into Amp
cliveb;195359 Wrote: > Note that thomsens says he has active speakers with XLR inputs. > Presumably these are balanced, and he intends to use the Transporter's > balanced outputs. My understanding is that the TP's internal jumpers > don't affect the balanced outputs. > > It's a fairly trivial task to make up some passive attenuators. See > http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?DIYPassiveAttenuation Yes - My plan was to go balanced out (transporter), balanced in (amp). But I have to admit, I get totally confused reading these wiki pages on the attenuators. It sounds like I have no way to do this without external attenuators that I figure out how to insert inline. Is this true? Is it easier to go unbalanced -> balanced and use the internal -30db approach? -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34484 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter analog into Amp
I've just bought a Transporter and a set of active speakers that accept an XLR analog input. I'd like to start my system with the Transporter going directly into the speaker since I never use any other sources than the SB now and know the lack of other sources will not bother me. I'm a little nervous about plugging the transporter directly in. Are there any best practices for getting this up without surprises in the beginning, then any advice for best sound while using? Would the sound be better with a pre-amp managing volume and the transporter going into it at full output? -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34484 ___ audiophiles mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] FLAC file size
The sample CD I chose was Santana's Shaman. So I guess this fits in the "busy" category. For reference, the CD took up 519Mb for FLAC and it was only 138Mb for extreme MP3 VBR. That's a 3.75 x the disk space, which is amazing since the MP3 sounds great at that quality level. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 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
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] FLAC file size
I'm seeing 70-75% size relative to .WAV when using EAC/FLAC 1.1.4 with the following command line: -8 -V --replay-gain -T "artist=%a" -T "title=%t" -T "album=%g" -T "date=%y" -T "tracknumber=%n" -T "genre=%m" -T comment="%e" -T "comment=EAC/FLAC 1.1.4 -8" %s Is this expected? I was thinking it would be closer to 50-55%. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 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] What kind of Audiophile are you?
PhilNYC;177283 Wrote: > Hey, you ain't kidding...here's my amp... ;-) > > (yes, that's a standard-sized CD jewel case at the bottom)... Making assumptions based Phil's alias...but Phil is able to show off in many dimensions. Not only can he afford that beast, but he can afford the extra real estate it takes to have the setup. His is "bigger" than mine. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32378 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Where is the incredible sound?
pablolie;87888 Wrote: > Indeed, why not? I may give it a try. The main reason is inertia - I had > started digitizing my music collection a while ago, and started off with > my LP collection about 2 years ago - and back then following some online > research decided on the MP3 256k CBR format. I'd feel guilty about > giving my CDs better treatment than my beloved old LPs. :-) And it'd be > a heck of a lot of work to re-do everything. > > I'll probably give the FLAC an inevitable test run one of these days - > inquiring minds always need to find something new to play with. The > Kevin Mahogany album is a prime candidate. My collection has been in a state of flux for years. I started with 192K MP3 and now am half 192K and half VBR extreme EAC/LAME or whatever (ave 250K). FLAC is common enough and disk space cheap enough now that I'm going to start re-ripping (some for the third time) my collection. As you know, you don't have to have the same quality across the board and you can probably rip your favorite CDs in a single evening and take your time from there. I know because I've done 50 an evening before (2 PCs running). I'll probably pick favorites and then any disc that I can tell has a quality issue. I've found that with VBR, I don't have a system that can demonstrate differences from CD, so I'm ok for now. I plan to upgrade my system significantly, so we'll see what happens then. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=21173 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Suggestion: New mid-market player
Ron F.;176886 Wrote: > If I were a new Logitech board member, I would certainly want to be > brought up to speed quickly and reviewing the marching orders the ED > was giving the "general managers." That said, my desire would be to > make billions - not millions. > > To most people in the First World, the SB3 IS the high-end product, and > the TP is an insanely expensive machine devoted to those with an > out-of-control audio fetish (never mind the fact that I want one of > course - I have my responsible board member thinking cap on right > now.) > > I wouldn't be interested in coming out with a product that is priced > between the SB3 and the TP - would my stockholders be interested in > that? No. > > To use a term I like mentioned earlier in this thread, I would want a > new disruptive technology product that cracks the iPod market and lets > me in. It would be priced very affordably. > > Anything between the SB3 and the TP is something that Slim Devices is > permitted to do on its own time. I don't know that I completely agree here. The transporter has made the notion of owning a CD player unimportant to me. If you look at the devices it eliminates from a system and the fact that your music is much more accessible, the cost is much less of an issue. A good sales person can help people understand this value quickly. The challenge is that you need that salesperson catching the actual customers in need of the education which requires that the system be on store shelves. Have you seen the automatic esspresso makers that go for $2K-$3K in William-Sonoma? They wouldn't put them in every store if they didn't sell a lot of them. Who can justify that (full disclosure, I've had one for years and love it)? To me, it's a far weaker argument to suggest that the value of that system is worth it vs. a transporter. I do think Logitech needs to keep their name off the device though. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31935 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What kind of Audiophile are you?
