seanadams;185293 Wrote:
> The notion that s/pdif from a CD source could better than local playback
> is absurd. They don't seem to understand how the thing works. Typical
> neophobia. :(
So do you need to understand how it works before you can hear a
difference?
--
shane
There also appears to be a review in the April edition of Hi-Fi World
(also UK I think). Anybody seen this review?
--
clarkc
clarkc's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10380
View this thread: http://
I downloaded the samples. Did a FLAC->WAV conversion.
My slimserver is set to send WAV as WAV, not FLAC. The SB3 played the
files without incident, downsampling them to 48khz.
My SB3 is hooked up to an external DAC and a very high-end system.
I found the samples fairly unimpressive both musica
JJZolx;185304 Wrote:
> I've always valued British audio reviews over most others. Many of the
> British magazine reviews I've read over the years seem very
> level-headed in comparison to their American counterparts. They tend
> to value system synergy and value for dollar, in comparison to the
I have the same receiver and I've only tried digital with the SB3,
mainly because I run digital through a Behringer DEQ2496 first for room
correction. My guess is that the digital in to the receiver would sound
best, but I would certainly try both and see which you prefer. However,
the digtal Pa
opaqueice;185301 Wrote:
> In my opinion reviews based on someone's subjective impressions of audio
> quality are totally meaningless. On the other hand it sounds as though
> the parts of the review which are more objective (build quality etc.)
> are quite positive.
Do you mean to say that liste
Eric Carroll;185584 Wrote:
> sheesh this is a tough crowd.
I'm just kidding! Please don't take it seriously. Did you get my ecard?
--
Skunk
Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685
View this
sheesh this is a tough crowd.
--
Eric Carroll
Transporter-Bryston 3B SST-Paradigm Reference Studio 60 v.4
SB3-Rotel RB890-B&W Matrix 805
SB3-Pioneer VSX-49TXi-Mirage OM7+C2+R2
ReadyNAS NV+
Eric Carroll's Profile: http://f
Eric Carroll;185543 Wrote:
> '
> Side comment:
> You know you can make hyperlinks of sentences to remind people of
> things using the [ url = hyperlink ] text [ /url ] syntax (remove the
> spaces). For example,
> url=http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=182412&postcount=12]this
> is a hyp
> OK, well, for starters we don't know whether processing
> load (defined somehow) is higher for FLAC.
If the OP or Skunk or others are concerned about processor load in the
Squeezebox, they should investigate the effect of turning off any VU
meter type stuff and even the status display.
Bill
Anne;185572 Wrote:
> A bit OT, but why would wireless sound worse than wired ?
Please Anne, we're up to our knees in BS already! There is no reason
that I know of, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Truth be told I wanted it to be easier to modify.
Besides, why would I want a
A bit OT, but why would wireless sound worse than wired ?
I dont have a wireless card on my computer, I have ethernet cable to my
router and this goes wireless to SB3.
I have never experienced a single dropout or anything.
--
Anne
opaqueice;185562 Wrote:
>
> So why, for example, are people obsessed with this and not concerned
> that wireless sounds worse than wired?
I'm not sure but that's why I bought wired, even having a wireless
network.
I would love to have an approximation in difference of processor load.
As you n
Skunk;185552 Wrote:
> Then don't use those terms. Use minimum vs. maximum processing load,
> then investigate effects.
>
> The fact that WAV==FLAC in most people's mind, is clouding the debate
> IMO.
OK, well, for starters we don't know whether processing load (defined
somehow) is higher for F
Eric Carroll;185543 Wrote:
> Come on skunk give me a break it was 15 pages ago and a single sentence
> comment ...
