opaqueice;175497 Wrote:
> Which raises an interesting question - if the stock wallwart really
> sounds worse than the linear, why isn't there a difference in the noise
> floor for the SB when it's idle or playing a silent track? Doesn't it
> seem odd that the effect is audible during complex mu
Skunk;175591 Wrote:
> Well you did say 'high end'. Pat is right that true audiophiles spend
> outrageous sums on high end setups, but I think you'll find that most
> people around here are more scientifically minded when it comes to
> cables and tweaks. Audiophile, for that matter, is not the ter
Adam - yes I think EAC is well worth it.
--
Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32212
__
thomsens;175589 Wrote:
> Yours and pfarrel's overly strong statements reduce the effectiveness
> of your arguements, IMO.
Well you did say 'high end'. Pat is right that true audiophiles spend
outrageous sums on high end setups, but I think you'll find that most
people around here are more scien
jhm731;175588 Wrote:
> thomsens- You bypassed: "First and most important, there are loads of
> CDPs and DVDPs for well under $300. that sound better much than a
> SB3".
>
> You and opaqueice need to go down to your local Costco and pick up a
> $50. DVDP.
>
> IMO, the main barrier audiophiles h
thomsens wrote:
Either you aren't actually reading my posts, or you simply can't
understand where I'm coming from.
What an absurd statement.
Nice segue into personal insults
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists
thomsens- You bypassed: "First and most important, there are loads of
CDPs and DVDPs for well under $300. that sound better much than a
SB3".
You and opaqueice need to go down to your local Costco and pick up a
$50. DVDP.
IMO, the main barrier audiophiles have to the adoption of computer
based
Pat Farrell;175573 Wrote:
> thomsens wrote:
> > I guess you make a good point about budget assumptions. My budget
> > isn't so limited that I'm concerned about a transient issue of my
> > library being MP3 driving my system choice or that the transporter
> is
> > $2K. I'd rather set myself up f
opaqueice;175497 Wrote:
>
> Which brings me to music. So far, I don't hear any differences. I'll
> try again later when I have more time to listen.
As I predicted in your "part 1," I didn't think youd hear any
difference with this cheap linear PSU.
--
jhm731
--
jhm731;175575 Wrote:
> Next, everyone doesn't need or want access to "12,000 songs at their
> instant disposal," and yes, there is a difference in sound
> quality. How often do you listen to each of those 12K tracks each year?
Why wouldn't you? 100 songs and 12,000 are just as easy. I just don
Everyone I know with experience with computer-based audio says the same
thing - it's far, far more convenient, and once they have their
collection ripped, or access to online music streaming services, they
listen to much more music than before and discover all kinds of new
stuff. That's certainly
Eric, my amp has a passive volume control, and the whine scales with the
setting. I normally have it at maybe 40%, and at that level I can only
hear it with an ear very close to the tweeter. At 100% it's
considerably louder, although still only audible pretty close to the
tweeter.
This is as ex
thomsens;175516 Wrote:
> But what I don't understand is how they can look the other way on
> having 12,000 songs at their instant disposal as a trade-off to a
> nearly non-existent difference in quality.
>
> I guess it's a hobby and it's more about the pursuit of perfection than
> anything base
thomsens wrote:
I guess you make a good point about budget assumptions. My budget
isn't so limited that I'm concerned about a transient issue of my
library being MP3 driving my system choice or that the transporter is
$2K. I'd rather set myself up for the inevitable re-rip to FLAC and
other nex
thomsens;175569 Wrote:
> True - I guess I learned about Slim through computer circles, not audio
> ones. Still...you'd think by the 10th person mentioning it, they'd
> pick up a trend. At least one of their respected customers should have
> clued them in. Who knows...
