radish;143415 Wrote:
> The "free SB3" offer has been reinstated for direct orders. My guess is
> it's the SB3 that's shipped right away, not the Transporter. This is
> what the order page currently says:
> "Bonus Squeezebox Included! Transporter ships in 2 to 3 weeks,
> Squeezebox ships now."
Da
Oh noes! I forgot the most important part of the review: the
disclaimer!
*This test was completely unscientific, biased, and utterly subjective.
YMMV.*
--
flattop100
flattop100's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/mem
Fifer;143442 Wrote:
> Damn you Radish. You are far too logical -and- you have a Transporter
> ... ;)
Yeah well...you got all the good looks!
--
radish
radish's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=77
JJZolx;143478 Wrote:
> Does the scanner really operate like this - placing tracks into the
> database before it examines the files to a level sufficient for them to
> be played properly?
Obviously that's not what it's supposed to do. To be clear, this is
the wrong place to report a bug in the s
So where would one obtain some of the aforementioned magical RF Input
Shortener thingies? :-)
--
joncourage
joncourage's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2837
View this thread: http://forums.slimdev
seanadams;143472 Wrote:
> That's interesting. Probably indicates that it was playing some tag data
> as if it were audio, possibly because the scanner had not yet looked at
> those files to identify where the audio starts. Best thing to do is
> enter a report at bugs.slimdevices.com.
Does the sca
wotuzu17;143470 Wrote:
> I just want to report this effect I had not experienced before.
>
> I installed SlimServer_6.5_v2006-10-04 on my Suse10.1 system. It is the
> first installation of slimserver on that computer. I previously used
> Slimserver 6.3 on another computer.
>
> There was short (
I just want to report this effect I had not experienced before.
I installed SlimServer_6.5_v2006-10-04 on my Suse10.1 system. It is the
first installation of slimserver on that computer. I previously used
Slimserver 6.3 on another computer.
There was short (<.5s) but clearly noticeable noice at
P Floding;143289 Wrote:
> Thanks a bunch!
> I'll see if I can get them over here in the UK.
Try this one from partsexpress. It should be better, I think.
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=180-952
I have the sound professionals one and I think both are same because
max.spicer wrote:
> radish;143415 Wrote:
>> The "free SB3" offer has been reinstated for direct orders. My guess is
>> it's the SB3 that's shipped right away, not the Transporter. This is
>> what the order page currently says:
>>
>> "Bonus Squeezebox Included! Transporter ships in 2 to 3 weeks,
>>
Will Slim Devices be in attendance at RMAF later this month?
If not, does anyone know if any of the other exhibitors will be
featuring the Transporter as a source component?
--
JJZolx
Jim
JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.
flattop100;143154 Wrote:
>
> Wait, no, that's wrong. TP seems a little louder. Mids are clearer and
> more present. Mid-bass on down is much smoother, and there's more of
> it. And WOW is it a lot punchier - much more in the way of low-end
> dynamics."
>
If the Transporter actually IS a little
jhm731;143439 Wrote:
> The TacT RCS's digital inputs are isolated from the unit's ground plane
> by pulse transformers. The analog inputs are connected to the ground
> plane. My guess is connecting the SB's analog outputs to the TacT
> allows noise from the SB to be shunted
> to the RCS's filtere
Damn you Radish. You are far too logical -and- you have a Transporter
... ;)
--
Fifer
Fifer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=639
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27
The TacT RCS's digital inputs are isolated from the unit's ground plane
by pulse transformers. The analog inputs are connected to the ground
plane. My guess is connecting the SB's analog outputs to the TacT
allows noise from the SB to be shunted
to the RCS's filtered ground plane.
--
jhm731
---
radish;143415 Wrote:
> The "free SB3" offer has been reinstated for direct orders. My guess is
> it's the SB3 that's shipped right away, not the Transporter. This is
> what the order page currently says:
>
> "Bonus Squeezebox Included! Transporter ships in 2 to 3 weeks,
> Squeezebox ships now."
Patrick Dixon;143406 Wrote:
> I guess what you're saying then, is that some bunch of wackos with a
> totally non-standard approach, came up with something that Mercedes
> Benz (and their billions) hadn't even though of measuring ... and they
> changed the face of car design forever!
