95bcwh;142702 Wrote:
> ...why are we still using tubes today?
Tonto had a really great answer to that one.
--
andy_c
andy_c's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3128
View this thread: http://forums.
joncourage;142709 Wrote:
>
> And, it'll make your wife's boobies look like they did when she was 19.
Who needs a wife when you've got X-Fi?
--
opaqueice
opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?user
95bcwh;142702 Wrote:
> A pointless thread, all begins with people thrashing things that they
> have never listened to, imposing their own egoistic viewpoint, their
> self-perceived sense of superiority and expect the rest of the world to
> follow.
>
just a for-instance now, upon reading the fo
Wow, two successive posts that agree with each other. A record for this
thread!
Thanks,
Steve.
--
SteveEast
SteveEast's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4193
View this thread: http://forums.slimdev
is it bybee enhanced? I can't wait to get one!
--
tomjtx
tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28260
__
SteveEast;142698 Wrote:
> Pat,
>
> Can you explain why, please?
>
> Steve.
Ahh, finally something I can speak up on :) DJ turntables have a few
important characteristics:
Must start/stop quickly
Must have widely variable speed control
Must have a heavy tonearm which resists skipping even und
tomjtx;142696 Wrote:
> what a fascinating thread. The only problem is the time it it takes away
> from listening to music.or
> practicing. :-)
A pointless thread, all begins with people thrashing things that they
have never listened to, imposing their own
SteveEast wrote:
Pat Farrell;142695 Wrote:
Probably the style was driven by the insane view that audiophiles want
"professional" equipment. While sound quality is important to sound
professionals, no "professional" turntable, either for modern DJs or
radio DJs from decades ago, has anything th
Nikhil;142687 Wrote:
> Transporter, shmansporter I think we're all going about this
> audiophile business in a wrong way.
>
> here is the solution to all our woes
>
> http://creative.com/products/product.asp?category=209&subcategory=668&product=15913
>
> Check out the awesome graph. Can
John;142656 Wrote:
> Are you guys saying the gapless playback is flawless based on what you
> hear or is there something quantitaive to back this up?
It's based on what my ears tell me, but as anyone around here will
probably confirm, I am a little obsessed with gapless playback. If
there was a
Pat Farrell;142695 Wrote:
>
>
> Probably the style was driven by the insane view that audiophiles want
> "professional" equipment. While sound quality is important to sound
> professionals, no "professional" turntable, either for modern DJs or
> radio DJs from decades ago, has anything that
what a fascinating thread. The only problem is the time it it takes away
from listening to music.or
practicing. :-)
--
tomjtx
tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.p
Only $80 AND it has a knob!
Steve.
--
SteveEast
SteveEast's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4193
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28260
___
JJZolx wrote:
They're 17" in size because that's a fairly accepted form factor and
will fit in most audio racks (shelf units, that is, not 19" equipment
racks). Few are exactly 17" in width and even fewer have any means of
actually being mounted in a 19" equipment rack.
And the folklore says t
Pat Farrell;142682 Wrote:
> This thread is pure speculation, and mostly silly. It is not gonna
> happen anytime soon for reasons given way up thread.
But it's fun. Remember this thread not so long ago:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=16376
I think someone listens...
> But tons
I would think that the design is coming to address all of the TaCT users
on this forum. My guess is something that would allow you to send the
digital-out signal to a digital processor like a TacT, then take the
digital-out from the processor back to the digital-in on the
Transporter, feeding the
Transporter, shmansporter I think we're all going about this
audiophile business in a wrong way.
here is the solution to all our woes
http://creative.com/products/product.asp?category=209&subcategory=668&product=15913
Check out the awesome graph. Can the transporter do that?
--
Nikhil
PhilNYC wrote:
Pat Farrell;142671 Wrote:
It can't be audiophile without balanced output.
I can't for the life of me understand why high end stuff still uses
unbalanced RCA jacks
There are plenty of high end components that don't have balanced
outputs. In fact, it makes no sense to have balan
rajacat;142681 Wrote:
> Why complain, you are not required to buy the mod? This is a
> capitalistic country and there will always be someone looking to make a
> honest buck or find a sucker.
