darrenyeats;378427 Wrote:
> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPDIF#Protocol_specifications
> the protocol doesn't specify a data rate. Because the clock is simply
> extracted from the data signal.
Ok, looks like need to revise my previous statement...
The protocol specification does spe
... I will certainly take the M-Audio Studiophile AV40 into
consideration and may be have a look at the Genelec, too (though I
agree that they are rather "ugly").
The Quad 11L and 12L look beautifull, but they seem to be too expensive
for the price range I am looking at; maybe I get a pair of use
Themis;378211 Wrote:
> In my opinion, 1000-1500$ dacs cover 99.9% of the needs of music
> lovers.
> You'll need a very good system, and a lot of listening education to
> even notice any difference with a 5000$ dac. ;)
I didn't mean to imply that super expensive DACs ($5K and up) were
somehow "be
darrenyeats;378502 Wrote:
> If that ended these silly arguments that would be one plus point.
> Unfortunately 24/192 looms, and after that...
> Darren
Don't worry: we're all very inventive when it comes to arguing to how
what is better for each of us should be better for everybody... we'll
find s
I see -exactly -what you mean. ;)
My ears were almost "bleeding" when I was trying to listen to some
modern pop/rock (last examples in mind: Daughtry, Atreyu or The Ting
Tings).. it's really a pity 'cause I like most of it.
I was wondering whether a "good" crisis which could eventually oblige
the
Themis;378489 Wrote:
>
> But, wanted or not, 24/96 will be a fact soon, for everybody, ignoring
> completely of all these who "know" it is not better.
> Hehe. Business is business. ;)
If that ended these silly arguments that would be one plus point.
Unfortunately 24/192 looms, and after that...
darrenyeats;378427 Wrote:
> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPDIF#Protocol_specifications
> the protocol doesn't specify a data rate. Because the clock is simply
> extracted from the data signal.
>
> However, 20 bits is part of the standard with an option for up to 24
> bits dependent
You have to agree that the industry doesn't care whether it's "better"
or "different".
And also, that most of people thinking it's "better" don't care about
bringing any evidence to anybody: apart from the musicians' or sound
engineers' point of view (who are way too busy doing their own
-interest
KJaX;377871 Wrote:
> Would you recommend the CI DAC for the Duet? Do you know anyone with
> that set-up?
>
> cheers
I can't imagine that the internal Duet DAC is any better than that in
the SB3. Unless they did a major upgrade in the Duet, the CI should
work fine.
--
kphinney
SB3 (x2) and
KJaX;377871 Wrote:
> Would you recommend the CI DAC for the Duet? Do you know anyone with
> that set-up?
>
> cheers
I have the CI VDA2 DAC with a VAC1 powersupply as well as a VDC9.0
powersupply for the Duet receiver. I am very happy with the sound.
You could start with the DAC first and ad
You might want to check the recent thread:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=55895
Darren
--
darrenyeats
SB3 / Inguz -> Krell KAV-300i (pre bypass) -> PMC AB-1
Dell laptop -> JVC UX-C30 mini system
darrenyeat
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPDIF#Protocol_specifications
the protocol doesn't specify a data rate. Because the clock is simply
extracted from the data signal.
However, 20 bits is part of the standard with an option for up to 24
bits dependent on equipment.
Darren
--
darrenyeats
darrenyeats wrote:
> It's easy to spout forth about the fact they are audibly different, and
> exactly how they sound different. Many people do so. Talk is cheap. But
> I haven't heard of anyone doing the harder trick of backing up big
> words with a demonstration, and that is where the argument re
Themis;378266 Wrote:
> There have always been good producers/mastering engineers and... the
> others. I don't think that they're fewer of them now than -say- 30
> years ago.
> Perhaps most of them have moved away from the pop/rock area, difficult
> to say.
>
Themis, I think we're agreeing. There
JezA wrote:
> pfarrell;378151 Wrote:
>> Nearly all modern studio equipment can record at 24/96 or 24/192.
>> Its trivial to do.
>>
>> And if it sells better, they win.
>
> I haven't invented that. Those were your exact words. That sounds to me
> like you believe that there is no audible differenc
JezA;378406 Wrote:
> I still don't understand your position Pat.
>
> Can you hear a difference between 24/48, 24/96 and 24/192?
>
> Do you believe others, like say the guys at Gimell and Linn Records and
> Phillips and Harmonia Mundi, or their customers, can?
It's easy to spout forth about the
pfarrell;378412 Wrote:
> You are inventing claims that I
> have not made. Over and over.
