Phil Leigh;687209 Wrote:
> Quad 33/303... Very soggy sounding to me, no guts. OK so that was quite
> a while ago... any CD player made by Sharp or JVC or Technics... They
> all had eye melting top ends... Most B&W bookshelf speAkers... Soulless
> and uninvolving to me...
>
> Also most Naim gear
On 29 Jan 2012, at 23:35, Phil Leigh wrote:
>
> Archimago;687200 Wrote:
>> Many times in magazines like Stereophile, you see John Atkinson measure
>> something poorly yet the subjective evaluator gives it an A for sound.
>>
>> Have you seen cases of definite fantastic measurements of the usual
Ron Olsen;687262 Wrote:
> Try connecting the Transporter to your network using WiFi instead of
> Ethernet.
>
> Do you hear any difference in sound quality? If not, then there's
> little to gain by worrying about the Ethernet cables in your network.
>
> ...
>
I had the Transporter for 3+ years
If money is no object, buy the best-sounding, most expensive speakers
you can afford. Position them properly, do electronic and/or acoustic
room correction. Buy a high-quality DAC to feed the speakers.
Everything else is a second-order effect.
--
Ron Olsen
--
Try connecting the Transporter to your network using WiFi instead of
Ethernet.
Do you hear any difference in sound quality? If not, then there's
little to gain by worrying about the Ethernet cables in your network.
The setup in my home network:
Transporter in home theater connected with short E
It is hard to explain to people how good tube gears can sound. In the
past, I thought tubes were things of the past, as I had never had or
seen any classes about tubes in my EE programs (BS, MS, and PhD). They
were before my school time. Then a friend loaned me his tube gears for
6 months and I ha
But signal is digital but the noise is not ;) it is good old fashioned
analog noise .
Maybe the tubes would not like the wifi chip at all ? No experience of
that .
What people are trying to say is that the tube stage probaly introduce
several magnitudes more artifacts than noise over the etherne
vett93;687170 Wrote:
> After reading a few threads in this forum, I am starting to think the
> Ethernet connection from the router/bridge to the Transporter can be a
> potential source of RFI and digital noises.
Don't believe everything you read.
--
JJZolx
jsteingarten;687195 Wrote:
> I'd like to switch away from using iTunes as my computer-music
> player//CD ripper.
>
> Two of the alternative computer-music players--i.e. software--that come
> highly recommended by Absolute Sound are JPLAY and JRiver. Have other
> Squeezebox Duet owners tried to
pski;687242 Wrote:
> It is impossible for ethernet to modify the signal from the LMS to the
> transporter. Sleep easily.
The issue is not that Ethernet could modify the signal from the LMS to
the Transporter. I am sure that it would be a bit perfect copy from the
LMS to the Transporter. Since th
I use JRiver MC for all my tagging, ripping (rare these days), and
playlist creation and have used it for years.
--
MeSue
SUE
1 Touch | 2 Booms | 2 Radios | 1 Duet | 1 SB2
HP MediaSmart EX470 | Logitech Media Server 7.7.1 | iPod Touch & iPad
w/ iPeng
Find me on 'Last.FM' (http://www.last.fm/
vett93;687241 Wrote:
> Enough of ???
You wrote you are concerned about the ethernet cable bringing digital
noise in. When you modded the Transporter and added several parts into
its case it is much more likely you get added noise because of that.
The tube output for sure is noisier as the regula
Stilly77;686863 Wrote:
> wow...another dumb thread
>
> same old elites battling it out
>
> just a foolish game of domination here with not an iota of importance.
>
> this place is a nothing but a glorified sewer
go home
no one makes you come here
--
pski
real stereo doesn't just wake the
It is impossible for ethernet to modify the signal from the LMS to the
transporter. Sleep easily.
--
pski
real stereo doesn't just wake the neighbors, it -enrages- them.. It is
truly the Golden Age of Wireless
pski's Prof
Wombat;687171 Wrote:
> .. There is enough already.
> .
Enough of ???
--
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
Am
Phil Leigh; Most B&W bookshelf speAkers... Soulless and uninvolving to
me...)[/QUOTE Wrote:
>
>
> Bought some B&W Cm1s a few yrs back after testing against Paradigm's
> with various types of music. They were much better IMO
--
dasmueller
Most B&W bookshelf speAkers... Soulless and uninvolving to me...