"Honest buck"? I don't think so. And if you think that's OK, I
suggest you read The Jungle by Upton Sin
highdudgeon;142674 Wrote:
> Is it even worth saying that this was probably mapped out before the
> Transporter even shipped? Nifty order page, pictures, and all? Like,
> they had time to completely dissect and understand the unit, come up
> with packages (that, of course, cost nearly as much as
Pat Farrell;142671 Wrote:
> JJZolx wrote:[color=blue]
>
> It can't be audiophile without balanced output.
> I can't for the life of me understand why high end stuff still uses
> unbalanced RCA jacks
There are plenty of high end components that don't have balanced
outputs. In fact, it makes no
JJZolx wrote:
Pat Farrell;142671 Wrote:
It can't be audiophile without balanced output.
I can't for the life of me understand why high end stuff still uses
unbalanced RCA jacks
These are somewhat contradictory statements,
granted. More than a little contradictory.
I believe that balanced i
highdudgeon;142674 Wrote:
> Is it even worth saying that this was probably mapped out before the
> Transporter even shipped? Nifty order page, pictures, and all? Like,
> they had time to completely dissect and understand the unit, come up
> with packages (that, of course, cost nearly as much as
Why complain, you are not required to buy the mod? This is a
capitalistic country and there will always be someone looking to make a
honest buck or find a sucker.
--
rajacat
rajacat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com
Pat Farrell;142671 Wrote:
> It can't be audiophile without balanced output.
> I can't for the life of me understand why high end stuff still uses
> unbalanced RCA jacks
These are somewhat contradictory statements, but it doesn't matter to
me... if they include them then that's fine. But like I s
Okay, this came up in another thread -- and I confess even to have asked
the question -- but I don't recall, and can't find, the thread or
answer. Also, I'm not sure I was specific enough. Here goes:
My understanding is that, with new firmware, the Transport will be able
to accomodate an "f/x"
Is it even worth saying that this was probably mapped out before the
Transporter even shipped? Nifty order page, pictures, and all? Like,
they had time to completely dissect and understand the unit, come up
with packages (that, of course, cost nearly as much as the unit itself)
in high price ran
JJZolx wrote:
- a knob, but fewer buttons
I love the knob, but haven't used any of the buttons.
- similar DAC and output sections
- no digital input
- no balanced output
It can't be audiophile without balanced output.
I can't for the life of me understand why high end stuff still uses
unba
Well, here we go...
http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=SDTransporter&Category_Code=MODS&Product_Count=44
Interesting that in LESS THAN ONE WEEK, these gurus have already
out-engineered Sean et al!
--
sleepysurf
squeezebox2 (with elpac linear psu)
PhilNYC;142639 Wrote:
> The material cost of a DAC-less Transporter would absolutely cost less
> than a standard Transporter. Why wouldn't it? You can argue that it
> might increase SD's overhead to manage having to market a 3rd product
> in the their product lineup, but that would be a weak ar
There's something that often seems to get lost in these discussions of
"perfect" audio reproduction - namely what exactly is meant by that in
the first place. If the musicians came into your listening room and
performed, what you would hear would not be the same as what the sound
engineer in the
Greg - I found the other posting about issues with the sirius plugin. I
realized that since I updated to 6.5 I didn't kill the built in WMA.
That was my problem all along. Thank you for your support and I'm
happily listening to the 128k stream which is a dramatic improvement
over the horrid 32k
jhm731 wrote:
On another forum, there's a post by someone who ordered two
Transporters and had them shipped directly to his favorite
modifier.
I'm sure this modifier will take time to listen to the stock units,
take measurements and understand how the circuit works before making
any changes. I
seanadams;142647 Wrote:
> OK I'm with you there.
>
>
>
> Maybe that was a bit harsh. I didn't mean to diminish anyone's fun in
> doing whatever they please with their equipment, and to be clear, I was
> referring to ANY design, not specifically mine.
>
> The point is, if you have no idea how
I'm looking into upgrading my system, but don't know where to start...
Current system:
- Denon AVR-4800
- Mission 776 speakers, B&W center and surround speakers
- SB2
- Toshiba dvd player
Considering:
- Outlaw (990 or 970) + 7125? or 1070???
