subject:"\[SlimDevices\: Audiophiles\] Re\: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter"


Skunk Wrote: 
 Quoting P Floding P.Floding.2532ez1143051302 (AT) no-mx (DOT)
 forums.slimdevices.com:
  Last time I checked hard disks had moving parts! ;-D
 
 I'm guessing the wink means you realize the disk isn't part of the 
 timing chain.
The spinning CD in a normal CD player is no more a part of the timing
chain than is the spinning hard disk in a Slimserver. There is a
solid-state buffer in a CD player, just like there is in a Squeezebox,
and the rate at which a CD is read is determined by the needs of that
asynchronous buffer, just as the rate at which the TCP/IP packets
arrive at a Squeezebox is determined by the needs of its buffer. The
only difference between the two is that the TCP/IP protocol used in a
SB setup allows for the re-transmission of bad data, while in a CD
player the disc can't be re-read to account for errors. But since the
overwhelming majority of non-faulty CDs are read without error, this is
of no practical significance.


-- 
cliveb

cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-23 Thread Skunk


cliveb Wrote: 
 The spinning CD in a normal CD player is no more a part of the timing
 chain than is the spinning hard disk in a Slimserver. 

Well that's a pretty gross misunderstanding on my part then :-) I had
thought normal cd players were synchronous and dependent on the speed
of disc rotation, while reclocking DAC's and PC audio were
asynchronous. Sorry for the confusion.

Why is the technology, I wonder, so expensive or touted as unique in
the Benchmark and Lavry-  if being common to normal CD players? I'm
afraid the more I read about digital audio, the more confused I get.
Perhaps I should stop now.


-- 
Skunk

Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-23 Thread PhilNYC


Skunk Wrote: 
 
 Why is the technology, I wonder, so expensive or touted as unique in
 the Benchmark and Lavry-  if being common to normal CD players? I'm
 afraid the more I read about digital audio, the more confused I get.
 Perhaps I should stop now.

I thought every CD Walkman that had a 10 second shock buffer did
pretty much the same thing?  (maybe not the re-clocking, but definitely
the data buffer)...


-- 
PhilNYC

Sonic Spirits Inc.
http://www.sonicspirits.com

PhilNYC's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=837
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


Skunk Wrote: 
 Well that's a pretty gross misunderstanding on my part then :-) I had
 thought normal cd players were synchronous and dependent on the speed
 of disc rotation, while reclocking DAC's and PC audio were
 asynchronous. Sorry for the confusion.
 
 Why is the technology, I wonder, so expensive or touted as unique in
 the Benchmark and Lavry-  if being common to normal CD players? I'm
 afraid the more I read about digital audio, the more confused I get.
 Perhaps I should stop now.

Skunk, I think cliveb may be referring to the very small buffers on cd
players (think discman) that are for reducing skipping. These buffers,
however, only hold a few seconds of data. I think DAC's like the Lavry,
DAC1, etc. are much more sophisticated about buffering and re-clocking,
specifically designed to eliminate jitter. As you say, if clive were
right, what would all the fuss be about, anyway?

Edit: Damn! Phil beat me to the punch.


-- 
ezkcdude

SB3-Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC-MIT Terminator 2
interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound
Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton
Titanic 10 subwoofer

He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo.

ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


CliveB - do you have an error counter on your CD player?


-- 
Phil Leigh

Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-23 Thread opaqueice


cliveb Wrote: 
 The only difference between the two is that the TCP/IP protocol used in
 a SB setup allows for the re-transmission of bad data, while in a CD
 player the disc can't be re-read to account for errors. But since the
 overwhelming majority of non-faulty CDs are read without error, this is
 of no practical significance.

This doesn't make sense to me - what's the point of the buffer if the
CD can't be re-read?  In that case if the buffer held 10 seconds of
music, you'd simply hear the skip 10 seconds after your car went over a
bump rather than in real time.

Instead, I think the CD player must go back and re-read the CD during
those 10 seconds.  Probably what you meant is that there are no
check-bits which tell the player when a small error (a few bits
mis-read) has occurred, unlike in TCP/IP.

I'm still wondering (see my earlier post in this thread) whether fancy
DACs such as the Benchmark really solve the problem with source jitter,
and if so how.


-- 
opaqueice

opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


ezkcdude Wrote: 
 Skunk, I think cliveb may be referring to the very small buffers on cd
 players (think discman) that are for reducing skipping. These buffers,
 however, only hold a few seconds of data.
No, I'm not talking about anti-skip buffers. Every audio CD player has
a buffer into which the data that comes off the disc is fed, and from
which the samples are clocked out to the DAC. If a CD player relied on
the actual spin rate of the disc to deliver the digital samples, it
simply wouldn't work.


-- 
cliveb

cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


Phil Leigh Wrote: 
 CliveB - do you have an error counter on your CD player?
I don't even have a CD player any more! (Sold it when it became clear
that the SB2 was a superior means of music playback).

It didn't have an error counter on it, but I have performed various
tests involving playing CDRs and recording the SPDIF output to hard
disk and then comparing the results with the WAV files ripped from CDs.
And those tests showed that the data stream emerging from the SPDIF
output was bit-identical to the original CD data. (The purpose of the
tests was to prove that it was possible to make perfect CDR copies of
CDs, but as a side-effect it also demonstrates that CDs (and CDRs) are
normally read without error.

In any case, I really shouldn't need to produce supporting evidence for
the error-free reading of CDs: that particular imaginary bogeyman was
put to bed a very long time ago. If you believe that CD players don't
routinely read CDs without error, then you're deluding yourself.


-- 
cliveb

cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


opaqueice Wrote: 
 This doesn't make sense to me - what's the point of the buffer if the CD
 can't be re-read?  In that case if the buffer held 10 seconds of music,
 you'd simply hear the skip 10 seconds after your car went over a bump
 rather than in real time.
 
The anti-skip buffers in CD walkmans *do* allow the CD to be re-read.
But as I pointed out in an earlier reply, those are not the buffers I
was talking about.

opaqueice Wrote: 
 I'm still wondering (see my earlier post in this thread) whether fancy
 DACs such as the Benchmark really solve the problem with source jitter,
 and if so how.
I don't know how the Lavry does it, but the Benchmark uses asynchronous
sample rate conversion so that the jitter present in the output is
entirely down to the accuracy of its own internal clock.


-- 
cliveb

cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


Yeah well my experience is very different in that case. I have (retail)
CD's that produce 1,000's of errors. I have CD's that are so sha*ged
that EAC won't rip them...and they sound like sh*t on ANY cdp...I mean
audible distortion of a foul nature - unlistenable.

Whilst I agree that it IS possible to make bit-perfect copies of CD 's
onto CDR / hard disk, I strongly disagree that reading of audio cd's by
CDP's (or CD/DVD rom drives) is always an error-free process. Why did
manufacturers STOP putting error displays on their perfect
CDP's?...it was not because there were no errors...

If this wasn't true, there would be no audible difference between any
CD transport. I don't believe that all transports are equal, and I also
believe that the EAC (or whatever)+hard disk+SB approach is empirically
better in this respect than any spinning disk transport which will NOT
repeatedly re-read sectors until it gets an error free read.

