ezkcdude;183868 Wrote:
In the Now, why didn't I think of it? department (well, actually, I
did have such an idea once), here's a discussion from Pete Aczel (aka
The Audio Critic) of an A/B technique using software to record and
normalize the differences induced by changing components in a
I feel that driving the speakers and type of speaker are important and
of course the technique doesn't work for this part of the system.
I fundamentally worry about the overuse of measurement. I have used pro
sound level meters which have been unable to satisfactorily measure
certain sounds.
So does anyone actually enjoy listening to their music and not their
system any more ;)
--
Rangdo
Gronda Gronda
Rangdo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5238
View this thread:
pablolie;183728 Wrote:
... Maybe you 'understand computers' but don't yet know of the
advances in DAW technology (shove a good audio interface on a
PC - and it's a DAW!) in fairly recent times?
Oh geez. I do have a Creative Audigy connected to my silent, $4k built
to order computer,
)p(;183866 Wrote:
Yes we did. And the Sb3 was only plugged in when it was its turn to be
compared.
Peter
Then the test was good.
Of course, hearing no difference does not prove there is no difference
-unfortunately. But for your purposes you might as well assume there is
no difference.
ezkcdude;183860 Wrote:
Right on cue, P. Now, isn't it the pot calling the kettle black just a
little bit? I mean, when you tell us the differences you hear between
components, we are supposed to believe your ears, right? But, along
comes someone who doesn't hear a difference, with his own
ezkcdude;183868 Wrote:
In the Now, why didn't I think of it? department (well, actually, I
did have such an idea once), here's a discussion from Pete Aczel (aka
The Audio Critic) of an A/B technique using software to record and
normalize the differences induced by changing components in a
You mean a thread that starts out asking about CD treatment, morphs into
cosmic rays, flipped bits, etc, etc.
I'm just happy I'm not so sensitive to pick up all these audible
differences :D
--
Rangdo
Gronda Gronda
I don't understand the problem. Why does one need to force oneself to
find sonic differences between transport setups when there are
obviously none? It just shows how well engineered the SB3 is and we
should be happy to have saved money that can be better invested in
music...
--
mglaudiolabs
mglaudiolabs;183903 Wrote:
I don't understand the problem. Why does one need to force oneself to
find sonic differences between transport setups when there are
obviously none? It just shows how well engineered the SB3 is and we
should be happy to have saved money that can be better invested
I have a Super-T, and it really offers incredibly detailed reproduction
for the cash.
My advice would be to put it into some speakers that have decent
low-end reproduction. I'm running mine into a pair of little Quad L-ite
speakers, and while there is lots of detail and a surprisingly good
)p(;183908 Wrote:
A few weeks ago we compared my stock sb to a heavily modded sb into a
47labs set with their progression dac. The differences were easily
noticeable. That did surprise me even more at the time. But the 47labs
nos dac does not do any reclocking etc. So we were curious how it
)p(;183911 Wrote:
I am not here to make anybody happy in that way, just to have a good
conversation about a fun hobby and because I love my sb so much :)
p.s. It was a shame that with the 47 labs dac we could not switch in
realtime between the sources...maybe even those BIG differences
Skunk;183879 Wrote:
The precision circuits for the servos, separate housing for the
transport/DAC, and resonance damped platter proves that the design of
CD players is indeed compromised.
Not necessarily. Accuphase CD players are exquisite pieces of
engineering, and I'm sure that the care
P Floding;183905 Wrote:
Would you like to qualify that, or do you mean that all DACs and other
digital-input equipment are independent of digital source quality?
No, I don't doubt there are differences. But if the PLL/receiver
circuits of the DAC were carefully designed and properly
mglaudiolabs;183914 Wrote:
No, I don't doubt there are differences. But if the PLL/receiver
circuits of the DAC were carefully designed and properly implemented,
the differences are astonishingly small.
That's a massive if!
And what about ASRCs?
--
P Floding
No, I didn't ABX it. And I
That's hillarious, thanks
--
y360
y360's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10150
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33125
P Floding;183895 Wrote:
There is nothing new about this method.
It's a bit embarrassing for them that they claim it is new.
Can you point us to a reference?