I've always found variations on this topic interesting. I remember in high school my friend spent $100 to put a stereo with speakers in his truck. I did not think it was possible to spend less on a new system. Somehow the placement of the speakers made them sound extremely full when we listened to rock music in the cab. The system would drive spontaneous air guitar almost every time and simply sounded amazing for the money. At the time I had a very nice stereo for a high school kid and if I had played that same music on it, it often would come off as a very good reproduction of an example of rock music. Almost like you were in a museum. But, put on a little floyd, and you were transported. These days I find I like to listen to more subtle pieces such as airy female vocals when I listen to high-end systems because they are able to bring out the piece in a way that you don't often get to experience. It could simply be that this is the most transporting thing for me in these systems so I gravitate there. I've always found that good systems help me appreciate music I wouldn't otherwise consider, but don't necessarily make all of my music more interesting to listen to. Specifically, I've found it challenging to find the system that ranges from driving me to don the virtual axe to hypnotizing me with sugar plum fairies dancing in my head. In terms of the original question, for me, I think of listening to music as entertainment that ranges from raw emotion to total fantasy. In my case, the combination of the music source and the system played on contribute to that significantly. It's fairly rare when a song has the same effect regardless of the system. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32378 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Audiophile shops
Robin Bowes;175693 Wrote: > Pat was merely pointing out that you really shouldn't consider mp3 if > you want a high-end system. > > I understand the portability thing, which was why I wrote flac2mp3 [1] > so I can have a flac libary and maintain a parallel mp3 library with > minimal effort. > > If you're planning to re-rip to flac then it would make sense to think > about a "higher-end" system. > > That said, I can here the difference between my SB3 and Transporter on > a > relatively cheap system - B&W DM601s and a Rotel RC-870BX/RB-850 > pre/power combination. I've had the speakers for ~18 years, and the > Rotel kits is from eBay. I think I've spent £350 max on the whole lot. > > I guess I'm definitely in the source-first camp (assuming a reasonable > quality of amplification/speakers). > > R. Agree on all points. Again - MP3 is not forever for me. But a system is a long time investment. That's why I'd never make a tactical decision based on the fact that I'm using MP3 today. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32232 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Audiophile shops
P Floding;175675 Wrote: > There is no sense in degrading sound willingly unless you have to. SB3 > and Transporter works just fine with lossless audio. (Any digital audio > is "encoded", weather it is compressed or not, BTW.) > > Did that answer your original question? Am aware of all points - thanks. I think encoding is more appropriate because all encoded music is actually compressed (the original conversion to CD format throws away info just as MP3 does). My point was more general, the example was MP3, but I'm sure they would have had the same reaction if I had used FLAC and not lost a bit during the conversions. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32232 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Audiophile shops
PhilNYC;175659 Wrote: > There are a ton of B&M audio stores making a lot of money installing > multi-room home theater systems using products like the ReQuest music > servers and Crestron system controllers. Computer file formats and > such should not be foreign to most of these guys (unless they > subcontract that part out)... > > FWIW, I work with a few high end manufacturer's reps, and when I show > them my SB and TP, all of them think it's absolutely fantastic...and it > makes them enthusiastic about learning more... Interesting post - this makes sense. I guess thing I didn't point out was that none of the stores I went to focus on HT. So it appears to be a divide in the market that I hadn't pieced together before. It would make sense that the HT folks would have adapted much more quickly because the home integration piece is really the thrust of their business. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32232 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Audiophile shops
