seanadams;400678 Wrote:
I'm still wondering why you're not getting higher correlation at high
volume. It suggests to me some limiting factor, maybe some clipping or
distortion at high volume, that is masking the effect until you get down
to lower volume levels. In my tests the decrease in
seanadams;400592 Wrote:
But it is EXACTLY like reducing the PCM bit depth. It is *exactly* like
adding a layer of noise. White noise is what you'll hear in the
difference track.
sorry to ask a dumb question, but I would like to perfectly understand
your findings:
It makes no difference to
Correct!
If volume is at 100 - the squeezebox is bit transparent. This is
proven by people who use it to send 5.1 digital encoded surround sound.
I think you mean't SNR decreases as the volume is reduced below 100.
Dave
--
DaveWr
DaveWr;400898 Wrote:
Correct!
If volume is at 100 - the squeezebox is bit transparent. This is
proven by people who use it to send 5.1 digital encoded surround
sound.
I think you mean't SNR decreases as the volume is reduced below 100.
Dave
Yes = the N stays the same but the S goes
Klaas;400895 Wrote:
It makes no difference to use fixed digital volume or Volume at
100, the SNR only decreases with decreasing the volume via the digital
volume control.
Volume at 100 and fixed are the same thing.
--
seanadams
Phil Leigh;400892 Wrote:
Sean - I figured out what I was doing wrong - On my digital volume test
I'd forgotten to change the evaluation frequency range in ADM from its
default of 100Hz to 12kHz. I've just rechecked and I get the same
results trend as you if I use the full frequency range.
KMorgan;400541 Wrote:
Would it be like turning FLAC into 64kbps mp3? The answer seems to be,
no. Not even a little bit.
Turning it into an mp3? No. But it is exactly like truncating it down
to fewer bits of PCM.
--
seanadams
KMorgan;400541 Wrote:
Sean/Phil
To take the discussion of digital level contol into an argument about
SNR is slightly missing the point, I think.
No, it is entirely the point as far as sound quality is concerned. And
there are still a LOT of a people who completely do not get it, and
Can I just point out that I normally only ever use the analogue volume
control in my pre-amp and always have the digital output set at max?
And can I also add that I was NEVER going to suggest to anyone that
they should use the digital level control without gain staging?
I was going to suggest
Well, Sean - now I'm confused.
I'm getting a pretty consistent -70/71dB correlation at volumes
90/80/70, dropping down to -68 at volume 60..
I'm not going to pursue this test any further. It has served its
purpose for me. Others can explore further.
I'm going to concentrate now on different
Phil Leigh;400662 Wrote:
Well, Sean - now I'm confused.
I'm getting a pretty consistent -70/71dB correlation at volumes
90/80/70, dropping down to -68 at volume 60..
I'm not going to pursue this test any further. It has served its
purpose for me. Others can explore further.
I'm still
Phil Leigh;400107 Wrote:
Mr. O - you are completely correct.
Unless anyone can state a good reason otherwise, I think this disproves
the myth that the digital level control loses information/ damages the
music.
Excellent! This is the true value of this mythbusting. Thanks for
that
Phil Leigh;400107 Wrote:
Unless anyone can state a good reason otherwise, I think this disproves
the myth that the digital level control loses information/ damages the
music.
As far as I can tell, it doesn't.
However, I will try again using a different track with a different
dynamic
Hi Phil
Nice to read the results of your analysis. I was wondering if have you
tested to see if there is much random variation in your method? If you
record the same track twice under the same conditions, then check the
differences between the two - what differences do you get? In a perfect
Phil Leigh;400107 Wrote:
Mr. O - you are completely correct. Test rig was 16/44 flac into
SB3+DAC. Control recording at vol=100. Subsequent tests at
90/80/70/60/50/40/30 all gave a correlation depth of -78dB to -81dB
with no music detectable in the difference tracks.
Unless anyone can
Phil Leigh;400107 Wrote:
Mr. O - you are completely correct.
