the only change to the previous thread is that I am using clock rate of
1 in MMCSS and have shut down 6 more processes using Game Booster 3.
Very happy with the results.
--
SBGK
SBGK's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.c
ok, nearly there, but still not as good as Fidelizer, the sound is still
a bit lean, what is Fidelizer doing to get that effect ?
The last trick up our sleeve is some more free software called Game
Booster 3, which actually stops non essential services and makes quite
a difference to the sound, g
My thread in the LMS forum was closed down, but I still have some
changes to report. I am happy to reply to any questions about the
effects of these mods.
The web is full of optimisations for audio playback, this is a
consolidated list of mods that I have found that work, I am getting
significant
mnyb;686331 Wrote:
> i'll once again bore you to tears with my love of active speakers :)
--
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 -
SBGK;686389 Wrote:
> Just tried the Ingus DRC (never heard of it before seeing your
> signature), pretty poor on my system, massive drop in resolution.
You mean Inguz? What microphone did you use?
--
SuperQ
SuperQ's Pro
SBGK;686367 Wrote:
> Curiouser and curiouser! Cried Alice
>
> Phil, my system is so highly resolving that I can tell if
> Squeezeserver.exe is on priority idle or real time, same if it is on
> dedicated cores or shared cores. Maybe my brain reacts adversely to
> hearing music which does not s
guidof;686396 Wrote:
>
> I am considering ripping my LPs and would appreciate knowing which
> method/equipment you used to do your ripping.
> Thanks in advance for any info.
> Guido F.
Several users on the VortexBox forum like Vinyl Studio:
http://vortexbox.org/threads/2184-Ripping-vinyl-and-o
To understand why it's complex we need to remind ourselves of what
jitter actually is. It's pitch modulation, basically like analogue
wow&flutter, off-centered records, slightly untrue pulleys and
vibrating motors in vinyl players, dirt on tape machine capstans etc..
It's nothing more than that in
Phil Leigh;686313 Wrote:
>
>
> A much better test would be to compare a good rip of YOUR LP against
> the LP.
> Whenever I have done this - approx 150 times - I have never heard the
> Touch sound worse - it has always sounded slightly better and the
> reason is because the vinyl playback suffer
The problem I have with these jitter threads (not just here but in
almost all audiophile forums) is that there's all this worry about a
phenomenon when few can even say what it sounds like or produce
examples for others to test. As I noted in the Paul Frindle thread,
research seems to suggest th
SBGK;686389 Wrote:
> Well, I know what I like, that's all that matters to me.
>
> Just tried the Ingus DRC (never heard of it before seeing your
> signature), pretty poor on my system, massive drop in resolution.
>
> system is laptop with optimised Win 7, linear ps, ethernet, SBT +
> fidelity
Phil Leigh;686369 Wrote:
> What exactly is this system of yours? - sounds interesting.
>
> As an aside, how do you know what "correct" sounds like?... Were you
> there when it was recorded?
Well, I know what I like, that's all that matters to me.
Just tried the Ingus DRC (never heard of it be
Phil Leigh;686313 Wrote:
> Interesting as this is, you are comparing two wildly different
> masterings... so unfortunately it doesn't tell us very much other than
> you clearly prefer one mastering over the other (which is fine). It
> certainly says nothing about the relative sonic merits of the
Didn't work at all. Can you tell me why? Here's what it did:
Code:
wine: cannot find L"C:\\windows\\system32\\tasklist.exe"
File not found
wine: cannot find L"C:\\windows\\system32\\tasklist.exe"
File not found
wine: cannot find L"C:\\windows\\system32
SBGK;686367 Wrote:
> Curiouser and curiouser! Cried Alice
>
> Phil, my system is so highly resolving that I can tell if
> Squeezeserver.exe is on priority idle or real time, same if it is on
> dedicated cores or shared cores. Maybe my brain reacts adversely to
> hearing music which does not s
mnyb;686331 Wrote:
>
> i'll once again bore you to tears with my love of active speakers :)
--
darrenyeats
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503.
