[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
funkstar Wrote: > Where on earth did you dig that up from?? > > An MP3 will still produce a 16/44 waveform when decoded, ok, not a very > good one, but still. The post you quoted was speaking about lossless > audio (still 16/44 so you are ok there) using FLAC and pure WAV. If anyone is trying to prove a negative he or she should understand the limitations of this process. A proof as such is impossible. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
Phil Leigh Wrote: > > > Anyway, I fully appreciate what you are saying. However the fact > remains that the transport's jitter is measurable without any cable/dac > connected. Once we've established the low jitter of the SB we can turn > our attention to not compromising that low jitter through inadequate > cables and poorly performing DACS (including their SPDIF receivers).Well, not > quite. You see the 'transport' (as you are defining it), also includes the SPDIF transmitter - and you can't really measure the effects of the SPDIF trnasmitter in isolation, because they depend on the cable and the receiver. Because the tx/cable/rx is meant to act as a 75Ohm transmission line, any deficiency in one element will affect the signal. If all three are sub-optimal (which they always are), there will then be an interaction between them. Then to add to that, the design of the DAC's PLL can allow it to be affected to a greater or lesser degree by any SPDIF artifacts. Phil Leigh Wrote: > > The point is that whilst the deleterious impact of jitter only becomes > manifest during the D-A process, the jitter is a lurking presence (or > not) before it gets to the DAC. So, best we try and minimize it before > it gets there...once it's in the DAC it's going to affect the d-a > process in a way that is probably audible...and no amount of fancy > re-clocking, buffering etc will totally eliminate it. > Agreed. -- 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=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
Robin Bowes Wrote: > opaqueice wrote: > > Are you saying the same cable and DAC will induce a different types > of > > jitter in different transports? > > > > Put another way, suppose someone measures the jitter spectrum at the > > S/PDIF output of a CD player and an SB, and finds them to be the > same. > > Are you saying those two devices connected with identical cables to > > identical DACs could sound different? > > > Yes, that's exactly it. > > The digital signal is transmitted down an analogue cable so the > analogue > characteristics of the transmitter, cable, and receiver all affect the > transmission. > > R. I'm pretty skeptical of this, although I agree it's possible (as is almost anything!). If it is a significant effect, one implication is that it's impossible and/or useless to try to meaure jitter, since the analogue characteristics of the oscilloscope you use will affect the result (and differ from DAC plus cable). -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
Patrick Dixon Wrote: > I think you are being slightly simplistic. > > > Thus if you have an imperfect SPDIF transmitter and an imperfect SPDIF > receiver (which in practise they all are - especially given the poor > specification of the interface), you are always likely to find that > different combinations of transport, cable and DAC will perform > differently. > QUOTE] > > Heh - I've been accused of worse! > > Anyway, I fully appreciate what you are saying. However the fact > remains that the transport's jitter is measurable without any cable/dac > connected. Once we've established the low jitter of the SB we can turn > our attention to not compromising that low jitter through inadequate > cables and poorly performing DACS (including their SPDIF receivers). > > The point is that whilst the deleterious impact of jitter only becomes > manifest during the D-A process, the jitter is a lurking presence (or > not) before it gets to the DAC. So, best we try and minimize it before > it gets there...once it's in the DAC it's going to affect the d-a > process in a way that is probably audible...and no amount of fancy > re-clocking, buffering etc will totally eliminate it. > > Can I prove that? - yes. If it were not true, all transports/cables > into (say) a Chord DAC64 or similar would sound they same - which they > don't. So the jitter must still be having an effect on them. > > On the other hand, the reason that even super-dacs are transport > sensistive may not be jitter. It could be something else, like RF, > grounding issues etc etc. -- Phil Leigh Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
opaqueice wrote: > Are you saying the same cable and DAC will induce a different types of > jitter in different transports? > > Put another way, suppose someone measures the jitter spectrum at the > S/PDIF output of a CD player and an SB, and finds them to be the same. > Are you saying those two devices connected with identical cables to > identical DACs could sound different? Yes, that's exactly it. The digital signal is transmitted down an analogue cable so the analogue characteristics of the transmitter, cable, and receiver all affect the transmission. R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