Unless anyone can state a good reason otherwise, I think this disproves
the myth that the digital level control loses information/ damages the
music.
Sorry but you are absolutely wrong, and that's not what he said a
The reason for the result you got is that Audiodiffmaker is correcting
for the difference in level ** by digitally attenuating the louder
control signal ** prior to making the comparison.
Hence both signals have suffered the same loss of SNR, they still match
to the same degree as they did
Or instead of using the preamp, you could use an editing tool to
digitally amplify the recording back to the original level before
comparing to the control.
Going a little further with this... one might ask if we could compare a
digital attenuator and an analog attenuator side-by-side, using
ant.perry;400205 Wrote:
Hi Phil
Nice to read the results of your analysis. I was wondering if have you
tested to see if there is much random variation in your method? If you
record the same track twice under the same conditions, then check the
differences between the two - what
seanadams;400234 Wrote:
Sorry but you are absolutely wrong, and that's not what he said a
digital volume controls reduces SNR.
The question is whether there's something magical about the point where
bits start falling off the end, and the answer is no. The loss of
seanadams;400238 Wrote:
The reason for the result you got is that Audiodiffmaker is correcting
for the difference in level ** by digitally attenuating the louder
control signal ** prior to making the comparison.
Hence both signals have suffered the same loss of SNR, they still match
to
Wombat;400222 Wrote:
There comes me one thing to my mind. Recently someone really abxed
different types of dither in bit reduced files on Hydrogen.
Since the dither should be burried as deep as at least these -78dB you
measure i'd be caucious about saying it can't be heard. Dither also
Over here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=49843
It is about going down from 24 to 16bit. Different types of dither used
result in different abx results. So i think the difference between 2
differently dithered versions can't be that much regarding a diffmaker
result and
A higher noise floor and reduced dynamic range are practically the
same thing in this context. Adding noise to a signal _is_ removing
information.
--
seanadams
seanadams's Profile:
seanadams;400330 Wrote:
Are we in violent agreement? Do digital volume controls reduce snr and
dynamic range? Yes, and this should be perfectly detectable in ADM -
but your results seem to indicate that it's not, which is why I'm
suggesting there's a flaw in your methodology.
I am
Phil Leigh;400346 Wrote:
If you have 10 minutes, try it!
Well if you're going to call me on it then I guess I would have to...
although I don't have a windows box with a good sound card at hand, so
it's a little more than a 10 minute expedition.
It seems to me that -78db..-81db correlation
Well I gave this a try but initially I am not even getting consistent
results from one run to the next. I am making 10 seconds recordings -
maybe I need to go longer?
Using Transporter as source and a (don't laugh) Turtle beach audio
advantage roadie as the ADC, I got these results:
Baseline
seanadams;400273 Wrote:
This is an important difference between using a PC for audio
measurements as compared to a professional measurement tool. Something
like an AP or Dscope will have internal stepped analog gain controls
in front of the ADC, allowing it to keep the signal closer to
10 minutes my *ss! ;)
I definitely had a clipping problem. Fixed that by using a -10db analog
attenuation baseline for all tests. Also increased the recoding time to
20 seconds and now I am getting fairly consistent results between runs.
Tested each setup three times, so there are 6 results for
Sean - thanks for trying this - sorry about the 10 minutes.
Nice card by the way ;)
I'll repeat my tests again tonight starting from scratch and post the
detailed results this time. I don't have a TP and I don't know what
track you used so I wouldn't expect to get the exact same results but I
Phil Leigh;398450 Wrote:
Anyway, I think the good news is that the volume control is basically
transparent. I'll try the digital level control at the weekend.
Happy days :)
Phil
Just to wind back a few pages. What volume control was tested? I was
quite interested in the SBR's internal
KMorgan;399885 Wrote:
Phil
Just to wind back a few pages. What volume control was tested? I was
quite interested in the SBR's internal digital volume algorithm.