>
>
When I asked "Why do Gimell release 24/48 and 24/96 downloads" your
response was, dismissively:
pfarrell;378151 Wrote:
> Nearly all modern studio equipment can record at 24/96 or 24/192.
> Its trivi
JezA wrote:
> I still don't understand your position Pat.
>
> Can you hear a difference between 24/48, 24/96 and 24/192?
>
> Do you believe others, like say the guys at Gimell and Linn Records and
> Phillips and Harmonia Mundi, or their customers, can?
My position is that you are a troll. You ar
I still don't understand your position Pat.
Can you hear a difference between 24/48, 24/96 and 24/192?
Do you believe others, like say the guys at Gimell and Linn Records and
Phillips and Harmonia Mundi, or their customers, can?
--
JezA
JezA wrote:
> pfarrell;378151 Wrote:
>> Nearly all modern studio equipment can record at 24/96 or 24/192.
>> Its trivial to do.
>>
>> And if it sells better, they win.
>>
>> More practically, when you record at high/wide specs, and then do
>> mixdown, effects, etc. then you have less loss.
>>
>> h
Moonbase;378292 Wrote:
> How ’bout lining the case of an SB3 with some lead? Making it 2
> pounds heavier would probably boost sales, since
> > > >
- it wouldn’t fall off the audio rack so often, due to the
> heavy monster cables pulling at it, and
- it would surely get better reviews,
pfarrell;378151 Wrote:
> Nearly all modern studio equipment can record at 24/96 or 24/192.
> Its trivial to do.
>
> And if it sells better, they win.
>
> More practically, when you record at high/wide specs, and then do
> mixdown, effects, etc. then you have less loss.
>
> http://www.pfarrell.
Indeed, the TriVista 21 supports sampling frequencies up to 108kHz.
Btw, my Denon (&NS dac) supports 192kHz over SPDIF, but only my PC can
be used as a source for such a frequency. I didn't know that 192kHz was
not supported by the SPDIF interface protocol. oO
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 1
Moonbase;378292 Wrote:
> How bout lining the case of an SB3 with some lead? Making it 2 pounds
> heavier would probably boost sales, since
> > > >
- it wouldnt fall off the audio rack so often, due to the heavy
> monster cables pulling at it, and
- it would surely get better reviews,
BigBirdy;378195 Wrote:
> I am anticipating getting a Transporter soon so had a question about hi
> res files, specifically 24/88, 24/96 and 24/192 FLAC's. I run a Musical
> Fidelity Tri-Vista DAC 21 so what would be the best way to use the
> Transporter in my system? I truly love the warmth and t
How ’bout lining the case of an SB3 with some lead? Making it 2
pounds heavier would probably boost sales, since
- it wouldn’t fall off the audio rack so often, due to the
heavy monster cables pulling at it, and
- it would surely get better reviews, ’cause such a heavy unit
-must- have so
There have always been good producers/mastering engineers and... the
others. I don't think that they're fewer of them now than -say- 30
years ago.
Perhaps most of them have moved away from the pop/rock area, difficult
to say.
Burnett and others are still there, though. ;)
--
Themis
SB3 - Nort
darrenyeats;377959 Wrote:
> My opinion is that talk of consumer formats (high rate MP3 vs red book
> vs SACD vs hi-rez PCM) is rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. The
> real story is the Loudness War and the dumbing down of production
> values.
Well said that man. Modern mastering of mainstrea
Meridion;378239 Wrote:
> I am not the expert, but maybe you forgot the anti aliasing filters
> needed in the conversion processes? They most probably have an effect
> to the perceptable frequency range.
I didn't forget them... they are part of my "annoying electrical stuff"
:o)
They will have a
Phil Leigh;378227 Wrote:
> below Nyquist (44.1/2) there will be no difference at either sampling
> frequency. So for example, a 10Khz sine wave will be identical at
> 44.1/16 or 96/16.
> The difference is that at 96/16 you could capture a 48Khz sine wave.
I am not the expert, but maybe you forgo
Themis;378213 Wrote:
> The problem is not whether there are differences between 44.1 and 96
> sampling rates. From the dacs' perspective theses differences are
> obvious and measurable withing the audible frequency range.
>
> The problem is that most people don't care about these differences.
b
The problem is not whether there are differences between 44.1 and 96
sampling rates. From the dacs' perspective theses differences are
obvious and measurable withing the audible frequency range.
The problem is that most people don't care about these differences.
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac
In my opinion, 1000-1500$ dacs cover 99.9% of the needs of music
lovers.
You'll need a very good system, and a lot of listening education to
even notice any difference with a 5000$ dac. ;)
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
-
33 matches
Mail list logo