>
> Now I wo
Fifer;143413 Wrote:
> Patrick, how does this square with the statement that -all- orders are
> shipping in chronological order? Does this mean that the UK
> distributors have not yet placed orders? I placed my order in
> mid-August. I can't think of any other explanation.
The "free SB3" offer ha
ModelCitizen;143349 Wrote:
> *I ordered a Transporter directly from SlimDevices today* as a UK
> distributor told me that the UK distributors will not receive them till
> mid-october. I chose 2 day shipping. *Half an hour after the order was
> made I received an email stating that it had shipped.
CardinalFang;143373 Wrote:
> No, they measured everything they could within a given budget and to
> pass relevant legislation. The Elk test at the time was not a standard
> test and involved far more excessive sudden steering changes than
> government sponsored ones. Tests are often introduced af
adamslim;143290 Wrote:
>
> Although I think he's cheating. It would be much more impressive if he
> managed to explain the terms without reference to real music, surely?
Without music - what's the point of an expensive rig ? ;)
It's the music that's the "reference" - we want it to sound as go
jbm0;143339 Wrote:
> Plausible. I'd guess that if there's a potential difference (DC or AC
> or both) between the two components, and there'a only the one (S/PDIF
> coax) copper interconnect between the two, its ground will end up doing
> the job of equalizing that potential. Since in single-en
OMG, OMG, OMG!!!
I just cannot believe the sound emminating from my hifi now!
NOW, I believe CD is better than LP (but I have yet to test LP with the
changes).
I made lots of shorting RCAs and two 4.7 kOhm RCAs to put on the SB3
just in case the output also received RF.
After putting the short
Patrick Dixon;143334 Wrote:
>
> I guess they measured everything and just forgot about the elks ...
No, they measured everything they could within a given budget and to
pass relevant legislation. The Elk test at the time was not a standard
test and involved far more excessive sudden steering ch
I'd like to throw one thing into all of this - our -perceptions- are not
objective, nor all the same. Not all of our ears are identical. Not
everyone's eyesight is the same. Consequently, what might sound best to
one person doesn't to another, because these two people aren't hearing
something in i
If I remember correctly (it was 18 months ago) UPS (or whoever) phoned
me up and I paid it by c/c then they delivered it as normal.
All pretty painless.
--
mattybain
'[image:
http://imagegen.last.fm/recenttracks3/recenttracks/MattyBain.gif]'
(http://www.last.fm/user/MattyBain/?chartstyle=re
I ordered a Transporter directly from SlimDevices today as a UK
distributor told me that the UK distributors will not receive them till
mid-october. I chose 2 day shipping. Half an hour after the order was
made I received an email stating that it had shipped. Amazing!
I am a little perplexed as t
FWIW I have an SB2 connected to a Denon 2805. Personally I find the
sound much better if I use the analog output from the SB.
Note that if you are in "Direct" or "Pure Direct" mode and select
analog input then the Denon will pass analog all the way through
without going through a ADC-DAC conver
liffy99;143335 Wrote:
>
>
> So its just a bigger, better squeezebox ?
>
>
Yes
>
> As I only have digital inputs on my amplifier am I wasting money on the
> DAC in the Transporter ?
>
Well you certainly won't benefit from the Transporters DAC if you are
only using its digital outputs.
Howev
Patrick Dixon;143334 Wrote:
> Agreed, but your kids may not be comfortable in the back because the
> ride upsets them - and I don't think there's an objective way to
> measure ride.
Actually, there is. I wrote software for McLaren to do just that many
years ago. You record track data and replay
2006-10-05-13:25:56 liffy99:
> I'm assuming that;
> 1) Files are ripped to a PC
> 2) The Transporter becomes part of the stereo set up in a listening
> room and connects wirelessly to the PC
> 3) It can output, via digital or analogue connection, to the stereo
Yep.
> As I only have digital input
If you are using an external DAC, for audio materials ripped from DVDs,
the Squeezeboxes will output it as 48KHz while the Sonos ZP80 will
downconvert it to 44.1
And I thought the audio channels on DVDs (the generic Video variety,
not DVD-As) could be 16/20/24 bit.
Nikhil
--
Nikhil
--
P Floding;143102 Wrote:
> My initial guess is that running multiple ground paths alters the ground
> reference noise available at the SPDIF receiver and/or transmitter.
Plausible. I'd guess that if there's a potential difference (DC or AC
or both) between the two components, and there'a only th
Sounds very impressive but where does it sit exactly ?
