Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
adamslim;227896 Wrote: OK then, either of you - an evening at the most excellent Jerusalem Tavern, one of the very few pubs to get 'five pints' out of five at fancyapint.com :) You're on. Since the universe is (well... probably) infinite, a new format has been invented somewhere since you posted and you owe me that pint. I'll take plane fare to London too, thanks :-). -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
Oh, wait. Since the universe is infinite there is some brane somewhere in the strings where I not only won the bet but have enjoyed that pint with Adam already. Boy, that was fun, good beer too. -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
I use a Monarchy Audio DIP Classic (which is similar to thwe Big Ben) to do the anti jitter stuff before the digital signal from my SB3 enters my Perpetual DAC - massive improvement compared to going direct to the DAC. -- unclepuncle unclepuncle's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12511 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
adamslim wrote: My assertion - and I agree that's all it is - is that we will not see a HD-DVDA or HQA-Blu-ray. Bet you 10p :) Oh, be brave, bet a pint at your local. You'll still never win, but its more fun. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
opaqueice;227819 Wrote: You're assuming, contrary to all evidence, that the music industry learns from its mistakes. :-) Good point well made :) opaqueice;227819 Wrote: I'm sure there will be new hi-res formats. In fact I expect we'll see a rather large proliferation of them in the coming years, as bandwidth/memory constraints become entirely irrelevant and music production gets easier for small companies. Yes but we already have exactly what we need - hi-res downloads. We might see new audio file types, beyond WMA, MP3, FLAC, AAC and so on, but the only companies that can actually release a hard 'format' are the real hardware biggies - Philips and Sony and the likes - especially if they have a tied software division. My assertion - and I agree that's all it is - is that we will not see a HD-DVDA or HQA-Blu-ray. Bet you 10p :) (And yes, I know I can never win that bet!) Adam -- adamslim Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others http://www.last.fm/user/AdamSlim/ 'Last.fm group: people who don't listen to any of last.fm's top artists' (http://www.last.fm/group/People+who+don%27t+listen+to+any+of+last.fm%27s+top+artists) SB+, EAR 859, Heybrook Sextets plus some other stuff SB3, Shek d2, Ming-Da MC84-C, Harbeth HL-P3ES adamslim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7355 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
Pat Farrell;227885 Wrote: Oh, be brave, bet a pint at your local. You'll still never win, but its more fun. OK then, either of you - an evening at the most excellent Jerusalem Tavern, one of the very few pubs to get 'five pints' out of five at fancyapint.com :) -- adamslim Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others http://www.last.fm/user/AdamSlim/ 'Last.fm group: people who don't listen to any of last.fm's top artists' (http://www.last.fm/group/People+who+don%27t+listen+to+any+of+last.fm%27s+top+artists) SB+, EAR 859, Heybrook Sextets plus some other stuff SB3, Shek d2, Ming-Da MC84-C, Harbeth HL-P3ES adamslim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7355 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
Here we go again. Every one is a musician , and every one is seasoned audiophils, or physics engineers , and there for there word matters most. Dubbel blind test is tricky and many time faulted , in reallity it will only work if you could listend to A/B system at the same time through the same speakers. If you quickly shifts back and forth you will find out that unless the player is faulted the all have more or less the same tonal balance ,and there for sadly are mistaken for sounding the same. Then what are the differene? well the difference are nothing less then have the music are presended, dynamics swifts , bass lines that apear different, the pitch and timing , the rythme, all things that are extremly important for creating a musical sounding system but will be hard to hear when you shift back and forth fast. And to make matters worse some recordings sound will not show thise important differences as much. If you insert a dynamic source into a system that sound flat becaue the source sounds falt you will get a dynamic sound and thats why the kvality of the source have such a profound effect in have system sounds. Just about every thing you do or change in a audio component will change the sound ,even if some dont here it , or dont whant to here it, or dont beleive it, but that dossnet mean its not true, have musical a system sounds cant be measured either. -- harmonic harmonic's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6879 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
