opaqueice;199866 Wrote:
> Absolutely. Ideally we will do an A/B of an SB3/TP, both analogue outs
> and digital to a DAC, but that depends in part on the patience of my
> host...
>
>
I'd love to see your report as well. You seem pretty level headed and
don't get caught up in all the hype.
--
This thread seems a good place to ask about my own setup--I hope it is
not off-topic:
I have a stock SB3 with stock power supply (wireless connection to
Slimserver) connected via coax cable to an external Upsampler/DAC, a
dCS Purcell/Delius combination. The rest of the system is quite
revealing a
Not too many, huh?
>From inexpensive semi-pro Behringer could be named, but I'm not sure
its clock IN will help much for jitter...
--
325xi
325xi's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5661
View this t
nuhi;199880 Wrote:
> I could just listen to it but I doubt that I'll hear any difference .
> That doesn't mean it isn't important to me, even if only from the
> theoretical standpoint.
The problem is, you can argue theoretically wither way - either the
wifi card causes problems, or the grounding
fred1322 wrote:
>konut wrote:
>> Any kind of sources you may happen to know of.
>
> Tascam CDRW2000
Which is a 'pro audio' product. Stuff for studios has word clock,
because the last thing you need with racks of AD convertors, effects
boxes, etc. is to get them out of sync. The usual pro audi
These are probably a lot cheaper on *bay:
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/CDR830Plus/ .
Then there are sound cards with word clock I/O:
http://www.keenzo.com/showproduct.asp?ID=917029 , which I'd imagine
could allow you to use the transporters DAC with a movie server or
other real-time co
Tascam CDRW2000
--
fred1322
fred1322's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8994
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35032
___
a
It's good news to see these 24/96 flacs appearing. I hope more companies
follow suit.
I really wish Linn would release the Blue Nile - Walk Across The
Rooftops in this format though!! It's just crying out for this sort of
treatment.
--
wullsy
---
The Esoteric stuff (made by Teac) have word clock capability. Quite
expensive though...
--
crooner
Customized dual chassis "Super Squeezebox"
EAD DSP-7000 MKIII DAC with HDCD
VPI Scout with Benz Micro Glider M2
Audio Research PH3, SP16L and VS110
Vandersteen 2Ce signatures, 2W subwoofer.
-
There was a recommendation, by Sean, that to get the best performance of
the DAC in the Transporter, using external sources, that it would be
optimal to use a source with a word clock input. Can you, my esteemed
forum mates, suggest sources with this capability? The thrust of this
is to build a sy
tomjtx;199883 Wrote:
> You might look at Audi Circle. There is a thread discussing wired V
> wireless.
>
> Some people claim wired sounds better.
>
> I don't hear any difference at all in my system.
Thanks but I already saw it and decided to go with wired (haven't
tested but I feel more at eas
nuhi;199880 Wrote:
> hehe, such questions ask for such humor but I am really interested.
> Mainly because at the moment the coax from the soundcard sounds better
> to me and I'm willing to sacrifice that sound quality if it would help
> keeping the Transporter dedicated playback cleaner.
>
> I c
opaqueice,
Do you have balanced inputs on your amp?
If so, would you throw that into the mix?
In blind testing with levels matched I and a friend compared xlr > rca
and we identified a difference every time. It was more than a subtle
difference.
Less grain , smoother highs, more natural soundin
adamslim;199874 Wrote:
> I recommend Bach as the cure to your apparent mild anxiety ;)
hehe, such questions ask for such humor but I am really interested.
Mainly because at the moment the coax from the soundcard sounds better
to me and I'm willing to sacrifice that sound quality if it would help
nuhi;199872 Wrote:
> Can the coax connection from the soundcard's (or onboard chip's) digital
> out pollute the Transporter's digital circuits with some sort of
> switching noise or other computer-related 'quirk' while Transporter is
> playing on it's own?
> Maybe airborne from all the various ca
So one of the main advantages of the Transporter is that it plays the
music outside of the computer, in the cleaner environment.
Since I'm using it as an external DAC too to play the sounds from the
soundcard when needed (everything except music), I was wondering:
Can the coax connection from th
tomjtx;199863 Wrote:
> opaqueice,
>
> I would be interested to hear your impression of transporter.
> Will you post on that?
Absolutely. Ideally we will do an A/B of an SB3/TP, both analogue outs
and digital to a DAC, but that depends in part on the patience of my
host...
