pski;613820 Wrote:
> I had this Sony cassette deck (TC-fx1010) which featured continuous bias
> adjustment. With Maxell Metal tapes, playback was almost identical to
> CD. This is also true of my current Sony ES deck. The 1010 was fully
> solenoid control and it's POST earned it the nickname "Cit
Also be carefull when choosing speakers the popular missconception is
that resolution = a lot of treble and to much upper midrange ( presence
band ).
This is a trend i noticed the last decade some speaker brands newer
models is actually worse.
They may soud more " exciting" with good recordings
My pressing of Southside by Texas is awful. Really awful.
Yet the vinyl is amazing sounding so it's not the fault of the
recording.
--
paulster
paulster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23073
Vie
On 25/02/11 22:39, pski wrote:
> playback was almost identical to CD.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
--
"Feed that ego and you starve the soul" - Colonel J.D. Wilkes
http://www.theshackshakers.com/
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevi
magiccarpetride;613824 Wrote:
> It's basically 'garbage in, garbage out'. Before we focus on speaker
> placements and room treatment, let's first make sure that we have
> solidified our signal at its source.GIGO, indeed. However, if you measure
> the pollution by standards like
signal distortio
magiccarpetride;613771 Wrote:
> As is always the case, mediocre organizations will hire mediocre people
> who will go for mediocre results. People almost always go for the low
> hanging fruit. What's easier: searching for the original 24 bit master
> tracks, or pushing the "Convert" button and up
I've been recently spending some time with several audiophile friends
and acquaintances, talking shop, comparing notes, exchanging tall audio
stories.
One thing that caught my attention is how pretty much everyone kept
insisting that speaker positioning and room treatment (even EQ-ing) are
the mo
Not for content, but the original release of Terrapin Station is truly
horrible
P
--
pski
real stereo doesn't just wake the neighbors, it -enrages- them.. It is
truly the Golden Age of Wireless
pski's Profile: http://for
Mnyb;613626 Wrote:
> Yep reel to reel tape was better than vinyl ( quite obvius as the
> masters tapes themselfes where on this format)
> But no comercially viable way off massproducing these very ever lauched
> ? So more of less a format for the recording enthusiast.
>
> With a good tape deck y
Mnyb;613627 Wrote:
> Wonder if not 30% of DVDA and 50% SACD is fakes in this repect ?
>
> I think SACD has more fakes due to higher title count as the morons
> runed out of real 24 bit records.
>
> I would not be surprised at all if some of these records are faked this
> way even if there is a
I saw David Robinson that had the idea to create "lossywav" uses the
processor to get an idea how many bits the recording really can use.
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossywav
Even when lossywav thinks it can remove some bits it may not be audible
to remove even more. Some recordi
Phil Leigh;613754 Wrote:
> just run replaygain on it (Foobar is free) to get a rough idea...
> actually it's only about -7dB which isn't obscene.
>
> I realise 70's prog isn't everyone's cup of tea :-)
Thanks!
Okay so I used Foobar to run replaygain on a few recent recordings just
to get some
johann;613762 Wrote:
> I think the same can be said about Linn, at least to some extent.
As a long-term Linn user (since early 80's) I can agree with that...
to some extent. They have now moved on. Actually to be fair. it is no
longer Linn that have this attitude, but some of their customers!
cliveb;613756 Wrote:
> As an ex-Naim devotee who thankfully escaped about 20 years ago, I have
> to say that Naim seem to demand an almost religious acceptance from
> their customers while the smoke & mirrors are waved around. A bit like
> Apple, I suppose.
I think the same can be said about Lin
JezA;613722 Wrote:
> There have been plenty of one-box no-compromise (whatever that might
> mean) cd players. The Linn CD12 for exampe and the top end Naim range.
Yes, sorry I forgot about those. And the Arcam CD9 with the dCS ringDAC
is another example.
However, while I agree that Linn and Arca
ralphpnj;613745 Wrote:
> Do I really have to?
>
> Actually I know someone who has a copy. What software (free, if
> available) can I use to measure the relative loudness of a recording?
just run replaygain on it (Foobar is free) to get a rough idea...
actually it's only about -7dB which isn't o
Phil Leigh;613730 Wrote:
> It's already happened... check out the DVD-A of Fragile by Yes...
Do I really have to?
Actually I know someone who has a copy. What software (free, if
available) can I use to measure the relative loudness of a recording?
--
ralphpnj
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Bar
JezA;613722 Wrote:
> There have been plenty of one-box no-compromise (whatever that might
> mean) cd players. The Linn CD12 for exampe and the top end Naim range.
> Indeed Naim refused, until recently, to even countenance putting an
> s/pdif output on their cd players because they argued that it
ralphpnj;613710 Wrote:
> Another way look at the things should remastering in high resolution
> catch on and prove worthwhile for record companies, i.e. profitable, is
> that we can then look forward to a high resolution version of the
> Loudness War. High gain and high resolution - wow what a co
There have been plenty of one-box no-compromise (whatever that might
mean) cd players. The Linn CD12 for exampe and the top end Naim range.