Patrick Dixon Wrote: > > hus if you have an imperfect SPDIF transmitter and an imperfect SPDIF > reciever (which in practise they all are - especially given the poor > specification of the interface), you are always likely to find that > different combinations of transport, cable and DAC will perform > differently. > > So really what you should be trying to do is to measure jitter at a > 'reference' DAC with both an SB and CDP as sources. Then if you theory > holds true, if the jitter levels and the bits are identical, they should > sound the same. But change the DAC, and you are likely to change the > jitter measurements too ... Are you saying the same cable and DAC will induce a different types of jitter in different transports? Put another way, suppose someone measures the jitter spectrum at the S/PDIF output of a CD player and an SB, and finds them to be the same. Are you saying those two devices connected with identical cables to identical DACs could sound different? -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
Phil Leigh Wrote: > > It's my opinion that given the same bitstream and similar levels of > jitter, the transport is "out of the equation" as far as eventual > analogue sound quality is concerned. The focus then shifts to the > DAC+cable (the latter for jitter NOT "freq resp"). > I think you are being slightly simplistic. 'Jitter' is only relevant at the point where the conversion from digital to analogue is made. Jitter at this point is a combination of the fundamental clock jitter of the transport, and any jitter added through the SPDIF interface (driver/cable/receiver) and the receiver's phase locking and clock circuit. It's not really possible to seperate out the 'transport's' SPDIF tranmitter, the cable and the DAC's SPDIF receiver because they act as a system. Thus if you have an imperfect SPDIF transmitter and an imperfect SPDIF reciever (which in practise they all are - especially given the poor specification of the interface), you are always likely to find that different combinations of transport, cable and DAC will perform differently. So really what you should be trying to do is to measure jitter at a 'reference' DAC with both an SB and CDP as sources. Then if you theory holds true, if the jitter levels and the bits are identical, they should sound the same. But change the DAC, and you are likely to change the jitter measurements too ... -- 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=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
See other thread - I think we may be getting close to a (proper) jitter comparison between a high-end CDP and the SB. I am hoping that it transpires that the SB and CDP are similar in terms of jitter - in which case perhaps we can move on from discussing "bright sounding transports" etc... ...or maybe not... It's my opinion that given the same bitstream and similar levels of jitter, the transport is "out of the equation" as far as eventual analogue sound quality is concerned. The focus then shifts to the DAC+cable (the latter for jitter NOT "freq resp"). In a properly design system the two "tunable" elements should be the DAC and the speakers...just like in the days of vinyl when it was the Cartridge and the speakers...everything else should just do its job in as transparent a way as possible. You'd choose the DAC/Speakers according to the sound you preferred...more/less detail, wider/narrower soundstage etc. Oh and of course you'd use room correction to firstly flatten and then tilt the freq resp as you saw fit. -- Phil Leigh Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
P Floding Wrote: > That it is impossible to hear the difference between 128kbit mp3 and > 16/44? Where on earth did you dig that up from?? An MP3 will still produce a 16/44 waveform when decoded, ok, not a very good one, but still. The post you quoted was speaking about lossless audio (still 16/44 so you are ok there) using FLAC and pure WAV. -- funkstar funkstar's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2335 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
opaqueice Wrote: > Sean did some jitter measurements for a linear PSU versus a switcher. > Switcher actually did slightly better, although not significantly. > > I (and several others) did some listening tests for FLAC versus WAV > streaming. No difference, even for people that had thought they heard > one before they did it blind. > > There was a claim that the sound was better wired versus wireless. > When the guy did it blind, no difference. > > Long discussion about absolute phase (relevant to SB because early > firmware reversed it) - conclusion, no difference in music, or in > anything other than highly artificial asymmetric waveforms. > > Probably more I'm forgetting at the moment. > > Anyone else see a pattern here? Yes, I think I see a pattern. What else have you established as a "scientific fact" by testing on one system of unknown quality? That it is impossible to hear the difference between 128kbit mp3 and 16/44? Let's face it, many people claim that they cannot hear any difference. Probably a large majority, in fact. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
