SuperQ;192158 Wrote:
> The VU meters are a visual affect, and are not designed as a calibration
> device.. ignore them :)
>
VU = Virtually Useless
--
Skunk
Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?useri
Sword1;192151 Wrote:
> When I set the Transporter volume setting anywhere close to its maximum,
> the vu meters start moving into the overload zone, and the signal
> becomes distorted at certain points.
>
> Thanks for any help you can provide.
The VU meters are a visual affect, and are not desi
To answer your questions, the two amps I am referring to are integrated
amps, including both a preamplifier and amplifier section. I have the
transporter connected directly via analog inputs.
When I set the Transporter volume setting anywhere close to its
maximum, the vu meters start moving into
davep;192147 Wrote:
>
> It is generally accepted that you should be running the Transporter at
> or close to its maximum volume setting (i.e. 0dB) so as to avoid any
> potential downgrading of the signal quality, although this is only
> reckoned to be a factor if you run the TP at or below about
Just to be clear about what you are doing, how are you connecting the
output of the Transporter to your headphone amp, and how are you
setting the volume on the Transporter?
You are correct that the attenuators inside the transporter can only be
used to further reduce the signal level coming out
Need some help here. Have read the connecttopoweramp wiki and thought i
got it but now not sure
Just purchased 2 Murano Audio Monoblocks based on the IcePower 1000ASP
module (rated 1000W into 4Ω). Sound is fantastic - clarity and
weight i did not get from earlier set-ups.
After reading the w
I have tried the Transporter connected to two of my headphone
amplifiers, and in both cases, I have to nearly maximize the volume
setting for an adequate playback level in my headphones.
The Transporter offers attenuation settings, but they require opening
up the unit and changing jumpers. Of mo
Now does this mean EMI will stop putting their @#$%ing copy protection
on CD's? It doesn't stop me from getting the full res data from the CD
to my computer for Slimserver, but it does make it more painfull!
--
DCtoDaylight
--
Well, it can be a bit confusing, but I'll try and summarize (and
hopefully won't leave out too much!)...
CD: 16 Bit, 44.1KHz Sampling rate
HDCD: 16 Bit, 44.1KHz Sampling rate for CD compatibility. Comprised of
three elements, a one bit peak limiter, a three bit low level
compressor, a very good
There's another thread in the General Discussions forum asking for AAC
support now that DRM-free tracks will be available from the ITunes
store. I suggest interested folks post and show their support.
--
LejfK
LejfK's Pro
truckfighters;192082 Wrote:
>
>
> in other words: will the -6 dB transporter jumper change affect sound
> quality in any negative way if I adjust my amp +6 dB higher to maintain
> the same heard volume?
>
The only way to know for sure is to try it. As long as you're
comfortable that you know
I think you have it right the way it is. If you changed it you would be
attenuating the signal at the TP and amplifying it more at the amp.
-Ben
--
Ben Diss
'SB3' (http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_squeezebox.html) -> 'Lavry DA10'
(http://www.lavryengineering.com/productspage_da_10.html) -> 'BA
Hi
Can someone quickly summarize for me the main differences between
HDCD,SACD,DVD-audio and standard CD?
Having just picked up a japanese remaster of some Bowie, I understand
that a lot (or all?) japanese imports are re-mastered at 24bits. But
the resulting CD is still the 16bit redbook standard
325xi;192046 Wrote:
> Perhaps I'm missing something, but I simply don't get all this desire to
> hook your system into the laptop directly. Well, if you were headphoner
> then... but otherwise?
Using the laptop, I can listen to a number of sources, not just
SlimServer. For example my laptop has
using transporter directly through my redgum amp (incl. pre-amp) into
B&W N 802D.
very very nice.
always listening to music within the magical TP volume setting of -30
to 0 dB to maintain full bit depth (as far as I have understood).
but the amps volume control is only set to 1/3 of its full ra
CardinalFang;192011 Wrote:
> They claim it bypasses kmixer on their website on other OS part from
> Vista, although it might be that it holds true if you have the volume
> set to maximum only.
>
I don't understand how that would work without extra drivers.
--
johann
-
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I simply don't get all this desire to
hook your system into the laptop directly. Well, if you were headphoner
then... but otherwise?
How can you connect laptop to your system - either placing it there, or
with a long cable.
I can't imagine how much EMI/RF nois
There are quite a few folks that have tried the DAC-1, even the new one
with USB and not liked it's sound. Everyone says it is detailed and
analytical. Some reports I've read say it is TOO detailed and
analytical to be enjoyable. I've read some reviews of folks that
preferred the X-Dac v3 to the B
CardinalFang wrote:
> I saw a quote for £999 for it and I suppose once you add in shipping
> VAT, etc., it does add up. It's still rip-off Britain though :-) no
> wonder 10% of the population has left already!
For a low low fee, I'll order one to my house in VA, open it, close it,
and label it as
adamslim;192022 Wrote:
> Looks good, but I doubt they'll sell you one direct to the UK. Their UK
> distro, SCV, sells the DAC-1 for £839 ($975), so that $1,275 is going to
> be well over a grand.
