I don't know -- count me firmly in the camp of someone for whom the
audio quality is the most important thing. I'm happy that they're
offering Transporter-level audio quality at a significant discount. I
rarely ever control my various Squeezebox products with anything other
than my laptop,
), but they seem to be out of the vinyl
ripping business.
Does anyone have any experiences with these services? Any recommendations?
Thanks a lot in advance.
Mitch Harding
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http
I believe Sean has verified it is a valid problem, so what are you
implying when you put the word bug in quotation marks?
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Phil Leigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes well if you are the 1 in 10,000... you won't use MP3!
Anyway I think this is silly. Have you ever
Yeah, I have to concur here. I use FLAC whenever possible, but some
music is only available to me in mp3 (ie exclusive downloads from
emusic). I accept that it won't sound as good as my FLAC files, but
I'd like it to sound as good as possible.
I am not saying that SD has done a poor job in
To be fair, it says it rips CDs at fuil .wav resolution – 16-bit 44.1kHz.
This could still mean it uses FLAC on the backend for compression.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 1:14 PM, GuyDebord
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
just to warm up, I see a fan there, I sure hope those HD are well
isolated, it rips
This was discussed when the Duet was first announced. I think the
consensus was that there wasn't much of an audible difference for most
people. I don't recall anyone stating that the SBR sounded worse to
them than the SB3.
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Slim-Man
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I care.
But the bug is open, so it's in the gods' hands now!
On Jan 15, 2008 4:57 AM, Pat Farrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sikahr wrote:
Come on slimdevices, you can squash that bug!
No one cares.
--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/
___
I can only answer why I chose SB over your scenario, because I was
previously doing more or less what you suggested.
First, for me it was very convenient to have a remote control
interface and a GUI right there in my listening area. I suppose you
could get around this with a handset type device,
One other advantage which I didn't hear mentioned, but just occurred
to me. If you are considering both SB3 and transporter, this could
imply that you wish to have them both playing simultaneously at some
times. With SB3/transporter, this is painless -- they can each
simultaneously play
Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.62This is about what I expected. :)
On 5/3/07, adamslim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
smst;199261 Wrote:
Two things: I disagree with your assessment of just how many people
avoid doing bad things solely due to fear of punishment.
I guess I am just curious as to why the WAV format wouldn't matter, since
whether you encode mp3 or flac, you still first rip to WAV, and then encode
from there.
I'm not claiming that it does matter, just looking for an explanation as to
why it does not.
On 3/21/07, amcluesent
[EMAIL
Interesting. Thank you for the explanation.
On 3/21/07, adamslim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Mitch Harding;189219 Wrote:
I guess I am just curious as to why the WAV format wouldn't matter,
since
whether you encode mp3 or flac, you still first rip to WAV, and then
encode
from there.
I'm
Doesn't it create a WAV file in the meantime, and then uses that WAV file as
the input to the flac encoder?
If so, does it then matter which WAV encoder/format/whatever that you
choose, per the question asked by the original poster?
On 3/20/07, adamslim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
An argument requires two parties -- if you do not wish to argue about ABX,
do not respond to the ABXers.
On 2/2/07, P Floding
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
tomjtx;176839 Wrote:
But you are attempting to silence people who disagree with you.
You tried to do that before. In the end you left the
you into an ABX debate, why bother replying to them if that's not a
discussion you enjoy?
On 2/2/07, P Floding
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure.
Thank you for your contribution.
Mitch Harding;176907 Wrote:
An argument requires two parties -- if you do not wish to argue about
ABX,
do not respond
For me, I would like to hear the music as the musicians and/or engineer
intended it to be heard. Not necessarily a live music sound. I guess I
want to feel like my equipment is doing as little as possible to adulterate
the original intent.
On 2/2/07, opaqueice
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
On the other hand, I do not currently have an external DAC. Count me in the
camp of people who intend to purchase a Transporter someday because of the
quality internal DAC, so I don't have to put money towards that.
On 1/22/07, tonyptony
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Smokester;172817 Wrote:
I've hung around the audiophiles list long enough to know that the quality
DAC alone could easily cost $1000.
I agree that the remote control idea of yours is good, but I think the
$1000-$1200 target is unlikely.
On 1/21/07, USAudio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
adamslim;172740 Wrote:
So you
Whenever you burn to a music CD, AFAIK the music is converted into PCM
format before burning. So the source format doesn't matter much (except, of
course, if you are using lossy -- then your resulting CD will only be as
good as the original file).
For example, I use WinAmp sometimes to burn CDs
For what it's worth, I am having no trouble streaming FLAC via a B wireless
with around 70-80% signal strength.
On 12/6/06, Phil Leigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moth - unless I am missing something - why not just buy a wired SB. As
you say, it is cheaper and as your PC is already in the same
The wireless models also include the wired ethernet port, and do not need to
be used wirelessly.
I haven't heard anyone report any audible differences based on the network
connection used (other than dropouts if the wireless signal is not strong
enough for the file sizes used).
On 12/5/06, moth
Yeah, seemed the same way to me. Your original comments about her calling
you during the procedure and the Metallica playing made me think you two
were both making light-hearted posts. I doubt any offense was intended.