YMMV


-- 
Phil Leigh

Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


cliveb Wrote: 
 In any case, I really shouldn't need to produce supporting evidence for
 the error-free reading of CDs: that particular imaginary bogeyman was
 put to bed a very long time ago. If you believe that CD players don't
 routinely read CDs without error, then you're deluding yourself.

I don't disagree with this point. Assuming, the CD, itself, is
error-free, I'm not concerned about errors in reading. The main point
of contention here is the buffering issue. I simply do not agree with
you. For example, my non-oversampling DAC certainly doesn't have a
buffer, and there are many current cd players based on the same circuit
topology. To my knowledge, the Crystal receivers (CS8412 or CS8414 to
name two) do not buffer, nor do the DACs themselves (e.g. TDA154X,
PCM16XX, or AD18XX), and those chips are pretty ubiquitous. If I'm
wrong, I'd like to know what is the component that does the buffering?
Also, I want to make it perfectly clear that I'm not trying to flame
you, Clive. I am genuinely curious about this, and have been led to
believe that jitter is only a problem because CDP's do not buffer and
re-clock the data.


-- 
ezkcdude

SB3-Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC-MIT Terminator 2
interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound
Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton
Titanic 10 subwoofer

He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo.

ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-23 Thread Skunk


ezkcdude Wrote: 
  To my knowledge, the Crystal receivers (CS8412 or CS8414 to name two)
 do not buffer, nor do the DACs themselves (e.g. TDA154X, PCM16XX, or
 AD18XX), and those chips are pretty ubiquitous. 

CS8412 doesn't, but CS8411 has a built in buffer. The CS8412 uses a
on-chip PLL to recover sender clock data. 

I seem to recall Sean saying the programmable PLL chip (not sure if
it's on the receiver chip or seperate) is part of the key to SB2/3's
low jitter, along with other things.


-- 
Skunk

Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


Skunk Wrote: 
 CS8412 doesn't, but CS8411 has a built in buffer. The CS8412 uses a
 on-chip PLL to recover sender clock data. 
 
 I seem to recall Sean saying the programmable PLL chip (not sure if
 it's on the receiver chip or seperate) is part of the key to SB2/3's
 low jitter, along with other things.

According to Lavry and Benchmark, it's the PLL that's the main problem,
right?


-- 
ezkcdude

SB3-Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC-MIT Terminator 2
interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound
Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton
Titanic 10 subwoofer

He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo.

ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-23 Thread Triode


Skunk Wrote: 
 CS8412 doesn't, but CS8411 has a built in buffer. The CS8412 uses a
 on-chip PLL to recover sender clock data. 
 
 I seem to recall Sean saying the programmable PLL chip (not sure if
 it's on the receiver chip or seperate) is part of the key to SB2/3's
 low jitter, along with other things.

There are no PLLs in SB2/SB3 for the audio chain [this is a reason why
it sounds better than SB1 which had a PLL for the master clock for the
3rd part chip used.]  Indeed it has separate crystal oscillators for
44.1 and 48 KHz, specifically to allow this and support multiple
sampling frequencies [compare this to certain other computer based
products with don't]

CS8412 has a single sample buffer, CS8411 buffers a small number of
samples.  Key point is that they both support 2 modes:
1) output clocked by recovery of clock from the spdif line
2) output clocked by local clock in the DAC

In the first case, the internal PLL recovers the clock from the spdif
datastream and is used to clock out the data - hence samples are
clocked out at the rate they are arriving.  In local clock mode, the
local clock can run faster/slower than the clock generating the data. 
In this case either chip will drop or insert a sample.

Now the issue that has been learnt over time is that jitter on the
conversion clock at the DAC chip is much more noticable than people
originally thought.  Essentially the issue is that the correct samples
reproduced at slightly the wrong instance in time results in distortion
which is audible (arguably as bad as slightly the wrong sample
reproduced at the correct instance in time)

Hence to get the best reproduction you really want a low jitter clock
directly connected to the dac chip as this is what is doing the digital
to analogue conversion.  A crystal oscillator is always going to be
lower jitter than a non crystal based PLL - which is essentially a
guessing circuit [create a clock, compare it to the incoming one and
change it a bit if it is going to fast or too slow]

Two box systems which use DACs are hamstrung by spdif as it was
designed prior to knowledge of the jitter issue and so make it
difficult to extract a precise clock from the data signal due to both
the data and clock being encoded together.  Hence a PLL is needed to
extract data at the receiver chip in the DAC box.

Recent dacs have attempted to address this in multiple ways, e.g:
1) Asychronous clocking [just run the DAC with its own clock, make no
attempt to sychronise the two and put up with the occasional sample
being dropped or repeated on the basis that such errors are less
audibly noticable than jitter on the clock] e.g. DDDAC diy dacs
(http://www.dddac.de/)
2) Crystal based PLL (VCXO) which is able to produce a low jitter
version of the recovered clock as it is based on a crystal oscillator. 
Note there is no need for a large buffer to do this as as the jitter
between the input clock and the conversion clock only equates to
fractions of a sample time. E.g. Tentlabs XO-DAC (technical background:
http://members.chello.nl/%7em.heijligers/DAChtml/PLL/PLL1.htm)
3) Asychronous resampling - resample the data in the dac to a new
sampling rate defined by a local low jitter crystal based oscillator
and then use this to clock the dac chip for conversion.  This uses an
asychronous resampler chip which actually creates new sample values to
represent the data at a new data rate.  The conversion chip is really
doing some clever math to convert between sample values and so is able
to absorb an amount of jitter on the input stream as it can assume the
input samples were produced at a fixed rate (it does not need them to
turn up at exactly this rate).  The upside is that the jitter at the
conversion chip is low, but the actual sample values are changed as the
sampling rate is changed.  

Now SB2/3 is a one box system so it gets excellent quality for level of
the components used by using a low jitter crystal oscillator and
connecting this direct to the dac chip without the need for an spdif
link.  When an external dac is used, as spdif has to be used the
questions over how the clock is recovered in the dac and used to clock
the D/A conversion all apply...


-- 
Triode

Triode's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


I'm sorry to disagree, but you are missing the point if you think that
SPDIF is inherently bad - that's just religion. My ears are indifferent
to that argument. SPDIF is not perfect but it's NOT the prime culprit
here (IMHO).


-- 
Phil Leigh

Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


I'm NOT saying that SPDIF is great...but it's good enough - provided you
re-clock(IMHO).
The main culprit in CDP's is the fact that you have one chance to read
the spinning thing...


-- 
Phil Leigh

Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


ezkcdude Wrote: 
 I don't disagree with this point. Assuming, the CD, itself, is
 error-free, I'm not concerned about errors in reading. The main point
 of contention here is the buffering issue. I simply do not agree with
 you. For example, my non-oversampling DAC certainly doesn't have a
 buffer, and there are many current cd players based on the same circuit
 topology.
The buffer isn't in the DAC, it's in the transport. *All* CD players
and transports, since day one, have such a buffer. It's as essential to
the correct operation of a CD transport as the laser itself.


