jimmypowder wrote:
> Then why does my Transporter sound better then my SBT fed into the same
> dac,playing the same speakers ?
> The player seems to matter here .
Does it really , have you tried that assumptions under blind conditions
?
Any reasonably good transport will sound the same in t
"ralphpnj wrote:
> All kidding aside I suggest that you do a little research on the topic
> of jitter. What you will find is that most, if not all, of the
> references that believe that jitter is a big bad monster, is completely
> audible and totally destroys the sound are from high end audio m
jhonsber...@msn.com wrote:
> So your saying the SBT streamer will sound just as good as a Linn
> Streamer connected to the same dac?A good dac can completely
> eliminate the jitterbug?100%
All kidding aside I suggest that you do a little research on the topic
of jitter. What you will find is tha
jhonsber...@msn.com wrote:
> If the dac solely determines the audio quality ,then would not a SBT
> sound as good as a Linn streamer or the Marantz in stream not dac mode
> connected to the same dac?
> Doesn't jitter reduction at the player level matter any? Any audio
> engineers out there who c
ralphpnj wrote:
> Jitter can only be heard after one drinks lots and lots of audiophile
> kool-aid or if one happens to write for any of the high end audio
> magazines. Normal humans in normal listening situations can not hear
> jitter, even the dreaded USB jitter.
So your saying the SBT streame
ralphpnj wrote:
> Jitter can only be heard after one drinks lots and lots of audiophile
> kool-aid or if one happens to write for any of the high end audio
> magazines. Normal humans in normal listening situations can not hear
> jitter, even the dreaded USB jitter.
I just heard it after the marg
Audiotic wrote:
> :-)
>
> For exactly that reason I use LMS and an SBT: useability. And the
> quality of the sound is (solely?) determined by the DAC. The Marantz
> takes the bits from the SBT, buffers them, reclocks them, and does its
> other magic.
> Listening to my music is a combination of e
ralphpnj wrote:
> Hey Jimmy
>
> I know it's a small sample size (one user) but nonetheless this proves
> my point - namely that DLNA is a dog. In fact even you (as quoted above)
> recognize that Audiotic is using the Marantz as a DAC with the SB Touch
> doing the actual streaming. But you don't
Mnyb wrote:
> Ok then what is "pure audio quality" :)
>
> A blind test would count , the listener don't see or know anything about
> the product under test .
> Or a measurement .
I think we can trust the Germans here. They are very thorough. These
magazines are for slightly different audiences,
Audiotic wrote:
> OK back to the original question, and let me show how, for me, I created
> a very useable system that serves me very very well.
>
> I own an NA-11S1 since 2 weeks. And all I can say is: I LOVE IT! OK, the
> way to officially get sound from it, i.e. the app and DLNA etc isn't
>
Mnyb wrote:
> Ok then what is "pure audio quality" :)
>
> A blind test would count , the listener don't see or know anything about
> the product under test .
> Or a measurement .
I look at the equipment's appearance to determine which one sounds
better.
This one is a beauty:
http://www.audio
Ok then what is "pure audio quality" :)
A blind test would count , the listener don't see or know anything about
the product under test .
Or a measurement .
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH
I can recommend the Beresford DACs as a replacement option.
www.homehifi.co.uk - I have a selection and fine the Bushmaster (mk1 in
my case) and excellent DAC.
Peter Galbavy's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.p
The rating is pure on audio quality, sound so to say. Well, I used to
have a Linn Akurate DS/1 before my Marantz, and aTransporter before
that. They all sound different. The Linn and Marantz are leagues better
that theTransporter, which was very good as well. The Marantz is jus,
well, different, t
Audiotic wrote:
> I haven't personally heard it, but according the the (good) German
> magazine Stereo it plays in the same league, they rate the Marantz only
> sligthly above it.
> Also Audio says the same.
>
Interesting ratings Audiotic. I wonder is the rating done purely from
subjective eval
lrossouw wrote:
> It does become trickier when the opposing views lacks all scientific
> method. I'm happy to accept that you subjectively find something
> "better" or "suitable" but if you want to say that it's objectively
> better you are going to have to prove it.
Agree. Just like there is p
bonze wrote:
> So he named his software after you. That's either very sweet or very
> creepy.
Indeed. And while I think it is an honor to have softẃare named
after you, it is somewhat moderated by the usefulness (or rather lack of
it) of this particular piece of software.
At least SBGK und
Julf wrote:
> Indeed. All you did was state "please ban this troll, I won't post until
> he is". It is not your fault that your followers and as a result the
> moderators actually headed that message :)So he named his software after you.
> That's either very sweet or very
creepy.
LMS Vers
It seems to me that people with particular views (including those that
some software v14.2 sounds better than v14.1) have the ability to lock
themselves in a virtual room with others that share the same views and
reinforce those views, by ejecting those with opposing views.
I hope that:
a) I do
19 matches
Mail list logo
