I too think you should get better speakers. I understand your reluctance
since you recently bought your other speakers but 1,000.00 will buy you
some very nice speakers that will make a much bigger improvement in
your system than the Benchmark.
The diference between good 1,000.00 speakers and
Phil Leigh;234523 Wrote:
I'm tired of pointing out that 30 years ago we measured different things
and thought that we knew what we were doing - and now we all know that
was simply wrong!
And I'm tired of pointing out that it doesn't matter how our brain
works. If you take the human brain into
Opaqueice,
Thanks for the advice. I certainly will try a 'stock' SB3 against the
SB+
opaqueice;234501 Wrote:
Before spending $2000 do yourself a favor and compare it blind to a
stock SB3. Just make sure the levels are matched (they probably will
be already if the volumes are set the
tomjtx;234582 Wrote:
servies,
I think you might be missing the point.
We are listening to music, not test tones.
The point is that he's not listening to you guys either. He may be
reading the posts and typing a reply, but is it really going in?
One problem with internet fora is that
I'm curious as to exactly what tests an engineer would enact to compare
two cables. What specific measurements would be taken? Are these
tests complete enough to truly be able to replicate all of the elements
involved in our hearing?
I'm reminded of the many debates that have been posted on
I'm a big fan of getting the digital source right, more than most on
this forum, but even I would suggest that you wouldn't get great value
from spending on your front end in such a system.
I guess that if you see the next couple of years being spent gradually
upgrading your hifi, then it could
pablolie;234563 Wrote:
Heisenberg paradigm: measuring something sometimes interferes with the
result...
You've heard of Godwin's Law (that sooner or later in any heated online
discussion, someone brings up the Nazis)?
There seems to be a specialised version used in audiophile forums:
sooner
Appreciate all your response to my thread and share me your experience.
Currently, my speakers and amplifier are well matched though they are
entry-level. I enjoy very much the sound produced.
Well, I agree with adamslim's point, save the money for future big
upgrading. However, I prefer
harmonic wrote:
Speakers are a very personal thing, the all sound different .
I beleive in first find the speaker you like the sound of then find the
amplifire that drives them best .
But one problem when you move up in higer caliber speakers the become
more and more transperant, and
Let's try to explain it:
we have cable A and cable B. They both have different physical
characteristics, so they could sound different, that's what we want to
proof.
We hook 'm up between an amplifier and some speakers.
We put a microphone somewhere in front of the speakers.
This microphone
Faceplate mania...it IS distracting when things don't match. I recently
spray-painted an HDTV tuner black to match my other stuff.
Another pet peeve is the abundance of blindingly bright LEDs on some
consumer electronics. I cover them with a bit of museum putty to
preserve my eyesight and
Monty_W;234578 Wrote:
Thanks for the advice. I certainly will try a 'stock' SB3 against the
SB+
If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you post the results of your
comparison here on the forum? I think many would be quite interested
in them, particularly if you do it blind.
--
servies;234628 Wrote:
Geez... still living in the 1940's?
@adamSlim,
maybe, the microphones aren't perfect, but that's the case for both
tests (cable A and B)
and that also would be eliminated if you go for option B (comparing the
signal at the entrance of the speakers), but ofcourse there
servies wrote:
Robin Bowes;234617 Wrote:
Or are you now telling me that we can produce microphones that can
perform as well as the human ear?
Geez... still living in the 1940's?
Microphones are tone controls.
The most lust object micros are Neumanns from the 50s and RCA ribbons
from the 30s.
jeffmeh;234644 Wrote:
An elephant just quantum tunnelled to appear intact in my living room.
Should I reconsider buying the expensive cables?
Is the elephant wearing headphones?
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call
If I had to guess at what the difference is between a better performing
cable and an inferior cable, for instance the Belden 1800f vs Monster
cable or Whirlwind as the inferior cable, it would be a combination of
frequency response and distortion. The more accurate the playback
equipment and
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=325707cid=20947261
--
EFP
EFP's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6651
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35150
darrenyeats;234105 Wrote:
Denny,
You are correct about data being handled without error on computers. If
in the very rare case there is an error some part of the system crashes!