Yeah me too. I knew I wa
Skunk;175565 Wrote:
> Well I don't believe it's a conspiracy or anything. Remember, the
> squeezebox is one of the first streaming devices that audiophiles have
> really accepted. Unless they have a squeezebox or one of the newer
> equavilents (if there is such a thing) they likely haven't experi
peejay;175513 Wrote:
> I'd suggest that this stray oscillation or whatever it is, is perhaps
> the result of a component out of tolerance, or some other fault, which
> would cause me to return it for a swap.
Its on BOTH of my SB3s on the audio side only, one channel only.
There are three peopl
opaqueice;175561 Wrote:
> There are many ways. Two I've used are MediaMonkey and foobar 2000.
> You can download both for free; if you haven't used either I'd start
> with MediaMonkey. Just point it to your FLAC files, select them all,
> select convert audio format from the tools menu, choose
Pat Farrell;175559 Wrote:
> thomsens wrote:
> >> I'm not following you here. high-end usually means you obsess about
>
> >> quality. It is trivial to get better sound quality, don't use MP3.
> Use
> >> FLAC.
> >>
> >> If you don't care about the last percent or two, why bother with
> >> high-en
thomsens;175560 Wrote:
> Not really - it means I'm astounded at how clueless these people are and
> I'm wondering if there is a rational explanation.
Well I don't believe it's a conspiracy or anything. Remember, the
squeezebox is one of the first streaming devices that audiophiles have
really ac
thomsens;175558 Wrote:
> I actually just asked this question in the rip area. I'm looking for
> suggestion on how to do exactly that (easily).
There are many ways. Two I've used are MediaMonkey and foobar 2000.
You can download both for free; if you haven't used either I'd start
with MediaMon
Skunk;175535 Wrote:
> I assume ?!? = rhetorical question.
Not really - it means I'm astounded at how clueless these people are
and I'm wondering if there is a rational explanation.
--
thomsens
thomsens's Profile: http://
opaqueice;17 Wrote:
> It's pretty easy to have the best of both worlds in terms of fidelity
> and portability. If you rip your CDs to FLAC (or another lossless
> format), you can very easily convert them to MP3 all in one batch.
> Then you'll have two sets of files, but the MP3s are much sm
thomsens wrote:
I'm not following you here. high-end usually means you obsess about
quality. It is trivial to get better sound quality, don't use MP3. Use
FLAC.
If you don't care about the last percent or two, why bother with
high-end, just get something decent, say some $600 speakers and a AV
It's pretty easy to have the best of both worlds in terms of fidelity
and portability. If you rip your CDs to FLAC (or another lossless
format), you can very easily convert them to MP3 all in one batch.
Then you'll have two sets of files, but the MP3s are much smaller than
the FLACs and so the t
JJZolx;175548 Wrote:
> Among their customer base, I'd venture that it's still pretty rare.
> They've probably dealt with their share of guys off the street wanting
> to put together systems to play 128kbps mp3s, same as they've dealt
> with folks who want to put together entire systems for $300.
Pat Farrell;175541 Wrote:
> thomsens wrote:
> > I've been looking for a new high-end 2 channel system into which I
> will
> > simply plug my SB, then later a Transporter.
>
> > I won't argue their source was better, even though I didn't notice
> an
> > appreciable difference. But what I don't
thomsens;175545 Wrote:
> Thought it was clear...why don't B&M audio shops get what's currently
> happening?
Among their customer base, I'd venture that it's still pretty rare.
They've probably dealt with their share of guys off the street wanting
to put together systems to play 128kbps mp3s, sa
JJZolx;175530 Wrote:
> Was there a question in there somewhere?
Thought it was clear...why don't B&M audio shops get what's currently
happening?
--
thomsens
thomsens's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?us
In the kitchen in my last house I had a pair of Canton Plus MX
satellites ($200) and the AS22C sub ($499). There is a matching
Cantomount wall brackets ($50). Sounded great in a difficult space.
Discrete and nice looking, too.
--
muski
thomsens wrote:
I've been looking for a new high-end 2 channel system into which I will
simply plug my SB, then later a Transporter.
