I doubt that this is doable within the transcoding framework. It just
wasn't designed with that sort of flexibility in mind.
One thing I do know is that you don't want the output type in SoX to be
WAV if PCM is the target. You need to use the output type 'raw' in SoX,
as the Squeezebox will be
gw43 wrote:
I'm thinking of getting the M-Dac, and I also have an Arcam A85. Did you
try it in power-amp mode, and if so where there any benefits over using
the A85 as an integrated amp?
Either way sounds great. I'm personally using it in Power mode once
you've purchased it you can then
Archimago wrote:
Even without bringing out the 'measure' word, I'd like to know how the
OP KNOWS the mods affect jitter at all?
Lacking measurements, I'll settle for anything that corroborates the
claims regarding jitter.
Make no mistake: I'm not singling it out as flawed, just saying that it
was probably also flawed. I'm very much on the worthless claims are
worthless bandwagon.
Willakan's Profile:
Willakan wrote:
I can't seem to work out whether the test was between the digital or
analog outputs though...
In other words; The test's 'reproducibility'
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility) can be expressed in a
non-non-zero number.
mlsstl wrote:
The mental image of an audiophile in the 1960s was a handsome young
fellow in his smoking jacket, holding his pipe while pulling out a hot
jazz album to put on the turntable to impress the beautiful young lass
sitting on the sofa nursing a highball.
What's the mental
A modern audiophile has little in common with a DIY hobbyist. One of the
biggest differences is that the DIY hobbyist needs to know something
about how things work, while the modern audiophile only needs a computer
keyboard and a dictionary of superlatives.
SteveCresswell wrote:
You must be joking!
It's 2012 and over a weekend the end of May, as we have done since 2006,
my fellow DIY valve amp hobbyists and I will be having our six monthly
meeting in a local pub function room.
We have a great time showing and listening to our latest
Willakan wrote:
Make no mistake: I'm not singling it out as flawed, just saying that it
was probably also flawed. I'm very much on the worthless claims are
worthless bandwagon.
I can't seem to work out whether the test was between the digital or
analog outputs though...
A lot of people
Oh yes DIY tube amp building is definitely a subsect of a subsect, but
of our 30 strong group, there are younger members
the youngest being 18.
Plus there is my son, who is 28, has built several of his own tube amps
and has a small business making and selling hand-crafted wooden
chassis.
There
mlsstl wrote:
Unfortunately, the magic wire and tweak got its foothold in the hobby
for two reasons. First, the price competition, especially with big box
stores and internet sales, for speakers and gear got so intense that
those remaining on the sales side desperately needed some
alfista wrote:
By what method have the jitter been measured and how much did it
improve?
Archimago wrote:
Even without bringing out the 'measure' word, I'd like to know how the
OP KNOWS the mods affect jitter at all? I've tried all these years and
have never been convinced I've actually
mlsstl wrote:
A lot of people find it tempting to denote things only as black or
white, with no possible territory in the middle.
The perfect blind test will never exist, but that shouldn't keep us
from drawing conclusions regarding the cumulative weight of the somewhat
less-that-perfect
JohnSwenson wrote:
I have a HRT Music StreamerII (not the +), it works very well with
Triodes plugin and a hub. Adding TT3.0 significantly improves the sound,
with this combination it's getting astonishingly good. (it's not the
best, my homebuilt DAC still blows it away). The II with TT3.0
Willakan wrote:
Agreed, but I still don't see why more emphasis wasn't placed on
discussion of the test conditions from the get-go, to establish whether
it could be classed as meaningful and/or to attempt to reproduce it.
NoRoDa has provided a lot of the details of test conditions in various
I will post this here as its clearly unproven and something to discuss
on the audiophile board
I've just posted a new app to the repro for Squeezebox Touch - this
provides an alternative to the built in Screen Off screensaver which
disables some of the processing associated with the screen
Triode wrote:
I will post this here as its clearly unproven and something to discuss
on the audiophile board
I've just posted a new app to the repro for Squeezebox Touch - this
provides an alternative to the built in Screen Off screensaver which
disables some of the processing
17 matches
Mail list logo