Before I decided that the SBR DAC sounded just fine, I was using an
external DAC. I liked the convenience of the digital
Thanks Phil
--
KMorgan
KMorgan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22838
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60041
___
Phil-
Have you tested your TACT 2.2X with and without the Linear PSU?
--
jhm731
jhm731's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7685
View this thread:
jhm731;400049 Wrote:
Phil-
Have you tested your TACT 2.2X with and without the Linear PSU?
I do intend to do this but it is tricky since the PSU is not a
drop-in replacement. This will have to wait until I need to reconnect
the original in order to do some room measurements - might be a
Phil Leigh;400107 Wrote:
However, I will try again using a different track with a different
dynamic profile to see what happens...
I have a question about the test tracks. Would it be better to use sine
sweeps for the testing? For digital room correction the measurement is
done with sine
Klaas;400118 Wrote:
I have a question about the test tracks. Would it be better to use sine
sweeps for the testing? For digital room correction the measurement is
done with sine sweeps and the articles/website write something about a
good noise rejection with long sweeps (45 secs enough 1
Phil Leigh;399271 Wrote:
Did you check the compensate for sample rate drift box on advanced
settings and also check the depth evaluation freq range to be
20-20kHz?
I did have the sample rate drift checked, but I hadn't altered the freq
range as you mention. Doing so gave me a couple more
opaqueice;399410 Wrote:
Yeah - the obvious guess is that the software isn't able to fully
compensate for the (potentially relatively large) differences in
average clock rate between two different DACs.
If so, positive results for DAC comparisons won't mean much,
unfortunately.
I think
Phil Leigh;399671 Wrote:
I think this is correct. The software reports large sample rate
differences between any 2 dacs I've tried so far. Normally, using a
consistent dac across tests returns very small differences in sample
rate which the software seems to handle.
Ok, I'm getting wierded
krochat;399672 Wrote:
Ok, I'm getting wierded out now. If the transport is the same for both
DACs and the clock signal is extracted from S/PDIF, then how can the
DACs be producing output at different rates?
Curiously,
Kim
well... in the tests that Radish and I have done the transport has
Brightness = OFF vs FULL correlation = left -99.5dB right -99.1dB
Brightness = OFF vs 1 correlation =left -106.0dB right -107.8dB
Brightness = OFF vs 2 correlation =left -84.8dB right -83.6dB
Brightness = OFF vs 3 correlation =left -78.8dB right -76.6 dB
Brightness = FULL vs 1
CPC;398902 Wrote:
Phil-
You've reached legendary status, check out:
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=64267.msg593444;boardseen#new
Is this a good thing? :)
I love being categorised by people who don't know me! - What's all this
don't believe it unless I can measure it
Phil Leigh;398914 Wrote:
Thoughts? Does this correspond to the findings of other?
Thank you, thank you, what youre doing is great! and although im
somehow skeptical of measurments=good/bad sound (I have my reasons)
with this one, you have helped me clear a psychological perception myth
I had
GuyDebord;398921 Wrote:
Thank you, thank you, what youre doing is great! and although im somehow
skeptical of measurments=good/bad sound (I have my reasons) with this
one, you have helped me clear a psychological perception myth I had
about the display!!
Keep it up!
Thanks Guy - I'm
After some difficulty I've finally managed to test 7.4 vs 7.3.2 (I am
now testing 7.2.1 against both...)
here are the results:
Soundcard is running @ 24/96
Stock SB3 + stock PSU
Brightness = off
volume fixed on MAX
analogue outs
SB-soundcard cable: Chord Signature.
versions:
OK so here's the one you've all been waiting for :)
Soundcard is running @ 24/96
Stock SB3 + stock PSU
Brightness = off
volume fixed on MAX
analogue outs
SB-soundcard cable: Chord Signature.
versions:
__
_
Hostname: studio
Phil Leigh;398947 Wrote:
Right, time for some gardening. The sun is shining :)
Stop pretending to have a life, and get on with the measurements! :)
--
Peter314
Peter314's Profile:
Peter314;398954 Wrote:
Stop pretending to have a life, and get on with the measurements! :)
hee hee - need to go the garage to find a rake... also in the garage is
a CD player...
