Or just buy a transporter, for heaven's sakes. Bybee filters...?
Please.
--
highdudgeon
SB3->Nuforce 9.02->Harbeth Monitor 30s/Skylan stands and Quad ESL-988s.
Simple and satisfying.
highdudgeon's Profile: http://forum
I tried this tweak and even my wife can tell the difference over the
telephone!!! And I'm not even married!!! :-).
--
andy_c
andy_c's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3128
View this thread: http://
You could always try the cheaper elpac psu + mods while its around. Why
not try listening to the stock sb2 first though, to see if you like it
as is?
--
davidcotton
davidcotton's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/mem
CFP Wrote:
> You're right. Perhaps one day science can tell us how computers work.
Science can explain how a computer works because it's relatively easy
to figure out. The problem comes when some scientists become arrogant,
probably as a result of fear or insecurity, and claim that something i
seanadams Wrote:
> Not really. It's like putting a grapefruit shooter on an Acura, or
> upgrading your plug wires, or all the other hundreds of ways you can
> pour money into it for little (or quite often negative) benefit.
>
> The system as a whole is designed from the start for some level of
I would set it at 63 and try a good quality EQ device or a software.
Hiroyuki
On Aug 20, 2006, at 10:10 AM, Deaf Cat wrote:
Would you believe I actually find the attenuation on 0 preferable to
63... Oh yes.
Yes, I do find things sound more real with the 63 att especially with
regards to voic
Skunk Wrote:
> Set it to 31.5?
That is absolutely hilarious! :D But who knows, it might actually
work! I must say that I have been following this thread and am quite
amazed that my simple "mute" suggestion (and I have to side with those
that have found a noticable improvement) has generated
PhilNYC Wrote:
> So now ezkcdude is a believer in this tweak... ;-)
Well, let's say it's a step in the right direction. At the very least,
it's nice to see someone actually characterizing what they hear, and
not just saying "it's better".
--
ezkcdude
SB3->Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC->M
Deaf Cat Wrote:
> Would you believe I actually find the attenuation on 0 preferable to
> 63... Oh yes.
>
So now ezkcdude is a believer in this tweak... ;-)
--
PhilNYC
Sonic Spirits Inc.
http://www.sonicspirits.com
Phil
Deaf Cat Wrote:
>
> What I want to know is how do I get the realness when on 63 and keep my
> forwardness/footappingness?
> Please, any one know ?? :)
Set it to 31.5?
--
Skunk
Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.
Would you believe I actually find the attenuation on 0 preferable to
63... Oh yes.
Yes, I do find things sound more real with the 63 att especially with
regards to voices which is rather good. However, things seem generally
quiter and more distant (even when turned up), but more Real:-D
I'v
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,
seanadams Wrote:
>
> ...
> The system as a whole is designed from the start for some level of
> price/performance, and it can't be greatly exceeded by swapping out a
> few parts. Sure, if you really know what you're doing you might be
> able to squeeze out a fraction of a dB here or there, but
blackbear Wrote:
> One could argue, though, that at 10 cents, ANY improvement would be
> cost-effective.
Not really. It's like putting a grapefruit shooter on an Acura, or
upgrading your plug wires, or all the other hundreds of ways you can
pour money into it for little (or quite often negativ
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
Phil Leigh Wrote:
> Computers are deterministic systems; for a given set of inputs a set of
> outputs can be accurately predicted...
I'm sitting here in front of a Microsoft-based computer, and I just
can't follow the logic of your statement :-)
--
cliveb
Performers -> dozens of mixers and ef
deadkenny Wrote:
> You may get jitter during the DAC stage but the very short distances
> signals have to travel would mean jitter is essentially zero.But what about
> the inherent jitter in the local clock? No clock is
perfect. It's not really about the distance, it's more about the way
you p
blackbear Wrote:
>
> The stock SB3 has less than 100pS jitter on the coax output. Have
> anyone seen measurements on any of the modded versions?
>
We did some J-test plots for the SB+ vs a stock SB3
http://www.at-view.co.uk/sb2_jitter.htm
Jitter isn't just a number so "xx"ps is not always very
CFP Wrote:
> You're right. Perhaps one day science can tell us how computers work.
Well that's kind of the whole issue in a nutshell. Computers are
deterministic systems; for a given set of inputs a set of outputs can
be accurately predicted, measured and confirmed as factual/correct.
An audio
What's up w/ electronics catching on fire lately?
Don't forget to add some Bybee filters while you're in there soldering!
--
Skunk
Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685
View this thread: ht
20 matches
Mail list logo