On 12/1/06, SteveEast
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd guess opaqueice was
I've been a Slim Devices customer for a few years now, and I'm thinking about upgrading from my old, mass-produced Sony home theatre speaker set that I've had for about 8 years. I moved into a house which has some built-in home theatre speakers that are fine for movies, but I'm not satisfied with
Please be sure to file bugs on the ones that don't work!On 11/1/06, DCtoDaylight
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Well 24/96 support was one thing I wanted, but hadn't actually tried out
until tonight.I ripped a couple of 24/96 music DVD's, and gave them atry.My first experiment was just to play raw .wav
You don't consider a $500 remote control to be high end enthusiast? You consider that mass market?I think the parallels between Harmony and SD are what should guide most of our thought here. Namely:1) Harmony remotes are still considered to be very good, despite the Logitech name
2) The $500
Agreed on all points.On 10/22/06, snarlydwarf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:You know, Logitech makes keyboards and mice, something they have done
for a million years...A quick look shows that they not only make the $15 keyboards that mostof us probably use, they also make $200 keyboards and seem to
I'm in the US and I like the look of the Transporter. But I should also mention that I am not really picky about these things. For me, the nicest aesthetic aspect is the overall form factor, so that it fits in better with existing audio components (in terms of general shape and size). I don't mind
I suspect Sean's objections were to the rather rude remarks being directed at the original poster. I did not get the impression he had a problem with the debate otherwise. Perhaps I mis-read his e-mail.
On 7/6/06, Phil Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CardinalFang Wrote: I think there is a general
So far so good (a couple of yeas).But that's the main reason I also went with the RAID. I expect drives to fail eventually, but hopefully not more than one at once.My next step is to add a backup strategy, preferably in a different physical location. Then I will be content.
On 6/13/06, ezkcdude
I've been using the 120GB enterprise class WD drives in a RAID 10 array for a while now and haven't had any drive failures.http://www.wdc.com/en/products/index.asp?cat=2
On 6/10/06, ezkcdude [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:I use Seagate. Definitely do not go with Western Digital, if you value
your music
The assumption is that they should be the same, as both are lossless.On 3/27/06, steelee
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Has anyone actually done any comparison of Lossless Wma vs Flac Or is it
the assumption that flac must sound
I see that Pristine Audio is located in Europe. Does anyone know of any companies which offer good quality LP transfers in the United States? I'm in the camp that would rather pay to have someone else do this rather than have to spend the time (and invest in the equipment) in order to do this
Well, I can't speak to the fact that other sources may rip just as well, but I for one have had no problems with the interface (there are guides on how to set it up) and I've never had it hang. I've yet to hear anyone question its ability to accurately rip, so I saw no reason to look further.
On
Ok -- I'm just curious how you plan to handle the tagging issue. Will you just always use browse music folder? I've never heard the details of how someone would keep their collection in WAV, so I'm curious to know how it will work without having any metadata tags to use for navigation.
On 2/28/06,
I'm not sure I follow your logic.You can't tell the difference between FLAC and WAV (which to date nobody has been able to do using blind testing), so you settle on WAV as your format of choice?I think the biggest hassle you're going to have with WAV is the lack of tagging. Disk space is cheap, so
Exactly the point of my earlier post. Even if you want to use mp3 for playback, it's worth your time to rip and encode to flac, so you never have to rip again. Once you have your collection in flac you can transcode to mp3, or maintain a parallel library in mp3, or debug your dropout problems when
I can't tell the difference between high bitrate mp3 and FLAC. Of course, my system is far from audiophile quality. Maybe someday I'll have equipment which reveals the difference to me. Maybe not.Despite this, my entire CD collection (500+? 700+? I don't even know anymore) is encoded in FLAC. It
What would be the reason for such a feature?The benefit of a Squeezebox is to play digital audio files without having to tether your SB to your PC. If you were going to park your SB next to a PC, and then use the USB output...why would you involve the SB at all?
On 2/1/06, bsquare [EMAIL
I think people accepted that you may hear a difference between CD and FLAC, because they use different transports.But nobody ought to hear a difference between FLAC and WAV, if everything is working properly.
On 12/13/05, george_k [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ALYNN others,I found another person who
Is that even true between FLAC and, say, 360 CBR LAME mp3?On 9/30/05, Mark_H [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:street_samurai Wrote: -Very- few people can tell the difference between a properly encoded
Mp3 and a FLAC. You'll need a golden system AND golden ears. As Sean pointed out, this can heavily
As of your last post, I don't recall a true blind test having been
conducted. Have you had the chance to do that yet?
On 7/19/05, Timbo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
m1abrams Wrote:
Why? FLAC produces bit for bit identical to the WAV file, you can test
this by ripping a CD to PCM wav, then
how he ends up storing his files, I
just want to know if there's a real difference here or not.
On 7/19/05, Pat Farrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 17:44 -0500, Mitch Harding wrote:
On 7/19/05, Timbo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi there - I hear what you say and agree
I don't think he is claiming that the bits are getting changed en
route to the SB2.
He is claiming that when the SB2 has to do the decoding itself,
perhaps this results in some interference that is audible.
However, I agree that a blind test is required in order to establish this.
On 7/19/05,
I have to agree with Sean and some of the others -- there's little to
talk about here without a blind comparison being done. Without that,
there is too much room for error.
On 7/11/05, Timbo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
seanadams Wrote:
please back up these claims. You are saying that based on
44 matches
Mail list logo