--
ezkcdude
DIY projects page:
http://www.ezdiyaudio.com
System:
SB3-EZDAC-MIT Terminator 2 interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step
I'm reading and learning;
http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?HowtoBestAudioQuality
As I'm using an external DAC I want to turn off the volume control as
described, but I can't find the link for player settings.
Peter
--
Audiofilia
This high(er)-quality version has been posted here before:
http://homepage.mac.com/savagebean/iMovieTheater11.html
http://homepage.mac.com/savagebean/.Movies/ACA%20FestivalFinal%20MixDown.mov
--
flipflip
Check out flipflip's 'SlimServer On DiskStation (SSODS)'
(http://oinkzwurgl.org/ssods/)!
As stated in the beginning I try to maximize the performance of the
already superb SB3.
Thanks for many ideas and thoughts.
At least I will try the following:
1. Turn off the internal volume ( if I succeed to find the link to the
player settings on the slimserver skin ) as suggested
Good heavens.
--
mudlark
SB3CyrusDACXPreXvs260AKEFiQ7 cable Avondale
server Kubuntu Edgy,
mudlark's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7151
View this thread:
pablolie;183869 Wrote:
And you seemed to made the point the superiority of computer based audo
is its supposed ability to utterly eliminate bit errors, and if I am
attributing it to you wrongly I apologize - it's a claim that was made
earlier in this thread. And I have simply never seen any
OK, I found the link
End of thread
--
Audiofilia
Audiofilia's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10384
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33136
Well, I got the TA-10.1 T-amp, and tried a quick test with my best
speakers (EPOS ES-12) - unfortunately they are very hard work for the
T-amp. They're not particularly sensitive, and I read something about
them being demanding of an amp and later versions (M12, M12.2) were more
forgiving.
It
Is it just me or do the wives and girl friends look a little e not
best pleased when the price of systems is discussed
Actually told my wife about the clip and then I was asked,
So then how much have you spent...?
Ooops,
My £3.2k was a bit of a shock to me too (only just started out
Looks like it worked out very nicely. My home isn't as old, but I had
experienced dimming of the lights at an older home when I was much
younger and I used to blast my old Yamaha M85 285 W/C amp. The tweak
that I'm considering is getting a good power cord along with a new
receptacle for my amp to
ezkcdude;183929 Wrote:
Can you point us to a reference?
I read about the method in a hifi magazine around the year 2001, and I
used it myself at around the same time. Unfortunately I have thrown
away most of my mags. Thanks to cliveb for finding a reference on the
web -saving me the work. (The
SlimServer will indicate whether it will be applying a volume
adjustment, just click on the track name. Look for Volume Adjustment
and Album Volume Adjustment in the fields.
--
Mark Lanctot
It's like, you know, a New Age religion, but with better treble
response. - Jon Heal
cliveb;183944 Wrote:
Mr Floding may come up with other references, but here's one that seems
relevant: AES Preprint 3137 - Towards a Definitive Analysis of Audio
System Errors; Chris Dunn Malcolm Hawksford, Sept 1991. Rather than
pay the AES for it, you can get it from the Essex University
Codmate;183946 Wrote:
Thinking about it some more...
...the main problem with what they are proposing is in the recording
part of the process.
The idea was to record the output from a component (i.e. preamp or
amp), not from the speakers. So, if you are testing a source (i.e. SB3,
cd
ezkcdude;183982 Wrote:
The idea was to record the output from a component (i.e. preamp or amp),
not from the speakers. So, if you are testing a source (i.e. SB3, cd
player, DAC), record the output from the preamp. If you are testing the
preamp, itself, record the output from the amp. Only if
P Floding;183980 Wrote:
I read about the method in a hifi magazine around the year 2001, and I
used it myself at around the same time. Unfortunately I have thrown
away most of my mags. Thanks to cliveb for finding a reference on the
web -saving me the work. (The UK hifi mag's are bad at
Carver tweaked one of his amps to sound like a tube amp, fed one channel
into one speaker, fed one channel of a high end tube amp into another
speaker and placed the speakers face to face, I think just a few inches
a part. I don't remember, but he must have reversed the phases.
The result total
You really need some efficient speakers with those amps, or they will
sound 'underwhelming' :)
Some names that come to mind are LothX, Omega, Zu, Totem, older
Klipsch, and of course all the single driver DIY speakers (fostex,
hemptone, visaton, lowther or anything cheap on ebay with a whizzer
Mark Lanctot;183981 Wrote:
SlimServer will indicate whether it will be applying a volume
adjustment, just click on the track name. Look for Volume Adjustment
and Album Volume Adjustment in the fields.