Information Technology is based on error detection and correction,
buffering and asynchronous transfer. This
Pale Blue Ego;234614 Wrote:
Faceplate mania...it IS distracting when things don't match. I recently
spray-painted an HDTV tuner black to match my other stuff.
Another pet peeve is the abundance of blindingly bright LEDs on some
consumer electronics. I cover them with a bit of museum
the thing that trips up so many technical people when thinking about
data is that if the bits are transmitted without error (or with errors
corrected), that you cannot have an audible difference. but what is so
often overlooked is that, unlike copying a computer file from a CD to a
hard-drive,
I think he meant that he could explain it, but the simple fact that you
heard what he said changed it's meaning.
Not to mention that we couldn't possibly know how to test for
everything that might effect the sound as it traveled from his mouth to
your ears.
Mike
--
mvalera
Michael Valera
two possibilities: 1) actual corruption of the bitstream, 2) jitter --
i.e. 1) are the bits being changed en-route? 2) are the right bits
getting to the DAC, but not at the right time?
to test for bitstream corruption, take a DTS encoded audio disc (e.g.,
the moodys blues days of future past)
opaqueice;234637 Wrote:
Haha, that's funny... I thought exactly the same thing when I read that
post! I had a little of that sinking feeling I get at cocktail parties
when someone finds out I'm a physicist and brings up QM - that
jaysung;234667 Wrote:
3. I am quite satisfied with the setup actually.
Do you answer your own question?
You can always get something better, but surely it's best to wait until
you have heard something so hauntingly good that you've just got to have
it? In that case, rather than try to tweak
Here's a test:
start with a CD track - so we know exactly what the bits are. put
through a good DAC and analogue interconnects to a suitable high
quality and calibrated ADC - record the bits. Compare the recorded bits
with the original bits. Any change must be induced by the cable. Repeat
with
Hello,
I know we have had it over and over again and even worse the general
point seems to be clear. How would it look for my special case then:
I have:
- transporter via xlr into
- Marantz PM-11s1 via Bluematrix copper cables into
- 2 x Dali Helicon 400
---
Since the Marantz is an integrated amp
I think Adam's comment makes a lot of sense. If you are not feeling
like something needs to be improved and aren't haunted by something
else that you have heard, you might just be in a perfect place to
really enjoy your music collection and add to it. There is always
something better, but if I
Robin Bowes;234617 Wrote:
Or are you now telling me that we can produce microphones that can
perform as well as the human ear?
adamslim;234626 Wrote:
snip
Your test is pointless.
Actually it's not a bad idea. What you both seem to be missing is that
everything we listen to over an
Thanks - and that's what I've understood from elsewhere. It also agrees
with what Sean says about it being best to have the -ve unconnected.
So...
As I said up front, my preference would be to stick with my current
cable and put the adapter at the DAC end.
If (as you suggest) nearly all
servies;234613 Wrote:
This microphone registers everything which is coming out of the
speakers.
It's quite a good one then. Transducers are not perfect. Ears have
flaws and tolerances, microphones have flaws and tolerances. Your
argument has flaws.
Difference testing on interconnects
seanadams;234542 Wrote:
As it happens I was just about to pick up some more black gear, so
assuming you're in the US I will trade you my silver one. emailing
you...
Sounds like a good deal, as it basically comes with a lifetime
warranty, in hey Sean, this is the one you gave me, how come it
I suppose he meant that he could probably explain it and that you
probably wouldn't understand it... ;o)
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some
Robin Bowes;234617 Wrote:
Or are you now telling me that we can produce microphones that can
perform as well as the human ear?
R.
Geez... still living in the 1940's?
--
servies
servies's Profile:
cliveb;234593 Wrote:
You've heard of Godwin's Law (that sooner or later in any heated online
discussion, someone brings up the Nazis)?
