bhaagensen;484698 Wrote:
You do know that by doing this you're rips are by definition lossy (you
could do perfect 88khz rips though). I would never do this. I'd like to
keep at least one copy of my rips as true to the originals as possible.
Its possible that you're 48khz rips sounds better,
The Touch definitely has a coax S/PDIF, which is very good, I think its
one of the best S/PDIF sources on the market. (if it was 75 ohm BNC it
would be even better :-)
The back is not exactly identical, there is a USB port in addition to
whats on an SB3.
John S.
--
JohnSwenson
kphinney;484806 Wrote:
The TP without DAC offers a much reduced soundstage and an analytical
sound that is mostly corrected with a tube amp and tube pre.
Be careful using words like corrected. You're implying that there's
something wrong with the analogue signal from the TP which after being
JohnSwenson;484905 Wrote:
A couple thoughts on the subject. I HAVE been able to hear differences
on an SB3 between streaming flac or PCM (wav). A couple times I have
thought something was amiss, things were sounding flat. It turned out
to be the file type settings had been changed (I
Phil Leigh;484908 Wrote:
This is the key post so far.
Louis,
If you are ripping normal redbook CD's you must do it at 16/44.1.
That's lossless. Anything else introduces information that is NOT part
of the original recording. Whether ripping at 24/48 makes things sound
better or worse
There is a very good reason why the default setting is to stream as
FLAC, namely that for most people this will minimise issues with wi-fi
bandwidth.
I've long abandoned the SB3 as I now have a Touch and as far as I am
concerned the sound of the Touch (via s/pdif) is noticeably different
and
Phil Leigh;484939 Wrote:
There is a very good reason why the default setting is to stream as
FLAC, namely that for most people this will minimise issues with wi-fi
bandwidth.
I've long abandoned the SB3 as I now have a Touch and as far as I am
concerned the sound of the Touch (via s/pdif)
JohnSwenson;484907 Wrote:
The Touch definitely has a coax S/PDIF, which is very good, I think its
one of the best S/PDIF sources on the market. (if it was 75 ohm BNC it
would be even better :-)
John S.
But the TP coax should be better right ? And better than the TP AES/EBU
too
--
Hi Louis
When you have a WAV file at 16/44.1 you can use this tool to do a flac
conversion http://members.home.nl/w.speek/flac.htm
The default settings should be ok - just make sure that Delete input
files is unticked.
Then you can switch between files and compare.
It is also possible to
Call it speculation, call it hypothesis. Whatever one calls such an exercise,
it is not the nomenclature that predicts its value. If speculation (or
hypothesis) is inadequately grounded in known fact, inadequately observed or
poorly thought through, then, yes, it will be worthless; but if not,
Louishlomador;484937 Wrote:
Phil,
This has already been pointed out. I think the focus now should be on
the original question. Your findings between Flac and Wave in terms of
sound quality on SB3 using different versions. I've already explained
the test process. Maybe you can post your
loserica;484951 Wrote:
But the TP coax should be better right ? And better than the TP AES/EBU
too
Sean stated that the TP S/PDIF is better than the TP AES/EBU.
Haven't seen a head to head between TP and Touch yet...but the Touch is
very, very good... and ultimately it will depend on the
Even if the Transporter is discontinued, did anyone really expect it to
be offered as a product for all eternity? Maybe the product lifestyle
is a little shorter than expected, but I certainly didn't/don't expect
it to last more than another year or so.
--
riffer
krochat;484880 Wrote:
Very cool, thanks.
I just ran this on my library - 34,000 FLAC files accumulated over the
last 5 years. It only reported 2 problems, both due to weird characters
in the file names - there was nothing wrong with the contents.
Has anyone had a problem with FLAC files
andyg;484850 Wrote:
Correct.
Hi Andy,
Please find attached the logs. I have labelled them accordingly to help
diagnose. If any. I noticed the playback mode being different to both
versions.
Thanks
+---+
|Filename: logs.zip
Thanks. I'll just highlight the key lines from these files:
flac-SCV7.2.txt, WAV transcoded to FLAC:
Code:
[09-11-13 13:19:11.3793] Slim::Player::Source::openSong (2083) This is an wav
file:
riffer;484986 Wrote:
Even if the Transporter is discontinued, did anyone really expect it to
be offered as a product for all eternity? Maybe the product lifestyle
is a little shorter than expected, but I certainly didn't/don't expect
it to last more than another year or so.