I won't argue their source was better, even though I didn't notice an
appreciable difference. But what I don't understand is how they can
look the other way on
We've all experienced the "snooty boutique attitude", and not
necessarily with audiophilia. Go to a froo-froo restaurant and order
some cheap Spanish red to go with your pricey oyster plate. The
disdain may be palpable--but does your dinner choice then taste less
good to you? Go to a car lot an
Well, both companies offer a sub for the .1 part (pretty sure, anyway),
but does anyone have any opinions on either the Swans M200 or the NHT
M-00?
--
tonyptony
tonyptony's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php
JJZolx;175530 Wrote:
> Was there a question in there somewhere?
I assume ?!? = rhetorical question.
--
Skunk
Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevic
Was there a question in there somewhere?
--
JJZolx
Jim
JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32232
_
thomsens;175516 Wrote:
>
> I guess it's a hobby and it's more about the pursuit of perfection than
> anything based on reality. Or maybe they feel it threatens a revenue
> stream for source components and cables. It makes me question all of
> their advice, though.
You *should* question it. A
I've been looking for a new high-end 2 channel system into which I will
simply plug my SB, then later a Transporter. I have found that the
traditional B&M audiophile crowd has been somewhat ignorant to encoded
music based on experience in several stores. Because I'm realistic, I
decided to build
I have this too, although it's too faint to be noticeable normally. Try
turning up your amp's volume all the way and put your ear close to the
right tweeter with the SB idle.
I suspect all SBs do this, it's just that some people have greater gain
on their amps, more sensitive speakers/headphones
davis;174805 Wrote:
> I've had my SB3 for approximately one month now, and I'm loving it.
>
> However, I can hear an odd whistle in the right channel. I've done a
> bit of cable/port/source swapping and it would appear to be caused by
> the Squeezebox. The whistle's also on the headphone output.
I've just received the adapters for my new Globe Tek linear supply
(http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31971).
First, I checked to make sure the adapter fits, which it does. The end
going to the PS fits perfectly; the end into the SB is about 5mm too
long, so there's a little bit of
davis;175346 Wrote:
> I've only actively *heard* it in the silence. I can't consciously hear
> it when the music playing because it's simply buried... but I haven't
> conducted any blindfolded tests to see if it's better with the display
> off versus display on: I just have the display auto-off a
Vaction response. Try reaching me on an alternate channel.
/LS
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
My name is Barry Gordon. You can find out a lot more about me at
www.the-gordons.net. My Hobbies are Music, Movies and building things.
When my late wife and I designed our home we put in a "Home Theater".
The room was desinged as an adult playroom.
The video details are front projection at
Gavster wrote:
> Thanks to all for the suggestions. The AE Aego Ms are looking like the
> favourites at the moment.
I've got two pairs of Aego Ms. They're excellent value - great quality
for the money.
> One more question. From the pictures it looks like the satellites are
> designed to be free-s
Phil Leigh;175434 Wrote:
> I'd agree with that - roughly 30%+ of my (well looked after) disks
> needed some correction - not concealment. a small minority - I'd say
> about 10-15 out of over 2,000 - fell into the concealment bucket.
So you think EAC is well worth it?
totoro;175446 Wrote:
> No
Mattiasa;173743 Wrote:
> I ordered a second SB3 a while back, and my old one will find its way to
> the kitchen. I looked at several kits, but I finally fell for the
> Genelec 8020. These are a tad on the expensive side, but man can they
> play!
I am getting the Genelec 6020A model which is the
adamslim;175432 Wrote:
> Hey, this is fun :) I suspect that CD correction is not inaudible
> (otherwise, why not use it for compression, none of this messing with
> FLAC and MP42). However, I have no evidence for this, thoughts
> welcome.
>
>
>
> So you found sonic differences on identical f
Thanks to all for the suggestions. The AE Aego Ms are looking like the
favourites at the moment.
