ralphpnj wrote:
> Now, now Gary we mustn't talk politics, however I do agree with you. By
> the way the anti-science crowd maybe ruining more than the US since that
> same anti-science crowd are also the climate change deniers.
>
;-) My lips are sealed about politics (I only have time to deba
garym wrote:
> I very much agree with you on this. Anti-science beliefs are slowly
> ruining us over here in the US.
Now, now Gary we mustn't talk politics, however I do agree with you. By
the way the anti-science crowd maybe ruining more than the US since that
same anti-science crowd are also t
ralphpnj wrote:
> Where I get such a cable? Silver, moonlight and virgins beating by hand
> - I bet it sounds GREAT! :) :)
Hmm , I'll take pre orders at 80k$ at piece , do you use tri wring for
your speakers ? ,( I only need to sell 10-20 of them then i can
discreetly unregister my company and k
Mnyb wrote:
>
> So I see the audiophile cult just as a niche in a larger problem , that
> is the general belief in pseudo-sciences and other such stuff ,
> especially privately knowing people nearly absorbed by cults or pyramid
> home sales schemes etc.
>
> But as I see it, audiophile beliefs a
Mnyb wrote:
> it does not have to be hand beaten silver done in the moonlight by
> Peruvian virgins...
Where I get such a cable? Silver, moonlight and virgins beating by hand
- I bet it sounds GREAT! :) :)
ralphpnj's Prof
bhaagensen wrote:
> Ralph (and other critics:))
>
> Mnyb. I undesrstand you used to shall out big bucks in cables and such.
> Why have you now changed your opinion. Where your experiences not valid
> back then. Or...?
>
> ..
I don't know really ,just a gradual awakening I think powered by var
Mnyb wrote:
> Yes spdiff is obselete imho it's replaced by hdmi on normal consumer
> audio .
Agreed plus along the same line of thinking two channel audio (aka
stereo) is also obsolete since now most people listen to music on their
multichannel home theater systems.
Again I agree that asynchron
bhaagensen wrote:
> thanks garym. My next question is then wether you've further considered
> the strengths/weaknesses of the methodology. Any thoughts - theoretical,
> statistical, probabilistic, domain specifics, or just intuitive thoughts
> on the matter?
Hmmm, that's a question that requires
ralphpnj wrote:
> You're right not everyone agrees with me but if you discount the clowns
> who write for the high end rags (and they are clowns because clowns make
> you laugh and their writing is such a joke that it often makes me laugh)
> then you will find that few people who know what they a
bhaagensen wrote:
> Thanks for the link - I didnt yet read it though.
>
> But you are misunderstanding my point. Which is that usb is a better
> interface by purely technical metrics and probably as cheap as spdif,
> and more widespread in computing, so that alone is reason to make the
> change
bhaagensen wrote:
> At some point you have to acknowledge that not everyone agrees with you
> in this - its a premise of this entire discussion - like it or not.
>
> Anyway. The point is that USB is a better protocol and using it avoids
> the hoops one has to go through to achieve something sim
You can find bs, "lies", and nonsense in anything from your average
hghfi-mag to published peer-reviewed sciemtific papers. You cant
disregard an entire field just on account of "some" black sheeps. My
experience i (digital) high-fi is the same. Some talk just to avoid
falling in sleep, some jus
Thanks for the link - I didnt yet read it though.
But you are misunderstanding my point. Which is that usb is a better
interface by purely technical metrics and probably as cheap as spdif,
and more widespread in computing, so that alone is reason to make the
change. Spdif is for all but historic
bhaagensen wrote:
> At some point you have to acknowledge that not everyone agrees with you
> in this - its a premise of this entire discussion - like it or not.
>
> Anyway. The point is that USB is a better protocol and using it avoids
> the hoops one has to go through to achieve something sim
bhaagensen wrote:
> Ralph (and other critics:))
>
> I think by now your stand as audiophiles is quite clear. I would like to
> ask though, if you could please describe some of the listening sessions
> you've had that has made you come to these strong conclusions.
> Equipment, setups, etc.
>
>
thanks garym. My next question is then wether you've further considered
the strengths/weaknesses of the methodology. Any thoughts - theoretical,
statistical, probabilistic, domain specifics, or just intuitive thoughts
on the matter?
---
ralphpnj wrote:
> NO ONE regardless of playback system can ever hear the interface induced
> jitter in S/PDIF. But hey, there are plenty of high priced digital audio
> cables, by they optical, coax or USB, that promise to clean up jitter.
