Eric 2;227065 Wrote:
Muski - I do already own an Airport Express which is used for a laptop
but as the G5 computer would be sitting very close to the DAC/Amp.
Wouldnt a USB cable or Optical cable from the computer be the best
option? The fewer paths the better? The G5 has a full sized
Firestone Audio make a DAC and Headphone Amplifier in one unit. I
haven't used one but I do use a Cute Beyond headphone amp from them.
http://www.firestoneaudio.com.au/products/products/products/fubarIII.html
Stevo
--
stevo
mister pig;226944 Wrote:
Fair enough. I went back and listened once again to FLAC vs uncompressed
WAV, and still prefer uncompressed. The differences are subtle in this
area, although still noticable in the songs I listened to. I understand
why the many aherents of lossless feel the way they
gdg;227163 Wrote:
Uh no... Read my post. I'm talking about the new High Def video
standards that include high rez audio capabilities.
How does that relate to streaming music from a SB or transporter
though?
The high resolution lossless soundtracks are only available over HDMI
anyway, as they
muski;227218 Wrote:
BTW, my iMac G5 also uses a mini-Toslink, so I'm guessing that you have
a G5 tower. Is your G5 quiet enough to go in your listening room -- no
annoying fan noise?
It is a G5 tower. Do you know until your post I hadnt noticed the fan
noise but youre quite right it is
I just measured the noise floor of my SB; it has a sharp peak at 7.9kHz
and at 17.8kHz. This seem to be related to the display, as the relative
level of the peaks change when the display brightness is changed, also
the peaks disappear when the brightness is turned down until the
display is off.
fred7;227211 Wrote:
When I do a FC /B on Windows the wav files are exactly the same - No
Differences Encountered.
This proves that wav-flac-wav transcoding on -Windows- is lossless
which is an expected result.
This result doesn't necessarily mean that the 2nd half of the
transcoding
So as I noted either in this thread or another, I've been recapturing
the sweep responses. I looked at the impulse response and compared it
to the one I got in May, which was the one I used to create the filters
I'm using now. I don't understand why there is a difference like this
between the
quietdragon;227253 Wrote:
This result doesn't necessarily mean that the 2nd half of the
transcoding (flac-wav decoding) on the SB3 will produce the same
result. There's a good chance that it should, but there's also a chance
that it might not because the flac-wav implementation on SB3 cannot
funkstar;227231 Wrote:
Really? Not according to the hardware comparison page on the Wiki
http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?HardwareComparison
The Burr-Brown PCM1748E dac chip can do 96kHz...
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what
*Isaac*;227245 Wrote:
I just measured the noise floor of my SB; it has a sharp peak at 7.9kHz
and at 17.8kHz. This seem to be related to the display, as the relative
level of the peaks change when the display brightness is changed, also
the peaks disappear when the brightness is turned down
quietdragon;227253 Wrote:
This proves that wav-flac-wav transcoding on -Windows- is lossless
which is an expected result.
This result doesn't necessarily mean that the 2nd half of the
transcoding (flac-wav decoding) on the SB3 will produce the same
result. There's a good chance that it
Eric Carroll;173867 Wrote:
I just finished recommissioning my old Rotel system as the world's
largest distributed alarm clock in the bedroom. 180Wpc ought to wake me
up!
My alarm clock configuration is SB3 - Rotel RB-890 - BW Matrix 805
bookshelf speakers. Note that the SB3 is about 6.5
I may be going crazy, but I thought the SlimServer had an option for
track or volume leveling. I'm been using MP3Gain to do the volume
leveling for my tracks, but I wanted to stop having to do this and use
the SlimServer to adjust when they are played.
I went through all of the menus and I
I listened for the 1st time to my ety's 4-s , a great iem, through my
SB3 analog out into my total airhead portable amp. It sounds very good,
much better than my ipodtotal airhead. And much, much better than the
SB3 headphone out. The airhead is only 100.00
Just got the AKG701's. With as good a
Ok, so I found some threads that explain that SS does support volume
leveling, but I don't have the option in my player settings.
According to the articles, it should be under Player Settings - Audio,
but I don't have the Automatic Volume Adjustment there.
I'm running SS 6.5.3.any ideas on
Home / Player Settings for {name} / Audio - VOLUME ADJUSTMENT/REPLAY
GAIN
but this uses the tag information in the Replay Gain set of tags for
track and album gain.
MP3Gain actually rewrites (some would say corrupt) the data in the MP3
file.
--
amcluesent
No idea what the answer is but this paper seems to attempt to cover the
topic. Interesting reading!
http://photos.imageevent.com/cics/v03theartofbuildingcomputertrnsp/The%20art%20of%20building%20Computer%20Transports%20v0.3.pdf
--
Heuer
Differences would likely include different source code, different
source version, different compiler
Hmm, not so sure. If you run Excel on a PC and Mac and enter '=2+2'
you'd expect the answer to be '4', although the source code, version
and compiler is different.
