vett93;686044 Wrote:
Reducing the buffer does not decrease the latency. It just reduces the
unused portion of the buffer. Why that would do anything to improve
sound is really beyond me
Is there a place that I can find the key ideas of improvement that this
Toolbox offers?
Think
darrell;685971 Wrote:
As far as I know (I'm not an expert), a reduced buffer size decreases
the latency of the system,
Reducing the buffer does not decrease the latency. It just reduces the
unused portion of the buffer. Why that would do anything to improve
sound is really beyond
magiccarpetride;686024 Wrote:
You guys are clueless. You think that a theatre performance only works
if attendees somehow get convinced that what's happening on the stage
is for real?
You call me sophisticated but I can't help but call you dull.
blah, blah, blah. Then why don't you just
It was OK when mcr was the only one. But now it seems he's brought his
friends/followers/sockpuppets/whatever (e.g. insisting that tweaking
the thread priorities of the LMS computer will affect the sound quality
of the Squeezebox, and demanding evidence from those who try to explain
reality in
Sometimes a good DAC can just end up being a microscope on the flaws;
kind of like watching standard def TV on a HD screen.
--
steveinaz
- transport: squeezebox touch / ci audio ps
- dac: benchmark dac/pre
- linestage: placette passive
- power amplifier: parasound hca-1500a
- speakers: fritz
I really don't understand why people with an external DAC bother with
this tweaking anyhow. The DAC should have more of an effect than the
tweaks, and likely adding it's own flavor to the sound, making the
results if any achieved by users completely unrepeatable except for
those owning that
Mnyb;685021 Wrote:
Most amp are voltage source (low output impedance ) so keep R and L low
,but it's not hard to do .
Skin effect has little influence in analogue audio so it is LCR
parameters only for low-frequency applications (audio is lf it's not
radio or radar ) ,most amps zobel ?
evdplancke;686098 Wrote:
The Naked Truth about Speaker Cables:
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/spkcbl_e.html
describes first and second order effects in speaker cables.
Skin effect is not negligible at 20kHz and is virtually reducing
effective surface of thick cables.
Air coil inductance
I'm really pleased that there is an ignore facility in User CP.
Chris :)
--
Stratmangler
There is no element of personal attack in my response.
Stratmangler's Profile:
There is no system on the planet that gets within 30% of reality...
--
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/W7)+Teddy Pardo PSU - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1
DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system
Munroe;686095 Wrote:
I really don't understand why people with an external DAC bother with
this tweaking anyhow. The DAC should have more of an effect than the
tweaks, and likely adding it's own flavor to the sound, making the
results if any achieved by users completely unrepeatable except
Phil Leigh;686121 Wrote:
There is no system on the planet that gets within 10% of reality...
OK, but please keep in mind that mine was merely a hypothetical 'math',
something I tossed out to get the conversation going. More realistically
we're talking systems that approximate 0.1% of
Stratmangler;686120 Wrote:
I'm really pleased that there is an ignore facility in User CP.
Chris :)
And it works too.
Chris :D
--
Stratmangler
There is no element of personal attack in my response.
Stratmangler's
magiccarpetride;686125 Wrote:
OK, but please keep in mind that mine was merely a hypothetical 'math',
something I tossed out to get the conversation going. More
realistically we're talking systems that approximate 0.1% of
reality. And even that is a very liberal, general assessment.
I
Phil Leigh;686138 Wrote:
I can go along with 0.1%.
Yeah, we all agree that the simulacrum is nowhere near anything that it
tries to simulate. But we enjoy the placebo anyway:)
--
magiccarpetride
magiccarpetride's
magiccarpetride;686122 Wrote:
The tried and tested truth about DACs, any DACs, is that they are not
immune to the universal law of gigo (garbage in, garbage out). A DAC
that retails for $8,000.00 will still deliver shitty sound if it's
being fed shitty signal. Once the noise enters the
I read this about the Touch on another forum and would just like to
throw is open for comments:
'The biggest issue with the SBT is its very high jitter on the SPDIF
outputs due to the internal clocking arrangement, the SPDIF is
outputted directly from the freescale processor without
I've had this happen to me numerous times over the last 15 years that
I've had a good audio system and been working to make it better.
Transitions to markedly better audio are often described as removing a
layer of dirt from a window. Is it so hard then to understand that--if
you clean the
magiccarpetride;686122 Wrote:
The tried and tested truth about DACs, any DACs, is that they are not
immune to the universal law of gigo (garbage in, garbage out). A DAC
that retails for $8,000.00 will still deliver shitty sound if it's
being fed shitty signal. Once the noise enters the
You have to be very sceptical about any jitter comments. There is no
standard way to measure jitter. So what jitter are they talking about?
Where did they measure it and how? What type?
In general the Touch is considered a relatively clean source in the
digital realm. Can you get something with
Covenant;686148 Wrote:
I read this about the Touch on another forum and would just like to
throw is open for comments:
'The biggest issue with the SBT is its very high jitter on the SPDIF
outputs due to the internal clocking arrangement, the SPDIF is
outputted directly from the freescale
I suppose this might count as biting again, but...
magiccarpetride;686122 Wrote:
...Once the noise enters the picture, it interferes with the signal, and
no fancy DAC will ever be able to remedy that.
What character does this noise take in the digital domain? Are you
talking about jitter?
It is often easy to quote some theory we knew from the past without
verification. It also can be hard to verify the operating condition.