-- 
cliveb

cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


...oh no it isn't

so Chord etc are selling snake oil are they?


-- 
Phil Leigh

Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


Phil Leigh Wrote: 
 Yeah well my experience is very different in that case. I have (retail)
 CD's that produce 1,000's of errors. I have CD's that are so sha*ged
 that EAC won't rip them...and they sound like sh*t on ANY cdp...I mean
 audible distortion of a foul nature - unlistenable.
The first time I mentioned the error-free nature of reading CDs, I did
specify non-faulty ones. I fully agree that faulty CDs (ie. ones
manufactured outside the redbook spec, and ones that have been damaged)
can produce horrendous rates of uncorrectable errors. It sounds like
you're very unlucky in the number of such CDs you possess.


-- 
cliveb

cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


Well, that would be nice. I've actually got 8 retail CD's (out of 3000)
that have died... but this isn't a quantum process. In other words
they don't magically go from perfect to rubbish overnight...they
deteriorate slowly.

Please don't equate how CD-Rom drives work with how CDP's work. Unless
you can actually see what errors are being incurred during the CD read
process this is all a bit pointless. Obviously some people think there
are NO errors - sadly I beg to differ.


-- 
Phil Leigh

Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-23 Thread Triode


cliveb Wrote: 
 The buffer isn't in the DAC, it's in the transport. *All* CD players and
 transports, since day one, have such a buffer. It's as essential to the
 correct operation of a CD transport as the laser itself.

Agreed - the datasheet for the sony cxd2500 in my transport [very
common chip a few years ago] includes:
Wide-frame jitter margin built-in 32K RAM.  

This is needed to buffer the datastream from variations in rate of
reading the disc and allow a cheap motor + servo to manage its speed.


-- 
Triode

Triode's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-23 Thread mauidan


Phil Leigh Wrote: 
 
 If this wasn't true, there would be no audible difference between any
 CD transport. I don't believe that all transports are equal, and I also
 believe that the EAC (or whatever)+hard disk+SB approach is empirically
 better in this respect than any spinning disk transport which will NOT
 repeatedly re-read sectors until it gets an error free read.
 
 YMMV

HD+SB maybe empirically better, but on the issue of sound
quality, JA has already said the Ayre CDP sounds better than the SB
with both connected to the same ML DAC:

Perhaps there was an increased sense of authority to the sound of the
CD on the Ayre used as a transport, a better sense of extended low
frequencies.

In fairness to the SB, he had the Ayre connected with coax and
the SB with Toslink. Hopefully during his testing, he'll try more
combinations.


-- 
mauidan

mauidan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1679
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-23 Thread Skunk


Triode Wrote: 
 
 Now SB2/3 is a one box system so it gets excellent quality for level of
 the components used by using a low jitter crystal oscillator and
 connecting this direct to the dac chip without the need for an spdif
 link.  When an external dac is used, as spdif has to be used the
 questions over how the clock is recovered in the dac and used to clock
 the D/A conversion all apply...

This is the general idea I had in mind when saying I thought the SB was
pretty close to ideal. Sorry that I oversimplified and whatnot, but I'm
glad you posted to correct me, and fully explain some things.

I've linked to Seans post, which obviously went completely over my
head- as it's utterly lucid, Sorry again to have paraphrased it
wrongly. Your explanation along with re-reading his made a lot of
things fall in place mentally. Thanks.
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=90330postcount=13


-- 
Skunk

Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


mauidan Wrote: 
 HD+SB maybe empirically better, but on the issue of sound
 quality, JA has already said the Ayre CDP sounds better than the SB
 with both connected to the same ML DAC:
 
 Perhaps there was an increased sense of authority to the sound of the
 CD on the Ayre used as a transport, a better sense of extended low
 frequencies.
 
 In fairness to the SB, he had the Ayre connected with coax and
 the SB with Toslink. Hopefully during his testing, he'll try more
 combinations.

I think all that we can take from JA's opinion is that the SB3 and Ayre
are not significantly different, and considering the huge price
difference, that's saying something. Whether the Ayre actually sounds
better at all is clearly a matter of subjective opinion, and would
depend on the listener, room setup, etc.


-- 
ezkcdude

SB3-Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC-MIT Terminator 2
interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound
Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton
Titanic 10 subwoofer

He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo.

ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-23 Thread mauidan


ezkcdude Wrote: 
 I think all that we can take from JA's opinion is that the SB3 and Ayre
 are not significantly different, and considering the huge price
 difference, that's saying something. Whether the Ayre actually sounds
 better at all is clearly a matter of subjective opinion, and would
 depend on the listener, room setup, etc.

Having read JA's reviews for many years, I can take it that 
the Ayre C-5XE CDP, which has never been recommended as a transport,
performed better than the SB. If JA uses a hiend transport, IMO the
differences will be larger. 

IMO, there are a number transports and CDPs that cost much less
than $6K, including the Ayre CX-7e which sound better than the
SB.


-- 
mauidan

mauidan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1679
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-23 Thread highdudgeon


That's exactly right -- and notice his prominent use of the word
perhaps.  Perhaps.  

And...the Ayre costs $6k, or twenty Squeezeboxes.  And, with all due
respect to the writer, JA specifically disavows blind and double-blind
testing.  Forget about what kind of connection was used; the fact is,
it would be hard for a lot of people to look at the Ayre, then look at
the SB, and not come up with some ephemeral difference.

Besides, there is this, which, again, is hardly worth discussing: a DAC
that fully buffers and re-clocks the incoming signal pretty much renders
the transport, cable, etc., a neutral factor.


-- 
highdudgeon

highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-23 Thread joncourage


mauidan Wrote: 
 Having read JA's reviews for many years, I can take it that 
 the Ayre C-5XE CDP, which has never been recommended as a transport,
 performed better than the SB. If JA uses a hiend transport, IMO the
 differences will be larger. 
 
 IMO, there are a number transports and CDPs that cost much less
 than $6K, including the Ayre CX-7e which sound better than the
 SB.

Actually, it struck me that an analytic reading of the article would
conclude that JA emphasized the *lack* of a profound difference between
the two. I would characterize his statement relative to the (possible)
perception the Ayre outperformed the SB as equivocal; he trivialized
the differences, not underscored them.

Stating simplistically that he said the Ayre performed better is
focusing on a statement out of the context, and I believe underlying
thesis, of the whole review.


-- 
joncourage

joncourage's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2837
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-23 Thread davehg


PhilNYC Wrote: 
 I have a pretty high-end system and a pretty well-treated acoustic
 listening environmentTo my ears, there is no question that the
 reference gear outperforms the SB2.  I agree with John Atkinson that
 for casual listening, my SB2 as a transport sounds more than good
 enough...but for dedicated listening, I find my reference gear to be
 preferrable by a significant margin.  Is it 95%?  I think that is up to
 the individual listener...

Hmmm. I had what was considered a very good transport (Pioneer Elite
PDS-95), using a good digital cable (Acoustic Zen MC2) into a Class A
DAC (MF Tri-Vista). The SB3 stock was not 95%, rather more like 60%,
rising to 85% when feeding the Tri-Vista. The Bolder digital only
modified SB3 into the Tri-Vista was more like 110%, probably higher
with Bolder's latest platinum PS. 