I saw a quote for £999 for it and I suppose once you add in shipping
VAT, etc., it does add up. It'
CardinalFang;191985 Wrote:
> Someone tell me why I shouldn't sell my SB+XDAC V3 and just hook one of
> these up to my laptop! The transporter was to be my natural next step,
> but with this I can use iTunes or any other player I like for lossless
> and listen to digital TV broadcasts as well thro
ezkcdude;192006 Wrote:
> Well, a few reasons come to mind immediately:
>
> 1) It'll put you out a thousand or so dollars.
>
>
true, but I'd be selling the SB and XDAc.
ezkcdude;192006 Wrote:
> 2) It may not sound much better, if any.
>
Absolutely, it would have to sound better, but it would
johann;192001 Wrote:
> Without installation of other software, I don't see how it would
> possibly bypass kmixer and other limits as long as you run any kind of
> Windows else than Vista.
They claim it bypasses kmixer on their website on other OS part from
Vista, although it might be that it hol
CardinalFang;191985 Wrote:
> Someone tell me why I shouldn't sell my SB+XDAC V3 and just hook one of
> these up to my laptop!
>From an audiophile perspective, I can't. I'd compare them first if I
could, and select the one with superior sound.
The biggest advantages to the Squeezebox or Transpor
Re: "Stop it"
Last time I checked, it was my SB3 and the modded unit that I have does
invert the phase. In spite of your eloquence, I believe I will continue
to tinker with this until I - Not you - am satisfied.
--
whdean
CardinalFang;191985 Wrote:
> http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/dac1/
> Someone tell me why I shouldn't sell my SB+XDAC V3 and just hook one of
> these up to my laptop!
Well, a few reasons come to mind immediately:
1) It'll put you out a thousand or so dollars.
2) It may not sound much better, if a
whdean;191891 Wrote:
> I have two SB3's - One in our family room home theater system and a
> second one in our study. The family room unit has recently been modded
> by Bolder Cable - in my tinkering, I found that firmware v.15 sounds
> better to me than the current v.72. (I am using SS V. 6.5.1)
Without installation of other software, I don't see how it would
possibly bypass kmixer and other limits as long as you run any kind of
Windows else than Vista.
Same as my X-DACv8 really, at least in that sense.
Cheers,
/Johan
--
johann
Very nice post! Thanks for going to the trouble. I haven't sent my
stuff for the mods yet and I'll take your experiences into account.
Mike
--
miklorsmith
miklorsmith's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?
Hi folks,
I take the opportunity of reporting my own modest experience with
clocks and SB. Actually, it's a SB2 I played with, so components
references and pinout in the following may differ for a SB3.
I elected a D-Clock from NewClassD, the new home for Lars Clausen,
formerly at LCaudio. Advert
Seineseeker;191983 Wrote:
> It's only EMI for the moment. 99p a track is a bit expensive though,
> when you can buy plenty of CDs new and old still for 5-8 pounds.
That's true, but how often are there only one or two good tracks on
many CDs released nowadays?
--
CardinalFang
-
It's only EMI for the moment. 99p a track is a bit expensive though,
when you can buy plenty of CDs new and old still for 5-8 pounds.
--
Seineseeker
Seineseeker's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45
http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/dac1/
I was previously looking at getting one of the new MF XDAC V8 with USB,
but this looks more like it - straight through transmission of data via
USB with no filtering or tweaking by the PC mixers software.
Someone tell me why I shouldn't sell my SB+XDAC V3 and
amcluesent;191970 Wrote:
> No DRM, 256kbit/sec AAC played via the SB3/Transporter may sound quite
> OK for pop-music.
256K AAC should sound more than OK for the vast majority of people, I
doubt many consumers could tell the difference between that coding and
lossless.
I buy the odd song now a
Here is an ad on Audiogon for a ML "Depth" sub--that may have been the
one I heard in NY.
http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?homesubw&1180673443
Do they also make a "Descent?"
--
sc53
sc53's Profile: http://forums.slim
The EMI press release mentions 'CD Quality', and also goes on to say:
"EMI expects that consumers will be able to purchase higher quality
DRM-free downloads from a variety of digital music stores within the
coming weeks, with each retailer choosing whether to sell downloads in
AAC, WMA, MP3 or ot
No DRM, 256kbit/sec AAC played via the SB3/Transporter may sound quite
OK for pop-music.
--
amcluesent
amcluesent's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10286
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices
Interesting news from bbc.co.uk/news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6516189.stm
--
norderney
norderney's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=378
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com
No, as you will have to setup the SlimServer to transcode the ALAC files
"on the fly." If you transcode to WAV, the SB will be receiving data
packets identical to your original WAV files. If you transcode to
FLAC, you will save some bandwidth, but since you are already streaming
WAV there is pro
Why are you keeping your files as WAV - would FLAC not be a better
medium in terms of disk space?
Any lossless format is just that - lossless - so you will not
compromise quality. You will eat up bandwidth on your network as you
will have to stream the ALAC files as WAV's - SB3 does not have ALAC
Hi All,
For years I've been ripping my files to wave using EAC but in the as
my Itune library has grown I've realized that I'd be better off (in
terms of disc space) condolodating my entire library in Itunes. Is
there any risk that I will sacrifice any audio quality if I use Apple
Lossless files
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
whdean wrote:
> Because I want it all, of course !
Try this:
Edit server/Firmware/squeezebox2.version.
Note: your file may have a different number than 80
Change this line:
1..80 80
To this:
1..14 15
16..80 80
That should skip firmware upgrades for firmware 15
I must say, I personally thin
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
44 matches
Mail list logo