At some point you have to acknowledge that not everyone a
bhaagensen wrote:
> Ralph (and other critics:))
>
> I think by now your stand as audiophiles is quite clear. I would like to
> ask though, if you could please describe some of the listening sessions
> you've had that has made you come to these strong conclusions.
> Equipment, setups, etc.
>
>
Ralph (and other critics:))
I think by now your stand as audiophiles is quite clear. I would like to
ask though, if you could please describe some of the listening sessions
you've had that has made you come to these strong conclusions.
Equipment, setups, etc.
Mnyb. I undesrstand you used to sha
bhaagensen wrote:
> Ralph, Im again not getting you - how do you reach your conclusions
> regarding USB replacing spdif? To me it reads like argument-by-magic, to
> stay with the terminology of recent threads.
>
> As far as I know its simply a matter of a sum of factors deciding which
> interfa
Ralph, Im again not getting you - how do you reach your conclusions
regarding USB replacing spdif? To me it reads like argument-by-magic, to
stay with the terminology of recent threads.
As far as I know its simply a matter of a sum of factors deciding which
interface shall prevale. Its a datatra
I think post #6 in the link I gave pretty much sums it up. As far as I
know it's only an issue with low sample rate material.
aubuti's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2074
View this thread: http://f
hi folks,well i went and done itbought a Linn
Akurate DS streamer
so far so good,i am enjoying the new DS, but struggling a wee bit on the
software side of things
SqweezyDS helps but it's no SqueezeServer :)
my Black Original Transporter is up for sale (unmarked and original
Tim-Ann wrote:
> Ah I'm not getting it wrong thus far, should effects Loop input be
> disabled and Effects Loop Clock Mode be Transporter should be he master
> or External Source should be the master and finally Word Clock on S/PDIF
> should it be disabled and thus source is the master or should
Thank you. Is it only for low sample rate/quality stations or is it for
higher quality stations too.Any fixes?other than using original
firmware.
I like the mods and it has improved the audio quality alot.
kinku's Profile:
Ah I'm not getting it wrong thus far, should effects Loop input be
disabled and Effects Loop Clock Mode be Transporter should be he master
or External Source should be the master and finally Word Clock on S/PDIF
should it be disabled and thus source is the master or should the
Transporter is the m
Tim-Ann wrote:
> Hi tere,
>
> I'm using the digital output, S/PDIF Digital Output using a digital
> coaxial cable as that is supposed to be the best output on the
> Transporter plus it doesn't then use the Transporters onboard DAC
> instead it is using the DP32's DAC. Or that's what I was told
Hi tere,
I'm using the digital output, S/PDIF Digital Output using a digital
coaxial cable as that is supposed to be the best output on the
Transporter plus it doesn't then use the Transporters onboard DAC
instead it is using the DP32's DAC. Or that's what I was told hope I've
not got it wrong o
This is a well-known issue. The problem lies with the combination of
TT3.0 and transmissions of some internet radio stations. For example of
past discussions, see
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?95144-Radio-Apps-Sound-Like-Chipmunks
--
Tim-Ann wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I've been playing around with my Mac's into my DP32 pre-amp and got to
> thinking I might not be getting the best out of my Transporter so I went
> into LMS settings looked at all the Audio settings for the Transporter
> and thought, I've no idea what these setting
michael123 wrote:
> Which part are you referring to?
Here's the sentence:
"The replacement of the S/PDIF interface by USB as the de facto standard
for transmitting digital audio has been surprisingly rapid."
I am referring to all parts of the sentence. For example, are
professional recording s
I have installed TT3 on my touch and extremely satisfied with the
results.
My setup
Squeezeserver runing on Windows Homeserver2011 on LX195 hardware and
SBtouch with TT3 mods with buffer size currently at 3500u.Also SB is
connected to Edimax range extender with a Lan Cable with wifi turned off
in
Hi there,
I've been playing around with my Mac's into my DP32 pre-amp and got to
thinking I might not be getting the best out of my Transporter so I went
into LMS settings looked at all the Audio settings for the Transporter
and thought, I've no idea what these settings do or if they are
correct.
ralphpnj wrote:
> The first sentence is total nonsense
Which part are you referring to?
michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthrea
Here we see at work the Fourth Law of High End Audio: Tweaks do not have
to any basis in reality.
Corollary: The less reality based a tweak is, the better.
Applying several of the Laws of High End Audio to tweaks we get:
Tweak with no basis in science or reality: good
Example: wood blocks made
Which brings us to The Third Law of High End Audio: When in doubt, throw
money!
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=9750
36 matches
Mail list logo