For example, how do we know the error rate between the source and the
DAC is zero? I am guessing that the error rate is probably not zero. If
that is true, it
adamdea;686145 Wrote:
I'm afraid this is one of those (fairly frequent) posts that entirely
depends on not knowing what you are talking about. The whole point of
a digital information system is that the information can be perfectly
retrieved despite high levels of noise and distortion, as
Phil Leigh;686152 Wrote:
The reality is in fact that an $8kDAC fed by a $20 DVD player will sound
great... And fed by an $8k transport it MIGHT sound a tiny bit better.
This is the truth that dare not speak its name. Modern DAC's just don't
fall victim to high input jitter or spurious noise
It was John Westlake who made the comment in relation to the MDAC. I
suppose its a marketing ploy; disappointing as he is a respected
designer.
Firedog-I love the way my Touch sounds but I wouldn't be on the forum
if I didn't want better!
--
Covenant
darrell;686154 Wrote:
I suppose this might count as biting again, but...
What character does this noise take in the digital domain? Are you
talking about jitter?
I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm just sharing what I'm
hearing. And because I'm not charging you for this, you are
Soulkeeper;686061 Wrote:
It was OK when mcr was the only one. But now it seems he's brought his
friends/followers/sockpuppets/whatever (e.g. insisting that tweaking
the thread priorities of the LMS computer will affect the sound quality
of the Squeezebox, and demanding evidence from those
A definition of a being a redneck is possessing glorious absence of
sophistication.
Aesthetic concerns seem to be topping the list of things that remain
inscrutable for the audiophile rednecks. They only seem capable of
listening to music if they happen to be holding an SPL meter in their
hands,
psp;686149 Wrote:
I strongly doubt the general expectation-driven it's all in your head
picture. On that hypothesis, way more than half of the tweaks should be
experienced as a positive change, since hope for a positive outcome is
presumably the most common motivator of tweaking. In the
Calm down, dude. You are begging for more insults. :-)
--
vett93
Main system:
Source: Transporter, modded by ModWright:
http://www.modwright.com/modifications/transporter-truth-mods.php
Preamp: Dude from Tube Research Labs:
http://www.tuberesearchlabs.com/products/dude.html
Amp: NP100
mlsstl;686177 Wrote:
That said, it is perfectly fine by me that people tweak and buy
expensive accessories to their heart's desire.
Thanks, I was afraid that it wouldn't be perfectly fine by you. All I
really need is for others to give me their approval to enjoy something
I already enjoy very
magiccarpetride;686187 Wrote:
Thanks, I was afraid that it wouldn't be perfectly fine by you. All I
really need is for others to give me their approval to enjoy something
I already enjoy very much, and then I'm set.
Glad you're happy.
--
mlsstl
magiccarpetride;686168 Wrote:
I have no idea what I'm talking about.
That much is obvious.
magiccarpetride;686168 Wrote:
I'm just sharing what I'm hearing.
I refer you to what you actually wrote:
magiccarpetride;686122 Wrote:
The tried and tested truth about DACs, any DACs, is that they
darrell;686195 Wrote:
That much is obvious.
I refer you to what you actually wrote:
So, you are reporting what you are hearing? In which case you have
listened to all DACs, present and future? (no fancy DAC will ever...)
Of course you have not. No, you are making predictions based on
Covenant;686162 Wrote:
It was John Westlake who made the comment in relation to the MDAC. I
suppose its a marketing ploy; disappointing as he is a respected
designer.
Firedog-I love the way my Touch sounds but I wouldn't be on the forum
if I didn't want better!
more info on this:
magiccarpetride;686196 Wrote:
You're pathetic. But you already know that.
Fellow members, in my humble experience, do yourselves a very large
favour and just bypass anything posted by this member - the propellor
is clearly beginning to detach from the head - which will be delayed the
longer
pandasharka;686208 Wrote:
Fellow listeners, in my humble experience, do yourselves a very large
favour and just bypass anything posted by this member - the propellor
is clearly beginning to detach from the head - which will be delayed the
longer attention is given / people reply to his inane
vett93;685930 Wrote:
Thanks. I have tried and implemented many tweaks in my audio systems.
But reducing buffer size just does not make sense to me at all
My current thought is that buffer size affects the processor cache hit
rate. The assumption here is that one of the main causes of
vett93;686157 Wrote:
It is often easy to quote some theory we knew from the past without
verification. It also can be hard to verify the operating condition.
For example, how do we know the error rate between the source and the
DAC is zero? I am guessing that the error rate is probably not
Yes I read that post to very helpfull of john s, no need to cry wolf
rigth now then ?
But does anyone have jitter measurment from the spdiff ? I'm painfully
aware of the fact that seem to be many ways of measuring it .
Stereophiles measurments is done via the analog outs.
Can you assume that a
Jitter is not a problem with the Touch. I promise.
Listen to music. Rest easy.
--
TheOctavist
VortexboxSBT(TT 3.0)Forssell MDAC-2Klein and Hummell 0300D
Sota Sapphire/Lyra KleosBespoke Valve Phono StageMastersound Due
VentiLink Audio K100
TheOctavist;686236 Wrote:
Jitter is not a problem with the Touch. I promise.
Listen to music. Rest easy.
I'm inclined think so myself.
--
Mnyb
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
If there is something better(lower distortion, flatter freq response,
good off axis response) then it WILL show in the measurements.
the problem is.. nobody knows how to listen, or knows even the basics
of sound reproduction, much less DIGITAL AUDIO.
MCR.
Read.
LOL, I don't know whether you're trying to be funny or offensive. I
like the following though:
magiccarpetride;686176 Wrote:
A definition of a being a redneck is possessing glorious absence of
sophistication.
BLAH BLAH BLAH
- you frequent audiophile forums looking for people to attack,
45 matches
Mail list logo