My own experience was happily selling the transport and getting the
benefit of the ease of use of the SB3 without sacrificing any of the
high end sound. My buddy has an even better system (VAC PA90D into VAC
reference preamp powering Joseph Audio Pearls) and I will be bringing
the system to his house for extended listening session.


-- 
davehg

davehg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2269
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-23 Thread seanadams


highdudgeon Wrote: 
 
 Besides, there is this, which, again, is hardly worth discussing: a DAC
 that fully buffers and re-clocks the incoming signal pretty much renders
 the transport, cable, etc., a neutral factor.
 

On the contrary, i think this SHOULD be explored. I am surprised how
everyone says h the DAC-1 (for example) has ASRC therefore  taking
source jitter out of the equation, without asking what audible effects
the reclocking/resampling (a relatively complex DSP function) has on
the sound. 

I'm not trying to bash the DAC-1 - as a matter of fact i have tested it
and found it well designed and exhibiting a very low noise floor and low
distortion throughout the analog section. But I'm not comfortable
ignoring other potentially audible effects of ASRC to get the improved
specs that it yields for such narrow tests as THD+N, jitter immunity
etc.

This question should probably be redirected to Benchmark, or they may
have already answered it somewhere - i just hope this is taken as just
a bit of healthy skepticism to consider.


-- 
seanadams

seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-23 Thread snarlydwarf


highdudgeon Wrote: 
 
 It would be really, really nice and interesting if one of the stereo
 mags would routinely conduct and publish blind tests.

Double-blind preferably.  Testers leak information and people are
amazingly clever at picking up slight hints and have a very deep need
to please examiners.  Psychology is fascinating stuff.

Of course, my bet is that a lot of the reason that real blind tests
aren't done is because their advertisers would have a fit.

And, yes, I'm a cynic. :)


-- 
snarlydwarf

snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-23 Thread highdudgeon


seanadams Wrote: 
 
 I'm not trying to bash the DAC-1 - as a matter of fact i have tested it
 and found it well designed and exhibiting a very low noise floor and low
 distortion throughout the analog section. But I'm not comfortable
 ignoring other potentially audible effects of ASRC to get the improved
 specs that it yields for such narrow tests as THD+N, jitter immunity
 etc.
 

Sean, I was thinking more along the lines of the Lavry DACs (the Blue,
the DA10, etc.).  Check out the papers on the Lavry site and perhaps
get in touch with Robert Greene, the UCLA math prof and Absolute Sound
reviewer, about this; he can go into far deeper detail.  His web site
is www.regonaudio.com

But, believe me -- and it is nice to hear from you -- I find that, for
most of my listening, the SB is one of the most satisfying components I
have ever purchased.  The sheer cost and value of the unit and its
performance, in stock configuration, is unprecedented in the audiophile
world.  

One poster wrote that the correct interpretation of JA's review is that
the differences between the SB and other very high-end transports is
tantamount to trivial.  Some people get bent out of shape about
trivial; others learn to be happy.  I'm pretty happy!

Double blind-testing: absolutely.  To publish review after review,
writing about audio components as if writing about wine, talking about
how every new toy or mod is oh-so-much better, is just silly.  Sure,
write some reviews; then, conduct rigorous double-blind tests, under
conditions that would optimize listening, have input from psychologists
as to length of exposure, etc., and give us the results.  

Sean: maybe Slim Devices could conduct some such tests...?!


-- 
highdudgeon

highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


JJZolx Wrote: 
 Yes, I'm questioning the opinion.  Are you serious?  From some of your
 other posts, you seem to have good ears.  Is it your opinion that the
 $8 chip in a DAC accounts for so much of its characteristic sound that
 you may as well junk every DAC made more than a couple years ago?  I've
 never seen an even remotely similar opinion statement from an
 audiophile, so it raises an eyebrow.  Strike that - something remotely
 similar would be the CDPs of the early eighties were crap compared to
 those of today.  Big difference in the march of technology over two
 decades.  I find it preposterous that anyone would think the same of
 the progress made in only a several year period.
 
 That's the sort of thing you read from an engineer that dables in
 audio.  If the spec looks good on paper and on a scope, then it must
 sound better, right?

I haven't heard enough systems/done enough mods to say I have good
ears, but I know what I like; non-fatiguing sound. I'm getting that in
spades through the analog outs (after upgrading the PS). I've heard 20k
setups that made me want to run away and listen to my SB some more.

It's not the particular chip I'm in love with, or output stage/power
supply/caps/wiring/connectors/etc.etc, but the amount of jitter
arriving at the chip, and the simplicity of the system that can be
built around it. The engineer may not be an audiophile, but his
attention to jitter payed off, IMO. I'm _guessing_ a few well chosen
modifications would render the opinion in question somewhat more valid,
but at that level it would be like saying vanilla ice cream smokes
chocolate.

I only brought it up because it was pertinent to ezkcdude's guess, and
yes it was mostly tongue in cheek. It's true that I wouldn't be
qualified to guess, I wasn't even into hi fi two years ago. Am I
officially kicked out of the audiophile club?


-- 
Skunk

Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


JJZolx Wrote: 
  Big difference in the march of technology over two decades.  I find it
 preposterous that anyone would think the same of the progress made in
 only a several year period.

Pardon the double post, and correct me if I'm wrong, but this computer
audio thing we're doing is aeons closer to perfect sound forever than a
spinning disc of plastic read by a moving laser mechanism, and it's
taking place practically overnight.


-- 
Skunk

Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-22 Thread JJZolx


Skunk Wrote: 
 Pardon the double post, and correct me if I'm wrong, but this computer
 audio thing we're doing is aeons closer to perfect sound forever than a
 spinning disc of plastic read by a moving laser mechanism, and it's
 taking place practically overnight.
And what's the new technology that enabled this revolution?

There is none.  Instead, it's an economic one... inexpensive storage
space has been the real reason that this is a feasible alternative
today.


-- 
JJZolx

Jim

JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


JJZolx Wrote: 
 
 There is none.  Instead, it's an economic one... 

Not for audiophiles.


-- 
Skunk

Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


Well, yes and no.  There is no fundamental difference in terms of 1's
and 0's.  However, there is an enormous and fundamental difference in
terms of storage and usability.   It's a shame that Redbook never moved
beyond twenty year+ old technology and that we have the same data format
now as 'back then.'  However (and this is because my background is in
editing, UI design, and the like), sometimes usability is nearly on
par, or on par, with data content.  The fact is that this new
technology use is more flexible, it saves our butts (no more
scratched/destroyed CDs -- at least for those of us with young children
and pets), and it is extremely convenient.  We're saying more or less
the same thing...I just tend to view fundamental globally. 
Semantics.

Now, if they would make a SB that could stream DVD video data from
one's hard drive and throw it into the same package...


-- 
highdudgeon

highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


JJZolx Wrote: 
 And what's the new technology that enabled this revolution?
 