gdg;227485 Wrote: I forgot that many people here don't actually follow the debate and take posts out of context. For anyone who is offended, if you actually had followed the full discussion, you'd know I was responding to the statement that anything better than 16/44 is inaudible. When I stumble on an audiophile forum where this question is actually taken seriously I'm done. And to tell me that the same people who are debating this issue probably have better sound systems and/or ears than I do makes me even less apologetic than before. I've blocked this thread and only come back when I feel like being entertained by an idiotic debate. I've not listened to much SACD but I wasn't that impressed. Maybe I'm used to hearing good CD players, so an average SACD player doesn't sound impressive. And I note my friend (the owner of said SACD player) heard differently. It seemed the differences between the SACD player and the dedicated CD player were typical of the differences exhibited by players in general, so I couldn't draw a conclusion about the format. A blind comparison of different formats is desirable but difficult. Perhaps you hear a difference sighted. If you do, perhaps it is due to psychological factors. Or perhaps the difference is real but your *preference* for a different player is due to psychological factors, and might be reversed in a blind test (it's happened to me). Of course, if you prefer a different player it doesn't mean the format it plays is audibly better. This is a thorny issue... CD vs SACD comparison is fraught since even the same player would use quite different algorithms in the DAC stage, and that multiplies the variables. (Designers of SACD players don't agonise over CD playback in comparison to designers of CD players.) I suppose a blind test of 16/44 vs 24/96 is a little fairer if the player is identical and the manufacturer has no axe to grind e.g. Transporter. Darren PS: I am not disputing that higher quality formats are, well, higher quality. This post is about proving that differences are really audible. PPS: I note that for most music released in the last 20 years, red book is the only format. If you want to listen to this music (I do) this debate is irrelevant. -- darrenyeats SB3 with Inguz - Sony DAS-703ES DAC - Krell KAV-300i - PMC AB-1 (home-made room treatments and supports) darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
gdg wrote: I forgot that many people here don't actually follow the debate and take posts out of context. For anyone who is offended, if you actually had followed the full discussion, you'd know I was responding to the statement that anything better than 16/44 is inaudible. When I stumble on an audiophile forum where this question is actually taken seriously I'm done. And to tell me that the same people who are debating this issue probably have better sound systems and/or ears than I do makes me even less apologetic than before. I've blocked this thread and only come back when I feel like being entertained by an idiotic debate. You really are a first-class arrogant asshole. Don't bother coming back - you won't be missed. R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
harmonic;227533 Wrote: Just about every thing you do or change in a audio component will change the sound ,even if some dont here it , or dont whant to here it, or dont beleive it, but that dossnet mean its not true, have musical a system sounds cant be measured either. Harmonic, I understand your point about players sounding the same in a blind-test but maybe not really sounding the same. (I understand it, whilst noting it will remain forever unprovable :-) ) But this reasoning doesn't cover my recent blind-test experience. I found that two players sounded different sighted, *and they sounded different in the blind-test too*. But I found my *preference* was reversed in the blind test. This, to me, indicated that my sighted listening was swayed by mental factors. It seemed like a reasonable conclusion at the time, and it still does. If you are thinking it's the difference between long-term and short-term listening impressiveness, don't go there. Before the blind-test I preferred the opposite player on immediate comparison - it was my short-term preference that was reversed. Level playing field. If this sounds weird to you - I can assure you it was weird! Very weird indeed. Maybe it's just me that's going mad. But...blind testing is a real experience. When you start, you get this stupid smile on your face which says o-oh, this audiophile pretender is going to get found out!. Such an experience is difficult to describe in scientific terms, but it makes you re-evaluate the nature of hearing itself - let alone hi-fi! That last sentence is almost subjectivist-sounding isn't it? Happy now? :-) Please don't argue that my short-term blind preference was not as valid as my short-term sighted preference!!! I will strangle myself if you do. Darren -- darrenyeats SB3 with Inguz - Sony DAS-703ES DAC - Krell KAV-300i - PMC AB-1 (home-made room treatments and supports) darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
Hi darren Thanks for sharing you oppinion it truly reflects have complicated music playback really is. I have atended several of blind test´s at different dealers mostly linn demos, and not one time where the cheaper player better. I also one time A/B compared a dvd player to a lyngdorf cd-1 player on my tact millennium and strangely i prefered the dvd player. But some time after i found out it was because i uses different cables, when i reversed the cables the result where opposit, there goes the cables dont matter theory. What i normaly do is i have surthen tracks that have surthen dynamic shifts ,or basslines that dos surthen things for the mmusic and that have a huge impact on have the music connects me. And its here its make or brake for me , and its right here the sb3 and the transporter are very different. And its alo exactly here i find sources sounds alot diffeerent , soundstage and other hifi measurments are many times very much the same. Glare and glassyness can also be different but its much more a matter of the preamp. -- harmonic harmonic's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6879 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