One more question. From the pictures it looks like the satellites are
designed to be free-standing but is it easy to wall mount them instead?
Anyone here done that? Or is it a case of buying a discret
jhm731;175364 Wrote:
> The SB3 isn't listed under Digital Sources in the print version
> of the review.
Whoops on them.
--
ezkcdude
DIY projects page:
http://www.ezdiyaudio.com
System:
SB3->EZDAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step
Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo
CardinalFang;175418 Wrote:
> Sorry, but that's a misunderstanding of the process. Error correction
> isn't guessing, it's using additional data on the disk to fix missing
> data perfectly. Error *concealment* is when a drive has to "make up"
> data by interpolation. Only damaged disks require con
CardinalFang;175418 Wrote:
> Sorry, but that's a misunderstanding of the process. Error correction
> isn't guessing, it's using additional data on the disk to fix missing
> data perfectly. Error *concealment* is when a drive has to "make up"
> data by interpolation. Only damaged disks require con
adamslim wrote:
> Grr. I suspect that this is going to cost me money - I've been gently
> looking for a decent Berlioz Symphony Fantastique, and now it's gonna
> cost me £13... And the Dukas is a no-brainer... ;)
Norrington's Symphonie Fantastique is excellent, and mid-price too/
http://www.pl
Bit perfect. I md5'd the contents of the resulting flac files.
--
totoro
squeezebox 3 -> mccormack dna .5 -> audio physic tempo 4
totoro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5935
View this thread: ht
adamslim;175363 Wrote:
>
> However, EAC will make a difference. iTunes will take the first rip it
> gets, and will use error correction (i.e. guessing) if there is a
> problem; EAC will make sure that the rip is correct by rereading dozens
> of times, if necessary. (This is simplified, but clo
EAC doesn't have to be slow. I mainly use it in burst mode (much
quicker, and similar to other rippers). If AccurateRip shows it matches
then I'm done.
In the relatively rare cases where there is a mismatch then Secure Mode
is used. AccurateRip is the key to saving a lot of ripping time here,
Skunk;175394 Wrote:
> I think you mean without needing to correct errors.
>
> If you use secure mode it re-reads everything, which is why it's so
> slow when set up properly. Read>Flush drive Cache>Re-read, for each
> sector at least once, until they match. If a re-read doesn't check out
> then
regalma1;175294 Wrote:
> I ripped one CD to Apple Lossless using ITunes. It was a disaster. It
> didn't sound worse, it was unlistenable. I have no idea what went
> wrong.
I would have checked to make sure your file-type conversions on
SlimServer weren't converting Apple Lossless files into MP3
ErikM;175402 Wrote:
> riding my BMW, working on projects around the house, being abused by my
> wife :-)
I'd prefer abusing the BMW and.. oh nevermind.
--
Skunk
Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php
I guess in a perfect world I'd be able to rip cd's using EAC right into
itunes! And even even be able to choose flac or Apple lossless files..
in the mean time since it appears that there really isn't any
difference SONICALLY between music ripped to itunes and the other more
convoluted procedures
opaqueice;175374 Wrote:
> I use EAC, and it usually rips the entire CD without needing to
> re-read, and the accuracy of the rip is confirmed by accuraterip.
I think you mean without needing to correct errors.
If you use secure mode it re-reads everything, which is why it's so
slow when set up
ctbarker32;175150 Wrote:
> In a recent post on Audio Asylum a link was given to some free downloads
> of Classical music in the FLAC format at 96k/24b.
>
> The link is here:
> http://www.highdeftapetransfers.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=14
>
Grr. I suspect that this is going to
totoro;175386 Wrote:
> In the test that I did, I started with alac generated by itunes and flac
> generated by eac. Then I used dbpoweramp to transcode the alac back to
> flac. Differences will happen, but I would guess not all that often.