I'm ass uming that;
1) Files are ripped to a PC
2) The Transporter becomes part of the stereo set up in a listening
room and connects wirelessly to the PC
3) It can output, via digital or analogue connection, to the stereo
So its just a bigg
CardinalFang;143314 Wrote:
>
> But cars are defined by a very precise set of measurements during
> development. Seat sizes, leg room, control layout are all defined by
> careful haptic and ergonomic design. Car manufacturers may not publish
> them, but they do use them.Agreed, but your kids may
Which one ? They both offer up to a 48Khz sample rate but the SB seems
to cater for 24 bit word lengths (does the Sonos only manage 16 ?). I
know both will handle standard CD format (16/44) but I'm thinking of
higher res. formats;
16/48 (found on normal music DVDs)
24/96 (or 192, only found on DV
CardinalFang;143314 Wrote:
> But at least they value measurements and are being pragmatic about
> things that are *hard* to measure. They don't resort to false theories
> and invent terminology to describe artifacts. The equipment is designed
> using measurements as well as viewing tests, it's ne
Patrick Dixon;143303 Wrote:
> That's not so say that standard electrical/electronic measurements
> weren't/aren't ever used - it's just that most engineers understand the
> limitations of the measurements, how to interpret them, and the
> variation that can result from slight differences in measu
CardinalFang;143213 Wrote:
> My point was that they at least agree that measurement is useful if you
> can do it, even if they feel that some tests are less useful than
> others. Does the TV/Broadcast review equipment and use measurements in
> that process or do they simply describe products in f
They need to include one of these babies with the modded xmod. These are
already audiophile compatible (runs off a 9V battery, no need for a
linear power supply). Also they don't mention it on the page, but these
are also compatible with SACDs, DVD-As, HD-DVDs and Blu-rays .. talk
about multi-form
joncourage;143260 Wrote:
> Wouldn't it be an interesting endeavor to try to compile and Audiophile
> Dictionary of Terms? (or maybe, just painful)
>
> Maybe the best we can do on these terms are approximations because
> they're subjective? Maybe it's just me who doesn't speak the language.
> Or
andy_c;143285 Wrote:
> Here's the link to the glass Toslink cables:
>
> http://uniqueproductsonline.com/gltodiopca.html
Thanks a bunch!
I'll see if I can get them over here in the UK.
--
P Floding
P Floding's Profile: h
Here's the link to the glass Toslink cables:
http://uniqueproductsonline.com/gltodiopca.html
--
andy_c
andy_c's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3128
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com
joncourage;143265 Wrote:
> Oh yeah, and welcome to the cult, uh, I meant "club" :-)
Cheers :) I'll give it a go this weekend when everything is setup and
feed back!
I think'll just sit and press the digital/analogue switch on the amp
without looking and see if I can hear any difference.
tyler_durden;143113 Wrote:
> I wonder if any of the modders have worked out the changes to improve it
> even more!?!
>
> TD
Yup, just send them your Xmod + $2500 and they'll send you a
Transporter.
Steve.
--
SteveEast
---
probedb;143252 Wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just got my Squeezebox today and not even been home to play yet.
>
> Anyways, which would you say would be the better connection for me,
> digital or analogue? My amp is a Denon AVR-2805 so has pretty decent
> DACs in it. Or am I not likely to notice a differ
joncourage;143260 Wrote:
> Wouldn't it be an interesting endeavor to try to compile and Audiophile
> Dictionary of Terms? (or maybe, just painful)
>
> We use them so often and with such variety that 1/2 the time I don't
> think we're on the same wavelength, just in the general vicinity.
>
> I'm
Right forum. Best to search this topic as there are many posts on the
subject.
I think you'll find the wisest answer to be - try both, let your ears
tell you which you prefer. If possible, have someone help you do blind
testing to make your determination.
By most accounts the DACs in the SB ar
Brings back great old memories...in 1977 my roommate had the Marantz
2275B and HD770s.
--
Pale Blue Ego
Pale Blue Ego's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=110
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevic
Wouldn't it be an interesting endeavor to try to compile and Audiophile
Dictionary of Terms? (or maybe, just painful)
We use them so often and with such variety that 1/2 the time I don't
think we're on the same wavelength, just in the general vicinity.
