nelamvr6 Wrote:
> So what took you so long to answer? :D
>
> Well, that's a pretty good answer, and I gotta say it's not too common
> in my experience that the CEO of a company will be up late checking in
> on customers questions.
>
> Kudos!
>
> Listening to my (bone stock) SB3 right now. Tha
seanadams Wrote:
> It's been covered before, but basically we already get the data sheet
> specs of the KE grade by using the K, so it's unlikely to make a
> cost-effective improvement. It is quite likely that they are the same
> part - it's common practice to mark different grades or speeds of a
nelamvr6 Wrote:
> You know, that is a damn good question!
It's been covered before, but basically we already get the data sheet
specs of the KE grade by using the K, so it's unlikely to make a
cost-effective improvement. It is quite likely that they are the same
part - it's common practice to ma
On Aug 14, 2006, at 2:30 PM, pc4ever1 wrote:
Aside from the audio electronics specifications that have continually
been discussed in the other Transporter message I was wondering if
some
additional hardware/software information can be provided as it
pertains
to usability.
1) Can the "Tran
blackbear Wrote:
>
>
> One other thing that puzzles me:
> One of the common SB tweaks is to replace the stock D/A chip
> (Burr-Brown PCM1748) with the "KE" edition of the same chip which has
> slightly better specs. As far as I can tell from TI's website, the
> price difference between these tw
JohnnyLightOn Wrote:
> These "scientific sites" are often populated by people who either don't
> have great ears or don't have great systems. I've read on
> Hydrogenaudio a dozen times that good MP3s and CDs are
> indistinguishable, which is clearly not the case.
>
> I'm not saying I think FLAC
Argh! I've been burned by replaygain too.
Still, it should not have affected the i2s separately from the s/pdif.
The only way to do that should be by choosing fixed digital level.
Although if your settings were bolloxed...
--
seanadams
CFP Wrote:
> On any scientific site if someone contended WAV sounded better than FLAC
> on their computer due to the "processing differences" he/she'd be
> laughed out of the house.
These "scientific sites" are often populated by people who either don't
have great ears or don't have great system
CFP Wrote:
> Nice backpedal.
> Of course "situations cannot be fully equivalent" - but that's a
> meaningless statement it is tantamount to saying, "they are not the
> same because they are different." Wow, such a philosophical
> breakthough! Do I smell a Nobel Prize?
>
> Well duh, of course
P Floding Wrote:
> If you are going to be a sceptic, then at the very least learn to read
> carefully and apply logic. "no-one can claim the situations are fully
> equivalent" is all I said.
Nice backpedal.
Of course "situations cannot be fully equivalent" - but that's a
meaningless statement
Good to hear this John. You will be glad to know that following some
debate, 6.5 will default to replaygain turned off for new players - so
audiophiles should not get tripped over by this in future...
--
Triode
Triode's Pr
Sean, thank you for the tests, I had not intended this to get into an
adversarial issue, I'm just trying to find out whats going on here to
get the best sound.
I appologize if I have "cast aspersions" on you or your products that
has not been my intent.
In order to try and get to the bottom of
CFP Wrote:
> I thought it was because they were still trying to compensate for
> certain deficiencies of analog recording when it was unneeded for
> digital.
>
>
>
> So how is this different than any other piece of computer hardware?
> Minus of course, the dedicated "FLAC Machine" with gate l
Patrick Dixon Wrote:
> I can't speak for RW or Boulder, but
>
> a) Improving the basic clock stability of the SB3, and
>
> b) Optimising the SPDIF output circuitry, by better matching it to 75
> Ohms and equalising signal rise and fall times
>
> both reduce jitter at the external DAC and have
ezkcdude wrote:
> That's a terrible analogy. Sure, people will tell you it's sweeter. Will
> they universally tell you it's "better" and the other ones it's no
> different? So, what, everybody either loves sweet coffee or doesn't
> know the difference? You should think carefully before employing
>
The way I see it is you won't get jitter with a Flac or similar lossless
file delivered to the on-board DAC over Ethernet and TCP/IP protocols.
You may get jitter during the DAC stage but the very short distances
signals have to travel would mean jitter is essentially zero.
However if you hooked
I'm dubious about the need with the SB3 though.
>From what I understand it has linear filters inside anyway unlike the
SB2, and I'm sure I read in the manual that you shouldn't use a
different PSU as the one supplied is optimum for it anyway.