Robin Bowes;175646 Wrote: > thomsens wrote: > > > > Either you aren't actually reading my posts, or you simply can't > > understand where I'm coming from. > > Since I read all your posts and would have responded the same way Pat > did, I suspect you're not very good at expressing what you mean. > > > I'd have to spend more time > > correcting your understanding of what I said than replying...so, > we'll > > drop it. > > You could always spend a little more time on your original posts, > rather > than wasting our time by giving up halfway through a thread. > > R. I'm actually quite good at expressing what I mean. I was simply ambushed by someone more concerned about definitions of terms than focusing on the primary thrust of the thread. I never wanted to discuss how much a system I'd buy was or what the exact definition of an audiophile is. Nor was I interested in opinions on how bad MP3 sounds to some. All attempts to get back to the subject were hijacked. I tried to address them so we could get back on course, but found it to be a fruitless endeavor. I didn't find a high-end shop that gave encoded music the time of day and was interested in what other's thoughts were. I futher pointed out that all of them were pleasantly surprised by the quality you could achieve from MP3. If you read the rest of the posts, there is plenty of good commentary that doesn't take the time to question me, my knowledge, my budget, whether I read certain magazines, or whether I take hours to craft forum entries so as not to set off people, etc. In fact, they confirmed what I originally believed. There's a fundamental shift in the industry that will probably shake a few things up. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32232 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Audiophile shops
Skunk;175591 Wrote: > Well you did say 'high end'. Pat is right that true audiophiles spend > outrageous sums on high end setups, but I think you'll find that most > people around here are more scientifically minded when it comes to > cables and tweaks. Audiophile, for that matter, is not the term of > endearment you'd expect around here- given the forum title. Truth be known my budget is more than 2-3x what I stated. But, I was just trying to get him out of his notion that I should consider best buy gear. He wouldn't listen though... -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32232 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Audiophile shops
jhm731;175588 Wrote: > thomsens- You bypassed: "First and most important, there are loads of > CDPs and DVDPs for well under $300. that sound better much than a > SB3". > > You and opaqueice need to go down to your local Costco and pick up a > $50. DVDP. > > IMO, the main barrier audiophiles have to the adoption of computer > based audio isn't the fear of an unfamiliar technology, it's poor sound > quality. I bypassed that because I don't agree and actually don't care to argue. Some may sound better, but "much better" is too strong in my opinion. Since I haven't done a study, I can't say that I really know either. In any case, I thought the more interesting discussion was about the future. SB quality will continue to get cheaper too, like all technology. Calling FLAC on Transporter "poor sound quality" is pure ignorance. The best possible, maybe not. Yours and pfarrel's overly strong statements reduce the effectiveness of your arguements, IMO. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32232 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Audiophile shops
Pat Farrell;175573 Wrote: > thomsens wrote: > > I guess you make a good point about budget assumptions. My budget > > isn't so limited that I'm concerned about a transient issue of my > > library being MP3 driving my system choice or that the transporter > is > > $2K. I'd rather set myself up for the inevitable re-rip to FLAC and > > other nextgen hd formats that might come along. > > There is no need to ever re-rip, even if FLAC becomes obsolete and some > > other cooler format comes along. All you have to do is convert the FLAC > > back to PCM uncomressed files, and them recompress with whatever cool > thing there is. > > I'm not holding my breath for something fundamentally different than > FLAC. It is getting all the bits that are on a RedBook CD. Sure, you > might get a little more compression, but that really doesn't matter > much. And FLAC can get better if something cooler comes along, newer > tags or whatever. > > I was hoping that something better than RedBook would connect, but the > > idiot vendors with their idiotic format wars killed the whole idea. > The fact is that RedBook audio is flawed, and could have been fixed > fairly easily. SACD and DVD-Audio were overkill, IMHO. What was needed > > was 20 or 21 bits and 60kHz or so sample rate. > > > As I said in the original post, 3 different shops were blown away by > > the MP3 disc I played. > > So find a better shop. > > > So, if I get a high-end system, I can listen to MP3 most of the > > time, or simply put a higher quality source in if I want to > critically > > listen. > > You started out with the term "high end" which among audiophiles has > very specific meanings. Nothing that costs less than $20,000 is going > to > count as "high end" since audiophiles spend $5000 or more on > turntables, > and $1000 or more on speaker wires. > > > > Your definition of audiophile is extreme, which is fine, but it's > > different than what I was thinking. > > I'm using the standard definitions of audiophile and high end, from The > > Absolute Sound, Stereophile, and other popular magazines. These are the > > terms that the 