Phil Leigh Wrote: > OK I think we all agree that the bits will be the same regardless of > flac/wav etc...so could someone please do some comparative jitter > measurements and then we can put this "old chestnut" to bed? Sean did some jitter measurements for a linear PSU versus a switcher. Switcher actually did slightly better, although not significantly. I (and several others) did some listening tests for FLAC versus WAV streaming. No difference, even for people that had thought they heard one before they did it blind. There was a claim that the sound was better wired versus wireless. When the guy did it blind, no difference. Long discussion about absolute phase (relevant to SB because early firmware reversed it) - conclusion, no difference in music, or in anything other than highly artificial asymmetric waveforms. Probably more I'm forgetting at the moment. Anyone else see a pattern here? -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
OK I think we all agree that the bits will be the same regardless of flac/wav etc...so could someone please do some comparative jitter measurements and then we can put this "old chestnut" to bed? -- Phil Leigh Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
Triode Wrote: > People worried about the different processing being performed by the cpu > for flac vs wav may like to consider the impact of repeating bit > patterns in the digital stream. Surely it would all sound better if > the data being processed exibited no repeating patterns which could be > coupled into the power rails Triode, I don't think people are worried. However, it is false to say the there -cannot- be any differences in FLAC and WAV reproduction. It may be unlikely -but that is not the same as saying that it is impossible. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
People worried about the different processing being performed by the cpu for flac vs wav may like to consider the impact of repeating bit patters in the digital stream. Surely it would all sound better if the data being processed exibited no repeating patterns which could be coupled into the power rails -- Triode Triode's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
Robin Bowes Wrote: > CardinalFang wrote: > > Robin Bowes Wrote: > >> 3. The very act of running the flac conversion routine on silicon > >> inside > >> the SB causes interference with other parts of the SB (EMF, change > in > >> current draw, voltage drops, etc.). > >> > > > > Would a quick check of the audio effect of varying current demand be > > achievable by listening with the display on and off? That must draw > > more current than any difference in instructions being executed or > > speed of update of the display. > > > It might do. Then again, it might not. > It's usually a feature of high-end gear to be able to turn off the display for sound quality reasons, so it might be worth a blind test. It is a genuine change in current demand, running a different code sequence isn't. Robin Bowes Wrote: > > > As far as I can see, decoding FLAC only requires a difference > sequence > > of code to be executed and code is code. The same digital data is > sent > > to the audio backend. > > But that code is not being executed when PCM data (as in PCM data > received over the network) is being sent to the DAC. > > I have no evidence that this phenomenon has any effect on the output, > or > that it even exists at all. In fact, I'm highly skeptical. I am merely > highlighting certain things that could *possibly* cause a difference > between natively-decoded flac and flac files decoded on the server. But at the end of the day, the code executed is uing the same instruction set, in fact I bet it's tough to tell the differnce from looking at a random code sequence whether FLAC decoding is going on (unless you wrote the code or are good at spotting codecs). Unless the processor has a sleep mode and shuts down when it has nothing to do, it'll still be executing a code sequence from a fixed instruction set all the time. Unless it is using anciliary features like a FP unit for FLAC and not for PCM, or changing clock speeds, it's actually doing the same thing at a processor level - running instuctions from a limited set of ADDs, MOVEs etc. It'd be a real audiophile mess if you had to choose which compiler or machine code to use for sound quality reasons! :-) What is far more likely in my mind is that FLAC decoding requires less/different network activity or updating the display less often cause fewer peaks of some sort and therefore there *could* be a difference in power consuption and behaviour there (especially in a weak WiFi area), but I think we're clutching at straws here. -- CardinalFang You're only young once, but you can be immature forever... CardinalFang's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=962 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