Bought some CM-1s a few years back and love them. Tested them against
some Paradigm units and the B&W's were just cleaner,deeper and fuller
--
dasmueller
da
darrell;687221 Wrote:
> I'm not sure that I agree with your characterisation of the two camps. I
> thinks that it's more those who would either junk accepted science and
> invent their own version, or else ignore science completely (including
> the science which tells us to be careful about what
adamdea;687214 Wrote:
> If you are using a squeezebox you don't need another music player to
> stream to it, just LMS which is specific to SBs and free. If you want
> something to rip files most folk around hear use dbpoweramp or EAC
> AFAIK
What he said. Plus, if you have an ipad, you can get i
I'm not sure that I agree with your characterisation of the two camps. I
thinks that it's more those who would either junk accepted science and
invent their own version, or else ignore science completely (including
the science which tells us to be careful about what we think we
see/hear), versus t
jsteingarten;687195 Wrote:
> I'd like to switch away from using iTunes as my computer-music
> player//CD ripper.
>
> Two of the alternative computer-music players--i.e. software--that come
> highly recommended by Absolute Sound are JPLAY and JRiver. Have other
> Squeezebox Duet owners tried to
The Squeezebox Receiver (Duet) can handle 24 bit/48 kHz. The Squeezebox
Touch can do 24 bit/96 kHz.
--
Soulkeeper
'Bug 17797: Updating wiki.slimdevices.com'
(http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=17797)
Soulkeeper's
I understand that early solid state amps which operated in class b had
low distortion when measured at full pelt but sounded shit when played
at normal levels. However this would have been revealed by the right
measurement ( distortion at 1 watt output).
I understand that it is said that amps us
Archimago;687200 Wrote:
> Many times in magazines like Stereophile, you see John Atkinson measure
> something poorly yet the subjective evaluator gives it an A for sound.
>
> Have you seen cases of definite fantastic measurements of the usual
> parameters (eg. Flat freq response, low distortion,
pandasharka;687192Linn Klimax DS? Different planet to SB + whatever DAC[/QUOTE
Wrote:
>
> says who? Are you claiming to have compared this to a sbt plus Weiss
> dac 202/ bricasti / dcs Debussy or whatever?
>
> I picked the example of these dacs because they look to measure on
> spdif as well a
pandasharka;687192 Wrote:
> Well if that's the case, Logitech are giving their SB products away..
>
> Have you heard the Linn streamers? Especially the more high end
> offerings?
>
> Still you get what you pay for... or do you?!
Yes I've heard the entire Linn family of DS devices in my home.
Many times in magazines like Stereophile, you see John Atkinson measure
something poorly yet the subjective evaluator gives it an A for sound.
Have you seen cases of definite fantastic measurements of the usual
parameters (eg. Flat freq response, low distortion, great noise floor)
whether it be D
I'd like to switch away from using iTunes as my computer-music
player//CD ripper.
Two of the alternative computer-music players--i.e. software--that come
highly recommended by Absolute Sound are JPLAY and JRiver. Have other
Squeezebox Duet owners tried to use these? Is the Squeezebox DAC
capabl
Soulkeeper;687188 Wrote:
> No. There's no reason why it should sound better, and a separate
> transport + a great DAC is more flexible than a one-in-all solution.
>
> If you want as few boxes as possible, sure, but then again, if that's
> your priority (as opposed to high fidelity), you can hard
pandasharka;687182 Wrote:
> Just supposing money was no object, would an investment in a high end
> streamer like a Linn Klimax DS not be a better proposition than SB+
> (whatever) DAC?
No. There's no reason why it should sound better, and a separate
transport + a great DAC is more flexible than
Yep for those who have spent out on a DAC to go with the SB that makes
sense.
Just supposing money was no object, would an investment in a high end
streamer like a Linn Klimax DS not be a better proposition than SB+
(whatever) DAC?
Or is the game here to try and get better than that on a shoes
pandasharka;687178 Wrote:
>
> And if you buy into that - why did we believe that a SB product married
> to an often much more expensive DAC would give better real world
> performance than a one box solution from the likes of Linn or Naim?
>
> Maybe people on here are using the SB as a stepping
I can only repeat and support what many have said here. A reasonably
good DAC is source-agnostic, so it makes sense to spend on that point
onwards. The sound you hear will depend on the DAC's analogue stage,
the pre-amp, the power amp and the speakers, but all your digital
sources will sound the
Guys
There's been a shed load of negative round here recently.