I think the word I was searching for was 'normalizing', WRT ways the
ripper might cause
Skunk;184017 Wrote:
I think the word I was searching for was 'normalizing', WRT ways the
ripper might cause this.
Dang, I usually quote who I'm responding to. When I don't I often get
called out.
I wasn't referring to your post specifically, Skunk. :-) I'll revise
the post.
--
Mark
regalma1;184007 Wrote:
Carver tweaked one of his amps to sound like a tube amp, fed one channel
into one speaker, fed one channel of a high end tube amp into another
speaker and placed the speakers face to face, I think just a few inches
a part. I don't remember, but he must have reversed
cliveb;183913 Wrote:
But this thread is all about whether there is a flaw in the DIGITAL side
of CD replay, and in this domain it is debatable whether the lengths
that the likes of Accuphase (and other super-fi manufacturers) go to
is necessary.
Good point and thanks for setting me
cliveb;183913 Wrote:
Not necessarily. Accuphase CD players are exquisite pieces of
engineering, and I'm sure that the care they put into the analogue side
of things is justified (at least to a certain extent).
That's the fun stuff. Since everything manufactured does indeed
represent a
325xi;183956 Wrote:
So we basically agreed :)
...
BTW, system using SB as a source is computer based, I don't know why do
you consider SB as The Third Way. Music is streamed from hard drive, and
SB is just a remote SPDIF interface module.
Which to me makes the SB part of the audio
Skunk;184027 Wrote:
A good test might (?) be feeding I2S into the Sb from a Pro2M or other
decent transport, preferably in the same box, then doing jitter
measurements at the DAC to compare with streamed audio.
Actually the Sb3 would have to be tested without the transport
mechanism in
To the OP:
I got my Griffin iTrip for my Nano (mk I) today, and I wouldn't
recommend it. The way it grips the nano using some sticky pad is hardly
confidence inspiring. FM noise was pretty high (may depend on my
particular car's antenna), and increased if charging at the same time
as listening.
You can go down the Dension route: http://www.dension.com/main.htm
This is proper MP3/iPod integration. As others have said the FM
transmitters are next to useless. Other alternative is to ask your car
dealer if there is an Pod/MP3 integration for your model (I had them
install an aux input in
pablolie;184033 Wrote:
When I look at my chain and consider new loudspeakers, I am starting to
think what the requirements will be 5 years down the line to make it
worth the investment... and the truth is I don't know, so I am likely
to stay put for now (unless I win the lottery).
That's
Sorry guys for most likely stupid question, but that's a thing I
couldn't find a definitive answer using all my experience in Googling
:)
I've seen many claims that optical connection is inferior to coaxial
because it somehow introduces jitter. There even were measurements of
output jitter on
Personally I use Auric Illuminator, but only out of habit. It certainly
helps with some disk read errors but then again it could just be the
act of cleaning. Maybe you could try one of these:
http://www.furutech.com/produ_2.asp?ProdNo=242
Demagnetises vinyl as well as CD. Mad as a box of frogs
Dimmers are a no-no in audiodisconnect them.
--
Anne
Anne's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10071
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32740
http://www.lessloss.com/
--
Anne
Anne's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10071
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33146
325xi;183956 Wrote:
So we basically agreed :)I said that major real world advantage of
playing ripped CDs on HDD based system vs. standalone CDP is
convenience, not SQ.
I agree. I like the convenience, but my tranport DVDP still have
better SQ than the SB.
Has anyone compared the SB's SQ
jhm731;184070 Wrote:
I agree. I like the convenience, but my tranport DVDP still have
better SQ than the SB.
Has anyone compared the SB's SQ wireless verses a CAT5 connection?
All right, just note this is so not because of old technology is
superior, but due to specifics of implementation
325xi;184051 Wrote:
That's going to be my own dilemma quite soon - exactly about speakers.
But quality speakers hold their value pretty well, better then any
digital components, aren't they?