I'm not saying there aren't commonly accept
jampot;143249 Wrote:
> Could the 'vacant' analogue inputs on the Tact be picking up RF?
>
> plugging in the SB analogue cable connection would stop it.
>
> I don't presume to properly understand why, and hesitate to propose
> anything that may smell of snake oil, but RF shortners for unused RCA
By the way, that's where I got my forum avatar. I love it--I work in pro
audio, and I wish there was a 'loudness' button on the big stuff!
--
flattop100
flattop100's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid
Hi all,
Just got my Squeezebox today and not even been home to play yet.
Anyways, which would you say would be the better connection for me,
digital or analogue? My amp is a Denon AVR-2805 so has pretty decent
DACs in it. Or am I not likely to notice a difference?
Sorry if this is the wrong for
Your receiver is the cat's meow! Very nice.
--
FZfan
FZfan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3994
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28056
___
Could the 'vacant' analogue inputs on the Tact be picking up RF?
plugging in the SB analogue cable connection would stop it.
I don't presume to properly understand why, and hesitate to propose
anything that may smell of snake oil, but RF shortners for unused RCA
inputs are widely available for v
This thread had me worried for a minute. All my music is FLAC and plays
back gaplessly in Winamp and on my nano with Rockbox.
I'm glad it does on the Squeezebox too now as mine arrived today :)
--
probedb
probedb's Profil
highdudgeon;143225 Wrote:
> I'll grant you that. See my post on speakers. But, when it comes to
> electronic components, we can learn quite a lot from the specs and
> testing results and, at the very least, that should give us information
> for an initial winnowing out process. After all, you
Patrick Dixon;143207 Wrote:
> I'm backing it up with my 20+ years of experience in the industry. I
> think the onus is on you to prove that the TV/Broadcast industry never
> argues about the relevance and methods of measurement of TV equipment!
I also worked in the TV industry (although for not
I'll grant you that. See my post on speakers. But, when it comes to
electronic components, we can learn quite a lot from the specs and
testing results and, at the very least, that should give us information
for an initial winnowing out process. After all, you're not going to
listen to every co
highdudgeon;143217 Wrote:
> I am very interested in it. I am a customer.
>
> I'm not saying that small differences don't make a difference. They
> certainly can. Notice what I said about speakers: two speakers can
> "look" the same -- you can EQ them to flat -- but they will sound
> vastly di
I am very interested in it. I am a customer.
I'm not saying that small differences don't make a difference. They
certainly can. Notice what I said about speakers: two speakers can
"look" the same -- you can EQ them to flat -- but they will sound
vastly different. The thing is, there is a huge
Patrick Dixon;143207 Wrote:
> I'm backing it up with my 20+ years of experience in the industry. I
> think the onus is on you to prove that the TV/Broadcast industry never
> argues about the relevance and methods of measurement of TV equipment!
My point was that they at least agree that measure
andy_c;143107 Wrote:
> I don't have a TacT system, but your post reminded me of something I
> read over at Audio Circle. Dan Banquer was doing some EMI testing of
> his system that had an SB3 hooked up to his DAC with a coaxial
> connection. He used an AM radio to detect radiated EMI and got so
CardinalFang;143176 Wrote:
> I'm sorry, but you can't just throw in a comment like that which tries
> to make me look incorrect without backing it up, that's really lame!
I'm backing it up with my 20+ years of experience in the industry. I
think the onus is on you to prove that the TV/Broadcast
highdudgeon;143141 Wrote:
> The McIntosh MC-501 mono blocs are rated for snr of 124. I owned a set.
> They are very, very good. Really cool to watch, if anything.
I heard a full McIntosh system recently, with several vast monoblocs
driving their 8' speakers, and I couldn't wait to leave the ro
mkozlows;143115 Wrote:
> The speakers will completely overwhelm any other differences you might
> have. I say, find a pair of speakers you like, get them, and then find
> stuff that works well with those speakers.
I agree that the speakers have the most character, in most systems, but
still rei
CardinalFang;143197 Wrote:
> Final comment then I'm done - really!
>
> "no need to diss everything audiophile"
>
> That's a pretty wide ranging accusation to fire at me - is it any
> wonder that I'm being defensive and not wanting to continue?