- Maybe new front speakers, like B&W 803s?
- SB3 or Tr
If you want to be sure, record the digital output at full volume and
compare the bits in a wav editor with the original wav files.
--
andyg
andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292
View this th
Are you guys saying the gapless playback is flawless based on what you
hear or is there something quantitaive to back this up?
--
John
John's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7790
View this thread:
seanadams;142647 Wrote:
> OK I'm with you there.
>
>
>
> Maybe that was a bit harsh. I didn't mean to diminish anyone's fun in
> doing whatever they please with their equipment, and to be clear, I was
> referring to ANY design, not specifically mine.
>
> The point is, if you have no idea how
P Floding;142644 Wrote:
> Seems I forgot to write the most important part: Measurements at the
> listening position.
OK I'm with you there.
>
> I'm not quite sure who you accuse of being a fool for soldering in your
> design? Sounds pretty weird to accuse anyone who have bought your stuff
> f
seanadams;142642 Wrote:
> It is a lot easier than you think. A decent FFT program and a quality
> PC sound card will give you nearly everything you need to test
> incremental improvements to audio circuits.
>
> If you have some clue how the circuit works, then you should know how
> to use those
P Floding;142640 Wrote:
> I agree, but most people do not have access to equipment to do this. Or
> the knowledge to use such equipment. There is even a lack of
> established methods to do this, apart from at the various electrical
> interfaces.
It is a lot easier than you think. A decent FFT p
I can confirm that orders are shipping in chronological order. We
received a large number of individual orders right when we announced.
Those orders are shipping first.
Thans for your patience.
Patrick
---
Patrick Cosson
V-P, Sales & Marketing
Slim Devices, Inc.
415-359-7407 cell
413-638-52
CardinalFang;142636 Wrote:
>
> The problem is trying to come up with new designs to correct the
> imperfections and my suggestion is that measuring what happens every
> time you make a change is pretty darn useful rather than relying on
> perception which varies depending on your mood or caffein
Pat Farrell;142635 Wrote:
> PhilNYC wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I posit that rich audiophiles don't care about the difference between a
>
> $2000 thing and a $2500 thing.
And I posit that not all audiophiles who spend money on expensive gear
are "rich".
> the $2000 price of a Transporter barely
joncourage;142618 Wrote:
> If the subjectivity in audio systems design results exclusively from
> economic choices, why hasn't someone invented the cost-no-object
> perfect audio reproduction system?
Probably because the weak spots in the reproduction chain are based on
deeply flawed designs, li
PhilNYC wrote:
Pat Farrell;142623 Wrote:
I am sure that there are better DAC's than the Benchmark, but the
people who want one, are not likely to care about the extra $$$ that a
Transporter "as is" costs, or would care about any theological
savings.
I think there is a misperception that ri
Warren;142484 Wrote:
> I wonder if this due to lower than anticipated orders or perhaps the
> delays in shipping?
The quote from Patrick says there has been a higher than anticipated
number of orders, sean has also said this in another thread, so i don't
think there is any need to speculate on th
Pat Farrell;142623 Wrote:
> PhilNYC wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I am sure that there are better DAC's than the Benchmark, but the
> people
> who want one, are not likely to care about the extra $$$ that a
> Transporter "as is" costs, or would care about any theological
> savings.
> [color=blue][col
joncourage wrote:
If the subjectivity in audio systems design results exclusively from
economic choices, why hasn't someone invented the cost-no-object
perfect audio reproduction system?
No one, not even Bill Gates or Warren Buffet has that much money.
Plus, you'd have to design the room acoust
PhilNYC wrote:
Pat Farrell;142596 Wrote:
I see no advantage of the Transporter's quality as an expensive SB3.
I use it instead of using me Benchmark DAC-1. My DAC-1 has been
unplugged since I got my Transporter last week.
For those of us with better DACs than a Benchmark, a transport-only
ver
If the subjectivity in audio systems design results exclusively from
economic choices, why hasn't someone invented the cost-no-object
perfect audio reproduction system?
I don't believe that we understand everything we will one day
understand about acoustical / audio science theory or
engineering/
I loved my t-amp until it went bang and melted, taking it's PSU and a
channel on my mixer with it :( I'm sure it was a freak occurance but I
haven't bought a replacement.