'audiophile shops' use. > > > > There are plenty of us who not > > satisfied with a Tweeter system of any variety, > > No one seriously considers Tweeter as a high end, or audiophile shop. > They are a big screen theater retailer. > > > So I guess we need a term that means discerning audio fan, but not > > perfectionist. In any case, I don't see it so black or white. > > You can use any terms you want, but the ones you have used are well > defined in the audiophile and high-end space. If you use terms with > your > own private definitions, you should expect confusion. > > > > -- > Pat > http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html Either you aren't actually reading my posts, or you simply can't understand where I'm coming from. I'd have to spend more time correcting your understanding of what I said than replying...so, we'll drop it. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32232 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Audiophile shops
jhm731;175575 Wrote: > Next, everyone doesn't need or want access to "12,000 songs at their > instant disposal," and yes, there is a difference in sound > quality. How often do you listen to each of those 12K tracks each year? Why wouldn't you? 100 songs and 12,000 are just as easy. I just don't have to change discs now. And sometimes it's fun to let the system randomize. Just because you have it doesn't mean you have to use it either. I listen to a lot of songs that I wouldn't because of this. Most wouldn't appreciate that until they have it. Not sure why you take it so literally. 12,000 tracks represents many CDs with at least a track or two that I like on each, right? So, it would be a pain to listen to my "favorites" unless I didn't have to change discs. Now I don't have to. jhm731;175575 Wrote: > Finally, the average music lover doesn't want to mess with computer > based audio. Could be true, but will be less so with time. Just as they learned to mess with DVDs and everything else. Grandma is on the internet...I think average music folks will come around. How many people do you know that don't have a computer? Can you get any more complex than a computer? jhm731;175575 Wrote: > IMO, once the big guys like Sony, Pioneer, etc... start offering music > server versions of their DVD HD recorders that currently sell for under > $500., SD and the rest of this niche market are toast. Those are the old "big guys." I think the new big guys could be MS, Apple, and Cisco. The network will do for the home owner what it did to the enterprise. Show me a single business of any size that doesn't rely on their network as a critical business asset. The home will completely transform too. We'll still have sony, pioneer, etc., but they will most likely be endpoint providers. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32232 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Audiophile shops
Skunk;175565 Wrote: > Well I don't believe it's a conspiracy or anything. Remember, the > squeezebox is one of the first streaming devices that audiophiles have > really accepted. Unless they have a squeezebox or one of the newer > equavilents (if there is such a thing) they likely haven't experienced > high quality streaming. True - I guess I learned about Slim through computer circles, not audio ones. Still...you'd think by the 10th person mentioning it, they'd pick up a trend. At least one of their respected customers should have clued them in. Who knows... -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32232 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Audiophile shops
opaqueice;175561 Wrote: > There are many ways. Two I've used are MediaMonkey and foobar 2000. > You can download both for free; if you haven't used either I'd start > with MediaMonkey. Just point it to your FLAC files, select them all, > select convert audio format from the tools menu, choose a format to > convert to, and go to sleep - in the morning you'll have a whole new > library of MP3s. IIRC it will make a directory structure based on the > tags. Make sure you don't set it to delete the originals!.. Thanks - I'll give that a shot. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32232 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Audiophile shops
Pat Farrell;175559 Wrote: > thomsens wrote: > >> I'm not following you here. high-end usually means you obsess about > > >> quality. It is trivial to get better sound quality, don't use MP3. > Use > >> FLAC. > >> > >> If you don't care about the last percent or two, why bother with > >> high-end, just get something decent, say some $600 speakers and a AV > > >> receiver. Plug your SqueezeBox into it, and be happy. > > > > Not sure I follow your logic. Point is that transporter connected to > a > > decent system very clearly approaches the other sources. > > The point is that using MP3, you are throwing away all the stuff that > makes High End, be high end. There is no point in trying to improve the > > speakers, amp, or make the change from SqueezeBox to Transporter, the > weak link is the MP3 files. > > A Transporter is a good source in a $5000 up system. > It is a waste of money if the rest of