Ben Diss;191022 Wrote:
To test this, I had played my favorite test track, Hotel California,
through the SB3/Elpac/Lavry and asked my wife to randomly unplug and
then plug in the power supply from the wall. We did this ten times and
I could not tell the difference in any test.
Yes,
Here's a schematic I drew up for someone else doing exactly the same
thing. Note I have not actually implemented exactly this schematic, in
my DAC I'm using an FPGA to do the converting etc, but this SHOULD
work, I've simulated this and it does the right thing.
Note the circuit for shfting the
andy_c;191035 Wrote:
Here's a couple of links to posts describing some experiments that Dan
Banquer did with a Squeezebox and an AM radio to check for EMI.
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=30075.0
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=30207.0
In Dan's
CardinalFang;189297 Wrote:
I'll open an account and put it up on sourceforge.net - thanks.
If anyone wants to grab the source code and/or the jar file, it's all
up at
http://sourceforge.net/projects/slim-interface/
I'm not sure how much time I can put into it, but please feel free to
modify
Thanks for all you ideas and help - I tried a Rel Strata once but that
really didnt work - hadn't thought of Rel Britannia, and I thought
Gradient had ceased to exist - was wrong there! Prob a v good idea but
they are very big!
Has anyone tried the Velodyne DD-12 with the Quads or other planar
i'm thinking of switching to a mac mini and reripping all my music to an
NAS. Is it possible to run two libraries with iTunes and how easy is it
to convert?
Ideally i'd like a lossless set for slim playback and archive along
with a maybe 128kb set for the portable. At the moment i have
jonheal;190876 Wrote:
In which case, I highly recommend anal candling
I think that might belong under a somewhat different thread...
--
Khuli
http://www.last.fm/user/khuli
Khuli's Profile:
rbl wrote:
Why small cones are faster than large cones I don't know but it is
said often enough.
It's simple inertia.
Assuming they're made out of the same material, a small cone takes less
force to move than a big cone as it's lighter, and has less air
resistance to push against than a large
From AudioCircle:
'
Cheap/Free Tweaks ($10.00 or less)'
(http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=35936.0)
'Cheap Tweaks ($100.00 or less)'
(http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=37980.0)
. :-D
--
TCM
'Squeezebox 3' (http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_squeezebox.html)
TCM;191066 Wrote:
From AudioCircle:
'
Cheap/Free Tweaks ($10.00 or less)'
(http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=35936.0)
'Cheap Tweaks ($100.00 or less)'
(http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=37980.0)
. :-D
Thanks for posting those links. Following my
surely though a small cone has to move further and therefore faster (and
therefore require greater acceleration) for a given volume level at a
given frequency? Don't these drawbacks of a small cone negate the
benefits?
--
rbl
FLAC for quality better
_
http://kudapoyti.com.ua
--
Artem85
Artem85's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10922
View this thread:
Robin Bowes;191065 Wrote:
It's simple inertia.
Assuming they're made out of the same material, a small cone takes
less
force to move than a big cone as it's lighter, and has less air
resistance to push against than a large cone.
R.
BEng(Hons) Electroacoustics
Not that I'm
ceejay;191069 Wrote:
Thanks for posting those links. Following my nose, as one does when
surfing, I came upon
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue1/beltpen.htm
which has to be the funniest thing I've come across in a long time...
Edit: well, it was the funniest thing until I got to
Another classic thread.
Someone posts a review of a product owned by a person on here, and the
magazine is clearly a rag, their testing is bad, the review sample was
off and the reviewer is clearly tone deaf.
What is it with some people on forums that they can't stand to have
their kit criticised
b33k34;191061 Wrote:
i'm thinking of switching to a mac mini and reripping all my music to an
NAS. Is it possible to run two libraries with iTunes and how easy is it
to convert?
Ideally i'd like a lossless set for slim playback and archive along
with a maybe 128kb set for the portable.
By fast we're talking transient response to a signal. Planars are
fast because they are accelerating a thin ribbon of mylar and the
magnet for this ribbon is evenly dispersed along the length of the
ribbon. The ribbon is only moving very slightly. So, it can respond
very quickly to a signal.
Skunk wrote:
Disregarding the force required to move the cone, a small cone is going
to have to move further than a big cone, in order to give equal
frequency response.
Not frequency response. A small cone and a large one can make the same
frequency with the same motion.
The smaller cone
jeffmeh;191077 Wrote:
Well, from a quantum mechanics standpoint it is possible that this could
work. Of course, it is also possible that an elephant will quantum
tunnel to a position above my head and strike me dead before I finish
typing thi
The double slit experiment is fundamental to
I haven't checked it out yet, but I was told that the Max application
(http://sbooth.org/Max/) can do all this on the fly for Macs -- make
two versions at the same time.