--
radish
radish's Profile: http://forums.slimdevi
I have just redesigned my website and was wondering if any of the
transporter owners on here would be willing to do a quick review I can
add?
The site is http://www.audiofi.co.uk/reviews/
I will of course credit the review to you
Thanks
Andrew
--
audiofi
http://www.audiofi.co.uk/reviews/
-
95bcwh;142589 Wrote:
> There will be a market, for people like me, who already owns an external
> DAC and therefore have no need for the DAC in the current version of the
> transporter.
Likewise. You will not part me from my Audionote DAC.
I'm priced-out of the Transporter at the 2k range, but
Personally I would love to see a box w/ built-in controls aka the
transporter but without the high price tag/audiophile components..
-m
--
diomark
diomark's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6772
Vie
I would be interested in Transporter chassis to fit in my SB2.
It would be one display only and the knob and the buttons would not
work. I still want one for the great looks
Cheers,
--
shvejk
shvejk's Profile: http:/
Pat Farrell;142596 Wrote:
> jbm0 wrote:[color=blue]
> I see no advantage of the Transporter's quality as an expensive SB3.
> I use it instead of using me Benchmark DAC-1. My DAC-1 has been
> unplugged since I got my Transporter last week.
> [color=blue]
For those of us with better DACs than a B
Me too also. I use a t-amp with some £30 Eltax minis connected to my
SB3 in my bedroom. Does the job very nicely.
Max
gharris999;142566 Wrote:
> I can confirm that. I've got one driven by an SB3 and it's connected to
> some outdoor speakers. Sounds just fine. Not sure how available these
>
jbm0 wrote:
Pat Farrell;142570 Wrote:
But I don't understand what you are asking for. The Transporter as a
unit is very cool. Without the DAC, it would be a lot like having two
SqueezeBox 3s, but lots more expensive.
And I don't quite understand how you could not understand what the
poster wa
There will be a market, for people like me, who already owns an external
DAC and therefore have no need for the DAC in the current version of the
transporter.
--
95bcwh
95bcwh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/membe
Pat Farrell;142570 Wrote:
> 95bcwh wrote:
> > Does anyone has any idea whether a scale-down version (WITHOUT the
> DAC)
> > of the transporter will be released one-day ?
>
> But I don't understand what you are asking for. The Transporter as a
> unit is very cool. Without the DAC, it would be a
rajacat;142485 Wrote:
> We shouldn't ignore history and how most breakthroughs were by people
> that were pushing the limits and ignoring contemporary biases. Raja
This is the hollywood version of how things get invented. The reality
is that invention almost always comes as small changes to exi
Pat Farrell;142570 Wrote:
> 95bcwh wrote:[color=blue]
>
> But I don't understand what you are asking for. The Transporter as a
> unit is very cool. Without the DAC, it would be a lot like having two
> SqueezeBox 3s, but lots more expensive.
>
> Removing $100 worth of parts from an electronic
95bcwh wrote:
Does anyone has any idea whether a scale-down version (WITHOUT the DAC)
of the transporter will be released one-day ?
SlimDevices does not comment on future products.
I don't work for them, I'm just a customer
But I don't understand what you are asking for. The Transporter as a
P Floding;142549 Wrote:
> The T-Amp will not draw much when not in use, I believe. It sounds good,
> and is cheap. Doesn't produce heat.
I can confirm that. I've got one driven by an SB3 and it's connected
to some outdoor speakers. Sounds just fine. Not sure how available
these are now, thoug
Does anyone has any idea whether a scale-down version (WITHOUT the DAC)
of the transporter will be released one-day ?
--
95bcwh
95bcwh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4358
View this thread: http:
flattop100;142543 Wrote:
> I suppose I'm posting this in the wrong forum if I want a cheap amp, but
> it's worth a shot. ;)
>
> Since I'm upgrading to a Transporter, I'd like to make my SB3 my alarm
> clock. As such, I'd like to find a nice little amp to connect it to.