Looks like two camps - 1) those who pioneer and try things outside the
box (including keeping SBT in a sandwich box) and 2) those who stand
back, watch, take observations and refuse to be swayed from the
"path".
Classic mexican sta
soundcheck;687059 Wrote:
> It seems everybody is talking nonsene except you, dear Phil. Your
> attitude is getting more and more annoying to be honest.
>
> Lets talk about a different perspective:
>
> 1. The recording of the room response itself usually introduces losses
> and phaseshifts by th
Stilly77;686863 Wrote:
> wow...another dumb thread
>
> same old elites battling it out
>
> just a foolish game of domination here with not an iota of importance.
>
> this place is a nothing but a glorified sewer
Elite trolls perhaps.
--
totoro
sb3 -> mccormack dna .5 -> audio physic tempo
Since you modded the output of the Transporter already with tubes you
shouldn´t wurry to much about some noise. There is enough already.
I use wireless and like it.
--
Wombat
Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers
I would like to experiment on the Ethernet connection to isolate any
potential noises/RFI/etc. Can someone recommend a few approaches?
I have done a lot to improve my main audio system, which is in the
family room with the HDTV and home theater system. I have a few
bass/sound traps from RealTraps
cliveb;687037 Wrote:
> Been away on holiday but was interested to see this thread on my return.
> I've been digitising vinyl as a hobby since 1994 (started on Windows
> 3.11 with just 1GB of disk space, using a very early release of
> Goldwave). I have tried a lot of tools over the years. For any
Well, it may have been crystal clear for weeks, but who has the clout actually
to slam the gates on these bloody trolls? And why didn't they do it at least a
month ago, when the very obvious trolling began?
On 29 Jan 2012, at 14:34, garym wrote:
>
> Phil Leigh;687085 Wrote:
>> It's time peop
soundcheck;687111 Wrote:
>
> Checkout the 'Anedio DAC'
> (http://www.anedio.com/index.php/article/squeezebox_touch) page. Those
> guys try their best to clean up the incoming signal first before it's
> send to the DAC chip.
> You'll find some interesting graphs about Touch vs. Anedio DAC over
>
Well, it hasn't completely cured my format-neurosis, as I have some 5.1
SACD and DVD-A recordings which I have to send through a surround
receiver before passing the front channels through to my Naim amp. I
wish I hadn't got into that game!
Anyway, I tested the TT 3.0 settings on my Touch and I'm
lake_eleven;687110 Wrote:
> Picked up the Acoustic Research CAT6 2m cable, but it sounds not as good
> as the cheapo blue CAT6 I already have. Do the Ethernet cables need
> burn-in time?
> http://acoustic-research.com/cablesconnectivity/performanceseries/?sku=AP625
No
--
Mnyb
---
Mnyb;687108 Wrote:
> what is puzzling is why logitech puts up with it .
>
Probably because of what Ron says above - they'd be on a hiding to
nothing trying to argue with these people, and if they banned them from
the forum or removed posts, there would soon enough be posts elsewhere
on the inter
darrell;687072 Wrote:
> Same here - I have found that the Cambridge Audio 840C player/DAC has
> completely cured my source-neurosis.
Source neurosis :) a good one.
OP's system seems well balanced to me ?
Tank begun his journey here by asking for advice on room acoustic and
speakers , is alread
lake_eleven;687110 Wrote:
> Picked up the Acoustic Research CAT6 2m cable, but it sounds not as good
> as the cheapo blue CAT6 I already have. Do the Ethernet cables need
> burn-in time?
> http://acoustic-research.com/cablesconnectivity/performanceseries/?sku=AP625
At least it sounds different.
I know several people (actually friends who usually get my betas) who
run Sabre based DACS (mostly TP Buffalos). I do also own two Sabre
DACs.
It's a myth that the Sabre on it's own gets along with jitter/noise
quite well. All changes done on the transport side you'll experience
1:1 on the Sabre
I do this rarely as it takes too much time and is a bit of faff.
I use a laptop with an external soundcard (Soundblaster) connected to
the audio out of my pre-amp.
In terms of software I use either Groove Mechanic or Audacity.
--
spile
---
garym;687066 Wrote:
> I too have a whole house contractor installed cat6 network with several
> gigabit switches and it has worked well. But for short patch cords to
> SB devices I use bluejeans cat5e. SB stuff is 100 mbit anyhow.