I could have understood it wrong but it seems to claim to do something
like this.
--
creativepart
CardinalFang;191091 Wrote:
The double slit experiment is fundamental to quantum physics, but the
wave/particle duality could only apply to electrons, not sound waves,
which are obviously sound pressure waves and never particles.
The really weird part for me is that the Copenhagan
Pat Farrell;191092 Wrote:
I'm not sure that this matters. When I was working as an engineer, we
would spend hours arguing which kept you dryer: waling in the rain or
running thru the rain. Walking clearly exposes you to longer time, but
rain only hits a small area. Running cuts the time
CardinalFang;191091 Wrote:
The really weird part for me is that the Copenhagan Interpretation,
which is probably the most widely accepted explanation for the
experiment, is that electrons and other quantum objects exist as
probability waves until they are detected, when they become
Mr_Sukebe wrote:
Another classic thread.
Someone posts a review of a product owned by a person on here, and the
magazine is clearly a rag, their testing is bad, the review sample was
off and the reviewer is clearly tone deaf.
What is it with some people on forums that they can't stand to have
Pat Farrell wrote:
Skunk wrote:
Disregarding the force required to move the cone, a small cone is going
to have to move further than a big cone, in order to give equal
frequency response.
Not frequency response. A small cone and a large one can make the same
frequency with the same
opaqueice;191105 Wrote:
This leads to the many worlds interpretation, where both possibilities
exist, but for reasons not well understood we only experience one, while
at least in the mathematical structure of the theory the other copy of
us moves off along another branch. This happens all
rbl wrote:
Can anyone recommend a subwoofer to match the Quad electrostatic 988
speakers, for use with both HT and music? My room is 15' x 18' so I
don't need anything particulalry loud, but something that blends in
well. Am thinking of the TBI Magellan VIII or the Velodyne DD-12, but
open to
Pat Farrell;190565 Wrote:
My favorite tweak, which is free, is to move your speakers.
Specifically, move them away from the walls and into the room.
At least it is free to try.
Is proper speaker setup/placement really something to be considered a
tweak?
--
PhilNYC
Sonic Spirits
PhilNYC wrote:
Is proper speaker setup/placement really something to be considered a
tweak?
I am not sure if there is an well defined definition of what is a tweak.
I generally think about replacing $2 radio shack interconnects with
Kimber PBJs as an inexpensive tweak. But
Far too many
Pat Farrell;191123 Wrote:
To me, proper placement is 5 feet from all walls, but even in fairly hi
end audio shops, far too many speakers are pushed up against the wall.
So clearly some people have not gotten the memo
I use some fairly old Rega Ela speakers that supposedly were designed
to be
I don't own Quads. I do own a pair of single driver speakers, the Omega
Aperiodic 8 which uses Visaton B200 8 drivers. So aside from being a
point source very resolving driver, it has nothing in common with the
Quads.;) I've paired these with a Rocket UFW-12 sub avaliable from
AV123. This sub
ask for a refund. Dump it
try the a href= http://www.dualactioncleansenow.com;ultimate colon
cleanser/a today.
--
Angiel
Angiel's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10931
View this thread:
Pat Farrell;191123 Wrote:
It probably depends as much on the definition of proper placement
as anything else. To me, proper placement is 5 feet from all walls, but
even in fairly hi end audio shops, far too many speakers are pushed up
against the wall. So clearly some people have not
Yeah, I think that's the way I'm leaning right now. I do really like
BW, especially their 600 series in terms of quality/price. But I think
for the tastes of my buddy, and at that price point the paradigms will
be a better fit.
Anyway, thanks for the help guys!
--
LikeButtah
*2-Channel:* SB3
PhilNYC wrote:
I think that's far too simple of a definition for proper placement,
particularly when there are many different types of speakers (some of
which are designed to be placed tightly in corners to achieve bass
performance through room reinforcement),
I don't understand what you are
opaqueice;191100 Wrote:
That's exactly what Skunk said. Frequency reponse, meaning the level of
sound produced given an input with some frequency at fixed level.
After posting I realized I actually meant to say 'both drivers
producing the same SPL at a given frequency', which Pat was quick
A very good place to begin : http://www.cardas.com/pdf/roomsetup.pdf
http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insightscontent_id=26pagestring=Room+Setup
http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/speakerplacement.html
Try it, at least to get the feeling of what it CAN do
--
Anne
Pat Farrell;191179 Wrote:
I don't understand what you are arguing about.
I'm saying that I don't consider proper speaker placement a tweak.
And I don't think that 5ft from every wall constitutes proper
speaker placement.