Decompression of FLAC is
Heuer;227272 Wrote:
No idea what the answer is but this paper seems to attempt to cover the
topic. Interesting reading!
http://photos.imageevent.com/cics/v03theartofbuildingcomputertrnsp/The%20art%20of%20building%20Computer%20Transports%20v0.3.pdf
Or thank goodness we can just buy an SB!
Phil Leigh;227258 Wrote:
The Burr-Brown PCM1748E dac chip can do 96kHz...
Good to know. Not that it makes a difference is the SB3s processor
can't handle 96khz audio anyway :)
--
funkstar
funkstar's Profile:
funkstar;227282 Wrote:
Good to know. Not that it makes a difference is the SB3s processor can't
handle 96khz audio anyway :)
True - I was simply trying to clear up any confusion between the DAC
chip and the SB itself.
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a
muski;227044 Wrote:
Thanks, Inguz. I'll have a look at the Octave scripts in the
meantime...
The octave scripts will give you this:
http://www.ronaldverlaan.com/drc/left/drc-graphs.html
http://www.ronaldverlaan.com/drc/right/drc-graphs.html
Certainly worth creating them! :-)
Don't forget to
People are beginning to speculate that these new formats may be utilized
by the music industry. One of the main reasons is that audio capability
will be included in virtually all players from the beginning and the
hardware base will be built into the market. It's all speculation at
this point and
gdg wrote:
People are beginning to speculate that these new formats may be utilized
by the music industry.
What new formats? SACD and DVD-A? They are hardly new, they were defined
last century. They have failed in the market. Some boutique audiophile
labels still making them, essentially like
Pat Farrell;227303 Wrote:
gdg wrote:
People are beginning to speculate that these new formats may be
utilized
by the music industry.
What new formats? SACD and DVD-A? They are hardly new, they were
defined
last century. They have failed in the market. Some boutique audiophile
one needed to buy a dedicated SACD player or pay extra for a DVDA
enabled player. This does not fly for Joe consumer. With HD DVD or
BluRay the players will have audio capabilities built in and by the
time the entire DVD industry has gone High Def the hardware base for a
high rez audio standard
Tony - the difference between your two seems just to be low-frequency
(10Hz) noise. The current ImpulsePrep procedure doesn't filter out
noise much below the sweep-start frequency, so that dominates (-40dB)
versus the HF noise over long time intervals.
Most of the interesting action in the
gdg wrote:
Pat Farrell;227303 Wrote:
gdg wrote:
People are beginning to speculate that these new formats may be
utilized by the music industry.
What new formats? SACD and DVD-A? They are hardly new, they were
defined last century. They have failed in the market. Some boutique
audiophile
amcluesent;227273 Wrote:
If you run Excel on a PC and Mac and enter '=2+2' you'd expect the
answer to be '4', although the source code, version and compiler is
different.
You're partly right, however -expectations- and -reality- are
different. I know from hard won experience that having a
There has been more than one post and if you are too lazy to to actually
follow the thread don't blame me. Whether you care about multi channel
or not is not the issue. Multi channel is just one of the many ways the
audio capability of BluRay or HD DVD can be utilized and it doesn't
preclude
funkstar;227230 Wrote:
How does that relate to streaming music from a SB or transporter
though?
The high resolution lossless soundtracks are only available over HDMI
anyway, as they far excede the bandwidth of standard optical or coax
output.
As for bandwidth I believe HDMI is a
gdg wrote:
There has been more than one post and if you are too lazy to to actually
follow the thread don't blame me.
Contrary to some expectations, some folks get these posts via email
As for not giving a crap about home theater or multi
channel wake up.
Non sequitor.
Thanks for the response. This is where I was looking, but I don't see
the option under the audio configuration for my player. I downloaded
6.5.4 and am going to install. Maybe something is just screwy with my
setup.
I could have sworn that I saw it there before, but it's missing now.
--
quietdragon;227313 Wrote:
I am merely saying that there are many reasons why showing that
wav-flac-wav on Windows is -not- sufficient to prove (100%) anything
about the outcome on the SB3. It does increase the probability that the
SB3 is also doing the -expected- thing.
It's trivial to
VolkerR;227318 Wrote:
There is a lot of buzz around FLAC format and I have to decide what
format I am going to use:
My criteria list is the following:
1) Sound Quality
2) Ease of use Time for ripping
3) Database for automatic file naming of ripped tracks
4) Required space
Any help
VolkerR wrote:
There is a lot of buzz around FLAC format and I have to decide what
format I am going to use:
My criteria list is the following:
1) Sound Quality
2) Ease of use Time for ripping
3) Database for automatic file naming of ripped tracks
4) Required space
You are combining the
To simplify the whole issue lets put it this way...