Expected
Phil Leigh;484983 Wrote:
Louis, I presume you have studied this thread?
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=396062postcount=1
I have, Unfortunately I am not a fun of this software, as there are
other things to take into considuration when doing the measurement.
Believe me, even the
andyg;485023 Wrote:
Thanks. I'll just highlight the key lines from these files:
flac-SCV7.2.txt, WAV transcoded to FLAC:
Code:
[09-11-13 13:19:11.3793] Slim::Player::Source::openSong (2083) This is an
wav file:
Everything looks normal and is working as intended. We did make a
change in the transcoding binary used between these 2 versions though.
We now use sox to transcoded to flac instead of the flac binary. This
is because sox supports resampling (although it's not being used in your
test). The
Sorry to say but if you're not willing to use a tool like AudioDiffMaker
to provide concrete evidence of the problem, there isn't much we can do
to help. Your ears are not a good tool for measuring this, the placebo
effect is too great.
--
andyg
iPhone wrote:
Expected probably isn't the word, more like hoped. I don't think
anybody wants to go the route of McIntosh, Linn, or other megabucks FLAC
transports when the Transporter is available and is as good as or better
then units costing 4 to 10 times more.
Part of the justification for
andyg;485048 Wrote:
Sorry to say but if you're not willing to use a tool like AudioDiffMaker
to provide concrete evidence of the problem, there isn't much we can do
to help. Your ears are not a good tool for measuring this, the placebo
effect is too great.
That is fine Andy. Surely I'm not
Themis;479827 Wrote:
It means 17 picoseconds. The consensus is declaring the total jitter :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jitter
Jitter is specified as RMS jitter, not peak or peak-peak or any other
some
such defintion.
THere are machines
which fairly nicely spit out the number for you if you
Yep, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
--
andyg
andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321
andyg wrote:
Yep, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Actually, we have heard zero evidence in this thread that there is a
real difference. We have heard an opinion that there is a difference.
Science and engineering don't work on opinions.
--
Pat Farrell
Thanks Pat. :)
--
andyg
andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321
___
Phil Leigh;480300 Wrote:
There's nothing new in what Naim are doing...
http://www.scalatech.co.uk/papers/aes93.pdf
Of course. NAIM are using commercially available parts. They cost $10
at
retail. They haven't the money to do any of this themselves. All
they're
using is an asynchronous
andyg;485053 Wrote:
Yep, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Maybe they are extraordinary, for me they are not. Flac has only been
in existence for 8 years, Fact whiles the wav has been in existence for
much longer. Its not really about the length of time, to me its about
the
andyg;485070 Wrote:
It's trivial to verify that FLAC is able to reproduce the original WAV
file... but yeah, if you're not even willing to do that, you should
stick with WAV.
Yes, certainly sticking to wav,and version 7.2 as 7.4.1 to me sounds
different to 7.2. Maybe not, but we agree to
It's trivial to verify that FLAC is able to reproduce the original WAV
file... but yeah, if you're not even willing to do that, you should
stick with WAV.
--
andyg
andyg's Profile:
Louis seems to be looking for a scientific explanation as to why he
hears a difference between FLAC transcoded to WAV then streamed, versus
streaming of native WAV, in spite of having been presented with lots of
scientific evidence as to why the actual sound being made by the
hardware is the
cliveb;485088 Wrote:
Louis seems to be looking for a scientific explanation as to why he
hears a difference between FLAC transcoded to WAV then streamed, versus
streaming of native WAV, in spite of having been presented with lots of
scientific evidence as to why the actual sound being made
Thanks John. I did a quick comparison the other night and I thought the
SBT analog out sounded better than the SB3. But I don't completely trust
that first impression because (a) it wasn't blind, (b) the SBT had
better interconnects, and (c) the SBT didn't only sound better, it
sounded louder,
An output voltage difference could be an obvious answer. Too obvious,
perhaps ... ? ;)
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Cyrus 8xp - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
Themis's Profile:
On 13/11/09 17:25, Louishlomador wrote:
# We can go on and on.
You certainly seem to be doing so.
R.
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Louishlomador;485028 Wrote:
I have, Unfortunately I am not a fun of this software, as there are
other things to take into considuration when doing the measurement.
Believe me, even the quality of your internal computer sound card for
doing the test will play a big role, or the connectors at
Louishlomador;485096 Wrote:
To you its psychological, to me its not.
I'm not sure we are going to make any progress with this... Everybody's
perception of better/worse is psychological! (or at least
psychoacoustic)
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a
Louis, I don't understand what you're talking about.
