Curt962;529502 Wrote:
> I for one am all for the best possible technologies to present our
> favorite music, but until the record companies are?? It seems to
> remain just a dream.
>
> As long as "focus groups" of college students find 128Kbps MP3s to
> sound so good, I don't expect the labels
I for one am all for the best possible technologies to present our
favorite music, but until the record companies are?? It seems to
remain just a dream.
As long as "focus groups" of college students find 128Kbps MP3s to
sound so good, I don't expect the labels to make the investment. If
the ki
Almost two weeks into the ADAM thing, and I am quite pleased.Ongoing
piddling with "fine" positioning, tilt and toe to see how some different
ideas work out.
There is something quite special about the mids/highs on the ADAMS that
seems to open a window on reality now and then. A wonderful
Good Post!
I've found a number of Hi-Res downloads (24-88, 24-96) that are at
ridiculously low levels.The VU meters barely move, and the music
actually sounds a bit "lost".
I've used dbPoweramp more than once to cautiously apply a bit of fixed
gaim, and the whole thing sounds better. I als
Phil Leigh;529419 Wrote:
> On Windows I've found the best method for me is to use Foobar2000 to
> calculate and apply the RG tags after ripping.
This is what I use as well. It just adds tags to your files which you
can still ignore if you want when playing back. It doesn't modify
audio content.
DaveWr;529349 Wrote:
> The key issue, is that the coefficients for volume reduction have been
> chosen (well for SB3, Duet and Transporter, no idea on Squeezeplay
> stuff) to allow reduction of volume by up to 30 dB, using coefficients
> that are multiples of 1/256. This means all the top 16 bit
On 01/04/10 00:14, JohnSwenson wrote:
>
> Wow, this is the third time today I've responded to this question, there
> must be a run on AES/EBU!
:)
> I don't have time to type it all in again, but in a nutshell the XLR
> jacks used in AES/EBU are terrible RF connectors. A true 75 ohm BNC is
> much
Wow, this is the third time today I've responded to this question, there
must be a run on AES/EBU!
I don't have time to type it all in again, but in a nutshell the XLR
jacks used in AES/EBU are terrible RF connectors. A true 75 ohm BNC is
much better. RCAs are terrible at RF as well.
AES/EBU use
tcutting;529198 Wrote:
> So, do you know the difference between "Hardware" and "Software"?
Sorry - didn't mean this to be too deep a question... more of a "geeky
riddle".
Answer: You can change the hardware!
--
tcutting
---
On 31/03/10 22:14, Phil Leigh wrote:
>
> Fxdwg123;529436 Wrote:
>> Ok Dave, clear. So when I understand well this issue will be solved when
>> taken the advice of Clive and buy a proper passive stepper?
>>
>> "you need to make sure you get the gain staging right (with appropriate
>> passive atten
Fxdwg123;529436 Wrote:
> Ok Dave, clear. So when I understand well this issue will be solved when
> taken the advice of Clive and buy a proper passive stepper?
>
> "you need to make sure you get the gain staging right (with appropriate
> passive attenuation)"
Yes. Also, don't use AES/EBU, use s
DaveWr;529427 Wrote:
> You will not have bit transparency at that level of attenuation. The 16
> bit original will not be mapped fully to the 24 bit output. This means
> with no dither etc, there will be signal distortion as well as signal
> to noise issues.
>
> Dave
Ok Dave, clear. So when
DaveWr;529427 Wrote:
> You will not have bit transparency at that level of attenuation. The 16
> bit original will not be mapped fully to the 24 bit output. This means
> with no dither etc, there will be signal distortion as well as signal
> to noise issues.
>
> Dave
Ok Dave, clear. So when
Fxdwg123;529421 Wrote:
> I had a SB3 and bought an external DAC to improve SQ. That was an
> Audio-GD DAC-200, without any doubt a major improvement compared to the
> SB3 dac. In February I upgraded the DAC to the Audio_GD Reference 7,
> which is their top of line DAC (8 PCM1704UK DAC chips and a
cliveb;529290 Wrote:
> I take it that you have compared your external DAC with the
> Transporter's analogue output and prefer the DAC? You mention that you
> connect the DAC to the power amp via XLR, so of course to do a fair
> comparison you need to use the TP's balanced outputs. And make sure
>
On Windows I've found the best method for me is to use Foobar2000 to
calculate and apply the RG tags after ripping.