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call
Phil Leigh;398914 Wrote:
Conclusions:
Noise induced by Brightness at settings off/1/full is very low and
pretty much the same
Avoid settings 2 3 (3 being the noisiest)
Thoughts? Does this correspond to the findings of other?
At least partially - I also found that the noise was
I decided to have a little play with this tool as well. The first thing
I decided to test was SB3 vs SBR, mainly because it's easier to setup
than moving my TP so it makes a good first experiment. I've tried with
3 different source files and have pretty consistent results, so I'm
ready to call
Just did a fw/sc comparison on the SB3.
Test Setup:
Player 1: SB3 (fw 123)
Player 2: SB3 (fw 124)
SC 1: 7.3.2 - 24695 @ Mon Jan 19 17:13:58 PST 2009
SC 2: 7.4 - 25077 @ Thu Feb 19 01:09:16 PST 2009
OS: Debian - EN - utf8 (Ubuntu 8.10)
All network connections wired. All audio files 16/44.1 FLAC
OK, so an update for the previous post. On a hunch I did a test with the
exact same settings for both recordings (same audio, same player, same
fw, same everything). The result I got was almost identical to the
sc7.3.3 vs sc7.4 test I just posted (85dB down, high freq musical
content present) so
radish;399216 Wrote:
I decided to have a little play with this tool as well. The first thing
I decided to test was SB3 vs SBR, mainly because it's easier to setup
than moving my TP so it makes a good first experiment. I've tried with
3 different source files and have pretty consistent
radish;399223 Wrote:
OK, so an update for the previous post. On a hunch I did a test with the
exact same settings for both recordings (same audio, same player, same
fw, same everything). The result I got was almost identical to the
sc7.3.3 vs sc7.4 test I just posted (85dB down, high freq
Listener;398563 Wrote:
Phil,
I'm sure you are learning things about what's relevant to you in the
context of your system. Of course, this sort of thing can spoil a pair
of golden ears.
I'm enjoying reading this thread and hope you will continue to report
your findings. I don't have a
Phil Leigh;398391 Wrote:
OK: 24/96 downsampled to 48/24 and to 44/16 - quite a large difference -
only -36dB down
On the surface this seems to confirm the theory that 24-bit is worth
pursuing.
However, I'm suspicious of the downsampling capabilities of Foobar.
Maybe others could try and
Phil:
I hope that you don't think that I am trying to discourage you. As I
said, this test can be an interesting test. But we have talked about
this, and many of us feel until we get 24-bit resolution, it is not a
great deal of help. Even if it does, we still get back to the same ol'
problem we
ar-t;398715 Wrote:
Phil:
I hope that you don't think that I am trying to discourage you. As I
said, this test can be an interesting test. But we have talked about
this, and many of us feel until we get 24-bit resolution, it is not a
great deal of help. Even if it does, we still get back
@Pat - thanks. I'm not discouraged. :) I agree that I don't really know
what my DAC is doing - other than that sine waves and square waves look
nice!
The problem is I don't have a control DAC to compare with...
When you say we need 24-bit... the soundcard I'm using to record is
running at 24/96 -
Phil-
You've reached legendary status, check out:
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=64267.msg593444;boardseen#new
--
CPC
CPC's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12336
View this
Phil Leigh;397859 Wrote:
working on it - just need a device that can play 24/96...
I'd be interested in 24/48 versus 16/44. :)
KMorgan;398191 Wrote:
Phil
I'd like to know if there is any loss in the analogue signal when using
digital volume control.
An excellent idea. OTOH it would be
darrenyeats;398266 Wrote:
I'd be interested in 24/48 versus 16/44. :)
An excellent idea. OTOH it would be good also to compare the effect of
removing an active pre from the replay chain.
Darren
OK already!
I can do the volume control test. I can do the 16/44.1 vs 24/48.