--
deadkenny
--
It has the advantage also of you having made a perfect (I hope) rip to a
lossless format that can be delivered perfectly to the DAC of the
Squeezebox. The downside of the CD player is that it's having to deal
with environmental conditions when playing the CD live (vibrations,
dirt, scratches, elec
bitmonkey Wrote:
> However, if the SB's internal DAC is really *THAT* good, I guess I'd be
> happy using it as an analogue source. Part of this is probably
> disbelief that a £200 component's DAC can really be better than the
> ring DAC in my not-so-old £1200 CD player, but if it's true then I
>
Hi everyone,
I'm going to get a squeezebox 2 and am debating which of the following
will be a better solution:
1. The Bolder cable analogue sonicap platinum and silver bybees mods +
PSU, directly feeding 2 Musical fidelity A3.2cr power amps (no
pre-amp).
2. The Bolder digital mods with a silver
ezkcdude Wrote:
> Yes, but in that case most people would also hear the change. We're
> talking about a tweak in which half of us don't hear anything, and half
> think it's the best thing since sliced bread.
Not necessarily. Small differences in volume are quite difficult to
judge by ear, but c
That's a terrible analogy. Sure, people will tell you it's sweeter. Will
they universally tell you it's "better" and the other ones it's no
different? So, what, everybody either loves sweet coffee or doesn't
know the difference? You should think carefully before employing
analogies.
What exactly
ezkcdude wrote:
> opaqueice Wrote:
>> One can imagine lots of possible effects which would sound good to
>> almost everyone - like making the volume slightly higher, for example.
>
> Yes, but in that case most people would also hear the change. We're
> talking about a tweak in which half of us do
P Floding Wrote:
> Actually, audio reproduction is not an exact science. There is no
> ultimate sound system on this planet that sounds perfect to all ears.
> Perhaps I overstated the case, but the fact remains that it is hard to
> believe that more jitter will sound better. Especially since we k
pfarrell Wrote:
> P Floding wrote:
> > ezkcdude Wrote:
> >
> >>Really? I didn't know this was a proven fact. My bad.
> >
>
> > Perhaps I overstated the case, but the fact remains that it is hard
> to
> > believe that more jitter will sound better.
>
> Just a little, perhaps.
>
> There are
opaqueice Wrote:
> One can imagine lots of possible effects which would sound good to
> almost everyone - like making the volume slightly higher, for example.
Yes, but in that case most people would also hear the change. We're
talking about a tweak in which half of us don't hear anything, and ha
ezkcdude Wrote:
> Then I don't believe the effect is real! We're not talking about an
> objective measurement with an indisputable value. I wouldn't have any
> argument if you told me the tweak lowered jitter, for example. How can
> I argue with that? With a subjective measurement alone, though,
P Floding wrote:
ezkcdude Wrote:
Really? I didn't know this was a proven fact. My bad.
Perhaps I overstated the case, but the fact remains that it is hard to
believe that more jitter will sound better.
Just a little, perhaps.
There are thresholds of inaudibility for any of a number of
ezkcdude Wrote:
> Really? I didn't know this was a proven fact. My bad.
Actually, audio reproduction is not an exact science. There is no
ultimate sound system on this planet that sounds perfect to all ears.
Perhaps I overstated the case, but the fact remains that it is hard to
believe that more
P Floding Wrote:
> Less jitter will always sound better if you have a good enough system to
> hear the difference.
Really? I didn't know this was a proven fact. My bad.
--
ezkcdude
SB3->Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC->MIT Terminator 2
interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-
ezkcdude Wrote:
> Then I don't believe the effect is real! We're not talking about an
> objective measurement with an indisputable value. I wouldn't have any
> argument if you told me the tweak lowered jitter, for example. How can
> I argue with that? With a subjective measurement alone, though,
PhilNYC Wrote:
> What if it doesn't?
Then I don't believe the effect is real! We're not talking about an
objective measurement with an indisputable value. I wouldn't have any
argument if you told me the tweak lowered jitter, for example. How can
I argue with that? With a subjective measurement a
ezkcdude Wrote:
> Well, I'm still waiting for the first person who says this "63" tweak
> (thank god it's not "69") sounds worse.
What if it doesn't?
--
PhilNYC
Sonic Spirits Inc.
http://www.sonicspirits.com
PhilNYC's P
PhilNYC Wrote:
> This isn't true. There are plenty of tweaks that I've tried that have
> made things sound worse in my system.
Well, I'm still waiting for the first person who says this "63" tweak
(thank god it's not "69") sounds worse.
--
ezkcdude
SB3->Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC->MI
andy_c Wrote:
> Actually, Kurt was quoting me in the referenced article, using quotation
> marks instead of the QUOTE tags.
>
> Certainly, this change can do no harm and costs nothing. However,
> claiming something makes a big difference in sound, and saying it does
> no harm are two different
35 matches
Mail list logo