>
Sorry, but one reason the thread is 15 pages is that I wasted one or
two of them talking about DSP implementation of HDCD, so it was
mentioned a few times ;-)
Apparently 15 pag
livelock;185544 Wrote:
> but what does it help if my receiver converts it back to digital and
> then again to analogue (I don't know whether it does this, but I guess
> so)
Yes, this receiver does this for all inputs in all modes. It has to,
its amplifier operates on a digital signal. I rememb
The receiver's strength is clearly in the digital realm - that would
-probably- sound best, but it wouldn't hurt to try analogue as well.
Just to hear what you may be missing.
--
Mark Lanctot
"It's like, you know, a New Age religion, but with better treble
response." - Jon Heal
--
opaqueice;185548 Wrote:
> Not dismissing the effect of electrical noise in the SB is a far cry
> from positing that WAV sounds better than FLAC.
Then don't use those terms. Use minimum vs. maximum processing load,
then investigate effects.
The fact that WAV==FLAC in most people's mind, is clou
I can't tell the difference between OGG Q6-7 and .Wav, therefore I
should't be able to tell a difference between OGG Q6-7 and .Flac.
I can spot differences up to 192kbps with MP3 quite well
--
livelock
livelock's Profile:
snarlydwarf;185530 Wrote:
> You must have not read the original post:
>
And you must have ignored the fact that he still preferred one over the
other:
> With that knowledge I switched back
> to FLAC and left it that way for several weeks. In that time, however,
> the sound still didn't seem qui
Skunk;185515 Wrote:
> I call, and raise you a doughnut.
>
> Dismissing the effect of the processor outright seems foolhardy when
> one of the fundamental benefits of Sb3 (IMO) is considered- getting the
> sound out of the electrically noisy PC.
>
Not dismissing the effect of electrical noise
livelock;185544 Wrote:
> should I connect my SB3 via analogue or digital to my receiver?
Or do both if your receiver supports it; mine does. Then switch back
and forth and decide which you like best.
--
Eric Carroll
Transporter-Bryston 3B SST-Paradigm Reference Studio 60 v.4
SB3-Rotel RB890-
Skunk;185540 Wrote:
> LOL you're doing it again! (though it *is* a long thread). See my post
> 12 to confirm your 'suspicion' :-)
Yes, you highlighted ML's DSP implementation in that post. Sorry, I
just forgot about it and saw it again in the posting reference you
posted... Come on skunk give me
My Squeezbox 3 is connected to a fully digital receiver (panasonic
sa-xr55), dual-amped and bi-wired to nubert boxes. My question is:
should I connect my SB3 via analogue or digital to my receiver?
my SB got this great DAC, but what does it help if my receiver converts
it back to digital and then
Eric Carroll;185531 Wrote:
>
> The thread you cited is very interesting; I didn't find it in my
> searches. It basically confirmed my suspicion that this is now done in
> DSPs and you don't need a special chip for it.
LOL you're doing it again! (though it *is* a long thread). See my post
12 to
Mark Lanctot;185534 Wrote:
> Do you have a spare composite video cable (yellow ends?) That should
> work.
>
> The red/white regular audio cables -might- work.
Not sure. I've got a bag full of old cables and wires and such
--
PaulG
PaulG;185524 Wrote:
> Thanks. I guess I'll stick with the RCA cables and see if I can borrow
> some digital ones to compare.
Do you have a spare composite video cable (yellow ends?) That should
work.
The red/white regular audio cables -might- work.
--
Mark Lanctot
"It's like, you know, a N
A poll associated with this post was created, to vote and see the
results, please visit http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19817
Question: S
Skunk;185526 Wrote:
> At any rate, software decoding of the discs on an as-needed basis seem
> like the best solution.
>
> Any chance of a step-by-step in a separate thread (possibly in the
> ripping forum, or a wiki entry) including screenshots of settings?
Ya, I was going to consolidate this
Skunk;185515 Wrote:
> I call, and raise you a doughnut.