darrenyeats;227583 Wrote: It's a bit like (I wish!) measuring the FR in your room and finding it's flat. After that, you quit worrying about colorations real or imagined. Because you know they're imagined or to do with the recording. Darren That will never happen (unless you happen to live in a well-designed anechoic chamber - which I can assure you has very low WAF/PAF :o) ) -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... ...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
Phil Leigh;227605 Wrote: Actually, what comes after RC is PC - Producer Correction...you know, it can fix those cardboard drums on some ELO albums, the strange sound Phil Collins managed to put on those Eric Clapton albums... Then: AC - Artist Correction...so Bob Dylan and Tom Waits can't sing in tune huh? not anymore...Leonard Cohen too depressing...nope... You wish that Geddy Lee would sing in a proper register...sorted! Followed by TC...Taste Correction. You play Britney Spears and out comes the Beatles. Darren -- darrenyeats SB3 with Inguz - Sony DAS-703ES DAC - Krell KAV-300i - PMC AB-1 (home-made room treatments and supports) darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
darrenyeats;227620 Wrote: Followed by TC...Taste Correction. You play Britney Spears and out comes the Beatles. Darren oooh = that's good. Of course you would only ever use that when: 1) visiting friends 2) someone has hold of your remote -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... ...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
darrenyeats;227583 Wrote: ... So I would say blind-tests and measurements have great potential for removing unnecessary angst. If you're the obsessive type - and because you're here, you might be ;-) - at least they prevent some (!) worries from spoiling the music. It's a good thing IMO. Darren Well..more than 12 years back I had a NAD CD player connected via generic toslink cable. Today, I have 2 or 3 glass toslinks and 2 or 3 eletrical digital cables costing $100-$200. First, i thougth digital is digital..never understood jitter..when I tried a good digital cable, I was taken aback by the difference..I read about jitter and understood it..The attitude should be I will buy equipment only if it makes a difference to me (for the better) , in my system. Let the snobbish flaunt their equipment.. I am now running a $200 Panny digital amplifier receiver !!! my speakers are Silverline Sonatinas and my SB3 is Bolder digital modded. Some power cords or speaker cables I have cost more than my amp !! Its weird ..I am not going to buy an audiophile amp again ..till it beats my Panny. -- SoftwireEngineer SoftwireEngineer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7000 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
I want MLC - music library correction. It goes through your library and deletes whatever you haven't played for years, and automatically downloads FLACs that are similar to what you do listen to. Of course, once it's been going for long enough, it will replace all your music with Abba, as that's first on your artist list and often gets played accidentally, so you have to get it to play through the night stuff that you still like but don't listen to. But it knows when you're doing that. -- adamslim Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others http://www.last.fm/user/AdamSlim/ 'Last.fm group: people who don't listen to any of last.fm's top artists' (http://www.last.fm/group/People+who+don%27t+listen+to+any+of+last.fm%27s+top+artists) SB+, EAR 859, Heybrook Sextets plus some other stuff SB3, Shek d2, Ming-Da MC84-C, Harbeth HL-P3ES adamslim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7355 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
Perhaps another way to phrase it is that cables can't remove jitter from a jittery source unit, but they can add jitter if the cables are not of high enough quality. In this way cables can add jitter and they are not capable of removing existing jitter from a system (unless replacing a poor cable). Robin Bowes;227675 Wrote: Phil Leigh wrote: Cables can't fix jitter. They can add to it but they can't take it away. That statement is questionable. A good cable will reduce jitter compared to a bad cable. TO my mind that's taking away jitter. R. -- musiklov3r musiklov3r's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13166 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
So I have an SACD player and to my ear it is superior to cd. But I am concerned about the depreciation on the player when various audiophile formats become available on Blu-ray or HDDVD. And what about the depreciation on a Transporter if a new model is created that will decode SACD or another new high-res format? It's difficult to afford to be at the cutting edge for just a couple years. My theory is that the record labels have hurt themselves by failing to create a standard for higher def playback and are responsible for their own declining revenues. I would be curious to hear if GDG has compared the output from his Benchmark using the Big Ben vs without. The Benchmark is advertised as re-clocking incoming signals and being immune to jitter, which would make the Big Ben unnecessary. And then there is the perspective that an external clock will be subject to too many interim steps that degrade timing before reaching the DAC to benefit performance. But it's all theory until you hear it yourself... _ Transporter = ATC 100SCMAT or Ayre C5xe =ATC SCA2= ATC 100SCMAT -- musiklov3r musiklov3r's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13166 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
