darrenyeats;378893 Wrote:
Themis, 24/96? You're on my side of the line now. Welcome to the lower
rez side. :)
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=378850postcount=1
Darren
PS: Of course I respect everyone's right to an opinion. Just a bit of
fun!
In my family, everybody
where can i download some 24/88.2 flac sample to test?
--
cheetah
cheetah's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7231
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57527
Alfafa;378993 Wrote:
How can you state as a hard fact that it would never be audible? The
higher samplerate would reproduce the original with a higher
resolution. I can't say that I can hear because I haven't heard 96kHz
and 192kHz side by side
In theory I would think that a digital
Alfafa;378993 Wrote:
Hi Bjørn
The higher samplerate would reproduce the original with a higher
resolution. I can't say that I can hear because I haven't heard 96kHz
and 192kHz side by side
Phil is right.
I think that sometimes there is some confusion in terminology.
Technically
Phil Leigh;379085 Wrote:
Below Nyquist there are no gaps between the samples that are missing
information and which would be magically filled-in with a higher
sampling rate.
One thing I never understood.
While that is theoretically true, it is also true that for various
reasons no real
bhaagensen;379117 Wrote:
It is not even computable.
Nyquist-Shannon says if there is information missing between the
samples that information must be above the frequency threshold. Maybe
that answers your question in tandem with Phil's post.
Darren
--
darrenyeats
SB3 / Inguz - Krell
Thanks for all your replies.
I've edited the first post as the Copland amp is the CSA29 not the 28 -
sorry for the c**k-up.
Answers to Phil's questions.
1) Yes, sibilance present at all volume levels.
2) No, not sure yet.
3) TP is now set to -10db - sibilance still present.
4) I've now got this
I can't see the figures on the left: is it a 5dB scale ?
Anyway, you should have a roll off @35Hz with the SFGD, and in your
case it seems to start at ... 70Hz ?! This is way too high. Your system
should sound a bit too thin at midrange, thus probably too bright,
indeed. But I'm not an expert of
The thing with the Beresford is that its constantly being improved.
I've had one of the early ones and I've recently bought the latest one,
the Mark 6/4.
Very VERY different animal to my earlier Dac.
I'd say go for it. Even email Stan Beresford and he'll send you out a
loaner to try - he's
darrenyeats;379004 Wrote:
However, that doesn't mean one format is better than another. One
confounding factor in comparing analogue to digital is the mastering,
you would need a good ADC/DAC and/or analogue recording equipment to
untangle that.
You're probably right.
I have several recent
No, what I think bhaagensen is driving at, is that the Nyquist limit is
a mathematical limit theory, and that prefect reproduction up to that
limit frequency requires an infinitely long series of samples.
Obviously we aren't listening to continuous tones, so perfect
reproduction isn't possible!
I've been using one for a few months now, latest version after applying
the Stan's mod21. I applied a few other mods and, for the price, I am
now happy with it (see
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54947highlight=beresfordpage=5).
Note that Beresford fixed analog output is
DCtoDaylight;379189 Wrote:
No, what I think bhaagensen is driving at, is that the Nyquist limit is
a mathematical limit theory, and that prefect reproduction up to that
limit frequency requires an infinitely long series of samples.
Obviously we aren't listening to continuous tones, so
Hi Themis,
Yes, 5db markers and the lowest hump peaks at 80hz, grills were in
place for these tests.
I'm going to do some tests without the TP and directly into the amp
later this week.
--
norman12
norman12's Profile:
bhaagensen;379196 Wrote:
OK, that is a bit far fetched. But maybe not so in the real world? The
point is that while many discussions refer to the Nyquist limit, I
think that it would be more useful to know the deviation between
Nyquist-reconstructed wave and the one generated by
Once upon a time there was a Squeezebox made by Slim Devices. It had a
fancy display and a simple remote control. Then the mighty Logitech
bought it up, and brought out the current Squeezebox Duet - a much
simpler box, no fancy display but a much fancier remote control.
How long will it be
From JA's Stereophile review of the Squeezebox...
Sound quality
I set up the WiFi version of the Squeezebox in my listening room,
powered by its wall-wart supply. I connected its optical S/PDIF output
with a 1.5m length of AudioQuest's OptiLink-5 quartz-fiber TosLink
cable first to my Mark
darrenyeats;379145 Wrote:
Nyquist-Shannon says if there is information missing between the
samples that information must be above the frequency threshold. Maybe
that answers your question in tandem with Phil's post.
Darren
Exactly. There is no missing information 0Hz-22kHz. I know its
I had a similar problem with my Maui-modded Transporter (you may want to
check my posts here and in many other Audio forums like HydrogenAudio,
MartinLoganOwners, etc). I tried almost everything: changing/upgrading
cables (audio and power), moving traps, diffusers, speakers, moving
from RCA to
Sean, may we have a wish list? ;-)
--
alekz
alekz's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13574
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57677
I'd like to see a Trans Mk II as well. I'd skip the amp section and see
no need for anything beyond 24/96, but the idea of a non-descript
transport/source controlled by a super-remote is very, very cool.
--
Ben Diss
'SB3' (http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_squeezebox.html) - 'Lavry DA10'
Well - you have conclusively ruled out the TP as the source of the
sibilance.
That leaves the amp (unlikely IMHO) or the speakers (a bit likely) or
the room (very likely).
I can't really decipher your plot image - it is too small - but it
looks like you have a nice flat mid/top end and a rather
Listened to Don't Give Up today and it sounds fine. The production is
distinctive but not too much sibilance.
Also I recommend Secret World Live by Peter Gabriel, very nice album -
the live version of Don't Give Up with Paula Cole is great too.
Darren
--
darrenyeats
SB3 / Inguz - Krell
darrenyeats;379265 Wrote:
Listened to Don't Give Up today and it sounds fine. The production is
distinctive but not too much sibilance.
Also I recommend Secret World Live by Peter Gabriel, very nice album -
the live version of Don't Give Up with Paula Cole is great too.
Darren
Yes -
Phil Leigh;379253 Wrote:
Perfect reproduction at any frequency doesn't require an infinite
series of samples.
It requires an infinite summation. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker%E2%80%93Shannon_interpolation_formula
Just as well, since when we listen with our ears to
I am in the process of installing SB3, and considered getting the
Cambridge Audio DacMagic. Can it take the output from the SB3, or do
you have to bypass the SB3 internal DAC(if that can even be done). I am
new to all of this.I do understand that I must use the DacMagic
analogue outputs to my
RGibran;379245 Wrote:
I was hard-pressed to hear much of a difference. Perhaps there was an
increased sense of authority to the sound of the CD played by the Ayre
used as a transport, a better sense of extended low frequencies...That's
exactly what I was thinking last night when I, for the
bhaagensen;379196 Wrote:
OK, that is a bit far fetched. But maybe not so in the real world? The
point is that while many discussions refer to the Nyquist limit, I
think that it would be more useful to know the deviation between
Nyquist-reconstructed wave and the one generated by
JezA;379238 Wrote:
Once upon a time there was a Squeezebox made by Slim Devices. It had a
fancy display and a simple remote control. Then the mighty Logitech
bought it up, and brought out the current Squeezebox Duet - a much
simpler box, no fancy display but a much fancier remote control.
29 matches
Mail list logo