 There is none.  Instead, it's an economic one... inexpensive storage
 space has been the real reason that this is a feasible alternative
 today.

Could be I'm missing something, but I don't think this is accurate.

It appears to me that a variety of technologies, old and new, are
converging to offer the alternative of computer-storage-based music.

Software like EAC and AccurateRip help to ensure the quality of the
copy process.  

Network storage devices and USB hard drives make the increasingly
cheaper megabytes more useful in a centralized storage model, allowing
us to access a central music store from multiple devices more easily -
and economically - than before.

Wireless networks help to de-couple storage from players, and control
software becomes mobile.

It would also seem that the SB itself is an example of the type of new
technology driving this evolution. While the technology of the
individual parts may not be new, the way in which they've been
integrated certainly is.


-- 
joncourage

joncourage's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2837
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


mauidan Wrote: 
 Please tell us what best transport/DAC combos out there, you've heard
 that you base this guess on? Please be sure and tell us if these
 transport/DAC combos were link to a central clock, what type of digital
 connection/cable was used, were any of the components modified and
 finally, what system was used to evaluate their performance.

Is it really necessary to be smarmy and condescending?  If you don't
like the guy's post then reply to it in a professional and dignified
way; you'll be taken more seriously.

Sorry to be the freaking internet police but I find the tendency for
nastiness in anonymous internet forums a very discouraging sign of the
human condition.


-- 
joncourage

joncourage's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2837
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


Amen, brother.


-- 
highdudgeon

highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


JJZolx Wrote: 
  Is it your opinion that the $8 chip in a DAC accounts for so much of
 its characteristic sound that you may as well junk every DAC made more
 than a couple years ago?  I've never seen an even remotely similar
 opinion statement from an audiophile, so it raises an eyebrow...That's
 the sort of thing you read from an engineer that dables in audio.  If
 the spec looks good on paper and on a scope, then it must sound better,
 right?

Well, that's largely right, and especially in digital.  If the specs
are right -- low jitter, etc., etc. -- then it should work well.  This
is not like the world of tubes, where you have a bit of black art mixed
with the science (for the record, I have no stomach for tube stereo
amps, but I do have twenty or so tubed guitar amps and more tubes can I
would care to count on any given day).  

And, yes, I think the figure of around 95% is about on target.  It is
in my experience, and I have one of those proverbial revealing
systems and thirty-five years of music training to back up my opinion.
The fact is, and I seem to keep repeating this, the law of diminishing
returns is brutally applied in audio.  Witness yesterday's Stereophile
review: the SB, through a DAC, sounded so close to a $6k CD player,
through the same DAC, that the differences were irrelevant.  It would
be interesting, next, to see the SB with the $6k DAC against the SB with
a more bleeding edge $1k DAC...and then, in a blind test, with no DAC at
all.  I've done this (well, not with a $6k DAC, but with a $4k dac, a
$1k DAC, and no DAC) with friends and the conclusion was that the
differences were minimal...and, with certain recordings or genres,
irrelevant.  The most expensive CD player I've owned is the Audio Aero
Capitole.  I'm just as happy with the Squeezebox and friends who've
heard my system tend to be impressed and leave the door ordering
Squeezeboxes, too.  (Seriously.  A pal of mine is selling off a $4k EC
CDP and keeping a Squeezebox.)


-- 
highdudgeon

highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


P Floding Wrote: 
 That is just an implementation detail.
 We had 16/44 with CD, and we have 16/44 with CD ripped to HD. No
 fundamental difference.

Lack of moving parts is a fairly big implementation detail. 

In my very humble opinion the 'revolution' is getting an asynchronous
data receiver chip close to a DAC chip. Sure the convenience is great
for the masses, but I went to PC delivery to get the best sound
possible on my budget. I consider it a changing of the guard, being
able to get so much digital performance for so little money.


-- 
Skunk

Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


Well said.


-- 
highdudgeon

highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-22 Thread mauidan


joncourage Wrote: 
 Is it really necessary to be smarmy and condescending?  If you don't
 like the guy's post then reply to it in a professional and dignified
 way; you'll be taken more seriously.
 
 Sorry to be the freaking internet police but I find the tendency for
 nastiness in anonymous internet forums a very discouraging sign of the
 human condition.

I simply asked ezkcdude to qualify his statement:

I'm guessing that even using just the stock SB3 analog outputs gets
you at least 95% of the way towards the best transport/DAC combo out
there. 

I was interested in what experience he had with the best
transport/DAC combo out there, to arrived at his guess.

Please tell me how I could have ask this in a professional and
dignified way to get the detailed response I was looking for?


-- 
mauidan

mauidan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1679
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


Group hug.


-- 
dwc

dwc's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1892
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-22 Thread snarlydwarf


Skunk Wrote: 
 Lack of moving parts is a fairly big implementation detail. 
 

If you include moving my ass off the couch to change cds as a moving
part, I'll agree. :)


-- 
snarlydwarf

snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


Skunk Wrote: 
 Lack of moving parts is a fairly big implementation detail. 
 
 In my very humble opinion the 'revolution' is getting an asynchronous
 data receiver chip close to a DAC chip. Sure the convenience is great
 for the masses, but I went to PC delivery to get the best sound
 possible on my budget. I consider it a changing of the guard, being
 able to get so much digital performance for so little money.

Last time I checked hard disks had moving parts! ;-D

I agree that the transfer mode is the important change. Of course,
there is absolutely nothing that have stopped the industry from doing
this right all along, even with CD -they just haven't most of the
time.

P.S: Using the SB with an external DAC reintroduces the exact same old
problem.


-- 
P Floding

P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

mauidan Wrote:
I simply asked ezkcdude to qualify his statement:

I'm guessing that even using just the stock SB3 analog outputs gets
you at least 95% of the way towards the best transport/DAC combo out
there.

I was interested in what experience he had with the best
transport/DAC combo out there, to arrived at his guess.

Please tell me how I could have ask this in a professional and
dignified way to get the detailed response I was looking for?

Mauidan, you caught me! I have never listened listened to a $6000 CD
player in my system. I haven't even listened to $1000 players or DAC's.
That's what you wanted to hear me say, right? I'm not sure why that
makes YOU feel better, but I certainly couldn't care any less.

I completely stand by my original statement, which was obviously meant
to be SUBJECTIVE, and I think it's safe to say most of the other
posters here knew what I was getting at. Seriously, if there were any
problem with my statement, it was actually trying to put a real number
(95%) on my estimate. I don't know what 95% even means in terms of
audio quality. As I've said before, it obviously has nothing to do with
measurements, or none of us would be discussing it here. ALL these
criteria that you and every other audiophile use to describe music are
SUBJECTIVE. Repeat it with me, maudian, SUBJECTIVE.

My guess was just an assertion that even the best DAC out there most
likely doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of difference, at least, in
most real-world systems. Sure, you put together a $100,000, and maybe
there are noticeable differences. But, is that really the goal here?
Noticeable? The
ifisquintmyeyesandleanoverthismuchandtwistmyleftearicandefinitelyhearaslightpeakinthemidbassregion
audiophiles drive me nuts! And that's all I'm gonna say to you
maudidan. Take a chill pill, and learn to just enjoy the music!