OK, my apologies. I interpreted the jump on specif
P Floding;143194 Wrote:
> There is no need to go defensive just because I explain that
> transparency has a specific meaning in audiophile lingo, just as it has
> a slightly varying meanings in other specialised fields.
Final comment then I'm done - really!
"no need to diss everything audiophil
CardinalFang;143193 Wrote:
> Did I diss everything audiophile? I explained the correct usage of
> transparency as I understand from the world of physics, optics and
> other sciences, including audio. I commented on noise floors masking
> detail, someone else said that transparency meant the same
P Floding;143188 Wrote:
> No need to diss everything audiophile just because one doesn't agree
> with some of the BS directed at audiophiles.
Did I diss everything audiophile? I explained the correct usage of
transparency as I understand from the world of physics, optics and
other sciences. I co
tomsi42;143174 Wrote:
> The hearth is bricks w/rendering or concrete. I don't think they use
> skirting, so that is an option.
ok, let us know what they go for in the end!
My suggestion has the advantage of being cheap (DIY) and easily
reversible. (Glue skirting with glue that isn't too strong.)
CardinalFang;143175 Wrote:
> Transparency has a very specific meaning and it isn't about detail, it's
> about occlusion of electromagnetic and other waves. Your skin is
> transparent to X-rays, your bones aren't. The grill of your speaker may
> be transparent to audio frequencies, but not to ligh
Patrick Dixon;143162 Wrote:
> Funny you should say that, but as someone who spent over 20 years
> designing and manufacturing equipment for broadcast TV and CCTV, I can
> tell you you're wrong.
>
> And no, I'm not going to prove it!
I'm sorry, but you can't just throw in a comment like that whi
95bcwh;143041 Wrote:
> Have I said that adding noise increase details? I said, adding noise
> SACRIFICE transparency, that means masking the details. I don't see any
> disagreement here.
Transparency has a very specific meaning and it isn't about detail,
it's about occlusion of electromagnetic w
P Floding;143163 Wrote:
> What kind of hearth do they have?
> Perhaps they can run a cable around the hearth and hide it with a
> skirting for the hearth? (It would work for me if I used thin cables,
> like the ones used in the 1970's.)
The hearth is bricks w/rendering or concrete. I don't think
95bcwh;143041 Wrote:
>
> So, think again, is it fair to condemn the modders or the people who
> bought from the modders, with words like:" Oh, why do they use that
> crappy noisy capacitors", "oh, it's surely bad sounding", "Oh, they'd
> better put up some measurements to prove that their mod so
flattop100;143154 Wrote:
> I KNOW I don't have the gear to hear the subtler differences between SB3
> and Transporter, but here are my thoughts.
>
> First off, I have a 1978 Marantz 2285Be (European blackface edition)
> with a pair of Marantz HD880s (original components - lows need
> replacing).
highdudgeon;143136 Wrote:
> And then we'd see the wizard come out from behind the curtain.
>
> Seriously, I think a lot of people feel this way. The industry, as a
> whole, feels quite something else. (And I commend SD for publishing
> and discussing results, providing open-source software, et
SuperQ;143134 Wrote:
> I'd love to see audio electronics benchmarked like computer video cards
> are benchmarked. Scoped with a known set of instruments, and compared
> A/B with each other.
They are, and have been for a very long time!
The problem is that listening experience is not easily cor
SuperQ;143134 Wrote:
> I'd love to see audio electronics benchmarked like computer video cards
> are benchmarked. Scoped with a known set of instruments, and compared
> A/B with each other.
It would completely stifle innovation. Manufacturers who wanted to
stay in business would simply concentr
CardinalFang;143031 Wrote:
>
> If we were talking televisions, I don't suppose there would be too many
> arguments against checking measurable things like contrast ratios,
> colour balance or resolution.Funny you should say that, but as someone who
> spent over 20 years
designing and manufactur
What kind of hearth do they have?
Perhaps they can run a cable around the hearth and hide it with a
skirting for the hearth? (It would work for me if I used thin cables,
like the ones used in the 1970's.)
--
P Floding
P Fl
shvejk;143095 Wrote:
> Try Acoustic Research AW871
>
> Here is a review:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/30/technology/circuits/30stat.html?ex=1160107200&en=dbe13846b823b6de&ei=5070
I can see a use for these ones, but at 2x10W is a bit underpowered for
parties etc.
--
tomsi42
SB3, Rotel
83 matches
Mail list logo