> I'm thinking there's got
I suppose I'm posting this in the wrong forum if I want a cheap amp, but
it's worth a shot. ;)
Since I'm upgrading to a Transporter, I'd like to make my SB3 my alarm
clock. As such, I'd like to find a nice little amp to connect it to.
I'm thinking there's got to be something cheap (~$50) that has
CardinalFang;142524 Wrote:
> And then we'd have to modify all recording techniques so no compression
> or other studio trickery was used as well.
>
> We'll never get "real" because we're trying to faithfully reproduce a
> recording, not a live experience.
>
> I'm not saying that we can create
Well the person I spoke to at Progressive stated that they had not
received any Transporters yet.
It would therefore appear that SD are shipping those orders placed
direct ahead of those via overseas distributors, which is frustrating
because if I had of placed my order with SD direct my Transpor
Two of my friends just came over to listen to my setup today.
We compared the Transporter Analog out to DCC2 SE Preamp vs Transporter
AES out to DCC2 SE DAC + Clocked.
They both felt that the difference is so minute... and in some cases,
they like the Transporter slightly more relaxed sound then
P Floding;142522 Wrote:
> I actually think we are pretty far from "there", even if money is no
> object. Transducers aren't good enough.
>
> ok, if "money no object" inludes the end user's listening environment i
> suppose we can get pretty close. But to manage it in a typical home
> setting, i
CardinalFang;142516 Wrote:
> But we do have the means to do it, it would just be prohibitively
> expensive! Think of the measuring gear used in military listening
> devices or all manner of scientific measuring equipment in physics labs
> that require incredible fidelity. They cost billions to de
P Floding;142507 Wrote:
>
> We don't need mumbo-jumbo scientific "explanations" to explain the
> differences we hear, but we do need even scientific people to
> acknowledge that we are far from done when it comes to sound
> reproduction.
But we do have the means to do it, it would just be prohi
CardinalFang;142497 Wrote:
> So pick apart my argument. Argue reasonably, unemotionally and
> coherently on the fallacies in my statements.
>
> And please not the "all things haven't been invented yet" argument - it
> is specious and distracting from a resonable debate on what compromises
> audi
Robin Bowes;142444 Wrote:
> Fifer wrote:
> > It's a wee bit disappointing that SD seem not to be fulfilling orders
> on
> > a first-come, first served basis. :(
>
> Erm, they are. All orders direct to Slim Devices are being shipped in
> the order they were received.
>
> R.
That's not quite the
jhm731;142498 Wrote:
> Can anyone on this forum hear 5-10 db differences at a -130db noise
> floor?
Even if it were possible to hear, I'm not sure anyone has an amplifier
that could reproduce it. (I don't think I've seen an amp with
signal-to-noise ratio over 120 dB.)
--
TiredLegs
---
jeffluckett;142452 Wrote:
> This reminds me of when Bose sued Consumer Reports ...
As I recall, the court case came down to Consumer Reports having said
that the "sound wandered around the room", while Bose claimed they
should have said the "sound wandered along the wall". The case was
decided i
Nobody's got anything to say about the sound quality of their
Transporter? I know there are a few comments sprinkled about in other
threads, but it would be useful to consolidate owners' opinions on the
sound into one place. Why not here?
--
TiredLegs
---
Can anyone on this forum hear 5-10 db differences at a -130db noise
floor?
Has anyone compared the DAC-1 to the DAC section of the Transporter?
--
jhm731
jhm731's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7
rajacat;142490 Wrote:
> Spoken like a true engineer!
So pick apart my argument. Argue reasonably, unemotionally and
coherently on the fallacies in my statements.
And please not the "all things haven't been invented yet" argument - it
is specious and distracting from a resonable debate on what c
I'm guessing it's due to huge demand causing shipping delays, which in
turn may put people off from ordering. If they ramp up production they
need the demand to stay high and not fall off again in a few weeks.
--
radish
ra
CardinalFang;142489 Wrote:
> Nope, still don't agree. It's part science and part economics. It's a
> cost compromise and therefore you design a speaker or other component
> based on your own personal set of distortion preferences. You audition
> it at home to see if those compromises will work in
rajacat;142485 Wrote:
> Do you consider yourself an engineer or a scientist?