--
ezkcdude

SB3-Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC-MIT Terminator 2
interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound
Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton
Titanic 10 subwoofer

He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo.

ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-22 Thread Miller, Jeffrey Scott


Quoting P Floding [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

Last time I checked hard disks had moving parts! ;-D


I'm guessing the wink means you realize the disk isn't part of the 
timing chain.


Of course, there is absolutely nothing that have stopped the industry 
from doing this right all along, even with CD -they just haven't 
most of the time.


I would think Moore's law played a large role in buffering and 
reclocking audio data, as Jim noted.


P.S: Using the SB with an external DAC reintroduces the exact same 
old problem.


Thus my infatuation with the internal DAC. If asynchronous transmission 
eliminates the catch 22 of having to seperate digital components for 
better isolation- while using less than ideal connections; an external 
DAC hanging off the SB seems rather Luddite in approach.


___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


For any of you in the NY/NJ area, I would be more than happy to have a
group of you visit me in Northern NJ for a listening/comparison
session.  I have a pretty high-end system and a pretty well-treated
acoustic listening environment.  Would be happy to do an A/B/C
comparison between my SB2 (unmodded, with Elpac linear power supply)
against my reference transports (Oracle CD1000, modified Sony S7700)
and my reference DACs (Dodson DA-218, Blue Circle BC501ob).  To my
ears, there is no question that the reference gear outperforms the SB2.
I agree with John Atkinson that for casual listening, my SB2 as a
transport sounds more than good enough...but for dedicated listening, I
find my reference gear to be preferrable by a significant margin.  Is it
95%?  I think that is up to the individual listener...


-- 
PhilNYC

Sonic Spirits Inc.
http://www.sonicspirits.com

PhilNYC's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=837
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


Phil,

Are you finding significant differences between different transports
when using the same DAC?  Again, and at least technically, if a DAC is
properly buffering and re-clocking the signal, the output will always
be the same, regardless the input.  Just curious.

That would be a fun comparison; wish I could pop in from the left
coast.


-- 
highdudgeon

highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


highdungeon, yes, I definitely hear differences between the
transports/SB2 using the same DAC.  And here's another kicker...someone
came over last week with a $600 digital cable (Virtual Dynamics), and
using that on my SB2 closed the gap signicantly against my reference
DAC using a different cable (Acoustic Zen MC^2).

As far as the buffering system in my Dodson DAC, it is considered to be
pretty state-of-the-art.  Ralph Dodson (the designer) has been a
government defense contractor for 30+ years designing digital guidance
systems and other military digital systems.  The DA-218 DAC has two
buffers (one before up/oversampling, one after) and re-clocks the
signal just prior to feeding it to the actual DAC chip.  And *still*
the transport makes a difference!  Go figure...

FWIW, I am a co-founder of a local audio club in the NY Metro area, and
I host 2-3 listening sessions and gear shootouts every year...and we
have done transport shootouts a few times (a lot of guys in our group
used to have the same Sony S7700 I have, but with different levels of
mods, so we've compared all the different effects of the mods).  Many
of them have sold that Sony and gone to the SB2/3, although just about
all of them have also spent a lot of money modding the SB2/3 to get it
to the level of the modded S7700...

If you're ever in the NYC area, give me a shout!


-- 
PhilNYC

Sonic Spirits Inc.
http://www.sonicspirits.com

PhilNYC's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=837
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


highdudgeon,

I agree with everything you said in the last two posts.  It is all a
very individual and personal thing to decide how much some of these
differences are worth.

Someone once asked me how close to a live event my system (retail
price near $45K) was able to deliver.  I told him about 50%, and his
jaw dropped.  He said wow, for that kind of money, and you can't even
get close to a live event?  Then he heard it and told me that he
thought it was pretty damn close to sounding like a live event.  So
everyone has their own measuring stick.

(FWIW, my opinion is that it is not the goal of a stereo system to
produce sound like a live event...my last trip to a blues club reminded
me that live events often sound horrible, with cheap PA systems and
terrible acoustics, and that there is no pinpoint imaging in live
events.  The goal of a stereo system is to re-produce the sound that a
recording engineer...and that most recordings strive to create a sound
that makes you perceive a space/soundstage and location of
performers/images that replaces the spacial cues that you would
normally have with your eyes).

I also believe that small differences (say 5%) can be the difference
between something that is totally fatiguing and something that is
totally enjoyable

And yeah...the phone and email on my website is the best way to reach
me...


-- 
PhilNYC

Sonic Spirits Inc.
http://www.sonicspirits.com

PhilNYC's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=837
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


Amen to all the above.

And, yeah, the 5% can be, well, just 5% or a 5% that really
counts...excellent point!


-- 
highdudgeon

highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


PhilNYC Wrote: 
 I also believe that small differences (say 5%) can be the difference
 between something that is totally fatiguing and something that is
 totally enjoyable

Phil, I agree about fatigue, but I think some of it is psychological,
and could be filed just as easily under the term audio restlessness.
After tweaking a system so much, you kind of get used to the tweaking
itself, and start to find more and finer faults with the system. I know
I'm guilty of this, as well. My brother and my best friend have both
accused me of being crazy for spending the amount of money I have
recently on my stereo.

Here's a thought experiment to illustrate my point. Imagine your
original system, let's call it X. Now, you and a non-audiophile friend
listen to X and form some positive impression. Your friend X goes out
of town for six months, but leaves you to work on improving the system
in the meanwhile. So, you go about making some upgrades, changing the
DAC, amp, whatever. Now, let's call the upgraded system Y. Six months
goes by, your friend comes back and listens to your system, and his
impression is Wow,  that's great! How much did that cost? Oh, $10,000.
Well, I guess it's worth it. Nice job, man. Indeed, you made some
significant improvements, and your friend was impressed, but a little
shocked by how much was spent ($10,000!). Well, your friend goes out of
town again for several months, and leaves you with system Y, but you are
still not satisfied (sound familiar?). There's still something bothering
you, maybe bass is a little too thumpy, highs a little to edgy...This
must be fixed, so you go about making some more tweaks. Upgrading to an
even better DAC, amp, changing unbalanced outputs to balanced, changing
cables, etc. Voila - System Z! Your friend comes back after several
months, and listens to system Z, and his reaction, Hmmm...Yeah, I
think it sounds a little better. Hard to say, really. How much did you
spend this time? $50,000 OMFG, that's insande, dude! You are the
man! Well, needless to say, he couldn't really hear that much of a
difference, but unlike you, he hadn't been living with the system all
that time. So, the point is, sure, there are differences to be heard,
but your fatigue may just be a natural pyschological tendency akin to
simple unease or restlessness. Some people work out a lot to deal with
that excess energy, some continually tweak their stereos. Does it make
a huge difference to an outside observer? Probably not, but to you it
does, and that's what really matters, I suppose. It's like when I was a
kid and my mom would ask me how I liked her new hair-do, and I'd reply,
Oh, I didn't know you did anything to it, but, now that you told me,
it's great! Now gimme some more of that ice cream, please...