gdg, you really are out of line. The posters you are so uncivilly responding to are experienced listeners who have high quality systems. Pat, I believe, is professionally involved in the recording industry and is very knowledgeable about sound reproduction (far more, it would appear) than you. And please spare us your protestaions of being a jazz musician. You are likely playing and hearing amplified instruments with electronics of far less quality than the members of this forum. i am a professional classical guitarist (whoop de do) :-)and am surrounded by unamplified live music constantly...so that MUST make me better than you...I mean , of course classical musicians are surperior to poorly trained jazz mongrels such as yourself. Ok, do you get the point? You don't need to throw around credentials here, it won't get you anywhere. There are many highly intelligent and knowledgeable people on this forum and if you could develope a bit of humility you could learn a lot here.I did. -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
A couple of observations: 1) high resolution audio in the domestic replay chain appears to be a dead duck. DVD-A and SACD have both failed to grab the publics attention or dollars. I see no reason why this will change in the future. Clearly domestic audio replay technology has reached the good enough that I don't care tipping point for most people. So whilst video is not there yet - but will get closer with Blu-ray et al - perhaps with audio we should focus less on the replay chain and more on the recording chain? Using 24/88.2 or higher in the recording chain has benefits that persist through to the final product even if the product is downsampled...but only if the mastering stages are done well. 2) A corrollary of the abstract quoted by Opaqueice is that one would expect a similar trial of (pre-DAC) upsampling from 16/44.1 to 24/88.2 or 96 or 192 to show the same (ie null) result...in fact intuition would lead one to conclude that such a result is almost a certainty. 3) Even ignoring the resolution aspects of the trial quoted, it would appear that the additional path length made no discernable difference (ignoring the noise floor uplift which was apparently inaudible at normal listening levels). There's a lot to think about/try here. Ignoring the whole DBT debate for a second, I've found that both upsampling and downsampling make no real difference to me (and I can test them easily in my system using my remote). However, when faced with a 16/44.1 and 24/88.2 copy of (allegedly) the same master - e.g. the Linn masters I have downloaded - I have an overwhelming preference for the high resolution versions. This doesn't change when I downsample the high-res version. IF the studio is simply downsampling the 2-track master at their end this makes no sense to me. IF they are remastering from multitrack to 16-bit, then maybe I could see why. Pat - what do you think?...or maybe I'm just deluding myself :o) Phil -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... ...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
gdg;227315 Wrote: As for bandwidth I believe HDMI is a necessity in order to accommodate both video and audio data, not something implemented because coax can't handle the audio side of it. The first players that are hitting the market all have the usual coax digital outputs as well as HDMI and will, in all likelihood continue to do so (though some don't yet have fully implemented audio capabilities). Yeah, thats right. But you will also find that the regular coax and optical outputs have degraded output compaired to HDMI for a couple of reasons. The first is because they can't cope with the bandwidth of the high resolution audio streams (7.1 lossless 24/96 audio for example). The other reason the output is degraded is because there is no way to impliment a secure digital chain over the coax or optical standards. HDMI can be crippled with HDCP when using high definition audio. -- funkstar funkstar's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2335 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
gdg;227346 Wrote: What are we... back to the CD gives perfect sound bullshit? No one said that. The question is how to improve it, and personally I don't think increasing the sampling rate or the bit depth is going to do that in any significant way (although there's also no reason NOT to do it if the opportunity arises). 1) How much time have you spent around live unamplified instruments so that you have some kind of reference. I spent years playing jazz in unamplified settings and the sound of real instrument is utterly imprinted on my subconcious. I'm an amateur musician and I go listen to live music often. 2) How much technical training do you actually have to help sort out the BS from the hard science? I'm a professor of physics. 3) How many reference quality systems have you ever heard. More than I can count, including my own. F this, I'm wasting my time here. This is clearly a forum for the typical Joe Blow who thinks high art is the WWF. Bye, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