You must have not read the original post:
kjg Wrote:
> Out of curiosity, I had
> him run a blind comparison of the two streaming methods for me and he
> tallied the results. After about 10 rounds of ABX comparisons between
> FLAC and WAV
Olav Sunde;185522 Wrote:
> Thanks for the link to the discussion between Christine Tham and Charles
>
> Hansen. Christine Tham posted graphs that show the same as I found when
>
> I tested.
>
NP. Thanks for confirming the results!
Charles made a point in that thread about DSP processors insi
Thanks. I guess I'll stick with the RCA cables and see if I can borrow
some digital ones to compare.
--
PaulG
PaulG's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10525
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevic
Thanks for the link to the discussion between Christine Tham and Charles
Hansen. Christine Tham posted graphs that show the same as I found when
I tested.
Skunk wrote:
> Eric Carroll;185451 Wrote:
>> To your point, the "control" is yet to arrive - I have on order the V2
>> of the sampler disk.
snarlydwarf;185495 Wrote:
> My bet is that it's your head.
I call, and raise you a doughnut.
Dismissing the effect of the processor outright seems foolhardy when
one of the fundamental benefits of Sb3 (IMO) is considered- getting the
sound out of the electrically noisy PC.
Here's a thought; h
Well, it's one of those things you should try out for yourself.
The SB3 will come with some RCA cables, and for digital, you can use a
spare composite video cable you have lying around (probably from a DVD
player or something).
It comes down to preference. No one hear has your ears, your speake
You'd have to listen to it, and see what you'd like best - however I'd
personally listen very closely, because the SB3 may have a better
built-in DAC than the 970.
--
pablolie
pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.
Eric Carroll;185451 Wrote:
> To your point, the "control" is yet to arrive - I have on order the V2
> of the sampler disk. This disk has the same track done twice, once with
> and once without the HDCD encoding. I will run them through the 24b
> capture process and examine the waveforms. The expe
I use Apple Lossless...
--
Anne
Anne's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10071
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32999
Ken;185202 Wrote:
>
> It's hard to say if the testing we did has its limitations or if my
> head
> just keeps playing tricks on me. But FLAC and WAV streaming do sound
> different to my ears, and I'm pleased that Slim provides us with both
> options :).
>
My bet is that it's your head. Tak
Can't recommend these speakers enough - excellent sound and amazingly
good value for money
--
jschott
jschott's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7162
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/
The only things that I can think of as to why some can hear a difference
and some can't must be down to the matching of:
Electronics,
Cables,
Ears,
& Layout of all above
I guess the only way is to take someone, who does hear a difference to
someones place who does not hear a difference and vi
Not sure this is the right forum, but couldn't find a "better" one...
I've been using Softsqueeze to try out slimserver, and have decided to
buy the Squeezebox 3. Now I am wondering whether I should buy an
optical digital cable, or whether RCA cables are better.
I've been told the DAC in the H/K
I'm about too buy a new DAC, the Lavry DA10, but saw an ad for a used MF
Trivista for about the same price.
I'm very curious if anyone has any opinion of either unit and can help
me with my decision...
Why does MF make 'limited production' units?
Apparently only about 800 Trivista's made it ou
Skunk;185438 Wrote:
> Your comment about renting equipment in another thread made me think of
> another possibility here. One could possibly rent or buy the
> professional A/D D/A HDCD encoder/decoder from a pro audio shop. There
> are a few models, even one on ebay right now (4k$).
OT: this is
It looks like Progressive (and hence Slim) are going to be at the spring
hi-fi show. Presumably we'll be hearing SB3s and TPs there? Is there a
comparison (useful for me, a SB3 owner and TP considerer)? Any
surprises?
Adam
--
adamslim
SB3 into Derek Shek d2, Shanling CDT-100, Rotel RT-990B
...and if MS can do this in code, could Slim do it? (I realise there
would be a cost and it is "niche" but even so...