A friend (and I am fully aware a lot of dubious speculation gets
started just like this :) was
I have done side-by-side testing of the coax and optical digital outputs
from my SB3, running into the same DAC (a Dodson 263, which does not
have a jitter buffer), listening through a very revealing pair of AKG
K1000 headphones. I repeatedly switched back and forth between the two
connections at
I have a T-amp in my computer system and use it for very casual
listening. It's fine (i.e. surprisingly good) at low power but can't
drive speakers properly - you'd need 90++ dB/W speakers to get sensible
levels, IMO.
In general I'd say the T-amps are a true hi-fi bargain in that they
offer
ModelCitizen;183523 Wrote:
I have the standard supplied Bose system in my Audi TT and it really
rocks.. no complaints whatsoever... from my experience of this unit I
can't see why people slag off Bose so much. It sounds much better than
the Blaupunkt in my last vehicle (a VW Golf).
My Bose
I use the optical mainly to keep the whole grounding stuff out of the
equation while I am fiddling with other options for now. I'll probably
get back to testing at a later stage.
I'd be surprised if the optical part introduces more jitter - the
behavior of the optical IF ought to be very
adamslim;184085 Wrote:
My Bose car system sounds better than any other car system I have had,
but it still sounds pretty awful. It just increases the ratio of radio
4 to radio 3, but there you go.
MC, it looks from your changing sigs that you're turning into a bit of
a Dawkins fan...? Is
325xi;184074 Wrote:
All right, just note this is so not because of old technology is
superior, but due to specifics of implementation of your system. Can
you describe your systems? Both SB and DVDP based?
Modified Pioneer DV45a or SB3 w/linear psu-Aberdeen 2150-
Custom Made Speakers(Focal
No optical is NOT inferior and is used extensively in certain
professional circumstances. At the frequencies and distances involved
in domestic digital applications this is a non-issue. In fact I would
go as far as to say that optical is preferable in many circumstances
due to the lack of
I don't know if it creates an audible change but most optical cable is
subject to output level variations with bending. This effect is orders
of magnitude greater than with coax cable, even at coax at microwave
frequencies. The effect is very dramatic. So I imagine if you were to
cause a
regalma1;184097 Wrote:
I don't know if it creates an audible change but most optical cable is
subject to output level variations with bending. This effect is orders
of magnitude greater than with coax cable, even at coax at microwave
frequencies. The effect is very dramatic.
Or not at all,
Phil Leigh;184095 Wrote:
This is one of the great audio myths of our time.
To paraphrase Jean Luc Picard in First Contact, The physics of the
audiophile world are somewhat different.
Here are some of the principles I have perceived since my recent
introduction to the audiophile world (and
Advantages of optical cable over coax are obvious, they are listed many
many times everywhere. And I have no doubt optical used in pro
applications a lot. This, however, doesn't mean an average
implementation in mid-priced audiophile gear is as good. I'm concerned
with lots of claims on Audiogon
Phil,
Not sure if you threw in the towel on this or not, but I have two more
updates.
1. I got WMP10 and it WILL give me the HDCD icon. Just not 100% of the
time. My problem turned out to be I had the wrong Windows Media Run
Time package loaded. Deleting it and reupgrading succeeded in getting
Eric Carroll;184105 Wrote:
I know I will get flamed for this posting. But I sure do like the clause
in Hydrogen Audio's forum AUP that requires DBT to support claims of
improvement or difference.
Not sure why you would get flamed.
The fact of the matter is psychoacoustics matter. You hear
Eric, what I was asking for is some technical information and advice,
not mockery-style reply. Although I totally agree about Swiss watch
thing - that's why I'm interested in getting the best even though I
might not hear it in real.
Advantages of optical cable over coax are obvious, they are
jhm731;184094 Wrote:
Modified Pioneer DV45a or SB3 w/linear psu-Aberdeen 2150-
Custom Made Speakers(Focal drivers).
Sorry for my ignorance, but what is Aberdeen 2150?
I'm just wondering what DAC and amp do you use?
--
325xi
simaudio nova cdp simaudio moon i-5 revel performa m20 via
Eric,
I have also done some testing on this. I've used a 1992 HDCD sampler
from Reference Recordings (RR-S3 CD) and I believe I can see the dynamic
expansion on the exports via the Cronotron plugin. I want to check this
by recording the same track from the analog output of a HDCD equipped CD
Sorry, my response was not directed at you specifically 325xi in any
way, I wasn't trying to mock or be in any way insulting. Apologies if
it came across like that. I was actually amplifying Phil's very correct
response and the references from other sources on this topic. I guess I
suspect that
325xi;184122 Wrote:
Sorry for my ignorance, but what is Aberdeen 2150?