In future, a high quality mass production company like, for instance,
EMI could decide that all of it's Jazz releases will be done in Stereo
24/196 and, unlike SACD or DVDA, virtually everyone will already own
a player capable of playing the
Wow - very thorough! I'll have to try that once I get my new speakers
and re-measure.
Have any of you guys tried this program?
http://www.fesb.hr/~mateljan/arta/download.htm
It looks pretty good.
--
opaqueice
gdg wrote:
In future, a high quality mass production company like, for instance,
EMI could decide that all of it's Jazz releases will be done in Stereo
24/196 and, unlike SACD or DVDA, virtually everyone will already own
a player capable of playing the format.
I would love it for them to
Do you really think you need higher resolution than 24/96?
Or for that matter, 16/44.1?
--
opaqueice
opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234
View this thread:
opaqueice wrote:
Do you really think you need higher resolution than 24/96?
Or for that matter, 16/44.1?
I'm not the guy who wrote that, but a bit better than 16/44 would be
nice. If only so that the engineers would aim higher. Serious folks say
that 20/55kHz or so is actually all we need
Well, I'm still waiting to see one single bliund listening test in which
people can even -distinguish- between 16/44.1 and something better*, let
alone care about the difference (and I'm not talking about tiny
differences in the noise floor that can be heard with massive
amplification - this is
Personally, on my system I can even hear the difference between 16/44
and the current 16/48 dvd audio standard. There is no question that the
vast majority of people are happy with MP3. Makes no difference to me.
Most of them have have seldom, if ever, even heard a live unamplified
instrument so
hi,
here are some measurements taken with an maudio transit. The transit
baseline measurement is taken with the input unterminated so the noise
floor below ~400Hz is about 3dB higher than it when it is connected to
a low impedance output, but is sufficient to allow good measurements as
it is
heres with the display off. you can see there is still some junk there
but mostly out of band. Sorry the images are kind of big.
+---+
|Filename: noise floor Brightness display off.jpg |
|Download:
measurements are:
-measurement system noise floor
-brightness 4
-brightness 3
-brightness 2
-brightness 1
-brightness 0 display off
in that order.
Sorry about the formatting, haven't posted much before.
--
*Isaac*
inguz;227308 Wrote:
Tony - the difference between your two seems just to be low-frequency
(10Hz) noise. The current ImpulsePrep procedure doesn't filter out
noise much below the sweep-start frequency, so that dominates (-40dB)
versus the HF noise over long time intervals.
Most of the
highknees69;227320 Wrote:
Thanks for the response. This is where I was looking, but I don't see
the option under the audio configuration for my player. I downloaded
6.5.4 and am going to install. Maybe something is just screwy with my
setup.
You're not using a Squeezebox v1 or SliMP3,
Three words: try it blind.
I'd be willing to bet you can't hear the difference if you don't know
in advance which is which (again, I'm talking about music at reasonable
levels, not very quiet sections cranked way up).
Here's the abstract:
Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly
opaqueice wrote:
Three words: try it blind.
Oh No, not DBT, didn't we ban all diversions to threads about DBT.
I mean, how can you tell tube amps from solid state without the orange
glow of the tubes? The eyes are near the ears.
___
audiophiles
The time-scale on your charts is ~seconds. But everything after the
first half-second is noise. The room reverb which you can see in the
first half-second or less, is pretty much a straight-line slope (on the
dB vertical scale).
Room correction won't fundamentally alter the room-reverb
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:
Ummm, duh on me here.Running 2 SB1 units.
Now I know where I saw this setting...it was when I was upgrading my
friend's slim server software with his nice new SB2 unit.
BTW, I've been running the MP3Gain program with Track Analysis Track
Gain to level the volume and although that works, it
What are we... back to the CD gives perfect sound bullshit? Have you
idiots ever even heard a good sound system? A guy who has spent his
life working with live orchestras came over the other day to buy my
Ipod. Within five minutes of listening to my system was asking me for
permission to send
This was an old thread, with other threads tracking the issue more
closely. This is a known issue, seen by Stereophile's review and
acknowledge by Slim. The issue is that the gain is too high between
your SB source and power amp. The resolution is to add attenuation
between your SB3 and the power
gdg;227346 Wrote:
Have you idiots ever even heard a good sound system?
Who do you mean you idiots?
Did it every occur to you, gdg, that some of us might actually know
what we are talking about?
These personal attacks that you, gdg, seem to love are at best
uncivilized, and at worst make you
57 matches
Mail list logo