--
Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread:
Eric Carroll;185451 Wrote:
> Hm, did I claim this was an experiment? If I did I understand your
> point. But I think this is reverse engineering. To your point, the
> "control" is yet to arrive - I have on order the V2 of the sampler
> disk. This disk has the same track done twice, once with and
Nikhil;185185 Wrote:
> My concern, in simple scientific terminology, is that this experiment
> does not have a proper control. As Phil rightly pointed out, in absence
> of any compression technique, file size will simply be a function of
> track lenghth, sampling rate, and bit depth rather than m
Sounds an interesting service.
As for the bitrate discrepincy, there used to be a bug in SS that
reported the bitrate from the initial chunk of audio as opposed to the
average for the complete file. So if the start compresses easily (many
tracks are like this) then SS will report the lower bitrat
Mark Lanctot;184929 Wrote:
> I have no proof on this, but it's my suspicion that the digital out in a
> receiver does not go through the DSP first.
Your comment about renting equipment in another thread made me think of
another possibility here. One could possibly rent or buy the
professional A/
adamslim;185423 Wrote:
> It's always difficult to describe differences in sound; audio reviewers
> will be criticised whether they try (and use vague, flowery language),
> or if they stick to %age grades - neither really helps another.
>
> What does help is getting to know a reviewer, his/her pr
Skunk;185428 Wrote:
> Just to clarify, the canare stuff is closer to $250 for '_tool, die, and
> stripper_'
> (http://www.westlake-electronic.com/cgi-bin/store.php?detail=yes&search=search&item_no=CAN-TS100E)
> -but it looks like the asylum post is a good alternative for around
> $100.
Oh yeah.
Mark Lanctot;185421 Wrote:
>
> But yeah, I think the tool is around $100 or so. It would pay for
> itself if you make several sets of component video cables, but as you
> state, HDMI has replaced that application.
>
Just to clarify, the canare stuff is closer to $250 for '_tool, die,
and stri
It's always difficult to describe differences in sound; audio reviewers
will be criticised whether they try (and use vague, flowery language),
or if they stick to %age grades - neither really helps another.
What does help is getting to know a reviewer, his/her preferences and
so on. Over the yea
Skunk;185385 Wrote:
> I would love to be able to crimp canare connectors. The tool/die is
> expensive, so I've always checked ebay, but they're rare.
Bet it's less expensive than a set of expensive cables. ;-)
But yeah, I think the tool is around $100 or so. It would pay for
itself if you mak
I could understand if they claimed they heard better bass definition of
airier highs, but "tempos dragged"? That just seems fishy.
--
Pale Blue Ego
Pale Blue Ego's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=
In my chain, I have a combination of Kimber, Mogami, and Cardas cables.
All I care about is that they somehow provide some sort of assurance of
being built well for optimal transparency - I have never been under the
illusion cables provide for active improvement. They just have to be
good quakity
opaqueice;185369 Wrote:
> It follows from the basics of the design that it's extraordinarily
> implausible that the S/PDIF input on the TP could produce a signal with
> less distortion than the TP functionng as a network player. It would
> require an elaborate, complicated and highly unlikely me
AndyC_772;185365 Wrote:
> ... In their defence, though, hi-fi is a subjective thing. ...
Amen to that.
It is subjective. Plus given the nature of discussions that quite
passionately flare up in this forum, I am not quite sure why anyone
would go up in arms. Then again, I'd know exactly why. :-)
opaqueice;185380 Wrote:
> I was assuming some basic level of competence on the part of the
> reviewer.
That would be a mistake, IMO, given the number of times it comes up on
the forums, even from those who might generally be good with
technology.
I guess we have no way of knowing unless setti
chevvies;185367 Wrote:
> Well I finally ordered a Blue Jeans cable. I like the sound of the phono
> plugs they use.
I would love to be able to crimp canare connectors. The tool/die is
expensive, so I've always checked ebay, but they're rare.
Luckily I just came across this* post by AndyC on cab
Skunk;185377 Wrote:
> That is well and good, but bitrate limiting or replaygain is not
> elaborate, complicated or unlikely.