SB Touch
Thank you Adam.
Benchmark claims their "UltraLock" circuits eliminate jitter. Of
course, jitter is present after the UltraLock stage. In fact those
measurements I mentioned show there are sidebands in the output signal
caused by jitter. They are 140db down, but they are there.
Changing the jitte
Phil Leigh;686368 Wrote:
> Quite. It was the ground loops I was thinking of. It wouldn't be much
> good transformer coupling/isolating a DAC if the coupling didn't pass
> high frequencies :-)
Hi Phil, I wasn't refering to you, I know YOU know how it works, but
there are quite a few people that s
SBGK;686367 Wrote:
> Curiouser and curiouser! Cried Alice
>
> Phil, my system is so highly resolving that I can tell if
> Squeezeserver.exe is on priority idle or real time, same if it is on
> dedicated cores or shared cores. Maybe my brain reacts adversely to
> hearing music which does not s
JohnSwenson;686366 Wrote:
> Just a bit of clarification on galvanic isolation via transformers,
> there seems to be some mis-understanding about them by some people.
> These devices are wideband transformers designed to pass a very broad
> range of high frequncies. They block DC and low frequenci
Just a bit of clarification on galvanic isolation via transformers,
there seems to be some mis-understanding about them by some people.
These devices are wideband transformers designed to pass a very broad
range of high frequncies. They block DC and low frequencies, but pass
most high frequencies.
Phil Leigh;686339 Wrote:
> OK so now I've tried it... At the "audiophile" setting...
> Couldn't hear any difference to be honest.
> Only did a quick a/b...
> I suppose I could break out ADM and test it, but that will have to
> wait.
Curiouser and curiouser! Cried Alice
Phil, my system is so
magiccarpetride;686336 Wrote:
> Tough crowd. One wonders -- due to what peculiar set of circumstances
> did we end up with such humourless group of people on this forum? Why
> is everyone so somber, solemn, and hell bent on impersonating a school
> principal here?
>
> So no one wants to play the
magiccarpetride;685877 Wrote:
> ?
regulated power supply
--
SBGK
SBGK's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=52003
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93205
__
magiccarpetride;686340 Wrote:
> This is a prank, right? Common "stuff"? What stuff?
Special Stuff... :-)
--
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
D
psp;686324 Wrote:
> 3. We can sense things in simple physical systems that currently have
> not yielded to physical measurement with the best equipment currently
> available. I do science for a living (PhD Biochemistry, BA Chemistry
> and Math, 34 years work experience and still chugging), and h
Phil Leigh;686301 Wrote:
> Hey - I never said I wouldn't try it... later...
OK so now I've tried it... At the "audiophile" setting...
Couldn't hear any difference to be honest.
Only did a quick a/b...
I suppose I could break out ADM and test it, but that will have to
wait.
--
Phil Leigh
You
Archimago;686240 Wrote:
> LOL, I don't know whether you're trying to be funny or offensive. I
> like the following though:
>
>
>
> So what does this make you? I see you've started a few threads here
> knowing full well the tendency towards objectivism with many of the
> posters here.
Tough c
Phil Leigh;686329 Wrote:
> ?
I was going to let rip, but decided it was unprintable and get me into
trouble, so I deleted it :)
--
browellm
Modwright Transporter >> Kondo M7 >>LV Argento >> Avantgarde Uno Nano
http://www.last.fm/user/browellm
browellm;686330 Wrote:
> I was going to let rip, but decided it was unprintable and get me into
> trouble, so I deleted it :)
Probably best then :-)
--
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
Jeff Flowerday;686305 Wrote:
> I had to fix your statement for you...
>
> PS) The Fidelizer developer most likely doesn't run LMS and
> squeezeboxen. So it's just you and soundcheck on this one.
There is probably some effect using Fidelizer if you actually listen to
audio with your computer .
evdplancke;686297 Wrote:
> Suspect? I don't now.
