thanks for the post. I am trying to find some smallish powered speakers
for a client and the Audioengine A2s were about to get ordered. Given
that his use will be background music, the 1080s should do well for
him. He's heard the original M200 I have and liked the sound.
--
twylie
Thecus N5
Hi Everyone
Anyone recommend a digital cable (BNC (SB3) - XLR (Dac))?
many Thanks
Andy
--
tricka
SB3 - Lavry AD10 - 6CLC Spud/eAR 200
Hawthorne SSI Duet OB
MAC cables (power/IC's/ speaker)
Furutech Power conditioner
Headphone adapter for 6 CLC Sud and AKG 701's
"A Spoonful of Slow..."
--
The Audio Insider has several Swan Multimedia speakers on sale this
month including the M200MkII.
http://theaudioinsider.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=714&sid=1f3fdfaaf89225e5b67d837ec9440b8b
--
robbin
robbin's Profile: http:
Hello,
I've tried this on another thread but it didnt work.
Is there an easy way changing the FPLD data format output to the DAC
from I2S to MSB (left justified)? I thought it is possible since the
Transporter uses MSB to the AKM DAC.
Id appreciate it very much!
Thanks!
Alex
--
Alex P
Patrick Dixon;289223 Wrote:
> Hmm, lets see, if -144dB is not audible (but yet we can hear it) so
> maybe it's not actually -144dB.
>
>
> Either that or you have missed something.
If you have a point, make it. You're just making yourself look foolish
saying the same empty things over and over
opaqueice;289168 Wrote:
> Therefore they are not audible, and if you think otherwise, you're
> wrong.
Either that or you have missed something.
--
Patrick Dixon
www.at-tunes.co.uk
Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.
opaqueice;289168 Wrote:
>
> You can make all the vague pronouncements you like, but -144db
> distortion is not audible, and the errors introduced by attenuating a
> 24 bit signal are always -144db down from max level. Therefore they
> are not audible, and if you think otherwise, you're wrong.
bhaagensen;289110 Wrote:
> Did you have a look at the irblaster plugin. That should work with the
> Controller and SB3 (but not with the Receiver).
I suppose that could be made to work but it's messy. I believe the
controller has IR so surely it's just a bit of software that's needed.
If it work
hi there, I just had the same issue, but this came a few days ago. one
1/2 years before the transporter was always dead quite, no hum.
I found the problem: the RCA sockets, which are soldered to the
mainboard had become loose on the board, in fact the ground-pin
soldering was broken.
I had some
darrenyeats;289143 Wrote:
>
> Assuming an audible difference did exist between firmware
> versions...the difference could have been due to a more significant
> miscalculation instead of just a rounding error.
Yes, that's of course true, and I made clear before that I do not - and
cannot - know
opaqueice;289120 Wrote:
> I already did: you didn't enjoy your breakfast that morning.
>
> It's very, very simple - if you take a 24 bit binary number and divide
> it by some factor, the error you make will be in the "25th" bit (if you
> round properly). If you truncate rather than rounding, th
There is one possible explanation (other than Patrick's breakfast).
Assuming an audible difference did exist between firmware
versions...the difference could have been due to a more significant
miscalculation instead of a just a rounding error.
The only people who might know this - and it's not
To whom it may concern.
A fanatic is someone who cant change his mind and wont change the
subject.
(Quot Winston Churchill)
--
harmonic
harmonic's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6879
View this
Patrick Dixon;289100 Wrote:
> Oh try harder! I'm asking to consider the 'problem' and come up with a
> reason why someone might be able to hear rounding at the 24-bit in a
> digital volume control (like the SB3 has)
I already did: you didn't enjoy your breakfast that morning.
It's very, very s
penda;288980 Wrote:
> The inability to directly control my amps volume (don't want to control
> any other function on the amp) is the only thing holding me back buying
> a controller. I feed the output of my SB3 into my DAC & control the SB3
> & Amp with a Harmony remote. I do not use (nor want t
opaqueice;289078 Wrote:
> Well, since I've eliminated acoustics as an explanation, that leaves
> psychology. Without data on what you had for breakfast that morning I
> can't comment further.
Bad science. You have dismissed the observation that doesn't agree
with your theory and stuck to your
Patrick Dixon;289065 Wrote:
> The problem that your 'theories' don't agree with the reality. Come on,
> keep up!
You're asking me to explain why you think you can hear signal at
-144db? I'm a physicist, not a psychologist.
> That's not a claim, that's an observation! Observations of what
>
Rodney_Gold;289072 Wrote:
> To the average audiophile with highish end equipment , going to , lets
> say, a decent dac..