I was assuming some basic level of competence on the part of the
reviewer. If they are not even able to operate the equipment under
review properly we really are wasting
Not that I'm cynical or anything but until Naim produce their
"transporter" (and it costs £15k!) , Hi-Fi News is not going rate a
network player over a cd spinner...
HFN is getting whackier each month as far as I'm concerned. It's almost
up there with Hi-Fi World (the funniest audio mag ever - if
opaqueice;185369 Wrote:
> It follows from the basics of the design that it's extraordinarily
> implausible that the S/PDIF input on the TP could produce a signal with
> less distortion than the TP functionng as a network player. It would
> require an elaborate, complicated and highly unlikely me
Patrick Dixon;185338 Wrote:
> Either that, or that there is something you don't yet understand
> happening.
It follows from the basics of the design that it's extraordinarily
implausible that the S/PDIF input on the TP could produce a signal with
less distortion than the TP functionng as a netwo
Well I finally ordered a Blue Jeans cable. I like the sound of the phono
plugs they use.
--
chevvies
chevvies's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9152
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/
In their defence, though, hi-fi is a subjective thing. Certainly there's
a correlation between measurable parameters and perceived sound quality,
but I don't think too many people choose their expensive setups with an
oscilloscope rather than their ears.
Similarly, I don't think anyone can say th
I was especially amused by this part of the Hi-Fi News review:
"In Stand Alone DAC mode the Transporter sounded crisper and musically
more insightful and involving, where as via the network connection
leading edges were fudged, tempos dragged and the sound became
altogether less gripping."
Fudge
Veggen;185137 Wrote:
> What did you use for your flac to wav conversion?
> As i said earlier using flac 1.1.3 with the flac frontend GUI with
> "Decode through errors" option checked worked for me.
I just used the FLAC Frontend latest version.
I did not get any error decoding to WAV. But the m
>the reason for their preferring the SPDIF input<
I was waiting for a 'golden eared' listener to claim that the S/PDIF
cable must be more euphonic than 802.11g and had 'lifted a veil' due to
some quantum effect ;-)
--
amcluesent
-
norderney;185285 Wrote:
> Just received the April 2007 issue of Hi-Fi News and they are reviewing
> the Slim Devices Transporter this month.
It's been many years since I last read a HiFi rag, but way back when I
did, HiFi News was probably the best of the bunch (of British mags).
Their reviews se
egd;185337 Wrote:
> ... Perhaps one day I'll meet someone with said transport and can then
> compare it to the Transporter, until then I'm chalking their comments
> down to bias.
Well, I think a lot has been made of the Transporter's DA subsystem,
which is a top notch design according to what I
http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-downloads.aspx
I have just been visiting Linn records web site and have noticed you
can now download tracks from most of their current catalogue of
Classical and Jazz recordings. They are offering 3 types of download:
MP3, CD Quality (lossless WMA) and Studio Mast
..anybody tried this, was it worth it, any recommendations? thanks.
--
chevvies
chevvies's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9152
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=3328
seanadams;185293 Wrote:
> The notion that s/pdif from a CD source could better than local playback
> is absurd. They don't seem to understand how the thing works. Typical
> neophobia. :(
Either that, or that there is something you don't yet understand
happening.
--
Patrick Dixon
www.at-tune
norderney;185285 Wrote:
> They used a Townshend TA565 Universal Player to compare the Transporter
> with a CD player.
Considering it is a £3000 transport I am not necessarily surprised, but
having regard to some of their other comments one has to wonder whether
they actually understand the techn
I have a BM Dac1 on sale or return. It's connected to a sb3 via a
non-descript coax lead, and analog out via a Chord Chysalis rca to rca
to a full Naim setup. I had a Transporter on sale or return in January
and returned it after a week feeling underwhelmed. However the sb3 with
BM Dac1 is much mo
77 matches
Mail list logo