I have 7.4.2 installed, I put the parameters as I explained for
transcoding to WAV at the server, and the server transcodes normally (to
WAV/PCM). An sends this PCM to the client.
Now, you seem to say that you have some kind of difference
Themis;485110 Wrote:
Louis, I don't understand what you're talking about.
I have 7.4.2 installed, I put the parameters as I explained for
transcoding to WAV at the server, and the server transcodes normally (to
WAV/PCM). An sends this PCM to the client.
Now, you seem to say that you
Louishlomador;485113 Wrote:
Certainly not. my original thought, was that 7.4.1 transcodes in flac no
matter whether you've changed it from native to flac, however Andy has
profen not to be the case. I was thinking maybe that is the reason for
the differences bewtween 7.2 to 7.4. I still
Please note that there is no transcoding going on from WAV - PCM. PCM
is just WAV with the first 44 bytes removed. The firmware does not read
the WAV header, so we don't send it.
--
andyg
andyg's Profile:
Phil Leigh;485108 Wrote:
I'm not sure we are going to make any progress with this... Everybody's
perception of better/worse is psychological! (or at least
psychoacoustic)
Mate,
I'm certainly not doubting your findings. Would you say a Vynyl
recording sounds different from CD recording?
Themis;485124 Wrote:
Well, it does not seem to do this on my 7.4.2
The log is:
Maybe because its a different version. I dont think you can argue too
much on that as this version is probably not official yet. But i agree,
it definateley looks different. Same for 7.2 and 7.4.1
--
I guess that if there are differences with prior versions, you can open
a bug ?
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Cyrus 8xp - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
Themis's Profile:
Themis;485131 Wrote:
I guess that if there are differences with prior versions, you can open
a bug ?
Very debatable. You are right though. Maybe if more people notice the
difference in sound quality between 7.2 and 7.4.1 then that will be
justified. For now i havent got a leg to stand on. Its
I don't think the question of sound quality plays a part here : if the
server is supposed to transcode to PCM (due to the setup) and it does
not, it is definitely a bug. ;)
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Cyrus 8xp - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
Themis;485138 Wrote:
I don't think the question of sound quality plays a part here : if the
server is supposed to transcode to PCM (due to the setup) and it does
not, it is definitely a bug. ;)
Is this based on your log?
--
Louishlomador
andyg;485125 Wrote:
Please note that there is no transcoding going on from WAV - PCM. PCM
is just WAV with the first 44 bytes removed. The firmware does not read
the WAV header, so we don't send it.
for which version?
--
Louishlomador
Louishlomador;485151 Wrote:
Is this based on your log?
My log seems to do the right thing : send PCM to the Client (although I
have mainly FLACs.
If yours does something else (ie does not send PCM when it should),
then it is a bug.
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Cyrus 8xp - Sonus
pfarrell;485050 Wrote:
iPhone wrote:
Expected probably isn't the word, more like hoped. I don't think
anybody wants to go the route of McIntosh, Linn, or other megabucks
FLAC
transports when the Transporter is available and is as good as or
better
then units costing 4 to 10 times
iPhone wrote:
pfarrell;485050 Wrote:
But there is no guarantee that McIntosh or any
other vendor will be in business in a few years.
Part of my point, the McIntosh MS750 is basically a $4000 Escient
FireBall MX752 with a Mac Blue faceplate and blue LEDs. At $6000, that
is some very
pfarrell;485180 Wrote:
So to continue the dreams, my TP2 would have:
- no handles
- be much smaller (the TP is mostly air)
- one big color screen
- nuke the magic knob, which is cool but never used
- nuke most of the buttons, also never used.
--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/
Themis wrote:
- no handles
- be much smaller (the TP is mostly air)
- one big color screen
- nuke the magic knob, which is cool but never used
- nuke most of the buttons, also never used.
H... you put a touch screen and a TinySC and you have a... :D
Close. But the touch screen would be
JohnSwenson;476773 Wrote:
Remember this is all just conjecture... Finding precise mechanisms for
this sort of thing is very difficult to do, especially because there is
no definitive mechanism or measurement... So for now its all just
guesswork and loose correlations.
John S.
Thanks
I found a ripper, icedax, that will automatically apply de-emphasis if
it finds it on a CD, and it's very thorough about finding it, not just
looking in the TOC. According to the authors:
Some older audio CDs are recorded with a modified frequency response
called pre-emphasis. This is found
56 matches
Mail list logo
