If the length of an s/pdif cable makes a difference to your DAC, don't
buy more s/pdif cables, sell your DAC and buy one that works properly.
Why throw good money after bad?
--
JezA
JezA's Profile:
At the risk of getting a reputation for being deaf (!) I've now tried my
coax versus my optical and I couldn't detect any difference, using a
Benchmark DAC1 HDR.
I am using optical for convenience - shorter and I can skip all
discussion of cable-borne noise!
Regards, Darren
--
darrenyeats
Guys-
I know it's fun to snipe and sound superior, but both Phil and John
have taken measurements that MIGHT explain a positive effect on sound
of Soundcheck's mods. They've at least taken measurements that show
that the mods do have some measurable effect on the output of the
Touch. So the
darrenyeats;625481 Wrote:
At the risk of getting a reputation for being deaf (!) I've now tried my
coax versus my optical and I couldn't detect any difference, using a
Benchmark DAC1 HDR.
I am using optical for convenience - shorter!
Regards, Darren
Understand that if you actually
mervin_b;625251 Wrote:
Right now I use 12897 (no kidding..). Compared to the default 2, it
does seem to sound smoother, yet remain clear and detailed.
Hi,
I don't have much time for the non-empirical part of this thread, but
here is my observation regarding the suggested 12897 buffer
firedog;625489 Wrote:
They've at least taken measurements that show that the mods do have some
measurable effect on the output of the Touch.
Really? I haven't seen any such definitive measurements, though as a
new guy around here I could quite easily have missed something.
I did recently
snottmonster;625526 Wrote:
So in all seriousness, please point me to any such measurements - I'd be
very interested to see them and the conclusions drawn.
Start around post #329 in this thread. Note that those are Phil's
measurements on the analog outputs.
--
aubuti
aubuti;625527 Wrote:
Start around post #329 in this thread. Note that those are Phil's
measurements on the analog outputs.
Urghh... Thanks (I think). I got as far as the new claim that A
Windows based server sounds better then a Linux based server on the
same HW (ie about 10 pages) and felt
snottmonster;625542 Wrote:
Urghh... Thanks (I think). I got as far as the new claim that A Windows
based server sounds better then a Linux based server on the same HW (ie
about 10 pages) and felt the will to live slowly draining from my
body...
Anyway, based on those results I revise my
snottmonster;625542 Wrote:
Urghh... Thanks (I think). I got as far as the new claim that A Windows
based server sounds better then a Linux based server on the same HW (ie
about 10 pages) and felt the will to live slowly draining from my
body...
No, no -- have another beverage (espresso, ale,
Whatver the merits of other mods, the really extraordinary claim is that
the volume =100% mod makes a difference when it seems to have been
estabolished that there is abolutely no difference from just having the
volume at 100% in any value of any processs running on the cpu.
I probably will
It's so easy (and cost free) to try these mods ... is it not a waste of
breath to speculate about them without giving them a whirl?
--
Tom186
Tom186's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=43852
View
Tom186;625569 Wrote:
It's so easy (and cost free) to try these mods ... is it not a waste of
breath to speculate about them without giving them a whirl?
Err no. The original advice from Soundcheck was that it was not worth
applying the mods unless you are going wired. This is not in fact a
adamdea;625575 Wrote:
Err no. The original advice from Soundcheck was that it was not worth
applying the mods unless you are going wired. This is not in fact a
cost-free exercise if you do not have ethernet cabling installed.
If I have misunderstood I am quite happy to be corrected.
aubuti;625547 Wrote:
And as for 'Gazjam's question'
(http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=625418#post625418),
yes, I did try the mods. I didn't do extensive comparisons, but I'm not
even sure I heard 'something'.
Can you supply us with definitive measurements proving that you're
magiccarpetride;625607 Wrote:
Can you supply us with definitive measurements proving that you're
actually alive?
Sure. Your point?
Obviously I heard 'something', i.e., the music. But in my case I cannot
say with any degree of certainty that I heard a difference in sound
before and after
aubuti;625615 Wrote:
Sure. Your point?
Obviously I heard 'something', i.e., the music. But in my case I cannot
say with any degree of certainty that I heard a difference in sound
before and after soundcheck's mods. I _can_ say with certainty that I
did not hear the '\staggering
aubuti;625615 Wrote:
I _can_ say with certainty that I did not hear the '\staggering
improvements in the sound quality\'
(http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=602233#post602233) that
you and others report hearing (and you hadn't even disabled wifi yet).
Which brand of audiophile
magiccarpetride;625617 Wrote:
OK, let me ask you this: are you, or have you ever been able, to hear
ANY differences in the sound quality when comparing two systems?
Most definitely. Again: what's your point?
--
aubuti
magiccarpetride;625616 Wrote:
It would appear that in order to pass the rite of passage and be
decorated with the you're now one of us, one of the in-crowd gold
medal on this (and on many other audiophile forums), one need to put on
the most cynical, skeptical face and ridicule and deride
Having just read 'the post(s) that seem to have inspired this thread'
(http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=625617), let's fix that
statement to reflect the alternate point of view:
It would appear that in order to pass the rite of passage and be
decorated with the you're now one of
In my view, sometimes there is a discernible difference, sometimes there
is not. It depends on what has been substituted for what.
Yes, the people who always claim there's no difference at all,
regardless of what modification has been made, are deluded. Just like
the people who always claim that
magiccarpetride;625616 Wrote:
It would appear that in order to pass the rite of passage and be
decorated with the you're now one of us, one of the in-crowd gold
medal on this (and on many other audiophile forums), one need to put on
the most cynical, skeptical face and ridicule and deride
Ok, you've disclosed the conspiracy, I admit it. Audio forums exist so
people can reassure themselves there are no differences between
equipment, just like car forums exist so people can reassure themselves
that all cars are exactly the same. ;)
--
Soulkeeper
-that is not dead which can
michael123;625283 Wrote:
http://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/akm/en/product/ak4396/ak4396.html
Why does the Transporter with the AK4286 not accept 192khz sample
rate?
Looking at the filter characteristics on pgs 11 on. It appears there is
a significant difference in filter effects (as expected) with
Soulkeeper;625648 Wrote:
Ok, you've disclosed the conspiracy, I admit it. Audio forums exist so
people can reassure themselves there are no differences between
equipment, just like car forums exist so people can reassure themselves
that all cars are exactly the same. ;)
In car forums they
Audio reproduction is a multi-dimensional problem. The two groups
Audiophiles (Art of sound) and non-Audiophile (Science of sound) are
unable to answer many unanswered questions.
Our tendency as humans is to come to a conclusion because our minds
cannot deal with infinitum comfortably. We know
earwaxer9;625655 Wrote:
Why does the Transporter with the AK4286 not accept 192khz sample rate?
The cumputing power inside the Transporter just isn´t up to it and it
is for sure hard to always guarantee the datastream. Mr Sean Adams
himself somewhere explained that somewhere in detail afaik.
thanks wombat!
--
earwaxer9
System: modified Winsome Labs Mouse, modified Maggie MMG's, Transporter,
HSU sub 12, MSB DAC to 500 watt sub slave amp, JPS labs power cords,
Silver audio interconnect, Audioquest Granite speaker cable.
29 matches
Mail list logo
