Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

Not many 10mb modems around any more. Even bog standard ADSL quotes "up to 16mbit" these days so has to ship with 100mbit or higher on its outgoing ports. In fact they have Gb now. My BT fibre modem has a 100Mbit link, the cable modem I had before it had a 1Gb port (though restricted by

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

drmatt wrote: > It's also true that a 2016 device is quicker than a 2011 device. . For LANs, the law of the weakest link, which was the 10BT or 100BTX link, was generally applicable in 2011. It still is. A small number of maximum speed file transfers (usually 1 on a home LAN) run LAN limited.

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Interesting read regarding bandwidth of musical instruments

Julf wrote: > Ah, but how about my pet bat Eric? :) He's going to hate you LMS 7.7.5 - 5xRadio, 3xBoom, 4xDuet, 1xTouch, 1 SB2. Sonos 2xPLAY:1, PLAY:3, PLAY:5, Marantz NR1603, JBL OnBeat, XBMC, Foobar2000, XBoxOne, JRiver 21, Chromecast Audio, Chromecast v1, Pi B2, Pi B+, 2xPi A+, Odroid-C1,

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Interesting read regarding bandwidth of musical instruments

I got a few 24/44 flac files from warp records, that's about it for "hires". drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106621

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

arnyk wrote: > Not really. 10BT 100BTX and Gigibit ethernet were just as fast 5 years > ago as they are today. We had SSD's 5 years ago, and for sequential I/O > 7200 rpm high density drives are at least aas fast as SSD's get in real > world applications. > >

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

http://www.blu-ray.com/ Be selective about what you buy.. I have seen blu rays that are nothing more than upsampled DVD material, which sucks. At least it's (hopefully) professionally de interlaced. drmatt's Profile:

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Interesting read regarding bandwidth of musical instruments

As being suckered in by the original hirez campaign and having a lot of DVDA a think it's correct to say that 50% is fake and probably more so with the more popular SACD format . I did buy a lot AIX/itrax releases these are actual hirez recordings. I see the marketing angle here they recording

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

drmatt wrote: > Agree completely. That's why I like to buy/watch blu rays given a choice > because as we all know for lossy compression the more bits the merrier.. Thing is, the program material on BD diskcs often doesn't exploit the media. Lots of it pales in comparison to a well-made DVD.

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

arnyk wrote: > You may find this hard to believe, but a professional engineer waiting > for excessively large files to transfer, copy and back up makes him a > lot more impatient than it does a home hobbyist. > > Especially true for live recording, which is often done while enslaved > to a

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

arnyk wrote: > Looks like another example of FLAC being unable to further compress real > world files in ways that capitalize on non-trivial interchannel > redundancy. Sounds about right. Binary audio data has extremely high entropy and always compresses poorly by traditional numerical methods.

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

drmatt wrote: > Yeah it takes about six hours or so to load the 40GB of > (compressed)music I carry on my phone. This is over WiFi. I guess I > could plug it in and do it more quickly, but frankly I almost never do > this - just updates when I add new stuff or remove stuff. > > This aspect is

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

arnyk wrote: > Whether the 4K UHD streaming have any additional real world resolution > when streamed is not a given, I don't think. I see a lot of so-called > enhnacment artifacts, but not a lot of better video. Agree completely. That's why I like to buy/watch blu rays given a choice because

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

Julf wrote: > So you agree that the reason 24-bit material doesn't compress as well as > 16 bit material is because the bottom 8 bits is basically random noise, > not correlated between left and right channel (and thus also not > correlated with the music)? No, I agree that random noise

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Interesting read regarding bandwidth of musical instruments

Jeff07971 wrote: > Its not really the same conversation really, I do not say that the way > the 0's and 1's are "shipped" makes any difference. > > I am however saying maybe higher sample rates and possibly bit depth > would be more sensible despite what the average person may hear. > Oh,

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Interesting read regarding bandwidth of musical instruments

Jeff07971 wrote: > I couln't find anything pertinent I did have a fair google ! > > The only thing I found was that my copy was one of the rarer ones (SONY > one) > > I'll have to find it and Ebay ! :) > > Edit: And WOW if that was from a 1973 master !!! I have a modest collection (about

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Interesting read regarding bandwidth of musical instruments