Proper setup is a fine name, but a huge number of people have no
PhilNYC wrote:
Even ancient bookshelf speakers such as AR3a and Large Advents, which
defined the term bookshelf speakers, sound better away from the wall.
Sure you trade off bass boost, but the rest of the sound improves.
I don't understand what your point is here. You stick a speaker on
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:
PhilNYC wrote:
Again, my only issue is calling proper speaker placement a tweak.
You seem to be trying to pick a fight. I have no fight with you. So this
is my last response.
But that has nothing to do with tweaking. It's simply setting the
speakers up properly when you are using them, and
Just unpacked and hooked up my beautiful black Transporter. can't stop
listening!!! I discover all new things in my music. have I been using
crap all that time I wonder? :-)
Anyway: the Transporter is linked (Analog!) via Oehlback interlink to a
Harman Kardon AVR 8500, which feeds into (with
crooner;189160 Wrote:
Nice review but I can't help but wonder why he prefers Apple Lossless
and iTunes to manage his music. FLAC is a much better format and iTunes
simply sucks IMHO.
It's so bad I prefer Rockbox to run my iPod. Full FLAC support as well!
Said many times here - whatever
evert;191199 Wrote:
In the beginning of this evening I unpacked and hooked up my beautiful
black Transporter. It's about midnight and I just can't stop
listening!!! I discover all kinds new things in my music. Makes me
wonder - have I been using crap stuff all that time? :-)
Anyway: the
ImagineTT;190018 Wrote:
For other transporter owners - how long did it take, if at all, for the
transporter to break-in. Any similar findings? Does the sound get
warmer and more palpable? I am running the transporter through a Qinpu
integrated to Dali Helicon 400's using JPS wire. Thanks in
jeffmeh wrote:
Would my audio sound better if I had a cat that was neither alive nor
dead?
The hifi always sounds better with the house cat in a box. No
bothersome mewling at the door, or using the speaker cloth as a
scratching post.
--rt
___
mmg_fan;188364 Wrote:
In latest UHF magazine in the article about modding the power supply to
the SB, the author mentions that there 'is a slight but noticeable'
difference in audio quality between Apple lossless and AIFF.
Please tell me this isn't so!
I don't want to re-rip my entire cd
PaulG;185493 Wrote:
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. (...) Any
input is appreciated!
Use RCA - less problems with jitter (?) it
ron thigpen;191210 Wrote:
jeffmeh wrote:
Would my audio sound better if I had a cat that was neither alive
nor
dead?
The hifi always sounds better with the house cat in a box. No
bothersome mewling at the door, or using the speaker cloth as a
scratching post.
--rt
I cannot
gregeas;182283 Wrote:
This time I was blown away by the difference. The sound from the
Transporter was much more involving than it had been with the Arcam,
and I had a feeling that the music was easier to enjoy, and more fun.
(...)
More significantly, I was able to listen to older music
Pat Farrell;191200 Wrote:
You seem to be trying to pick a fight. I have no fight with you. So
this
is my last response.
Nope, not trying to pick a fight. Simply asserting my opinion that
speaker placement is more important than tweak implies.
Because it defeats the purpose of the
Mark Lanctot;191204 Wrote:
Are you using direct mode? (Something to bypass the DSP, see
http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?AVReceivers) If not, it could be
even better!
Plus, although I don't believe in electronics break-in, I and many
others did notice it. I'm more apt to believe
This fuss over the definition of tweak strikes me as a distinction
without a difference so far.
If we're at this point it becomes useful to see what the dictionary
says. Webster has the following as one definition for tweak: to make
small adjustments (as in tweak the controls); especially fine
Pat Farrell;191200 Wrote:
Because it defeats the purpose of the spikes. They are designed to
solidly couple the speakers in one place. In theory, the speaker
cabinet can move with music causing the imaging to smear.
I have my own hypothesis about how spikes work. I think they lift the
In my experience there are virtually no tweaks that universally work
in all systems. The same vibration damping used on one CD player will
suck the life out of another. The same speakers on spikes in one room
will boom in another with a different confuration or type of floor.
In general, the
mlsstl;191253 Wrote:
If we're at this point it becomes useful to see what the dictionary
says. Webster has the following as one definition for tweak: to make
small adjustments (as in tweak the controls); especially fine tune.
Other definitions have little to with audio (to pinch or pull,
Hello all,
I own a set of 63's, which the 988's are simply a newer version,
read: now made in China :( version of the 63's. The 989 have two extra
panels (6 instead of 4) which deliver more bass.
I believe these electrostatics are usually considered fast due to the
light weight of the material
Fantastic! You are very generous John. Having a little difficulty
reading the small font for component ID on the schematic. Would it be
possible to post a file attachment or send pm? Thanks, Mike
--
RioTubes
RioTubes's
58 matches
Mail list logo