> If it can't be measured with state of the art equipment, does it exist?
> We shouldn't ignore history and how most breakthroughs were by people
> that were pushing the limits and ignoring contemporary biases. Who
> kno
jeffluckett;142481 Wrote:
> Well, really it is part art, and part science.
Nope, still don't agree. It's part science and part economics. It's a
cost compromise and therefore you design a speaker or other component
based on your own personal set of distortion preferences. You audition
it at home
Do you consider yourself an engineer or a scientist?
If it can't be measured with state of the art equipment, does it exist?
We shouldn't ignore history and how most breakthroughs were by people
that were pushing the limits and ignoring contemporary biases. Who
knows, there might be a new theory o
patrick;137263 Wrote:
> All,
>
> We expect to start shipping Transporter this week.
>
> Demand has been greater than anticipated and it will take us a few
> weeks to work through the backlog.
>
> If you place your order today, I would expect a 3 to 4 week delay in
> shipping. As promised, th
Hi,
Can the Transporter's balanced outputs be used to drive a
balanced-input headphone (Sennheiser HD650 with mod) without the need
for a balanced headphone amp?
Ken
--
slimjim
slimjim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevice
>
> Lastly, it's not an art. It's science and engineering. It isn't
> evolving, electronic theory is still as valid as when it was first
> understood. We may have different views on sub-atomic processes, but
> they do not have audible effects otherwise we'd all be running around
> screaming about
rajacat;142470 Wrote:
> Who tests the tester? Have all possible accoustical tests and electronic
> testing machines been invented? I doubt it. Science keeps evolving so
> "state of the art" is exactly that and the art is still evolving.
>
> Raja
If measurements are made in line with industry
Who tests the tester? Have all possible accoustical tests and electronic
testing machines been invented? I doubt it. Science keeps evolving so
"state of the art" is exactly that and the art is still evolving.
Raja
--
rajacat
---
adamslim;142455 Wrote:
> You make an important non-sequitur here.
>
I'd like you to point out the fallacy in my assertion if you can. Just
because consumer product companies make mistakes in choosing what to
measure or have limited imagination or budgets does not mean things
cannot be measured.
rajacat;142457 Wrote:
> I think that there is some subjectivity in how we see and hear the
> world. In other words, some speakers or cameras might appeal to one
> person but sound or look different to someone else. Eye tests will
> confirm that people see colors in different shades and intensitie
>
> That is bad science. You have to define the hypothesis first, then
> test, then confirm or disclaim it.
>
I wasn't putting that forth as an example of good science. My point is
that manufacturer's (or modder's) published numbers (if any exist) are
suspect at best unless you carefully study
Gotta throw in my 5 cents as well.
Forget woodoo and quantum physics.
The science involved in audio is not rocket science. (Although some
might say it is more complicated..)
However, engineers make oversights, such as forgetting totally about
timing issues in sampling systems (digital audio). Co
jeffluckett wrote:
This reminds me of when Bose sued Consumer Reports when they first
introduced thier reflecting speaker technology a while back.
CR had done thier testing in an anechoic chamber, and as a result
reviewed the speakers very poorly. (Now, say what you will about
Bose, I know th
CardinalFang;142449 Wrote:
> I love music, that's where the emotion is, not in the boxes that sit at
> the other end of the room. I don't want to measure the music, but I do
> want to know that my stereo is an accurate reproducer of that music and
> does not add to or subtract from it in any way.
CardinalFang;142449 Wrote:
> Deviation from accurate reproduction can be measured. Listening tests
> are really just confirmation of a design or a substitute for more
> careful measurements.
You make an important non-sequitur here. There are several factors to
consider:
- All audible differenc
CardinalFang;142449 Wrote:
> I love music, that's where the emotion is, not in the boxes that sit at
> the other end of the room. I don't want to measure the music, but I do
> want to know that my stereo is an accurate reproducer of that music and
> does not add to or subtract from it in any way.
adamslim;142400 Wrote:
>
> It's all about how you feel, you can't really analyse (measure) it :)
I love music, that's where the emotion is, not in the boxes that sit at
the other end of the room. I don't want to measure the music, but I do
want to know that my stereo is an accurate reproducer o
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