Phil Leigh wrote: 1) high resolution audio in the domestic replay chain appears to be a dead duck. DVD-A and SACD have both failed Sadly, I agree. The home theater folks have never cared about fidelity. Effects subs are often unusable for music. Clearly domestic audio replay technology has reached the good enough that I don't care tipping point for most people. Audiophiles (today's name for hi-fi fans) have always been a tiny portions of the music listening, gear buying public. Using 24/88.2 or higher in the recording chain has benefits that persist through to the final product even if the product is downsampled...but only if the mastering stages are done well. Right, its easier to keep the signal 'true' for all the processing, and 99.99% of all music is highly processed, at high wide. Even the dithering process to hack off the bits to make the final result 16 bits is important. 3) Even ignoring the resolution aspects of the trial quoted, it would appear that the additional path length made no discernable difference (ignoring the noise floor uplift which was apparently inaudible at normal listening levels). While one can think that all changes in noise floor are important, once you get 70dB down, its essentially impossible to hear. Most serious recording folks try to 100db. Just to have 30db of safety. Pat ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
Phil Leigh;227354 Wrote: Ignoring the whole DBT debate for a second, I've found that both upsampling and downsampling make no real difference to me (and I can test them easily in my system using my remote). However, when faced with a 16/44.1 and 24/88.2 copy of (allegedly) the same master - e.g. the Linn masters I have downloaded - I have an overwhelming preference for the high resolution versions. This doesn't change when I downsample the high-res version. IF the studio is simply downsampling the 2-track master at their end this makes no sense to me. IF they are remastering from multitrack to 16-bit, then maybe I could see why. Here's a further quote from that article: Virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs sometimes much better... Partly because these recordings have not captured a large portion of the consumer market for music, engineers and producers are being given the freedom to produce recordings that sound as good as they can make them, without having to compress or equalize the signal to suit lesser systems and casual listening conditions... Our test results indicate that all of these recordings could be released on conventional CDs with no audible difference. They would not, however, find such a reliable conduit to the homes of those with the systems and listening habits to appreciate them. The secret, for two-channel recordings at least, seems to lie not in the high-bit recording but in the high-bit market. So in other words it's got nothing to do with the increased resolution, but simply that they're aiming higher in the mastering. However that doesn't explain your preference if in fact both are from the same master. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
I forgot that many people here don't actually follow the debate and take posts out of context. For anyone who is offended, if you actually had followed the full discussion, you'd know I was responding to the statement that anything better than 16/44 is inaudible. When I stumble on an audiophile forum where this question is actually taken seriously I'm done. And to tell me that the same people who are debating this issue probably have better sound systems and/or ears than I do makes me even less apologetic than before. I've blocked this thread and only come back when I feel like being entertained by an idiotic debate. -- gdg gdg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1122 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
gdg;227163 Wrote: Uh no... Read my post. I'm talking about the new High Def video standards that include high rez audio capabilities. How does that relate to streaming music from a SB or transporter though? The high resolution lossless soundtracks are only available over HDMI anyway, as they far excede the bandwidth of standard optical or coax output. -- funkstar funkstar's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2335 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
funkstar;227231 Wrote: Really? Not according to the hardware comparison page on the Wiki http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?HardwareComparison The Burr-Brown PCM1748E dac chip can do 96kHz... -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... ...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
Phil Leigh;227258 Wrote: The Burr-Brown PCM1748E dac chip can do 96kHz... Good to know. Not that it makes a difference is the SB3s processor can't handle 96khz audio anyway :) -- funkstar funkstar's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2335 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
funkstar;227282 Wrote: Good to know. Not that it makes a difference is the SB3s processor can't handle 96khz audio anyway :) True - I was simply trying to clear up any confusion between the DAC chip and the SB itself. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... ...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