your system is not up to the > standard. And using MP3s means there is nothing a Transporter can do > to restore what you've thrown away making MP3s. > > Look, it is simple. MP3s sound "pretty good". > They are more than adequate for a lot of people's listening 100% of the > > time. They are adequate for a very large percentage of people's > listening casually. > > But "pretty good" is not what 'high end' is about. It is about making > it > be real. Not real electric guitars distorting their brains out, but > real > as in a jazz singer's voice, or an acoustic guitar. Or piano. > > You can get "pretty good" for a lot less than the $2000 that a > Transporter costs. You can get a complete "pretty good" system for the > > $2000. Maybe "very good" to 99% of the folks who listen to music. > > That is not what audiophiles look for in a high end system. > > > > The reason I haven't used FLAC is for portability. It's > > more important for me to be flexible than to have that extra %. > > Then be happy with mid-fi. Save your money and spend it on more music, > > more women, more booze, etc. > > > A $600 system isn't in the ball park - didn't follow you there. And > of > > course you wouldn't buy a transporter with that system. > > SO what is your budget? My point is that you can get all the quality > that MP3 files have, extract it all, with a system with a total cost of > > less than the Transporter. > > If you are thinking about spending $5000 or more, which is the entry > point for most "high end" stuff, than you should stop thinking about > MP3. > > Since disks are so cheap, you can have all of your music twice, once in > > FLAC and once in MP3 for very little money. Terabytes of disk storage > cost about what a Transporter costs. This would hold several thousand > complete CDs in FLAC and MP3. > > > > -- > Pat > http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html I guess you make a good point about budget assumptions. My budget isn't so limited that I'm concerned about a transient issue of my library being MP3 driving my system choice or that the transporter is $2K. I'd rather set myself up for the inevitable re-rip to FLAC and other nextgen hd formats that might come along. And I do hear a significant difference with higher end gear $10-20K+ with lowly MP3. As I said in the original post, 3 different shops were blown away by the MP3 disc I played. They expected crap and it sounded very good to them. So, if I get a high-end system, I can listen to MP3 most of the time, or simply put a higher quality source in if I want to critically listen. Why limit myself? And naturally I can replace the MP3 with FLAC over time. Your definition of audiophile is extreme, which is fine, but it's different than what I was thinking. There are plenty of us who not satisfied with a Tweeter system of any variety, but won't spend time arguing about a power cord's impact on sound either. For those people, it's a hobby that's become an obsession. For me, it's still just a hobby. So I guess we need a term that means discerning audio fan, but not perfectionist. In any case, I don't see it so black or white. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32232 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Audiophile shops
Skunk;175535 Wrote: > I assume ?!? = rhetorical question. Not really - it means I'm astounded at how clueless these people are and I'm wondering if there is a rational explanation. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32232 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Audiophile shops
opaqueice;17 Wrote: > It's pretty easy to have the best of both worlds in terms of fidelity > and portability. If you rip your CDs to FLAC (or another lossless > format), you can very easily convert them to MP3 all in one batch. > Then you'll have two sets of files, but the MP3s are much smaller than > the FLACs and so the total space required isn't significantly larger > (than just FLAC). Now just load the MP3s onto your ipod or whatever, > and listen to the FLACs with the SB. Given how cheap disk space is, I > don't see any reason to do it any other way. I actually just asked this question in the rip area. I'm looking for suggestion on how to do exactly that (easily). -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32232 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Audiophile shops
JJZolx;175548 Wrote: > Among their customer base, I'd venture that it's still pretty rare. > They've probably dealt with their share of guys off the street wanting > to put together systems to play 128kbps mp3s, same as they've dealt > with folks who want to put together entire systems for $300. > > If you frequent some of the more popular audiophile forums, you'll be > struck by how many guys each day are saying "OK, I'm ready to do the > computer based audio thing. Where do I start?". The funny thing is, > I'll bet more than 1/2 of _those_ people couldn't care less about the > convenience of computer based playback, nor do they have any desire to > stream audio to a remote player - they're looking for better fidelity > (go figure). Well here's something to ponder...I got into audio in high school and spent a lot of money at the time on a stereo to take to school. I never regretted it, but somehow I fell out of the audio scene for about 10-15 years. Then I got a turle beach audiotron and ripped my entire collection then more recently an SB. As soon as I ripped my collection, I started listening to music again due to ease of accessibility. It resparked the desire to have a great system and now I'm in the market for high-end gear. So, MP3 drove my desire to buy high-end gear because I can now justify it based on my ability to easily listen to my collection. Point is, I think they really like pulling the vinyl out of the sleeve and putting the needle down. There is something to be said for that if it's what gets them going. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32232 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Audiophile shops
Pat Farrell;175541 Wrote: > thomsens wrote: > > I've been looking for a new high-end 2 channel system into which I > will > > simply plug my SB, then later a Transporter. > > > I won't argue their source was better, even though I didn't notice > an > > appreciable difference. But what I don't understand is how they can > > look the other way on having 12,000 songs at their instant disposal > as > > a trade-off to a nearly non-existent difference in quality. > > I'm not following you here. high-end usually means you obsess about > quality. It is trivial to get better sound quality, don't use MP3. Use > FLAC. > > If you don't care about the last percent or two, why bother with > high-end, just get something decent, say some $600 speakers and a AV > receiver. Plug your SqueezeBox into it, and be happy. > > To me, the sonic differences between the best MP3 and FLAC on my system > > are night and day. > > Thinking about getting a Transporter and connecting it to mid-fi > systems > playing MP3 doesn't make economic sense to me, IMHO, etc. The > difference > between a Transporter and a SqueezeBox are going to be lost on a mid-fi > > setup. > > But YMMV, etc. > > -- > Pat > http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html Not sure I follow your logic. Point is that transporter connected to a decent system very clearly approaches the other sources. So, the extra couple % are moving to the much more challenging sources (i.e., vinyl/CD). The reason I haven't used FLAC is for portability. It's more important for me to be flexible than to have that extra %. Night and day certainly is a dramatic description for the difference. Pretty sure I'm not with you. Sounds like I'm down a <5% with all the flexibility and the sysetm would still be top notch. A $600 system isn't in the ball park - didn't follow you there. And of course you wouldn't buy a transporter with that system. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32232 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Audiophile shops
JJZolx;175530 Wrote: > Was there a question in there somewhere? Thought it was clear...why don't B&M audio shops get what's currently happening? -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32232 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audiophile shops
I've been looking for a new high-end 2 channel system into which I will simply plug my SB, then later a Transporter. I have found that the traditional B&M audiophile crowd has been somewhat ignorant to encoded music based on experience in several stores. Because I'm realistic, I decided to build a bunch of CDs that are essentially playlists re-expanded to CD from high-quality MP3s ripped via EAC/LAME to use as demos instead of taking original CDs around. I still use MP3 over FLAC for device portability, although FLAC is getting better for that. My thought was that it would most closely mimic what my setup will be by playing this in their high-end CD players as I audition amps and speakers. Without exception when I've explained that I plan to stream music and I break out my CD, the salesperson turns their nose up and act indignant that I would consider doing what I'm saying. Then, without exception again, they play the CD and proceed to comment on how good it sounds. Of course they quickly get their favorite SACD or vinyl to show me that there is more depth, etc. in their source. Most seem to think MP3 or encoded music = iPod...which would be fine if they didn't work in audio for a living?!? And, most of them sell some form of high-end self-contained product which I assume sounds good too. I won't argue their source was better, even though I didn't notice an appreciable difference. But what I don't understand is how they can look the other way on having 12,000 songs at their instant disposal as a trade-off to a nearly non-existent difference in quality. I guess it's a hobby and it's more about the pursuit of perfection than anything based on reality. Or maybe they feel it threatens a revenue stream for source components and cables. It makes me question all of their advice, though. -- thomsens thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1352 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32232 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