Patrick Dixon Wrote:
opaqueice;199856 Wrote:
> You heard distortion at -120 dB - very interesting. Under what
> circumstances, may I ask?
>
> Let me point out that the absolute threshold of human hearing, by a
> 20-year-old in the most sensitive range, is 3 or 4 dB SPL. Therefore
> to make any noise - let alone di
opaqueice;199851 Wrote:
> Distortion st -120 dB? No.
>
> Benchmark DAC 1? Yes.
>
> Transporter? I'm auditioning one tomorrow.
>
> Have you?
opaqueice,
I would be interested to hear your impression of transporter.
Will you post on that?
--
tomjtx
Patrick Dixon;199852 Wrote:
> Yup - all of those and many more as it happens.
You heard distortion at -120 dB - very interesting. Under what
circumstances, may I ask?
Let me point out that the absolute threshold of human hearing, by a
20-year-old in the most sensitive range, is 3 or 4 dB SPL.
opaqueice;199828 Wrote:
> 325xi, now you'll have to decide if you care more about having a
> ridiculously low noise floor and slightly more jitter, or ridiculously
> low jitter and slightly more noise.
You're making me feeling like Buridan's ass...
--
325xi
---
opaqueice;199851 Wrote:
> Distortion st -120 dB? No.
>
> Benchmark DAC 1? Yes.
>
> Transporter? I'm auditioning one tomorrow.
>
> Have you?
Yup - all of those and many more as it happens.
--
Patrick Dixon
www.at-tunes.co.uk
--
seanadams;199825 Wrote:
> You're begging the question. First you say you must have a DAC that
> "fixes" jitter from an s/pdif source. I am telling you that Transporter
> doesn't have such a mechanism and that it is of arguable benefit anyway.
> That is not to say that it does a poor job of recove
Patrick Dixon;199848 Wrote:
> Have you ever heard *any* of this stuff?
Distortion st -120 dB? No.
Benchmark DAC 1? Yes.
Transporter? I'm auditioning one tomorrow.
Have you?
--
opaqueice
opaqueice's Profile: htt
opaqueice;199828 Wrote:
> They will sound exactly the same :-).
>
> -135 db noise floor versus -130 db? Please. This stuff is far, far
> below the level of audibility.
>
> The issue here isn't how good these things sound. It's engineering for
> engineering's sake - knowing you own the best s
Quote from op dredged out of another
'democracy leads to rule by the stupid'.
Interesting unintended self-reference :).
--
totoro
squeezebox 3 -> mccormack dna .5 -> audio physic tempo 4
totoro's Profile: http://forums.
seanadams;199818 Wrote:
>
> As you can see the skirts on yellow (TP S/PDIF) trace are ever so
> slightly wider than those of the Benchmark, in red. So what? That's
> mice nuts - look at how much better Transporter's SNR is! Which do you
> think would actually sound better?
They will sound exact
325xi;199813 Wrote:
> Sean, I appreciate having word clock link, I agree with you this is the
> ultimate solution, and I have no bias towards ASRC - I'm just saying
> that too much of gear has no word clock input to take advantage of
> that. And since word clock is the only option offered to end-
Little example, Matsushita dvd drives found in many Sony, Lenovo, and
Toshiba laptops are known for severe issues with DAE. If you fail to
use secure ripper that detects problems, rips made on such a drive may
be worth nothing - a matter of luck. So using a secure ripper is highly
recommended rega
Skunk wrote:
> I don't think you should spend $1k for an ASRC chip. Just live with it
> and forget jitter exists. If you really care about the particular
> source so much, have someone add clock input capability.
Good suggestion, since jitter doesn't exist except in magazines and 'net
forums as a
Here is a test I did a while ago which illustrates the difference
between Transporter and other DACs with respect to jitter. This is a
10KHz sine wave:
http://www.slimdevices.com/temp/transporter_vs_benchmark.gif
The Dscope analyzer is running from its internal clock.