People are beginning to speculate that these new formats may be utilized by the music industry. One of the main reasons is that audio capability will be included in virtually all players from the beginning and the hardware base will be built into the market. It's all speculation at this point and who know's how it will be implemented. Who's to say HDMI inputs won't exist on computers? I wouldn't mind covering those bases if for the price of a transporter I can get the more flexible combination of SB3 and Big Ben. If I didn't use a Tact processor it would be a different story because I could take advantage of the Transporter as a dac. -- gdg gdg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1122 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
gdg wrote: People are beginning to speculate that these new formats may be utilized by the music industry. What new formats? SACD and DVD-A? They are hardly new, they were defined last century. They have failed in the market. Some boutique audiophile labels still making them, essentially like audiophile vinyl pressings. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
Pat Farrell;227303 Wrote: gdg wrote: People are beginning to speculate that these new formats may be utilized by the music industry. What new formats? SACD and DVD-A? They are hardly new, they were defined last century. They have failed in the market. Some boutique audiophile labels still making them, essentially like audiophile vinyl pressings. For the last time either actually read my posts or pay atention to what is going on in the home theater industry. I'll say it for the third time...I'm refering to the new High Def Video players that include high rez multichannel audio capability. -- gdg gdg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1122 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
one needed to buy a dedicated SACD player or pay extra for a DVDA enabled player. This does not fly for Joe consumer. With HD DVD or BluRay the players will have audio capabilities built in and by the time the entire DVD industry has gone High Def the hardware base for a high rez audio standard will be established throughout the entire consumer market. -- gdg gdg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1122 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
gdg wrote: Pat Farrell;227303 Wrote: gdg wrote: People are beginning to speculate that these new formats may be utilized by the music industry. What new formats? SACD and DVD-A? They are hardly new, they were defined last century. They have failed in the market. Some boutique audiophile labels still making them, essentially like audiophile vinyl pressings. For the last time either actually read my posts or pay atention to what is going on in the home theater industry. I'll say it for the third time...I'm refering to the new High Def Video players that include high rez multichannel audio capability. And I'm supposed to know that from one post with no quoting? Get a grip. How about you learn how to post, eh? I really don't give an F about home theater, I'm an audiophile, this is an audiophile forum. The reality is that multi-channel audio has failed because not only was there a silly and unneeded format war, but there was no attempt to standardize what was needed for playback. Home theater is fairly well defined, multi-channel audio is not. Some recordings need full range speakers in the back, some put you in the middle of the orchestra. This is the same crap that releases in the quad era played with. Not realistic, and not interesting past 10 minutes. I believe that multi-channel playback with the rear and side channels used for less than full range is wonderful, but that is not how a lot of recordings are mixed. Little plastic disks for music and audio are dead. Blue ray vs HD-DVD is too late for anyone to care about. All IMHO, in case you can't tell. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
There has been more than one post and if you are too lazy to to actually follow the thread don't blame me. Whether you care about multi channel or not is not the issue. Multi channel is just one of the many ways the audio capability of BluRay or HD DVD can be utilized and it doesn't preclude stereo. As for not giving a crap about home theater or multi channel wake up. Did you need to have an interest in computers per sey to participate in PC based audio. Developments in high definition home theater video and the accompanying multichannel that appeals to the mass market is only a vehicle by which a new (and flexible) audio format can be introduced to the mass market. I'm done arguing about something you clearly havn't been paying attention to. Pay attention to developments in the industry or not. I don't give a F. -- gdg gdg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1122 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
funkstar;227230 Wrote: How does that relate to streaming music from a SB or transporter though? The high resolution lossless soundtracks are only available over HDMI anyway, as they far excede the bandwidth of standard optical or coax output. As for bandwidth I believe HDMI is a necessity in order to accommodate both video and audio data, not something implemented because coax can't handle the audio side of it. The first players that are hitting the market all the usual coax digital outputs as well as HDMI and will, in all likelihood continue to do so (though some don't yet have fully implemented audio capabilities). -- gdg gdg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1122 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
gdg wrote: There has been more than one post and if you are too lazy to to actually follow the thread don't blame me. Contrary to some expectations, some folks get these posts via email As for not giving a crap about home theater or multi channel wake up. Non sequitor. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
