MUCHO Wrote:
> My search on the net garnered the following information.
>
> Streamed music comes in at 128Kbps, in WMA format.
>
> Downloaded music is 160Kbps in WMA format.
>
> Anyone know if this is right?
That's right, downloaded files are 160k and stored in WMA DRM format.
These are not
opaqueice wrote:
Even if you round the numbers against it, calling it 12 years
and say that Moore's law is 2 year cycles, you should expect
2^6 = 64 times "better" in 12 years.
Moore's law's got nothing to do with it - we're talking about the same
old spdif over the same old cable, not transito
I think that's correct. 128K for streams, 160K for subscription
downloads and 192K for purchases.
I get 192K WMA downloads on Napster and they're comparable to the 128K
AAC downloads of iTunes. Some stuff (ironically frequently stuff that
really shows up bad rips) arrive in 128K WMA and it sound
khewa Wrote:
> actually it is not all digital. It would be all digital if you
> eliminated the Benchmark DAC1 and put in a Digital amp, like the Nuamp
> or Flying Mole
Hi Khewa,
To the best of my knowledge the Flying mole still needs an analog
input, the same as my Bel Canto and Nuforce Digital
pfarrell Wrote:
> P Floding wrote:
> > I believe the article talks about some, at the time, typical
> > implementation.
>
> And the time of discussion is clear from the byline:
> Jitter & the Digital Interface
> Rémy Fourré, October, 1993
>
> So while the article is interesting, it is ancient.
pfarrell Wrote:
>
> So while the article is interesting, it is ancient.
> Nearly 13 years is forever in digital signal processing times.
> Even if you round the numbers against it, calling it 12 years
> and say that Moore's law is 2 year cycles, you should expect
> 2^6 = 64 times "better" in 12
In case you guys are unaware, several guys use the program here;
http://www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/ for room correction in
combination with the Behringer.
I have yet to try it myself, as the last thing I want is another box in
the signal path. But all you really need is a mic or SPL meter an
P Floding wrote:
I believe the article talks about some, at the time, typical
implementation.
And the time of discussion is clear from the byline:
Jitter & the Digital Interface
Rémy Fourré, October, 1993
So while the article is interesting, it is ancient.
Nearly 13 years is forever in digital
P Floding Wrote:
> I believe the article talks about some, at the time, typical
> implementation. Other implementations may behave differently. It also
> describes problems, such as impedence mismatches, related to the coax
> interface.
I'm not sure how much things have changed - toslink is tosl
opaqueice Wrote:
> Toslink doesn't have enough bandwidth. Read the first paragraph of
> this:
>
> http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1093jitter/index2.html
>
> or before, if you want more detail on how bandwidth limitations affect
> jitter.
I believe the article talks about some, at the tim
mauidan Wrote:
>
> So, if you have already have a PC, SB and an amp all you need is a RCS.
> RCS 2.0 sell on audiogon for less than $1K or you can buy
> a factory refurbished unit for $1490.
Thanks for the detailed and useful info on their products. It's
something I've been considering, and I
P Floding Wrote:
> My guess is that Toslink gives more noise related jitter due to the
> conversion between optical to electrical, but that this jitter is less
> correlated to the signal than for the coax interface. But this is pure
> speculation based on my listening results. It would be nice if
325xi Wrote:
> I was always curious how comes that theoretically superior optical
> connection for some reason measures few times higher jitter then coax.
> I see few option here
> - it's all BS and Toslink doesn't register higher jitter
> - higher jitter caused by insufficient quality consumer l
P Floding Wrote:
> To get all potential benefits from Toslink you really must disconnect
> the coax cable. Otherwise it will provide a permanent path for
> electrical noise via the ground connector -which is exactly what the
> Toslink is good at avoiding! (I assume your DAC doesn't disconnect
> u
opaqueice Wrote:
> Remember - there's absolutely no guarantee that TacT is, in fact,
> better. I don't know this for sure, but probably the TacT does its
> equalization in the digital domain. If so, it is nothing more or less
> than a computer running some embedded software closely related to w
I was inspired by the recent digital room correction thread, but
realized that it was Windows only. So I started playing with brutefir
to achieve the same thing on Linux. I documented my progress so far on
the wiki:
http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?BrutefirFilter
/Mattias
__
khewa Wrote:
> regardless of how good the TacT is, bottom line is I can't afford the
> TacT ($10,000 for a DRC is not viable). So a sub $1000 PC solution will
> do, and I believe it can be a viable solution for that amount. Even if
> there are differences between the PC based solution and TacT, I
Mike Anderson Wrote:
> The Behringer DEQ2496 is pretty inexpensive. And it can do all the
> processing in the digital domain, in 1/3rd octave gradations. Why do I
> even need to involve my computer at this point?
>
> Anybody who's looking for an inexpensive, convenient solution should
> really
mauidan Wrote:
> Do you have any first hand experience with the TacT RCS or TCS?
regardless of how good the TacT is, bottom line is I can't afford the
TacT ($10,000 for a DRC is not viable). So a sub $1000 PC solution will
do, and I believe it can be a viable solution for that amount. Even if
th
19 matches
Mail list logo