I know this was truly too long a reply, but I wanted to get this rant
off my chest. Flame away if you must.


-- 
ezkcdude

SB3-Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC-MIT Terminator 2
interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound
Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton
Titanic 10 subwoofer

He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo.

ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


PhilNYC Wrote: 
 For any of you in the NY/NJ area, I would be more than happy to have a
 group of you visit me in Northern NJ for a listening/comparison
 session.  I have a pretty high-end system and a pretty well-treated
 acoustic listening environment.  Would be happy to do an A/B/C
 comparison between my SB2 (unmodded, with Elpac linear power supply)
 against my reference transports (Oracle CD1000, modified Sony S7700)
 and my reference DACs (Dodson DA-218, Blue Circle BC501ob).  To my
 ears, there is no question that the reference gear outperforms the SB2.
 I agree with John Atkinson that for casual listening, my SB2 as a
 transport sounds more than good enough...but for dedicated listening, I
 find my reference gear to be preferrable by a significant margin.  Is it
 95%?  I think that is up to the individual listener...

That's a bit dissapointing to hear.

What kinds of things would account for the SB sounding inferior to a
high-end transport/player even when a substantial part of the
electronics of the signal processing would seem to be going on in the
DAC?  I mean, is the output quality of the SB dramatically inferior (by
that I mean inferior enough that a marked difference is noted) to the
signal output by a transport/player, and what would account for that? 
Is it over-comable (eg through mods)?

I'd been hoping that somehow good interconnects and an outboard DAC
would be the great equalizer. Not to mention, whatever benefits acrue
from using a TCP/IP network to deliver the bits. (and I'm equally sure
that my understanding is probably very naive...)

So much theory goes back and forth, it's hard to separate the wheat
from the chaf. But when someone with high-end equipment and the benefit
of real A/B experience makes a clear, emphatic statement of comparison,
it strikes me as worth taking note.


-- 
joncourage

joncourage's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2837
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


Jon,

I'm not an engineer, but in speaking with engineers it seems to always
come down to jitter (both data and timing jitter).  And there are a lot
of things that can affect jitter...the actual transport mechanism, the
impedence matching between the output of the transport, the digital
cable, and the digital input on a DAC, etc.  What remains a mystery to
me is (as highdudgeon points out) that if a DAC has a data buffer and a
re-clocking mechanism, why would upstream jitter have an effect?  I
still don't have an answer for that.

FWIW, I mentioned in another thread that the difference between my SB2
and my reference transport was very minor in sound quality before I had
had a chance to really properly treat the acoustics in my room, and that
I only noticed a significant difference when I finally got the room
treatments right.  So the ability to hear the differences are affected
by a lot of other variables.


-- 
PhilNYC

Sonic Spirits Inc.
http://www.sonicspirits.com

PhilNYC's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=837
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


Phil, thanks for your rather sane response. I just want to agree with
your point about appreciating the music more. I think this is true, and
a similar thing happened to me when I started becoming more serious
about (amateur) photography. I can't ever really go back to just taking
snapshots, even though 99% of folks are happy with that level of
artistry. And for me, I'm not sure I'll ever go digital, as long as
my trusty Nikon F4 has something to say about it (but this is a
discussion better left for photo.net, not here).

Anyway, I do have an idea about the DAC/jitter/re-clocking thing. I
agree that, theoretically, the transport shouldn't matter, if we assume
data is data, bits are bits, and so on. The only guess (not that word
again!) I have on the subject is that the components can actually
interefere with each other and cause different amounts of jitter? For
example, maybe the SB3 produces more RFI in the external DAC than your
reference transport? Maybe, if you moved the SB3 and transport farther
away from the DAC, you may hear a difference? This is way out of my
league, but it's the only thing I can think of to explain the
difference.


-- 
ezkcdude

SB3-Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC-MIT Terminator 2
interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound
Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton
Titanic 10 subwoofer

He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo.

ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


PhilNYC Wrote: 
 FWIW, I mentioned in another thread that the difference between my SB2
 and my reference transport was very minor in sound quality before I had
 had a chance to really properly treat the acoustics in my room, and that
 I only noticed a significant difference when I finally got the room
 treatments right.  So the ability to hear the differences are affected
 by a lot of other variables.

Maybe that's a result of eliminating problems that would otherwise
obscure the peak quality of the reference transport-based system,
thereby revealing more of the potential of that system, with the SB
unable to benefit further.  At least, that's all I can logically think
of, although I imagine there could be other variables at work.

Honestly, however it pans out I can't see myself ditching the SB in
preference to any sort of CD/SACD/DVD playback system for the sake of
audio quality (gasp, I'm hereby preempted membership in any audiophile
club I suspect), since the SB has just made the overall experience of
listening to music so much better for me.

I have a similar argument for not buying tube equipment.


-- 
joncourage

joncourage's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2837
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-22 Thread opaqueice


PhilNYC Wrote: 
 What remains a mystery to me is (as highdudgeon points out) that if a
 DAC has a data buffer and a re-clocking mechanism, why would upstream
 jitter have an effect?  I still don't have an answer for that.
 

I don't know the answer either, but here's a shot at it.  

Think for a moment about the buffer.  It's not infinitely large - it
has a limited capacity to hold data.  If you recall that one CD is
around 700 megabytes of data, you'll see that the buffer can probably
hold at most a few minutes of audio data, and more likely less.

OK, so what?  Well, recall that there are two clocks involved here -
the one on the transport sending the digital data into the DAC, and the
one inside the DAC outputting data from the buffer to the DAC chip
itself.  Those two clocks are not running at the same rate (no two
clocks will run at exactly the same rate - close, but not exactly).

Think of the buffer as a bucket into which you're pouring water, while
the water is draining out through a hole at the same time - but not at
quite the same rate you're pouring.  Eventually the buffer either fills
up (if the transport clock is faster - I think that's called buffer
overflow) or empties out (buffer underrun).  So then what is the DAC
supposed to do?

I can think of a few possibilities off the top of my head, but none of
them are without compromises.  Ultimately it might be ncessary to
switch back to the original transport clock when the buffer fills or
empties, thus re-introducing jitter.  So I'm not sure this
bufferring/reclocking story is really the silver bullet people make it
out to be.


-- 
opaqueice

opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


Actually, I imagine that an audiophile SB would be hugely profitable. 
We shouldn't forget that profit margins in the high-end world are just
that -- high-end.

Imagine packaging the SB with a high-endish DAC, beefed up hardware,
metal case and remote, option of balanced outputs  and AES/EBU for the
digital output, etc., and pricing somewhere between $1,000-$1,500. 
Then, compare that to what people are paying for custom power supplies,
various DAC and analog output mods, etc., on top of the price of a new
Squeezebox.

The killer product, I think, would be a Slim Devices receiver. 
Basically, the SB, as above, packaged with an Icepower/Tripath/Whatever
amp, and an extra analog input or two an a digital out for those who
must experiment, and an f/x loop for equalizer/processors.  Now, sell
*that* for $1,500-$2,500.  Small, cute, reasonably priced, high-end
performance, and all you need.