Interesting* - were these differences 'bit-differences'
adamslim;175363 Wrote:
> There is much more likely to be a difference in EAC vs iTunes than ALAC
> vs FLAC. Lossless is lossless, and it seems highly dubious to me to
> suggest that the SB3 will decode one better sonically than the other.
>
> However, EAC will make a difference. iTunes will ta
To answer your question about ripping, on unscratched CDs there's
unlikely to be any difference. I use EAC, and it usually rips the
entire CD without needing to re-read, and the accuracy of the rip is
confirmed by accuraterip. For those discs I expect any ripping program
would make a perfect cop
ErikM;175338 Wrote:
> balthazar I must repectfully disagree. The most important difference at
> least in my opinion is if they sound any different. The technogy should
> be in the service of audio quality, not for it's own sake.
Sorry to respectfully disagree but B is right...lossless=lossless s
ezkcdude;175260 Wrote:
> You're right, the SB3 may not be the *main* source now. However, it is
> listed under the *Digital Sources* section along with the Ayre.
The SB3 isn't listed under Digital Sources in the print version
of the review.
--
jhm731
--
ErikM;175353 Wrote:
> I've only been asking because I've been using itunes for awhile and it
> rips fast, all of the cd's I've ripped play perfectly, I like how easy
> it is to build playlists, and it sounds good.. For me I don't want to
> spend hours dicking around with various programs. I rip t
ErikM;175327 Wrote:
> I'm not all that concerned about the geeky computer part of all this,
> just about sound quality.
That could've been lifted from Mac's new ad campaign, the one with
geeky PC guy and cool Mac guy.
I guess I didn't realize you weren't trying to get into the RPM Warrior
Clu
I've only been asking because I've been using itunes for awhile and it
rips fast, all of the cd's I've ripped play perfectly, I like how easy
it is to build playlists, and it sounds good.. For me I don't want to
spend hours dicking around with various programs. I rip them ,
slimserver finds them ,
I should say I have had ALMOST no problems with alac. Out of 1,000 CDs I
have 3 that have a crackling sound at the beginning song or piece. The
rest of the CD is fine. All 3 look scratchless so I don't know what the
prob. is.
So with EAC I suppose I could diagnose the prob more easily?
Still, 3
Eric Carroll;175074 Wrote:
> So, to be clear, you have the SB3 digital volume control set near full
> volume and the NAD volume control set half way?
>
I tend to leave the amplifier at half-way, unless I'm trying to destroy
the windows. I use the SB3 analogue outs and adjust the volume with th
tomjtx;175307 Wrote:
> Did someone in a past thread mention ripping in alac and flac and then
> comparing the bits and they were bit identical?
> I have a faint memory of that, but then my memory of 1 minute ago is
> faint as well :-)
Yeah, that was me. Did a bunch of cds in flac and alac, trans
EAC is certainly a more accurate ripping tool, but for a CD in good
condition there should not be much, if any, difference. CD's with some
damage should be another matter, as EAC should be superior here.
Assuming the same rip, lossless compression is lossless compression, so
once you decompress
Pat Farrell;175340 Wrote:
> ErikM wrote:
> > I just wonder if the ripping software in itunes is as good/acurate
> as EAC or good
> > enough?
>
> I tend to not use EAC as my main ripping tool. It is too slow.
> So I use something else (grip or CDex) first, and only use EAC if I
> find
> problem
ErikM wrote:
I just wonder if the ripping software in itunes is as good/acurate as EAC or
good
enough?
I tend to not use EAC as my main ripping tool. It is too slow.
So I use something else (grip or CDex) first, and only use EAC if I find
problems.
I can't spell iTunes, but I would expect
balthazar I must repectfully disagree. The most important difference at
least in my opinion is if they sound any different. The technogy should
be in the service of audio quality, not for it's own sake.
--
ErikM
ErikM's Pr
The most important difference between lossless formats is the amount of
processor they consume while encoding/decoding. The second most
important difference is the compression ratio (vs. raw PCM/WAV format).