Indeed Naim refused, until recently, to even countenance putting an
s/pdif output on their cd players because they argued that it
compromised the performance
Mnyb;613626 Wrote:
> Yep reel to reel tape was better than vinyl ( quite obvius as the
> masters tapes themselfes where on this format)
> But no comercially viable way off massproducing these very ever lauched
> ? So more of less a format for the recording enthusiast.
>
> With a good tape deck y
Mnyb;613627 Wrote:
> Wonder if not 30% of DVDA and 50% SACD is fakes in this repect ?
>
> I think SACD has more fakes due to higher title count as the morons
> runed out of real 24 bit records.
>
> I would not be surprised at all if some of these records are faked this
> way even if there is a
johann;613699 Wrote:
> Do you experience this with WiFi as well?
To be honest. I havn't tried a wired (to router) Windows server feeding
a wireless Touch.
Until now wireless Touch operation was worse then any wired scenario I
tried.
Perhaps I should give it a try.
--
soundcheck
'soundchec
zzzap;613704 Wrote:
> If you do will you explain what you're done and why to those of us that
> like to understand our system? I miss this information for the Toolbox
> v2. Sure I can read through your scripts and do more or less qualified
> guesswork as with any reverse engineering. But if possi
soundcheck;613694 Wrote:
> As I said. I've studied the whole subject for quite some time.
> I found quiet some areas for improvement. I also developped and
> applied modifications with pretty good results.
>
> I obviously havn't made those modifications available to the public.
>
If you do
On 25/02/11 13:24, soundcheck wrote:
>
> Yep. A Windows based server sounds better then a Linux based server on
> the same HW.
*shakes head in disbelief*
Totally bonkers.
--
"Feed that ego and you starve the soul" - Colonel J.D. Wilkes
http://www.theshackshakers.com/
__
soundcheck;613694 Wrote:
> Yep. A Windows based server sounds better then a Linux based server on
> the
> same HW.
Do you experience this with WiFi as well?
--
johann
johann's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/memb
JezA;613617 Wrote:
> John - thanks. You mention that if a 'one-box' solution is done right,
> the results are spectacular. Mind me asking who in your opinion has
> done it right? Or the least wrong?
John will know more about this than me, but I recall that back in the
early/mid 90's several Japan
zzzap;613686 Wrote:
> OK, so we agree there is no data loss then? Now then, the question is
> how can the TCP still have a role in SQ then? As you say lost packets
> might have an impact. Best way to pursue that thought is to studie the
> network layers on the Touch and see if we can monitor requ
soundcheck;613658 Wrote:
> No. That's not not an issue. There's no loss of data. There are so
> called "Lost packets" on TCP/IP. Though these get resend.
>
> My work is more related to the ethernet (TCP/IP) handling - and not
> only on the receiveing end! As I said. Meanwhile I know that everyth
soundcheck;613680 Wrote:
> What I mean is that I'm looking into all affected OSI layers. ;)
Fair enough.
Why don´t you test whether you can hear the differnce between Win 7 and
Linux based SBS, through WiFi?
If you do, then you can exclude Ethernet and if you don´t then you have
isolated the p
johann;613678 Wrote:
> Ethernet is per definition not TCP/IP, in fact it is not even IP but at
> lower levels. So what do you mean?
What I mean is that I'm looking into all affected OSI layers. ;)
--
soundcheck
'soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0'
(http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com/2011/01/s
soundcheck;613658 Wrote:
> My work is more related to the ethernet (TCP/IP) handling - and not only
> on the receiveing end!
Ethernet is per definition not TCP/IP, in fact it is not even IP but at
lower levels. So what do you mean?
--
johann
---
zzzap;613655 Wrote:
> Not sure if I understand what you're saying. Do you work at this issue
> as if the Touch is missing data from the stream?
No. That's not not an issue. There's no loss of data. There are so
called "Lost packets" on TCP/IP. Though these get resend.
My work is more related to
soundcheck;613649 Wrote:
> Who do you mean with "we all" ? ;)
>
> Lossless in what sense? If you mean no impact on sound - I won't agree
> - not at all.
>
> You can read on my blog what we figured out over a couple of weeks
> period digging into that subject.
>
Not sure if I understand what
It's a pitty though he seems to solely focus on the hardware. Quality
should be good enough to let one experience and enjoy sound (usually
music). The hardware is just a tool whilst music IMHO is all about the
overall experience.
So, no, IMHO, SG is not a genius at all.
--
Griffin
soundcheck;613649 Wrote:
>
> Network cables must be considered antennas!!!
>
do you mean antennas that transmit, receive or both?
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ D
zzzap;613615 Wrote:
> Do we all agree that the TCP transport is lossless?
> If we do, what factors can we then try to agree on could influence
> differences some members have experienced fiddling with the network?
>
> - First. I've not seen any information that the Touch actually use TCP.
> Are
38 matches
Mail list logo