Jeff07971 wrote: > The commonly held belief (and entirely reasonable) is that we can only > "hear" up to 17 (or so) Khz the 22 Khz (or so) limit is only about 1/4 > octave or 25% "safety" factor against the average. > > I wouldn't want to use a safety rope with 125% breaking strain on the >

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

Julf wrote: > So you agree that the reason 24-bit material doesn't compress as well as > 16 bit material is because the bottom 8 bits is basically random noise, > not correlated between left and right channel (and thus also not > correlated with the music)? I took the 16/44 file from Fremer

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Interesting read regarding bandwidth of musical instruments

> Headhunters 1973 or earlier. I googled on stuff like "title" + release > date. I couln't find anything pertinent I did have a fair google ! The only thing I found was that my copy was one of the rarer ones (SONY one) I'll have to find it and Ebay ! :) *Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

drmatt wrote: > This is true because flac takes advantage of some of the correlation > between left and right channel in a stereo music scenario. So you agree that the reason 24-bit material doesn't compress as well as 16 bit material is because the bottom 8 bits is basically random noise, not

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Interesting read regarding bandwidth of musical instruments

Jeff07971 wrote: > I did not know that > > I only bought 2 SACD's Pink Floyd "The Wall" and Hebie Hancock > Headhunters. > The Wall was originally recorded in 1979 or earlier and Headhunters 1973 or earlier. I googled on stuff like "title" + release date. Both have solidly low resolution

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Interesting read regarding bandwidth of musical instruments

Julf wrote: > Clearly we are. Happy to continue in whichever thread you want. Its not really the same conversation really, I do not say that the way the 0's and 1's are "shipped" makes any difference. I am however saying maybe higher sample rates and possibly bit depth would be more sensible

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Interesting read regarding bandwidth of musical instruments

> Do you know of any? Did you know yourself? I did not know that I only bought 2 SACD's Pink Floyd "The Wall" and Herbie Hancock "Headhunters" I thought Headhunters SACD sounded way better than CD, Is there any information as to what SACD's were from 16/44 and was this one of them ?

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

Yeah it takes about six hours or so to load the 40GB of (compressed)music I carry on my phone. This is over WiFi. I guess I could plug it in and do it more quickly, but frankly I almost never do this - just updates when I add new stuff or remove stuff. This aspect is not trivial, but for the

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Interesting read regarding bandwidth of musical instruments

Julf wrote: > The Oohashi research has pretty much been discredited, mainly because it > "originates with a single research group whose results contain some > contradictions and whose results have apparently never been > independently reproduced". On the other hand, there is ample > reproducible

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Interesting read regarding bandwidth of musical instruments

Jeff07971 wrote: > From wiki so it may be rubbish:- > > > > Isn't this the ultimate DBT ? Even the subject didn't know they were > reacting ! :) The ultimate DBT was the release and distribution of DVD-A and SACD. It was ultimately found that about half the first 5 or more years of released

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

drmatt wrote: > Yes it's disk space and processing load, of course. But both are still > trivial in a world with 4k UHD streaming a regular occurrence it really > doesn't matter. Whether the 4K UHD streaming have any additional real world resolution when streamed is not a given, I don't think.

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option

Agreed. That was the reason I left the thread in the first place. Not biting Arny, sorry old chum. 21700 +---+ |Filename: aba2cb2eee8855bc76f3cfcf90bdcc6f.jpg | |Download:

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

drmatt wrote: > This is true because flac takes advantage of some of the correlation > between left and right channel in a stereo music scenario. Got a decent > pink noise generator? Run some tests. I tested it and found it to be at least partially *false.* It appears that not unexpectedly

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option

Just an idea - why do you three (or four?) just please continue this on private email? I don't think that many are interested in this tennis match. drmatt writes: > And so it continues. > > > > >

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option

And so it continues. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 ___

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option

Gazjam wrote: > Agreed. Came back to this thread after a while away..oh dear, not what I > expected. > Yes, the rather spectacular meltdown caught me by surprise, as well. > > @ArnyK, > > Try acting your age Sir...agree to disagree and grow the hell up. :) > Assuming no mental illness

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] External DAC on Transporter: best output option

edwardthern wrote: > You are all sickening, to not be willing or able to communicate with > anther adult human being like you have some sense is crazy. Look back at > the way you attacked me and your so called justifications. No wonder > this world is so messed up. Not one of you have the common