Picked up the Acoustic Research CAT6 2m cable, but it sounds not
Ron Olsen;687101 Wrote:
> Thanks to Phil and the others who are calling BS on the posts in this
> thread by SBGK and Soundcheck.
>
> Unfortunately, arguing with people who have entrenched but incorrect
> beliefs is futile. They will never change their position based on
> logic; they have too mu
darrell;687072 Wrote:
> Same here - I have found that the Cambridge Audio 840C player/DAC has
> completely cured my source-neurosis.
I can confirm that CA 840C is a great DAC with apparently excellent
jitter rejection.
Nevertheless, TT3.0 has improved even the SQ delivered by this DAC in
my mai
Thanks to Phil and the others who are calling BS on the posts in this
thread by SBGK and Soundcheck.
Unfortunately, arguing with people who have entrenched but incorrect
beliefs is futile. They will never change their position based on
logic; they have too much invested in their incorrect belief
soundcheck;687067 Wrote:
> I'm outta here. Not worth it.Is that a promise. Nothing would please me
> more, and while you're at it
please take SBGK with you. Maybe add a forum to your blog so you can
continue your audiophool discussion there. :D :D :D
--
kakklank
Phil Leigh;687085 Wrote:
> It's time people seriously considered that there might be an option 3...
Agree. And I think option 3 has been pretty clear for quite a while.
--
garym
*Location 1:* VB Appliance 6TB (1.10) > LMS 7.7.1 > Transporter, Touch,
Boom, Radio w/Battery (all ethernet except
darrell;687081 Wrote:
> There still seems to be a lot of confusion about this.
Darrell - yes, that was worth pointing out again I think. I suspect
there are only one or two people who are confused about this at this
stage, but I can't help feeling that new/casual visitors to this forum
will see
soundcheck;687067 Wrote:
> You gotta seriuos problem with your attitude.
>
> Calling other peoples findings nonsense. Without being able to prove
> what your're saying and even coming up with false claims.
>
> And finally trying to cut the discussion by a more than arrogant
> "Sigh".
>
> No P
SBGK;687025 Wrote:
>
>
> http://www.empiricalaudio.com/computer-audio/
>
>
That advice (be it good, bad or indifferent) is related to the computer
as a player, outputting via USB to a DAC. This is not the architecture
of a Squeezebox solution. The computer running Logitech Media Server is
no
I'm right in the argument about server tweaks having no effect on sound
quality but TT 3.0 does with my DAC, the Rega.
All you can do is give it a try, if it doesn't make a difference TT 3.0
is easily reversible.
.02
--
Jeff Flowerday
Mnyb;687052 Wrote:
>
> A better q in the case of such a good modern dac is can you spot the
> difference between any digital source at all , even that is unlikely
> with well designed dac's .
>
> My own experience, with modern tech > 2000 aproximately , I cant spot
> source differences anymore
soundcheck;687065 Wrote:
> I overead your "sigh". Stands for your attitude.
>
> You got a logical problem in above. You mixed up bitdepth and
> samplerate. That can happen.
>
> And guess what: Resampling introduces - - Guess what??
>
> Yep. "Losses"
>
> And even if you generate 24bit files
Phil Leigh;687063 Wrote:
> and by the way, if I need to do any CRITICAL listening I use my
> headphones. They are of superior quality to any speaker system
> available and I don't need DRC...
>
> So stop trying to sidetrack this discussion onto the merits of my
> replay chain.
You gotta seriuo
lake_eleven;687013 Wrote:
> Bluejean is CAT5/5E though.
I too have a whole house contractor installed cat6 network with several
gigabit switches and it has worked well. But for short patch cords to SB
devices I use bluejeans cat5e. SB stuff is 100 mbit anyhow.
--
garym
*Location 1:* VB Appli
Phil Leigh;687062 Wrote:
> Sigh...
>
> the processing/convolution is not done in 16-bits
> I resample everything to 96k for processing.
>
>
I overead your "sigh". Stands for your attitude.
You got a logical problem in above. You mixed up bitdepth and
samplerate. That can happen.
And guess
and by the way, if I need to do any CRITICAL listening I use my
headphones. They are of superior quality to any speaker system
available and I don't need DRC...
So stop trying to sidetrack this discussion onto the merits of my
replay chain.