>
> About skin effect, I checked the skin depth for copper at 20khz. It is
> < 0,5 mm! That means smaller than the radius of AWG 18. Skin effect
> becomes therefore relevant for anything thicker than AWG 18 !!!
> So at least on this topic this is
browellm;686325 Wrote:
> ...
?
--
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 (6x LK140's,
ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEI
...
--
browellm
Modwright Transporter >> Kondo M7 >>LV Argento >> Avantgarde Uno Nano
http://www.last.fm/user/browellm
browellm's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14260
View this thread: http://fo
mlsstl wrote: "I think a more neutral appraisal of the situation would
allow for some degree of subjective influence. IOW, the "it's in your
head" factor is one that needs to be on the table for consideration."
Agreed, I should have woven that fact into my post. We are all
susceptible to self-d
evdplancke;686296 Wrote:
> Thank you for the advice. If I understand you well, if those 3
> conditions are not perfectly met,you admit implicitly that some kind of
> noise can be transmitted from the source to the DAC output.
>
> However these consideration seems to be based on the assumption th
evdplancke;686215 Wrote:
> I think you are right. If I remember well the theory, given a signal to
> noise ratio and a type of modulation, we can calculate the probability
> of error (bit error rate). When we add noise to a signal, this
> probability is very close but not equal to 0. The question
Munroe;686307 Wrote:
> I did some listening tests of my own to see what quality level my SBT is
> at out of the box via analog outs. I have to be honest I didn't find a
> large difference between the same music on phono vs the SBT. There is
> enough that I will try a DAC possibly, as there was
firedog;686274 Wrote:
> I stand by my claim. The Benchmark doesn't eliminate jitter. It's a
> marketing claim. If it is fed a jittery signal, there are methods for
> improving the result, but the jitter isn't "eliminated". In real life
> there isn't digital audio with NO jitter - by definition. L
I did some listening tests of my own to see what quality level my SBT is
at out of the box via analog outs. I have to be honest I didn't find a
large difference between the same music on phono vs the SBT. There is
enough that I will try a DAC possibly, as there was two suttle
differences in the
SBGK;686292 Wrote:
> Phil,
>
> If you won't try it then would you accept an invitation to come to hear
> it at my house next time you're in Gloucestershire. There is most
> definately an improvement in the sound with Fidelizer and the Windows 7
> tweaks, in my head at least.
I had to fix your s
SBGK;686275 Wrote:
> Soundcheck,
>
> If you are going to put forward proposals for tweaks to the server side
> in TT4.0 then be careful not to post about it in this forum, my thread
> detailing such changes has been closed as the discussion was deemed
> stupid.
>
>
Look. There is slight diffe
SBGK;686292 Wrote:
> Phil,
>
> If you won't try it then would you accept an invitation to come to hear
> it at my house next time you're in Gloucestershire. There is most
> definately an improvement in the sound with Fidelizer and the Windows 7
> tweaks, in my system at least.
Hey - I never sai
Mnyb;686119 Wrote:
> Not from tnt audio ? They are suspect to imho.
Suspect? I don't now.
About skin effect, I checked the skin depth for copper at 20khz. It is
< 0,5 mm! That means smaller than the radius of AWG 18. Skin effect
becomes therefore relevant for anything thicker than AWG 18 !!!
So
Phil Leigh;686276 Wrote:
> Which is why it is important to galvanically isolate the Touch. There
> are three routes in:
> 1) the spdif coax connection - noise can be transferred back from the
> DAC - use Toslink or at least use a DAC that has a transformer isolated
> input stage
>
> 2) the ether
Mnyb;686294 Wrote:
>
> Imho it's is in practice solved for end users , use a good dac :) enjoy
> the music
;-) Agree (thus my use of Transporter or Touch > Benchmark I DAC in
my two main listening locations)
--
garym
*Location 1:* VB Appliance 6TB (1.10) > LMS 7.7.1 > Transporter, Touch,
garym;686291 Wrote:
> I'm probably entirely wrong here as this is not an area where I have any
> expertise, but I always *thought* from reading a bit that jitter was
> only a possible issue in the context of digital transmission (the bits
> and the timing of the bits.clock, etc.). I didn't t
Phil Leigh;686269 Wrote:
> The other two haven't posted here directly about this IIRC.