To simplify the whole issue lets put it this way... In future, a high quality mass production company like, for instance, EMI could decide that all of it's Jazz releases will be done in Stereo 24/196 and, unlike SACD or DVDA, virtually everyone will already own a player capable of playing the format. Whether that happens or not is anyone's guess but, unlike SACD or DVDA, at least there is chance with the hardware base already installed. -- gdg gdg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1122 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
gdg wrote: In future, a high quality mass production company like, for instance, EMI could decide that all of it's Jazz releases will be done in Stereo 24/196 and, unlike SACD or DVDA, virtually everyone will already own a player capable of playing the format. I would love it for them to do so. Even 24/88.2 is a big improvement, if they do it for the whole chain. Remastering stuff recorded on an ADAT isn't going to get better with high/wide. I tend to believe it would make some economic sense, otherwise the music industry is dead. I don't think any of this means that the SB3 will benefit from a Big Ben type device. They make a lot of sense in a recording studio where you have many separate devices, say 3 o 4 ganged ADCs with 8 channels each. For playback, even of 5.1 or 7.1, its fairly easy to get all the channels in a single device, using an internal clock. Audiophiles can then look for a device with a good internal clock, rather than something expensive and external like a Big Ben. Unless you just like the look of the gear, which does appeal to some. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
Do you really think you need higher resolution than 24/96? Or for that matter, 16/44.1? -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
opaqueice wrote: Do you really think you need higher resolution than 24/96? Or for that matter, 16/44.1? I'm not the guy who wrote that, but a bit better than 16/44 would be nice. If only so that the engineers would aim higher. Serious folks say that 20/55kHz or so is actually all we need for perfect sound forever, but that was above the engineering in the 70s when the CD was designed. Well done 16/44.1 can be very good, but a lot is not well done. 24/88.2 is very available, the recording side technology has been there and fairly inexpensive for close to a decade. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
Well, I'm still waiting to see one single bliund listening test in which people can even -distinguish- between 16/44.1 and something better*, let alone care about the difference (and I'm not talking about tiny differences in the noise floor that can be heard with massive amplification - this is about music played at reasonable levels). But I agree that enhanced standards might encourage mastering engineers to do a better job... *Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback. E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran. JAES 55(9) September 2007. The tests, conducted with many experienced listeners on a variety of high-end systems over the course of a year, produced a null result (no difference was audible). -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
Personally, on my system I can even hear the difference between 16/44 and the current 16/48 dvd audio standard. There is no question that the vast majority of people are happy with MP3. Makes no difference to me. Most of them have have seldom, if ever, even heard a live unamplified instrument so they don't have a clue anyway. BTW Another way to look at the developments in high definition video players and their audio potential. Most people think of their Ipod as an MP3 player. That doesn't change the fact that audio enthusiasts can load them up with full resolution WAV or Lossless files, plug in a $400 IEM (and maybe a portable amp) and get stunning sound. -- gdg gdg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1122 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
Three words: try it blind. I'd be willing to bet you can't hear the difference if you don't know in advance which is which (again, I'm talking about music at reasonable levels, not very quiet sections cranked way up). Here's the abstract: Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz bottleneck. The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
opaqueice wrote: Three words: try it blind. Oh No, not DBT, didn't we ban all diversions to threads about DBT. I mean, how can you tell tube amps from solid state without the orange glow of the tubes? The eyes are near the ears. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
What are we... back to the CD gives perfect sound bullshit? Have you idiots ever even heard a good sound system? A guy who has spent his life working with live orchestras came over the other day to buy my Ipod. Within five minutes of listening to my system was asking me for permission to send his friend over for audio advise (happens all the time with people who've never heard anything better than typical circuit city garbage). Try knowing a little something about what you are talking about before spouting off. 1) How much time have you spent around live unamplified instruments so that you have some kind of reference. I spent years playing jazz in unamplified settings and the sound of real instrument is utterly imprinted on my subconcious. 2) How much technical training do you actually have to help sort out the BS from the hard science? 3) How many reference quality systems have you ever heard. F this, I'm wasting my time here. This is clearly a forum for the typical Joe Blow who thinks high art is the WWF. -- gdg gdg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1122 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