There seems to be a specialised version used in audiophile forums:
sooner or later someone brings up quantum mechanics.
Does this mean this thread is
GoCubs;234647 Wrote:
I'd have him sign it too! Maybe someday it'll end up in the Smithsonian
or something!
A bit off-topic, but I still get annoyed every time I travel through
San Francisco's airport terminal where they have a cool showcase on
technological innovation/development. There
jaysung;234667 Wrote:
Hello,
Now some questions:
1. If I just have mono power amps or active speakers how is volume
control managed then?
Volume control on the TP...
jaysung;234667 Wrote:
2. Do those mono blocks run hotter, louder or in any way more eneergy
hungry?
Depends on
If speakers vary most in presentation and SQ, as opposed to source and
amps, surly it would be best to get the source pretty much to how you
like it with current speakers and then when money allows pick from the
huge range of different sounding speakers to get exactly what your
after, or more
I haven't posted here before (just passing through because
squeezenetwork is on the blink), but I thought I would add my
experience to the thread. Friends (not audiophiles, and highly
skeptical) and I blind tested (not double blind)a squeezebox vs. a
Bolder modified (digital only) squeezebox.
DennyL;234726 Wrote:
If they sound different, then the two streams of numbers are different.
Surely we can all accept that.
Nope.
Ceejay.
--
ceejay
ceejay's Profile:
JimC;234687 Wrote:
My cousin is a professor and research physicist at Stanford, working on
the SLA. I'm a pretty smart guy by most measures of intelligence and
can hold my own with him on a wide variety of topics. I once asked him
if he could explain QM to me.
As he is family, he didn't
Denny,
The timing does matter here. The same bits with different timing can
yield different audio output. Jitter does exist, although one can
argue about its significance.
If you read up on the SPDIF protocol and understand how the clock is
obtained from the data signal itself, you will see
[EMAIL PROTECTED];234768 Wrote:
I cant believe this is a ground loop issue as my sb3 or sb2 dont have
this issue when connected to these systems.
If the hum is 60hz, it's either ground loop, or a defective TP.
--
SuperQ
Yep, in a way I answer my question but wanted to know what
others would think in my situation. And yes it is a bit like Pandora's
box. The worst case scenario would be:
- someone tells me about that phantastic amp
- my local dealer is having it
- and gives it to me for a home demo
- and then
Yes, in a good active speaker design, they will put the crossover before
the amps.
Running longer xlr interconnects is usually preferred to running long
speaker lines as there is less potential for interference due to the
balanced design and interconnects are usually cheaper than speaker
musiklov3r wrote:
With regard to amplification, Class A is considered to be the premium
analog amplifier design while Class D stands for digital amplification.
It is true that many audiophiles assume that Class A is better than
Class B, but this is not high school grading.
The term refers to
Thanks for the kind offer, Sean. (And sorry for the slow response -- got
swamped at work.)
I had the send the silver Bryston integrated back, so now I can keep
shopping for a black amp to match the Transporter.
--
gregeas
gregeas;234808 Wrote:
Thanks for the kind offer, Sean. (And sorry for the slow response -- got
swamped at work.)
I had the send the silver Bryston integrated back, so now I can keep
shopping for a black amp to match the Transporter.
If you don't mind me asking, what happened with the
I am waiting for our contribution.
--
askchan
askchan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13511
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38967
Pat Farrell;234800 Wrote:
It is extremely rare to find a Class A amp that puts out more than 20
watts.
I wouldn't say exactly rare. Atma-Sphere's tube amps start at 30W. :)
--
SuperQ
SuperQ's Profile:
I have become ahuge believer in the future potential of simplicity and
stuff like SB + active speakers.
I am amazed by the price-performance ratio of the SB3-Audioengine5
combo. As people are probably getting tired of hearing, I have
temporarily moved from my (larger) home to a studio
50 matches
Mail list logo
