soundcheck;623833 Wrote:
Hi guys.
A guy at DIY-Audio is reporting after a 7.5.4. update poorer
performance of the device.
Before 7.5.4. he was able to run buffersize 4000, now he's up to 4700.
Anybody over here made similar experiences?
Cheers
Don't know about 7.5.4 but I managed
On 07/04/11 04:29, brjoon1021 wrote:
My belief is that there is too much there for current digital
parameters to capture as well as analog can.
Actually, that's not the case. The A/D process is relatively simple and
easy to do right. Digital recordings can easily capture everything that
analog
Robin Bowes;623848 Wrote:
On 07/04/11 04:29, brjoon1021 wrote:
My belief is that there is too much there for current digital
parameters to capture as well as analog can.
Actually, that's not the case. The A/D process is relatively simple
and
easy to do right. Digital recordings can
4000 here too.
Latest 7.6 beta with latest 7.6 firmware
--
Gazjam
Gazjam's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18604
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742
During the weekend, I listened to a test print of my band's upcoming 10
vinyl. It sounds ten times better than the digital master tracks. All
the microphones and other inputs were plugged into a sound card and
A/D-converted. From there, everything was done digitally. The record
manufacturers in
I seem to remember that even Michael Fremer admits to playing people
cdrs he has made of different turntables and phono amps to show the
difference between them. How does this work if the vinyl magic is
removed? I appreciate that it is theoretically possible, but it seems
odd that the differences
On 07/04/11 12:33, Soulkeeper wrote:
During the weekend, I listened to a test print of my band's upcoming 10
vinyl. It sounds ten times better than the digital master tracks. All
the microphones and other inputs were plugged into a sound card and
A/D-converted. From there, everything was
brjoon1021;623821 Wrote:
My belief is that there is too much there for current digital parameters
to capture as well as analog can.
You're certainly entitled to your belief, but I've personally
transferred to digital over 2,000 LPs and open reel tapes in my
collection over the past 10 years.
ctbarker32;623912 Wrote:
A point that goes missing quite often in these discussions is that a lot
of music simply is not available in any format except LP vinyl
Now you know why I converted much of my material to digital. If I
wanted a CD version or to have the music on my server, I had to
andyg;610642 Wrote:
If you are having popping on the current 7.5.3/firmware 82, please send
me a file that causes it.
http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/Large_File_Upload
I can reconfirm that the popping noise problem is not solved with
firmware 85 in 7.6.0-32229 nightly build.
The song
Phil Leigh;622059 Wrote:
SOX is already installed when SBS is installed. SOX is used to playback
192 or 176.4 files by resampling them to 96 or 88.2.
SOX does VERY high quality resampling and can convert between
non-multiples with no quality problems.
When I play 96-24 files on the touch
I believe from your original post, you indicated that Squeezeboxserver
is running on a NAS. If that's the case, transcoding may not be setup,
as most NAS boxes do not have the processing power to support
transcoding - therefore SOX may not even be installed in your
application. It may be
krzys;623098 Wrote:
Mini DSP can take the digital SPDiF output and process it. The
limitation is the 48 kHz sampling rate. I even don't know if it can
handle the 96 kHz signal . The advantage is you can make nearly any
kind of filter or DSP with them .
Chris
Ps another interseting
Phil Leigh;623855 Wrote:
+1 - vinyl also adds noise, various distortions and compresses dynamic
range (especially at the bass end).
Anyone who has ripped vinyl using capable equipment knows that it is
(as Robin said) easy to capture EVERYTHING about the vinyl, good and
bad.
Such rips
earwaxer9;623023 Wrote:
How do you like your active crossover? Not sure why you are getting
noise due to pc proximity to speakers?
This setup is experimental, I wanted to replace my pre and mini with
DEQX. I wanted to test the Active Setup before I fork $$$ for a DEQX
setup.
Initial plan was
I was at a friend's stereo store and he had high resolution 24bit/192khz
audio playing through a Squeezebox into a high end rig and controlled by
an IPAD with a Logitech app. Blew me away. Some of the tracks were
vinyl recorded off of a stupid-expensive turntable into an A/D
converter, also
Kuro;623926 Wrote:
I can reconfirm that the popping noise problem is not solved with
firmware 85 in 7.6.0-32229 nightly build.
The song to test is from this album:
https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetailvalbum_code=HD090368032362
Just try the very first one Spanish
Sox is installed and supported on ReadyNAS devices which the OP
mentions. All the x86 based ReadyNAS are capable of transcoding.
--
snottmonster
snottmonster's Profile:
Sounds like for a player you'd be interested in Squeezebox Touch. The
Touch maxes-out at 96kHz/24 bits. Mac-centric shouldn't be a problem.
The question would be where you would run Squeezeboxserver (the program
which serves the music to you Squeezebox players). It could be run on
a Mac (but
magiccarpetride;623978 Wrote:
What's more, you can make that doll even better than the real woman
(i.e. make the breasts larger, the legs longer, the vagina tighter,
etc.)
I will leave it theredont want to get the bug spray!
--
earwaxer9
System: modified Winsome Labs Mouse,
It's difficult to shock me, but even I thought that post was wildly
inappropriate. Shame.
--
Curt962
Transporter...TouchBoom..
Curt962's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=31949
View this
I'm wondering what experiences people may have had employing an audio
expander on their home audio systems. To me, live music in a
performance setting is immediately recognizable as such, sight unseen,
for the lack of compression, I suspect. Recordings are almost always
compressed to some
Curt962;624053 Wrote:
It's difficult to shock me, but even I thought that post was wildly
inappropriate. Shame.
Less said about it the better.
--
Phoenix
Media Room: VPI HW-19MK4,Cardas Heart Ruby, Fidelity Research Fr64s
tonearm;SB3, Tact RCS 2.0, Benchmark Dac1; Audible Illusions
Do you mean something like a DBX unit that were popular in the early
'80's?
IMO they were unacceptable, and expanded dynamic range by making
quiet passages quieter...by clamping them down to nothing.Not
always a bad thing for noisy cassette tapes, and LPs, but they also had
the side effect
Your reply brings up looking into more options. First, I Like the
Vortexbox idea. I don't know where you get them or how expensive they
are yet. I was just going to use a NAS for storing music, short
videos, and photos, and use my Macbook to run software like Amarra. I
looked into music
Both the Touch and Transporter will play 192/24, or 176/24 files just
fine..albeit downsampled via Sox to 96/24 or 88/24 respectively.
Given the vast assortment of music we all love to hear being widely
available in 192/24is this really an issue?
I don't know of anyone who has said 192
I agree with what you posted. I think the big improvement I heard
sonically was the extra data in the 24 bit word length. Still amazed.
I already looked into Vortexbox and that looks like the simplest
solution for me right now. I'm still open to other ideas at this stage
though. Thanks.
--
Yeah maybe the 24 bits...or it might have just been a really good
recording too that would have sounded good in 192kbps MP3.
For the paltry investment in a Touch ($300 or so), and a PC which you
obviously have...
Do I need to spell it out?
This is good stuff. As they used to say: Carpe Diem
My belief is that there is too much (information - to be recorded)
there for current digital parameters to capture as well as analog
can.
I did say analog, not vinyl here as some of you started talking about
digitally ripping copies of your records. I wasn't talking about that. I
was referring
29 matches
Mail list logo