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibration
You can calculate Replay Gain in dbPoweramp but you should *not* use the
addon which applies it (APPLY): it will definately modify your files.
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Croft 25Pre and Series 7 power - Sonus Faber
Grand Piano Domus
---
SuperQ;529393 Wrote:
> Yes, use replay gain. It works really well and won't make your music
> sound worse. Mostly it will mute down the loud stuff to match the
> levels of quieter tracks.
Thanks, I avoided any "gain" settings in the Squeeze products (perhaps
a mistake). Do you mean use replay
Squeezed_Rotel;529363 Wrote:
> Is this normal? Is there a way to increase the "volume" at the rip
> stage?
Yes, use replay gain. It works really well and won't make your music
sound worse. Mostly it will mute down the loud stuff to match the
levels of quieter tracks.
--
SuperQ
Phil Leigh;529376 Wrote:
> ...It still won't make Ravel as loud as Nirvana...
That's funny Phil. I had feared that something would be lost in this
case or worse yet that distortion would occur if I drive the preamp
high enough to get acceptable playback volume.
--
Squeezed_Rotel
John M
Squee
This is all normal. You could use Replaygain which in my collection
gives no more than +3-4dB on very quiet classical stuff. There's
absolutely no harm in this. It still won't make Ravel as loud as
Nirvana...
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain
All *good* recordings sound quiet, because the (equally good) mastering
engineers have left the necessary 14dB headroom before clipping. So
that you can have some dynamics headroom.
Unfortunately, most modern recordings (since about 1995) have squeezed
this, and limited the dynamics. It is called
Please forgive the poor choice of words for the title of the thread.
I have CDs that were ripped with dBpoweramp. I have 16/44.1 flac files
that came from Deutche Grammaphone. I have 24/96 flac files from Linn
Records.
I don't use any gain Smart, Replay or anything else. The Transporter
volume is
DaveWr;529349 Wrote:
> Major apologies brain strain, time of year, age etc.
>
> The key issue, is that the coefficients for volume reduction have been
> chosen (well for SB3, Duet and Transporter, no idea on Squeezeplay
> stuff) to allow reduction of volume by up to 30 dB, using coefficients
> t
Phil Leigh;529339 Wrote:
> Dave - it is neither "specious" nor indeed an "argument"... merely an
> illustrative example.
>
> I could have used:
> 1110 becomes
> 1101 (15th bit flipping in this example)
>
> I should have said "at least one of the first 16
DaveWr;529332 Wrote:
> Well a full scale 16 bit probably indicates clipping anyway, so specious
> argument. There are several postings on the volume curve for SB3,
> including convincing Dean to get it right by using 1/256 steps for the
> first thirty, to ensure exact bit alignment.
>
> Dave
Well a full scale 16 bit probably indicates clipping anyway, so specious
argument. There are several postings on the volume curve for SB3,
including convincing Dean to get it right by using 1/256 steps for the
first thirty, to ensure exact bit alignment.
Dave
--
DaveWr
-
Yes, balanced sounds better, even when using one leg to an unbalanced
input of an amplifier. This is explainable because one opamp/filtering
stage is omitted this way compared to the unbalanced output of the
transporter.
--
tingtong5
-
DaveWr;529310 Wrote:
> If you use it below 70, it will distort 16 bit music files.
>
> Dave
Some recent testing has shown that humans are pretty impervious to
bit-loss down to about 10 bits... :-)
Strictly speaking the 16th bit is altered the moment the level goes
below 100.
--
Phil Leigh
Y
Phil Leigh;529295 Wrote:
> This is excellent advice from CliveB - if you are using the TP level
> control much below 80 then you are losing signal/noise ratio in a way
> that can be noticeable.
If you use it below 70, it will distort 16 bit music files.
Dave
--
DaveWr
---
cliveb;529290 Wrote:
> I take it that you have compared your external DAC with the
> Transporter's analogue output and prefer the DAC? You mention that you
> connect the DAC to the power amp via XLR, so of course to do a fair
> comparison you need to use the TP's balanced outputs. And make sure
>
Fxdwg123;529188 Wrote:
> In this case perhaps the solution could be not to use my external dac
> for the cd-transport but to use the Transporter DAC. So I connect my
> cd-transport via coax to the Transporter digital input and connect the
> Transporter not only to my external dac but also via RCA
32 matches
Mail list logo