Ok everybody is discussing the lossless transfer and the Flac conversion, but what about the spdif transformation when the digital out is used. As I understand this is done by the processor in the sB2 and not using any standard chip. I compared the SB2 to two CDPs, in both cases the perceived sound is 'brighter', like highly pitched, mid and high frequencies are more prominent. Why? At the beginning that was bothering me, now I'm accustom and I also use a DEQ for room correction so it can compensate a bit. Chris -- krzys krzys's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2256 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
CardinalFang Wrote: > Would a quick check of the audio effect of varying current demand be > achievable by listening with the display on and off? That must draw > more current than any difference in instructions being executed or > speed of update of the display. > > As far as I can see, decoding FLAC only requires a difference sequence > of code to be executed and code is code. The same digital data is sent > to the audio backend. It is not just current being drawn that matters, but how it is being drawn. What noise is created and how it travels, and so on. Only measurements can really answer that question. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
CardinalFang wrote: > Robin Bowes Wrote: >> 3. The very act of running the flac conversion routine on silicon >> inside >> the SB causes interference with other parts of the SB (EMF, change in >> current draw, voltage drops, etc.). >> > > Would a quick check of the audio effect of varying current demand be > achievable by listening with the display on and off? That must draw > more current than any difference in instructions being executed or > speed of update of the display. It might do. Then again, it might not. > As far as I can see, decoding FLAC only requires a difference sequence > of code to be executed and code is code. The same digital data is sent > to the audio backend. But that code is not being executed when PCM data (as in PCM data received over the network) is being sent to the DAC. I have no evidence that this phenomenon has any effect on the output, or that it even exists at all. In fact, I'm highly skeptical. I am merely highlighting certain things that could *possibly* cause a difference between natively-decoded flac and flac files decoded on the server. R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
Robin Bowes Wrote: > > 3. The very act of running the flac conversion routine on silicon > inside > the SB causes interference with other parts of the SB (EMF, change in > current draw, voltage drops, etc.). > Would a quick check of the audio effect of varying current demand be achievable by listening with the display on and off? That must draw more current than any difference in instructions being executed or speed of update of the display. As far as I can see, decoding FLAC only requires a difference sequence of code to be executed and code is code. The same digital data is sent to the audio backend. -- CardinalFang You're only young once, but you can be immature forever... CardinalFang's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=962 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
Robin Bowes Wrote: > > 3. The very act of running the flac conversion routine on silicon > inside > the SB causes interference with other parts of the SB (EMF, change in > current draw, voltage drops, etc.). > > R. I don't believe 2 would be likely, as SD tells us they have verified the bit-correctness of the on-board FLAC decoder. Also, jitter due to network transfer is not an issue, apart from activity in the SB affecting the power supply. No. 3 is more likely, as decoding FLAC should require a lot more processing power than just receiving WAV. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
As far as I can see (but NOT hear!) only your final point may actually have any bearing on the end result. However, I can't hear any difference between streaming flac or wav... -- Phil Leigh Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
Robin Bowes Wrote: > > > The only ways I can think of that could possibly cause any difference > are: > > 1. flac decoding routine in SB firmware is not correct - unlikely, and > I > seem to remember that it has been confirmed that the decoding is > accurate by recording SPDIF data from the digital out and comparing to > the original PCM data. > > 2. The decoded PCM data is fed to the DAC in a different way than PCM > data received directly from the network with possibly differing clock > stability and resulting difference in jitter. Again, unlikely. > > 3. The very act of running the flac conversion routine on silicon > inside > the SB causes interference with other parts of the SB (EMF, change in > current draw, voltage drops, etc.). > > R. Possibility 1 is out - many people have verified that the S/PDIF stream is bit-accurate. 2 and 3 are possible, in principle. Of course, they also allow for the possibility - just as likely - that streaming FLAC sounds better than streaming WAV. Everyone that has actually tried this blind has been unable to hear a difference... so why are we wasting our time discussing it? -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