You know a high-end company, like, say, McIntosh, would charge two or
three times as much.  Hell, they already do, and you don't even get the
amp and you do get a cheesy menu that requires a television.


-- 
highdudgeon

highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


I could buy a really large box and put my SB, my DAC, my Sonic Impact
Super-T, and a Bolder PS in it and VOILA! pretend it's an audiophile
SB! :-)

Total cost - about $1300 or so.

Seriously tho, my feeling is that a stand-alone audiophile grade
(whatever that may be) SB would be preferable to a lot of people who'd
rather mix-and-match their own DAC/amp choice (or already-owned DAC,
etc).  Dunno, maybe offer both.  I think something along those lines
would be a great idea in any case.


-- 
joncourage

joncourage's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2837
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


Skunk Wrote: 
 Quoting P Floding P.Floding.2532ez1143051302 (AT) no-mx (DOT)
 forums.slimdevices.com:
  Last time I checked hard disks had moving parts! ;-D
 
 I'm guessing the wink means you realize the disk isn't part of the 
 timing chain.

I would have thought that in today's (one-box) CD-players the DAC's
clock dictates things, and data is read on demand off of the CD.
However, this is just an assumption.

Skunk Wrote: 
 
  Of course, there is absolutely nothing that have stopped the industry
 
  from doing this right all along, even with CD -they just haven't 
  most of the time.
 
 I would think Moore's law played a large role in buffering and 
 reclocking audio data, as Jim noted.

OK, let me rephrase: The last 15 years there has not been any technical
reason not to do things right.

Skunk Wrote: 
 
  P.S: Using the SB with an external DAC reintroduces the exact same 
  old problem.
 
 Thus my infatuation with the internal DAC. If asynchronous transmission
 
 eliminates the catch 22 of having to seperate digital components for 
 better isolation- while using less than ideal connections; an external
 
 DAC hanging off the SB seems rather Luddite in approach.

I run digital output into my TacT room correction and DAC. There are
many good reasons to keep source and processing separate, so a proper
standardized interface that allows the master clock to be right at the
DAC would have been nice.


-- 
P Floding

P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


Skunk Wrote: 
  If asynchronous transmission eliminates the catch 22 of having to
 seperate digital components for better isolation- while using less than
 ideal connections; an external DAC hanging off the SB seems rather
 Luddite in approach.

Rather luddite I must be then, as I still prefer the sound from my
external (non-os) dac compared to the SB's analog outputs.  It's just a
bit more articulate and less fatiguing.

While I see the possibility of potentially less jitter with the onboard
dac, I suggest to you that some folks may prefer the sound
charateristics of specific dac chip types, and more importantly they
may prefer the sound characteristics of their dac's analog section
(i.e. that section after the dac chip).

-Dan


-- 
dwc

dwc's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1892
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


The audiophile market is tiny. We all know that. And, by defintion
almost, an audiophile is someone who continually tweaks his system
searching for, but never really finding, that magical something that
will make him content. For those audiophiles, the one-box solution to
anything is just not ever going to cut it. How many Stereophile reviews
start out, Yeah, but this integrated amp is different from all the
previous crappy ones we reviewed... I think a one-box audiophile
SB3/receiver combo, although the wives would love it, wouldn't satisfy
more than a handful of people in the country, and they are probably the
ones reading this right now! I think the stock SB3 is great solution
right now for audiophiles and non-audiophiles alike, and the chances of
Slim Devices producing an audiophile-approved version (if that's even
possible) are, pardon the pun, slim to none. That said, I'm sure we
haven't even come close to hearing that idea for the last time.


-- 
ezkcdude

SB3-Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC-MIT Terminator 2
interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound
Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways + Dayton
Titanic 10 subwoofer

He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo.

ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


I agree with the above, and I also think that a large aspect of
audiophilia has to do with status.  Thus any enhanced product that
SlimDevices produces and labels audiophile is not going to be fancy
enough or expensive enough for some people.  A lot of audiophiles are
just driven to spend more dosh than the next guy.  You see the same
thing across many gadget hobbies - the guy with the lightest
expensive carbon bike, the guy with the hand-built custom tube guitar
amp and the '63 strat, the guy with the most expensive sports car or
motorcycle, the guy who buys the newest-latest golf driver every three
months, etc.  Those folks aren't really in their hobby to enjoy the
activity, but rather to have the coolest gear.  There are tons of
status-driven gear-heads out there, and they're not going to be
satisfied with something other people can also easily have.  At some
point, audiophile becomes more about financial status than sound
quality.


-- 
dwc

dwc's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1892
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


dwc Wrote: 
 I agree with the above, and I also think that a large aspect of
 audiophilia has to do with status.  Thus any enhanced product that
 SlimDevices produces and labels audiophile is not going to be fancy
 enough or expensive enough for some people.  A lot of audiophiles are
 just driven to spend more dosh than the next guy.  You see the same
 thing across many gadget hobbies - the guy with the lightest
 expensive carbon bike, the guy with the hand-built custom tube guitar
 amp and the '63 strat, the guy with the most expensive sports car or
 motorcycle, the guy who buys the newest-latest golf driver every three
 months, etc.  Those folks aren't really in their hobby to enjoy the
 activity, but rather to have the coolest gear.  There are tons of
 status-driven gear-heads out there, and they're not going to be
 satisfied with something other people can also easily have.  At some
 point, audiophile becomes more about financial status than sound
 quality.

Since you post this in the Audiophile section, I'll just treat it as
a flame bait.


-- 
P Floding

P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


P Floding Wrote: 
 Since you post this in the Audiophile section, I'll just treat it as a
 flame bait.

I think you misread.  A true audiophile seeks good sound, not the most
exclusive kit.


-- 
dwc

dwc's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1892
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-22 Thread mauidan

ezkcdude Wrote:
Mauidan, you caught me! I have never listened listened to a $6000 CD
player in my system. I haven't even listened to $1000 players or DAC's.
That's what you wanted to hear me say, right? I'm not sure why that
makes YOU feel better, but I certainly couldn't care any less.

I've never heard a $6K CDP in my system either.

Once again, I was only interested in what experience you'd had with the
best transport/DAC combos out there, to arrived at your guess.
Nothing more.

--
mauidan

mauidan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1679
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter

2006-03-22 Thread Yannzola


P Floding Wrote: 
 Since you post this in the Audiophile section, I'll just treat it as a
 flame bait.
I assume your joking, P?

I consider myself a budget audiophile, where the challenge and fun of
the hobby is getting the best value/sound for the buck. But there are
many diffrent flavors of audiophilia... including  the conspicious
audiophile Dan mentions, most commonly seen at the upper extreme of
the $ curve.


-- 
Yannzola

Yannzola's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=874
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter


dwc Wrote: 
 I think you misread.  A true audiophile seeks good sound, not the most
 exclusive kit.

Yes, a real audiophile couldn't care less if the equipment is cheap.
What you described is not really a an audiophile. I don't have a word
for it... Poser? Flaunter?


-- 
P Floding

P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: SB3 rave in Stereophile March eNewsletter