Transporter is shown runnin
Skunk;199811 Wrote:
> I used to be in the tire business, so I'm in my element now :-)
>
> To use your analogy we'd also have to assume that one could buy
> after-market tires that would allow the car to be very good in snow as
> well. People who need it all year, and enjoy the highest level of
>
seanadams;199810 Wrote:
> I don't follow how you came to that conclusion. It is an incredibly good
> DAC and you would be hard pressed to find anything with better SNR,
> lower distortion, etc. However, Transporter makes no apologies for not
> resampling, so if you have your heart set on ASRC, ge
325xi;199808 Wrote:
> Well, it's like making a very good car that can run only with summer
> performance tires. It might be fine with some that can have another car
> for every day of week, but would limit possible use of it for many.
I used to be in the tire business, so I'm in my element now :
325xi;199801 Wrote:
> The problem is that if it does nothing with jitter it renders itself as
> pretty much useless as an outboard DAC for real world dirty SPDIF,
> which is a pity.
I don't follow how you came to that conclusion. It is an incredibly
good DAC and you would be hard pressed to fin
Skunk;199807 Wrote:
> And you are in turn saying your gear's lack of said input is a design
> fault of the Transporter, when actually it's the only foolproof way one
> should market somethng as being 'immune' to jitter ;-)
Well, it's like making a very good car that can run only with summer
perf
325xi;199804 Wrote:
> Hey, that isn't nice - you're saying if I don't have all my gear with
> word clock input I don't care about music? ;)
And you are in turn saying your gear's lack of said input is a design
fault of the Transporter, when actually it's the only foolproof way one
should market
Skunk;199803 Wrote:
> IMO the clock output capability, combined with a hard drive source for
> most critical listening, suggest that the Transporter WAS in fact
> designed to be totally immune to jitter- for those who really care
> about it anyway...
Hey, that isn't nice - you're saying if I don
opaqueice;199794 Wrote:
> If you want a DAC that's immune to input jitter, you should probably buy
> one that was designed with that goal in mind - which the Transporter was
> not. The Benchmark DAC 1 for example claims to be totally immune to
> jitter, and measurements back that up.
I don't th
opaqueice;199794 Wrote:
> If you want a DAC that's immune to input jitter, you should probably buy
> one that was designed with that goal in mind - which the Transporter was
> not. The Benchmark DAC 1 for example claims to be totally immune to
> jitter, and measurements back that up.
I asked ab
325xi;199775 Wrote:
> Sean,
> What was the reason behind such a decision, considering that word clock
> is less then widely available feature... It appears there's no option to
> use Transporter as outboard DAC with real world quality SPDIF source if
> I don't have word clock input on the source
325xi;199775 Wrote:
> It appears there's no option to use Transporter as outboard DAC with
> real world quality SPDIF source if I don't have word clock input on the
> source - am I right?
I don't think so. He said if you want to use the Transporter's clock,
rather than the built-into SPDIF timin
seanadams;199651 Wrote:
> When used as an outboard DAC, you must use Transporter's word clock
> output capability if you want to get all the benefits of its internal
> clock. If the clock is recovered from S/PDIF, there is no added
> processing mechanism (such as ASRC) to reduce jitter, so you wo
Actually the release notes for firmware 81 says that bug 4712 -88.2kHz
sample rate content plays at half speed- is fixed, but the bug entry is
not closed.
Olav
Phil Leigh wrote:
> I thought the SB3 could only handle 48k max so you'd need to downsample
> it to 48 or 44.1 first, retaining the 24
The FLAC sample from Linn's site plays fine on my SB2 and in Foobar. Is
the sample different from the 24/88.2 music files?
Olav
SlimServer Version: 6.5.2 - 11743 - Windows XP - EN - cp1252
SB Firmware 81
Perl Version: 5.8.8 MSWin32-x86-multi-thread
MySQL Version: 5.0.22-community-nt
adamslim wr
Well I downsampled them by converting to wav (using the flac frontend)
then DBPowerAmp to downsample and FLAC. Only way I could play them!
The 24/44.1 files work fine, not really listened much yet.
Now to see what my new SB+ makes of them, which arrived at 8.30 this
morning! :)
Adam
--
adam
Hi,
I bought a few 24/88.2 flac's too. The last time i checked this out
with the sample-wma-track (converted to flac) and the transporter it
didn't work (slow or white noise).
AFAIR there was no native support nor an easy
solution so i've been absolutley surprised what happened now:
IT JUST WOR
I thought the SB3 could only handle 48k max so you'd need to downsample
it to 48 or 44.1 first, retaining the 24 bit depth - I would try
audacity v3 to see if that can do it...
--
Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://fo
48 matches
Mail list logo