P Floding wrote: > Yeah, well.. > Of course a lot of technical ignorants might listen for differences > that should be impossible. On the other hand, could you explain to me > how the FLAC gets converted to 16/44 inside the SB3 without -anything- > different going on compared to playing WAV? Well, of course something different "goes on" - the flac data has to be decoded to PCM by firmware routines within the SB. i.e. 1. When you playback a .wav file natively, it is streamed to the SB as PCM data, received by the network "module" and fed to the DAC. 2. When you playback a .flac file natively, it is streamed to the SB as flac data, received by the network module and fed to an implementation in firmware of the flac decoding routines. This produces PCM data which is fed to the DAC. 3. When you playback a .flac file with server-side conversion, it is converted to PCM data on the server and streamed to the SB as PCM data, received by the network "module" and fed to the DAC. Either way, the DAC is (or should be) receiving *exactly* the same bits (since flac is lossless). The only ways I can think of that could possibly cause any difference are: 1. flac decoding routine in SB firmware is not correct - unlikely, and I seem to remember that it has been confirmed that the decoding is accurate by recording SPDIF data from the digital out and comparing to the original PCM data. 2. The decoded PCM data is fed to the DAC in a different way than PCM data received directly from the network with possibly differing clock stability and resulting difference in jitter. Again, unlikely. 3. The very act of running the flac conversion routine on silicon inside the SB causes interference with other parts of the SB (EMF, change in current draw, voltage drops, etc.). R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
Phil Leigh Wrote:
> This month a letter enquired as to the best lossless codec for sound
> quality on an SB3...at least they got the answer right (ie it doesn't
> matter so long as the SS/SB supports it).
>
> Expect next months letter to be which Ethernet cable sounds best, then
> which disk, PC/Mac etc etc
>
> Oh and by the way, I've decided to write/email to every magazine each
> time they suggest that a digital cable or transport can make audible
> differences in freq response ("better, deeper bass" for example) or
> anything that clearly isn't jitter-related. Call it a crusade...
Yeah, well..
Of course a lot of technical ignorants might listen for differences
that should be impossible. On the other hand, could you explain to me
how the FLAC gets converted to 16/44 inside the SB3 without -anything-
different going on compared to playing WAV?
--
P Floding
P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
Be simple: try Leffe Blonde - just a couple of bottles applied on your CDs improves music transparency for 76%. -- 325xi 325xi's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5661 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
Phil Leigh Wrote: > > ...but I have God (and physics) on my side... Do you use holy water to clean your CDs? -- mauidan mauidan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1679 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
Patrick Dixon Wrote: > Quantity over quality is clearly your thing then. > > I'd have said the one with the -best- music on it myself ;-) Look you KNOW what I meant! -- Phil Leigh Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
Phil Leigh Wrote:
>
> Oh and by the way, I've decided to write/email to every magazine each
> time they suggest that a digital cable or transport can make audible
> differences in freq response ("better, deeper bass" for example) or
> anything that clearly isn't jitter-related. Call it a crusade...
Don't forget how the Crusades turned out!
--
opaqueice
opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
Phil Leigh Wrote: > The one with the most music on it! Quantity over quality is clearly your thing then. I'd have said the one with the -best- music on it myself ;-) -- 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=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
Recently there was a thread on AA about audiophile SATA cables... Oh well... So what HD is better for sound quality? : -- 325xi 325xi's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5661 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
Uh-oh...another incoming troll post! -- Phil Leigh Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: letter to Hi Fi News
You need to get those potatoes out of your ears phil! Jack. -- Lyonesse Lyonesse's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5496 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25138 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