> As to why YOU hear things sounding differently... I have no idea.
> Whatever it is you are hearing, it is neither measurable nor
> understandable using conventional science.
Phil,
If you won't try it then w
Mnyb;686234 Wrote:
> Can you assume that a device with reasonably ok jitter on the analog out
> also must have ok jitter at the spdiff out ? They may differ ,but 10/1
> or 100/1 difference ?
I'm probably entirely wrong here as this is not an area where I have
any expertise, but I always *thought
In practice is this really a problem , that audiophiles regularly
reports it as a problem in their anecdotes is one thing .
But if it's still below our limit of detection ?
that limit of detections, when someone point to facts from a real test,
in this fora and other forums suggest that modern we
firedog;686274 Wrote:
> I stand by my claim. The Benchmark doesn't eliminate jitter. It's a
> marketing claim. If it is fed a jittery signal, there are methods for
> improving the result, but the jitter isn't "eliminated". In real life
> there isn't digital audio with NO jitter - by definition. L
evdplancke;686215 Wrote:
> I think you are right. If I remember well the theory, given a signal to
> noise ratio and a type of modulation, we can calculate the probability
> of error (bit error rate). When we add noise to a signal, this
> probability is very close but not equal to 0. The question
Soundcheck,
If you are going to put forward proposals for tweaks to the server side
in TT4.0 then be careful not to post about it in this forum, my thread
detailing such changes has been closed as the discussion was deemed
stupid.
--
SBGK
---
darrenyeats;686270 Wrote:
> You make two statements which are different Firedog. The first one is
> purely about jitter, and I disagree with that one. There are DACs that
> eliminate jitter e.g. Benchmark. Yes it's a claim as you put it, but
> unlike your claim Benchmark publish measurements as e
SBGK;686264 Wrote:
> I don't know what a audiophile redneck is, but I appreciate being in the
> company of so many world experts in audiophile digital theory that have
> decided, like me, to splash out on the only bit perfect digital stramer
> in the universe and only £200, bargain.
It's not the
firedog;686254 Wrote:
> It's pretty clear that as As far as jitter, some DACs handle it better
> than others, but in spite of claims, no DAC "eliminates" it or is
> "immune" to it. With a significantly better source (lower noise or less
> jitter) sent to your DAC, you should hear a difference, as
SBGK;686263 Wrote:
> what is your theory of why people hear differences when running
> Fidelizer ? Is it just me and Soundcheck and the Fidelizer developer
> that can hear an improvement ?
The other two haven't posted here directly about this IIRC.
As to why YOU hear things sounding differently.
I don't know what a audiophile redneck is, but I appreciate being in the
company of so many world experts in audiophile digital theory that have
decided, like me, to splash out on the only bit perfect digital stramer
in the universe and only £200, bargain.
--
SBGK
--
Phil Leigh;686255 Wrote:
> Perhaps a basic book on how computers work would also be helpful? At
> least something to help get through the fact nothing ... No amount of
> tinkering... You can do to the operating system and the hardware it is
> running on can ever change the data content of the IP
Perhaps a basic book on how computers work would also be helpful? At
least something to help get through the fact nothing ... No amount of
tinkering... You can do to the operating system and the hardware it is
running on can ever change the data content of the IP packets being
sent from an LMS ser
Mnyb;686234 Wrote:
> 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 an
My respect for Mr Westlake has been restored:
'My Rohde & Schwarz UPD audio analyser seems to be having issues with
its Jitter measurement option - so I'll refrain from saying any-more
until about Jitter levels until I can confirm its performance.
Logitech have gone to more trouble then usual to
62 matches
Mail list logo