gdg;227346 Wrote: Have you idiots ever even heard a good sound system? Who do you mean you idiots? Did it every occur to you, gdg, that some of us might actually know what we are talking about? These personal attacks that you, gdg, seem to love are at best uncivilized, and at worst make you look like a jerk. If you want to cite your years of experience playing jazz, could you kindly reference which instrument you play? For example, many great jazz guitarists use electric guitars and the tube distortion is a major part of the sound. But then again, perhaps it is a waste of time replying to your attacks. -- pfarrell Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html pfarrell's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=200 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
gdg wrote: Thanx for the input Kim. I don't think I'd go the transporter route because the word I'm getting is that Vista PC streaming has now surpassed the SB. Huh? I'm not sure what your sources are, but the quality of *any* PC streaming depends on the audio device used. And that goes for Vista, or XP, or Windows 95, or Linux, or OSX, or ... If I go that route I'd definitely want to reclock what comes out of a computer. In addition I don't believe the Transporter can handle high rez standards which may become the norm with the advent of new high def dvd players. What standards do you want to use? Remember, both the SB and the Transporter are firmware-upgradeable and may be enhanced in the future to support new standards (subject to CPU limitations of the hardware). R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
you mean high rez standards like the incredibly popular sacd and dvd-a? -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... ...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
gdg;227041 Wrote: In addition I don't believe the Transporter can handle high rez standards which may become the norm with the advent of new high def dvd players. I belive the transporter can handle 24bit 96khz streams. the SB3 can also handle these, although it downsamples to 48KHz because of the limitations of the DAC. -- funkstar funkstar's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2335 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
funkstar;227104 Wrote: I belive the transporter can handle 24bit 96khz streams. the SB3 can also handle these, although it downsamples to 48KHz because of the limitations of the DAC. Actually because of the limitations of the processor and firmware - the DAC can do 96KHz/24-bits. -- Patrick Dixon www.at-tunes.co.uk Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
Does the SB3 still downsample if you're using an external DAC? Or does it pass the digital stream intact (e.g. can it pass 88.2kHz 24bit data to an external DAC)? -- gcogger gcogger's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12954 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
Phil Leigh;227103 Wrote: you mean high rez standards like the incredibly popular sacd and dvd-a? Uh no... Read my post. I'm talking about the new High Def video standards that include high rez audio capabilities. -- gdg gdg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1122 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
Does anyone here use a Big Ben to reduce jitter out of the SB3? I'm running into a Tact 2.0s which is quite sensitive to jitter so if you have any experience in this area I'd love to hear your impressions. -- gdg gdg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1122 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
gdg;227035 Wrote: Does anyone here use a Big Ben to reduce jitter out of the SB3? I'm running into a Tact 2.0s which is quite sensitive to jitter so if you have any experience in this area I'd love to hear your impressions. Yes, I'm using one with SB3 and TacT RCS 2.2X. With the Big Ben, the SB3 digital out sounds identical to the Transporter. If you already have a Big Ben, use it. Otherwise you may as well invest in a Transporter. Use toslink between the SB3 and Big Ben to eliminate electical noise from the SB3. For whatever it's worth, I've replaced the switching power supply in the Big Ben with a Welborne linear one. I'm also using the Welborne SB3 power supply. Regards, Kim -- krochat -- SB3 (+linear) - Big Ben - TacT RCS 2.2X - 2xS2150 - Vandersteen 3a Signature + TacT W210 krochat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6579 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Squeezebox 3 benefit from a Big Ben?
Thanx for the input Kim. I don't think I'd go the transporter route because the word I'm getting is that Vista PC streaming has now surpassed the SB. If I go that route I'd definitely want to reclock what comes out of a computer. In addition I don't believe the Transporter can handle high rez standards which may become the norm with the advent of new high def dvd players. -- gdg gdg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1122 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38379 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