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE
soundcheck;687059 Wrote:
> It seems everybody is talking nonsene except you, dear Phil. Your
> attitude is getting more and more annoying to be honest.
>
>
> 1. The recording usually introduces losses and phaseshifts.
> That recording is base to calculate the filters. And these are
> multipli
Phil Leigh;686948 Wrote:
> there is no loss of resolution using Inguz.. What microphone did you use
> to do your measurements?
> I think you are talking nonsense - sorry.
It seems everybody is talking nonsene except you, dear Phil. Your
attitude is getting more and more annoying to be honest.
Exceptionally unlikely .
The MDAC sports the ess sabre chip
http://www.esstech.com/index.php?p=products_DAC
One of the current very good jitter reducing techs avaible .
And the Touch normal jitter level albeit not the best on the market but
decent is way below what humans can hear anyway .
Just
tank121;687041 Wrote:
> Can someone please clarify, I'm sure I've read earlier in this thread
> that running these mods with an external DAC is not beneficial ?
>
> Is this correct ?
>
> I'm using my M-DAC as a pre-amp/DAC connected via coaxial to the Touch
> and rca interconnects to my amp.
Y
Can someone please clarify, I'm sure I've read earlier in on the main
thread that running these mods with an external DAC is not beneficial
?
Is this correct ?
I'm using my M-DAC as a pre-amp/DAC connected via coaxial to the Touch
and rca interconnects to my amp
--
tank121
Squeezebox touch
S
i'm not using fidelizer, jplay, process lasso, tcp optimizer,
cplay/cmp2. or similar by myself.
i'm talking about fidelizer because it's available to the community .
above programs give me an idea how far i got with my own tool.
i've written my own tool, which doesn't cost me anything and prett
Can someone please clarify, I'm sure I've read earlier in this thread
that running these mods with an external DAC is not beneficial ?
Is this correct ?
I'm using my M-DAC as a pre-amp/DAC connected via coaxial to the Touch
and rca interconnects to my amp.
--
tank121
Squeezebox touch
Squeeze
Been away on holiday but was interested to see this thread on my return.
I've been digitising vinyl as a hobby since 1994 (started on Windows
3.11 with just 1GB of disk space, using a very early release of
Goldwave). I have tried a lot of tools over the years. For anyone
interested in detailed not
Putting a magnet on an ethernet cable? How on earth can this damage the
Touch? You would have to have a very strong magnet (only available in
laboratory conditions) to achieve this.
You are getting more absurd by the minute.
--
Hofstede
---
SBGK;687025 Wrote:
> As no one is posting any results, I shall post the definitive version.
>
> pulling the plug, no difference in sound
>
Was this WITH or WITHOUT all your Win 7 optimisations in place?
If WITH, then I suppose you could construct a logical argument that
says those optimisatio
TheOctavist;685396 Wrote:
> Paul is a digital audio expert and DSP mastermind.
> [snip]
> There are only 2 things a DAC responds to; 1) the data we feed to it ,
> 2) the timing information it gets.
>
It seems that even digital experts and DSP masterminds have blind
spots. Your friend Paul has ov
SBGK;687025 Wrote:
> As no one is posting any results, I shall post the definitive version.
>
> pulling the plug, no difference in sound
>
> wireless bridge - some softening in sound
>
> running laptop and disk drive out of power conditioner - some
> improvement in sound
>
> playing Flac - so
SBGK;687024 Wrote:
> so it is manipulating the sound without any drop in resolution, don't
> think that is possible in the physical world and my listening test
> backed that up.
You Are talking complete nonsense now. You can't just "try Inguz" it
requires a high quality calibrated microphone an
As no one is posting any results, I shall post the definitive version.
pulling the plug, no difference in sound
wireless bridge - some softening in sound
running laptop and disk drive out of power conditioner - some
improvement in sound
playing Flac - sounds different to WAV, mainly in the tim
Phil Leigh;686948 Wrote:
> there is no loss of resolution using Inguz.. What microphone did you use
> to do your measurements?
> I think you are talking nonsense - sorry.
so it is manipulating the sound without any drop in resolution, don't
think that is possible in the physical world and my lis
soundcheck;687018 Wrote:
> I need to talk about SBGKs findings/recommendations again.
>
>
> He now states that Fidelizer sets the server prio to low.
> That's why he need to set it to normal/high again.
>
> First of all I recommend on the blog that you should set the server
> performance to
80 matches
Mail list logo