I can't
wow, great thread! Thank you. I installed the new 7.4 SC to use PCM
after reading so much about it. Started to change the brutefirDRC
plugin to have a PCM output option. Maybe it is just a waste of time
:)
I am going to try this out myself.
--
Klaas
Creator of *BrutefirDrc* see
Whoah! - I'm getting some strange results on the downsampling test:
1) I recorded a Linn 24/96 track through SB3+sc7.4 (SOX downsampling to
24/48)
2) I downsampled the track to 24/48 using Foobar as a control
3) compared 1 2 in adm - no difference - good!
4) I downsampled the 24/96 track to
There is another element we need to test. In this discussion thread we
have been converting files into different formats but are all software
converters the same? Do some software converters do the job better?
Do some converters modify the file's gain, EQ etc to improve' the
sound and are not
sgumnit;398355 Wrote:
There is another element we need to test. In this discussion thread we
have been converting files into different formats but are all software
converters the same? Do some software converters do the job better?
Do some converters modify the file's gain, EQ etc to
OK: 24/96 downsampled to 48/24 and to 44/16 - quite a large difference -
only -36dB down
On the surface this seems to confirm the theory that 24-bit is worth
pursuing.
However, I'm suspicious of the downsampling capabilities of Foobar.
Maybe others could try and replicate - possibly using other
sgumnit;398355 Wrote:
There is another element we need to test. In this discussion thread we
have been converting files into different formats but are all software
converters the same? Do some software converters do the job better?
Do some converters modify the file's gain, EQ etc to
krochat;398393 Wrote:
Empirically speaking,conversion of lossless to lossless at the same bit
rate (like WAV to FLAC) by definition adds or subtracts nothing.
Converters that change sample rate or size, like sox downsampling 96/24
to 48/24 in Squeezecenter, or Phil using Foobar to
krochat;398393 Wrote:
Empirically speaking,conversion of lossless to lossless at the same bit
rate (like WAV to FLAC) by definition adds or subtracts nothing
Regards,
Kim
I agree with you about empirically speaking, however my question is
in reality do two software based file
Well, the volume control test is proving very interesting!
I'd like to hear from SlimDevices on this one - Sean are you there?
I took a 24/96 track via SOX so 24/48 at full volume.
Then I dropped the SB volume to 50% and recorded the same track. The
difference shows as -48dB which is quite
Phil Leigh;398434 Wrote:
Well, the volume control test is proving very interesting!
I'd like to hear from SlimDevices on this one - Sean are you there?
I took a 24/96 track via SOX so 24/48 at full volume.
Then I dropped the SB volume to 50% and recorded the same track. The
difference
opaqueice;398443 Wrote:
Could that be a bug in the differencing software, rather than in the SB
or your soundcard? Maybe when it has to match volumes it introduces a
spurious DC offset? You might just record the SB output directly at
each volume and just look at it (or take its average) to
sgumnit;398424 Wrote:
I agree with you about empirically speaking, however my question is
in reality do two software based file converters create the exact
file. Does CDDA (or whatever its called) and DBPowerAmp when converting
the same WAV file into FLAC end up with the exact same resulting
If you take a WAV file and encode it into FLAC and Apple Lossless,
clearly the FLAC and Apple Lossless files themselves will differ.
However, when decoded they are the same again. The same logic applies
to different FLAC compression levels.
Darren
--
darrenyeats
This s/w has spurred heated debate on other forums. While it does have
some merit, I have doubts to its usefulness. From what I understand,
(and I could be wrong, so correct me if I am), the result generally
consists of signal that is X dB down from the reference signals.
OK, let's say that you
ar-t;398534 Wrote:
This s/w has spurred heated debate on other forums. While it does have
some merit, I have doubts to its usefulness. From what I understand,
(and I could be wrong, so correct me if I am), the result generally
consists of signal that is X dB down from the reference signals.
Phil,
I'm sure you are learning things about what's relevant to you in the
context of your system. Of course, this sort of thing can spoil a pair
of golden ears.