What decent DAC? IMHO Transporter is not merely decent, but in fact the
best DAC on the market... so my recommendation is to use its internal
DAC and circumvent S/PDIF alt
seanadams;288609 Wrote:
>
> Audible to whom?
To the average audiophile with highish end equipment , going to , lets
say, a decent dac..
IE as the OP asked , would it be a worthwhile excercise to buy a TP
over a SB3 just for the better digital output of the TP... ?
To me , with various dacs
opaqueice;289055 Wrote:
> What problem?
The problem that your 'theories' don't agree with the reality. Come
on, keep up!
opaqueice;289055 Wrote:
> How about this one:
That's not a claim, that's an observation! Observations of what
actually happens are quite useful in most areas of science.
Patrick Dixon;289027 Wrote:
> Ah right, I guess you are too lazy or too closed minded to apply
> yourself to the problem then?
What problem?
> I don't think I've made any claims here - it was you that made all the
> claims!
How about this one:
Patrick Dixon;288599 Wrote:
>
> I could hear the
darrenyeats;289032 Wrote:
> I'm still not sure whether you have an integrated. :)
>
> Replay gain is a bit different - it is gain. Digital volume control is
> attenuation. You can never get clipping or compression with a digital
> volume control so it would be a shame to miss its benefits becaus
agentsmith wrote:
> Was it a night and day difference? Or are you selling your DAC1 since
> now you basically have two DACs? May be a little bit of both?
The difference was very small.
Both sounded great.
I like the Transporter's dual displays, which is weird, because I also
like the Receivers
penda;289021 Wrote:
> Thanks for the reply but I want the signal as it was intended to be - I
> don't use replay gain either.
I'm still not sure whether you have an integrated. :)
Replay gain is a bit different - it is gain. Digital volume control is
attenuation. You can never get clipping or co
opaqueice;289017 Wrote:
> Translation: You're right, but I make money off people I convince
> otherwise and so I have nothing to say.
>
> OK. I just hope you don't make any of the ridiculous claims you made
> in this thread in your advertising literature. You might find this
> link interestin
Phil Leigh;289016 Wrote:
> Not wishing to pour petrol everywhere...but I'm pretty sure I can't hear
> anything -144dB down!
> Surely that is way below the noise floor of any outboard gear? I don't
> know many amps with an SNR much above 110dB..
It's not just below the electronic noise floor, it'
darrenyeats;288998 Wrote:
> Do you have an integrated amp? If you can't remove (or bypass) the
> preamp then the digital volume control has nothing to contribute
> SQ-wise. If you can, then using the digital volume control might allow
> an overall improvement by removing a stage from the signal p
Not wishing to pour petrol everywhere...but I'm pretty sure I can't hear
anything -144dB down!
Surely that is way below the noise floor of any outboard gear? I don't
know many amps with an SNR much above 110dB..
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
Patrick Dixon;289005 Wrote:
> You put up the $1M and I'll show you. Until then do your own work.
Translation: You're right, but I make money off people I convince
otherwise and so I have nothing to say.
OK. I just hope you don't make any of the ridiculous claims you made
in this thread in yo
opaqueice;289000 Wrote:
>
> I notice you haven't responded substantively even once. You've never
> challenged anything specific in my analysis, just made vague assertions
> and did your best to sow audio FUD. Why don't you tell us why you think
> 24-bit rounding errors aren't 144db down? Or w
Patrick Dixon;288925 Wrote:
>
> You believe that -144dB is not audible.
I don't just believe it, I presented an argument proving it. The
argument could be wrong - maybe I made a mistake, maybe I assumed
something invalid - but if so, please show me where. Note that my
analysis is fully consis
penda;288980 Wrote:
> The inability to directly control my amps volume (don't want to control
> any other function on the amp) is the only thing holding me back buying
> a controller. I feed the output of my SB3 into my DAC & control the SB3
> & Amp with a Harmony remote. I do not use (nor want t
The inability to directly control my amps volume (don't want to control
any other function on the amp) is the only thing holding me back buying
a controller. I feed the output of my SB3 into my DAC & control the SB3
& Amp with a Harmony remote. I do not use (nor want to use) digital
volume control
in my experience, cables CAN make a difference - although it is not
huge. other parts within the equipent (like the source or speakers)
have a greater impact...
just try and find out for yourself...
--
truckfighters
| Transporter | REDGUM RGASil OCC Silver Interconnects | REDGUM
RGi120ENR AMP
opaqueice;288722 Wrote:
> I think you're missing the point here, Patrick.
>
> Take a typical home stereo system and crank the volume to max.
> According to my estimate, the effects on SPL of a distortion component
> at -144db are smaller than the effects on SPL due to random Brownian
> motion
35 matches
Mail list logo