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

This is true because flac takes advantage of some of the correlation between left and right channel in a stereo music scenario. Got a decent pink noise generator? Run some tests. drmatt's Profile:

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

drmatt wrote: > Well, 24/48k would be less than twice the capacity. I'm interested to know what the typical FLAC file size is at 24/48k compared to 16/44.1k. I'd expect the 24/48k to be a lot larger than the ratio of the uncompressed bit-rates (1.6:1) might suggest. I only have 16/44.1k FLAC

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

I agree, that would be sufficient. But, I do still like to buy media and don't see me changing that, *yet*. Digital downloads don't feel permanent enough for my money. drmatt's Profile:

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

drmatt wrote: > Well, 24/48k would be less than twice the capacity. But I just don't see > this mattering. For the home user buying media the cost of getting them > a 24/48 version on e.g. DVD-A is basically the same as doing a 16/44 > version for them. I was disappointed that DVD-A didn't get

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

Julf wrote: > Yes and no - three times the cost is still three times the cost, even if > that cost keeps getting lower. Well, 24/48k would be less than twice the capacity. But I just don't see this mattering. For the home user buying media the cost of getting them a 24/48 version on e.g. DVD-A

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

drmatt wrote: > Ultimately, there is no killer reason to increase, so I can see I'll > never convince you that it's worth it, but equally I don't think it's > worth NOT doing it. Storage and bandwidth are trivial, just wait six > months and the space increase will be accommodated at the same

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

Ultimately, there is no killer reason to increase, so I can see I'll never convince you that it's worth it, but equally I don't think it's worth NOT doing it. Storage and bandwidth are trivial, just wait six months and the space increase will be accommodated at the same price. The only thing

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

drmatt wrote: > Music playback from so-called hi res (or better yet the mastering rate > 24/48k if that is the norm) within someone's house is trivial. I'm not > interested in streaming but even that is not exactly hard. If they > wanted to offer it, it would happen. Even if you don't stream,

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Interesting read regarding bandwidth of musical instruments

My thoughts. Only closely miced apply ultrasound is rapidly damped in air. The 20kHz is welll established due to the mechanical "design" of our ear , exceptions is extremely rare . HF hearing starts to detoriate when we are kids and dont get better. And the extrme ends of our range 20 and

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

Well, I don't stream music other than radio, and yes of course I'm aware measures were taken by the big TV streamers to provide infrastructure as locally as possible to each network segment. Music playback from so-called hi res (or better yet the mastering rate 24/48k if that is the norm) within

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Interesting read regarding bandwidth of musical instruments

drmatt wrote: > (Hmm. Are we having the same conversation in two threads?! :) ) Clearly we are. Happy to continue in whichever thread you want. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

drmatt wrote: > Yes it's disk space and processing load, of course. But both are still > trivial in a world with 4k UHD streaming a regular occurrence it really > doesn't matter. Yes and no. Are you aware of all the special content network infrastructure that has been put in place specifically

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

I'd be happy to play around... :) Some artists do actually do mix-your-own multi-track sources. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread:

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

Yes it's disk space and processing load, of course. But both are still trivial in a world with 4k UHD streaming a regular occurrence it really doesn't matter. drmatt's Profile:

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

drmatt wrote: > Don't be silly. I just don't think I'd care if my music collection took > twice as much disk space and I would be confident that even an inept > mastering engineer or downsampling process probably couldn't mess up the > data I received. But isn't the logical next step then that

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

drmatt wrote: > (see edit) see edit :) "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Interesting read regarding bandwidth of musical instruments

"shipping files"? Really? drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106621 ___

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

Julf wrote: > I am glad you have faith in evolution, and think human hearing range and > acuity will increase significantly in the future. Don't be silly. I just don't think I'd care if my music collection took twice as much disk space and I would be confident that even an inept mastering

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Interesting read regarding bandwidth of musical instruments

drmatt wrote: > So what about we avoid the resampling step to 44/16 and just start > shipping the digital masters in 96/24 or whatever they are? Why would > anyone object? Most of them seem to be 48/24. 95% of music buyers would probably object to having to pay the extra cost of shipping files

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] So they recommend Cat8 ethernet cables now!?

drmatt wrote: > Surely 640KB is enough for anyone? ;) I am glad you have faith in evolution, and think human hearing range and acuity will increase significantly in the future. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the