I'm just wondering what DAC and amp do you use?
An Aberdeen 2150 is a highly modified TacT 2150, which is a power DAC
rated at 150w/ch @ 8 ohms.
--
jhm731
Cool! So now I have to go buy a different HDCD and decode it for real.
Then I have to ABX it to see if all this was worth anything ;-)
--
Eric Carroll
Transporter-Bryston 3B SST-Paradigm Reference Studio 60 v.4
SB3-Rotel RB890-BW Matrix 805
SB3-Pioneer VSX-49TXi-Mirage OM7+C2+R2
ReadyNAS
Eric Carroll;184125 Wrote:
PS: to me, as a networking guy, the CD to DAC or whatever TOSLINK
connection is just a synchronous bit transport network. No difference
at all. Just smaller and less expensive.
The TOSLINK carries an embedded clock signal that is recovered and used
on the
pablolie;184112 Wrote:
Not sure why you would get flamed. Because I am touching on the great
subjectivist vs objectivist divide
in audiophile land.
pablolie;184112 Wrote:
I am always very scpetical when people claim something's based on
physics. There was a time when they could prove
All bit sychronous systems carry clocks that are recovered on the other
side unless you deal in seperately distributed clocking.
So on average consumer TOSLINK, sure, there is a bit of slip
potentially, if you have clock drift, and if you don't attend to that
issue in your circuit design. But
Hmmm, here's a question to sort out the men from the boys:
Which cost the most:
(a) your car
(b) your audio
(c) the contents of your wardrobe?
You only qualify as audiophile if the answer is b.
Ceejay.
--
ceejay
325xi;184113 Wrote:
Although I totally agree about Swiss watch thing - that's why I'm
interested in getting the best even though I might not hear it in
real.
Well, I like to buy the best over the line of audibility, but not at
the cost of an order of magnitude in price. So a Transporter
Eric Carroll;184145 Wrote:
All bit sychronous systems carry clocks that are recovered on the other
side unless you deal in seperately distributed clocking.
So on average consumer TOSLINK, sure, there is a bit of slip
potentially, if you have clock drift, and if you don't attend to that
ceejay;184149 Wrote:
Hmmm, here's a question to sort out the men from the boys:
Which cost the most:
(a) your car
(b) your audio
(c) the contents of your wardrobe?
You only qualify as audiophile if the answer is b.
Ceejay.
Do you qualify as a man if the answer is c?
--
P Floding
ErikM;184159 Wrote:
Gosh I wish I knew all ee buzz words and computer stuff but I don't. I
did buy a good glass fibre toslink to compare to my Sterovox coax
cable. The coax sounded way better. The toslink sounded grainier and
brighter. The coax sounded soother with less glare, less
nicketynick;182758 Wrote:
Yeah, but why archive it on plastic should the need ever arise? Just go
back to the online source and get it again.
1. I want FLAC lossless on my Transporter. Lossy compression is
perceptible (although some of the lossy codec like AAC are getting darn
close).
High Definition Tape Transfers Download Center is now open, it features
six of our releases in true 24/96 resolution ready for download, all
files are compressed with Flac. www.highdeftapetransfers.net
Thanks
--
HDTT
Eric Carroll;184111 Wrote:
Phil,
Sometimes you seem to ignore my posts, then repost what I said as
epiphany found elsewhere- so even though I'm not phil I'll jump in :-)
2. Check out 'this posting'
(http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=showtopic=30999view=findpostp=475231)
on
Skunk;184169 Wrote:
Sometimes you seem to ignore my posts, then repost what I said as
epiphany found elsewhere- so even though I'm not phil I'll jump in :-)
.
Whoops, sorry about I must have missed your posting. Its only 12 pages
of thread...
Let me go back and look.
--
Eric Carroll
Eric Carroll;184171 Wrote:
Whoops, sorry about
I should apologize too. On second look the file you linked to does
appear to have more dynamic range.
--
Skunk
Skunk's Profile:
Skunk;184169 Wrote:
I linked to positive results on page two, pointing out that the dynamic
range is what changed. I can see without enlarging that the dynamic
range is the same in your link.