I'm speaking technically...I suppose the most important functional
difference is the amou
Ok jeez lets not split hairs.. the point of my post was "Audible" this
is the audiophile forum... I don't really care if EAC is a "better"
tool for ripping if there is no sonic difference. And for me I define
better, as the ripped file sounding better.. I'm not all that concerned
about the geeky
ErikM;175299 Wrote:
> Pat yes sorry I understand that, lossless is lossless... regal I've
> never had a problem with itunes not ripping a good copy.. I just wonder
> if the ripping software in itunes is as good/acurate as EAC or good
> enough?
Well you changed your question from definite sonic
ErikM;175299 Wrote:
> Pat yes sorry I understand that, lossless is lossless... regal I've
> never had a problem with itunes not ripping a good copy.. I just wonder
> if the ripping software in itunes is as good/acurate as EAC or good
> enough?
Did someone in a past thread mention ripping in ala
Erik, it's certainly good enough. I've never had a ripping problem, as
the earlier poster did, and when I first found out about EAC I ripped a
few CDs with it and compared to Apples Lossless through my headphones
(out of the PC soundcard) and heard absolutely no difference. Neither
method had any
Pat yes sorry I understand that, lossless is lossless... regal I've
never had a problem with itunes not ripping a good copy.. I just wonder
if the ripping software in itunes is as good/acurate as EAC or good
enough?
--
ErikM
-
DS
Olav Sunde wrote:
There is an enhancement request filed at http://bugs.slimdevices.com for
this. See #4172.
As for the problem with WMA, I sent an e-mail to Linn Records asking if
they would offer FLAC for download. Here is the answer:
"..We will be offering Flac in the future,although I d
I ripped one CD to Apple Lossless using ITunes. It was a disaster. It
didn't sound worse, it was unlistenable. I have no idea what went
wrong. Before I got around to troubleshooting I decided to go with Flac
and EAC instead. That has worked great.
The fact that ITunes went ahead created this atro
ErikM wrote:
is there a sonic difference/ sounds better between
music ripped using itunes into Apple Lossless vs music ripped with EAC
to Flac files?
Sonic? no.
Lossless is lossless. All lossless should sound the same.
All lossless should be able to recreate the exact bits of the file.
Actual
RalphO;175249 Wrote:
> I think that you are correct as these downloads are playing fine on my
> SB3 but on the softsqueeze I just get white noise.
>
> Nice music though, thanks for pointing it out.
I have now found that I can play these files on softsqueeze after I
enabled a few more file typ
I've decided to post this here since it's the audiophile forum. I've yet
to get a straight answer so I'll try again. Given a good system.( mine
is Bolder modded SB3 digital mod and elpac ps, Bel Canto Dac1.1 modded
by GNS, Arcam A85, Proac Studio 100, Rel Q210e with Cardas Golden
Cross,Stereovox c
I tried the Stravinsky. The music itself wasn't my cup of tea, but the
sound quality was great - the brass had a bite to it that sounded live.
The bass drum and percussion were quite good, too. I could definitely
tell the difference vs. redbook CD.
--
Pale Blue Ego
---
jhm731;175163 Wrote:
> I read Mr.Philips' review. He doesn't say the SB3 is his main digital
> source, and I won't assume he didn't comment of the SB3 verses the
> Evolution's CD transport because there weren't significant differences.
> He lists the Ayre C5 as his main digital source. The SB3 i
Skunk;175157 Wrote:
> Yes to 48K. If my source is correct it's done in the Sb3 as you say (as
> opposed to on the server), by throwing away every other sample.
>
> http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28490
I think that you are correct as these downloads are playing fine on my
SB3 but
Are there any other sources connected to the Nait5i? Naim make the
signal ground to earth connection in the CDP, and the SB3 doesn't have
an earth; so it maybe that you just need to make an earth to signal
ground connection somewhere in the system.
The SB3 PSU is rated at 2A, but it only actuall
91 matches
Mail list logo