I have been using your posting #12 extensively on this. The first link
is the methdology I and
325xi;183326 Wrote:
Considering all things said in Resampling thread, I'm just wondering
what kind of sample rate conversions used in SB for downsampling?
As I recall based on my reading of Sean Adam's postings in the forums
(truely its worth reading all his back postings if this stuff
Eric Carroll;184175 Wrote:
Can I ask if you have actually replicated this yourself? The link you
reposted is just from the originator of the hydrogenaudio thread. Just
checking.
No, I only have windows 2k, which apparently none of this is possible
on.
Yes that's from
cliveb;183944 Wrote:
AES Preprint 3137 - Towards a Definitive Analysis of Audio System
Errors; Chris Dunn Malcolm Hawksford, Sept 1991.
This is a very interesting paper, thanks for pointing it out.
--
Eric Carroll
Transporter-Bryston 3B SST-Paradigm Reference Studio 60 v.4
SB3-Rotel
yikes, of course I meant head-fi. I have been on so many boards lately
trying to figure out what I am doing wrong they are all blurring
together, lol! And annoyingly it seems the mistake was disk selection,
sigh.
Ya, we should just pick a disk. Maybe I will see if I can get that disk
Olav
Mark's insight into checking the volume adjustment has revealed that the
lower VU tracks are adjusted from -8 to -12 dB on the ones I've
compared, whereas the higher VU tracks do not list a Volume
Adjustment.
I had a stint a few years back where I was home-bound after an
accident. In that time I
This is great news! I just read about HDTT on Tone Audio. They did not
mention downloadability so this is a perfect chance to try it out.
Question to HDTT: Have these recordings been tried out on Slim's
devices? Also, I read about a sampler with extracts, but cannot find
it on your web site.
Eric Carroll;184180 Wrote:
And annoyingly it seems the mistake was disk selection, sigh.
Ya, we should just pick a disk. Maybe I will see if I can get that disk
Olav mentions since he claims a positive result on it.
Picking a disc would help.
It's funny, I signed up for the reference
kphinney;184182 Wrote:
Mark's insight into checking the volume adjustment has revealed that the
lower VU tracks are adjusted from -8 to -12 dB on the ones I've
compared, whereas the higher VU tracks do not list a Volume Adjustment.
That would be consistent with what you're hearing then. -8
agentsmith;184181 Wrote:
Also, I read about a sampler with extracts, but cannot find it on your
web site.
I downloaded the sampler and it worked fine on my Transporter. The SB3
will downsample it to 48 KHz and should play fine.
--
Eric Carroll
Transporter-Bryston 3B SST-Paradigm
Mark Lanctot;184184 Wrote:
You can tell SS to ignore this by going to Player Settings - Audio (last
section) Volume Adjustment / Replay Gain. SS is using it because the
tags are there and you will find that Volume Adjustment / Replay Gain
has been activated.
They were most likely added
Eric Carroll wrote:
In summary, the short answer is that in the classical networking wold,
even in syncronous bit transport clocking, there is no known mechanism
that could cause a properly engineered optical connection to be in any
way inferior to a coaxial one.
Key phrase: properly
Pacific valve has a great deal on the DIYEDEN Great March2.
I was wondering if anyone has had a chance to audition this or other
similar Chinese DACs.
it uses the PCM1798 chip and the DAC60, a tube DAC uses the PCM1704
chip.
--
mmg_fan
i love the look of the westminsters. unfortunately i'll never be able to
justify spending all that money on them. Anyone been able to roadtest
them??
--
drewe181
http://www.last.fm/user/drewe181/
drewe181's Profile:
Eric Carroll;184185 Wrote:
I downloaded the sampler and it worked fine on my Transporter. The SB3
will downsample it to 48 KHz and should play fine.
Could you provide the URL for the download?
--
agentsmith
SB2/Pioneer DV-S733A - Benchmark DAC1 - Naim Nait 5i - Naim Ariva
Speakers.
Eric Carroll;184150 Wrote:
Well, I like to buy the best over the line of audibility, but not at the
cost of an order of magnitude in price. So a Transporter makes sense to
me over an SB3, but you can see i have SB3s too :-) I don't have the
top end DAC you might notice.
You definitely
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