I'm enjoying reading this thread and hope you will continue to report
your findings. I don't have a problem with your titling the
Phil Leigh;397503 Wrote:
For example, anyone want to guess what happens if you compare a true
24/96 track against its downsampled equivalent... :)
I don't want to guess! But do tell. :)
Darren
--
darrenyeats
darrenyeats;397784 Wrote:
I don't want to guess! But do tell. :)
Darren
working on it - just need a device that can play 24/96...
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
SB3 (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good
Phil, this is really interesting, thanks for sharing.
If my laptop can handle line-in through its microphone input, I may try
to compare my TP/SB3/SBR and the pair of DAC I own next week-end.
Although it's not clear to me how I could test interconnects...
Sébastien
--
sebp
System : Mac Mini
Phil Leigh;397301 Wrote:
I'll try it... thanks!
Sounds like you have many happy hours in front of you :)
--
JezA
JezA's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21219
View this thread:
JezA;397332 Wrote:
Sounds like you have many happy hours in front of you :)
for happy replace interesting :)
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
SB3 wired + Stontronics PSU - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good
Just compared Mozart Requiem in D - Sanctus (Linn CD) as FLAC vs 135 mp3
vs 225 MP3 (VBR).
This is the first test I've done where the difference track is audible
without boosting the difference track - really very interesting... I'd
like someone else to corroborate my findings.
I'd say this
Phil Leigh;397359 Wrote:
Just compared Mozart Requiem in D - Sanctus (Linn CD) as FLAC vs 135 mp3
vs 225 MP3 (VBR).
This is the first test I've done where the difference track is audible
without boosting the difference track - really very interesting... I'd
like someone else to
Interesting thread we have here. I always learned that in music there
are many overtones which on their own might not be heard by the humen
ear but they do add to the sound and soundstage and when removed from
the music you can hear a difference.
Maybe mp3 compression takes away the overtones and
I have just removed the Altmann JISCO+UPCI from my chain as it is making
NO difference at all -92dB correlation with them in/out of the chain!
Seems that despite many theories to the contrary, the TACT ASRC is
actually rather good at rejecting input jitter... or maybe the Altmann
gear is doing
Robin Bowes;397158 Wrote:
Phil Leigh wrote:
OK - I think I've got it! What would be helpful is a batch convertor
to
go from FLAC to MP3 ... I'll do some research...
*cough*
http://projects.robinbowes.com/flac2mp3
R.
oops - (makes gesture of embarassment and begs forgiveness) -
Phil Leigh;396912 Wrote:
I'm concentrating on the SB3 digital output for now:
Things that make NO discernible difference to what goes into my amps:
1) playing WAV vs FLAC
2) streaming FLAC native vs streaming FLAC as PCM
3) muting SB analogue stage (attenuation=63)
5) wired vs wireless
michael123;397420 Wrote:
Is it possible to add Transporter vs. SB3 to the list (both digital
output and analogue output, 44.1/16, 96/24 and 192/24 stereo)?
I'd love to but I don't have a TP! (also neither the TP nor the SB can
handle 192/24...)
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal
Phil Leigh;397359 Wrote:
Just compared Mozart Requiem in D - Sanctus (Linn CD) as FLAC vs 135 mp3
vs 225 MP3 (VBR).
This is the first test I've done where the difference track is audible
without boosting the difference track - really very interesting... I'd
like someone else to
iPhone;397499 Wrote:
Now this is really getting silly with all these requests to check
Lossless against MP3 and the like. Of course there is a glaring
difference, anything other then lossless throws away information!
The idea behind this software is to compare equipment and connection
What he said. Also I'd really like to hear more about how the app is
driven since I found the UI quite complex.
But at the same time, I can appreciate the initial temptation to hear
the actual *differences* i.e. only the differences, between lossy
lossless, espec as it's not been easy to do
mr-b;397505 Wrote:
What he [iphone] said. Also I'd really like to hear more about how the
app is driven since I found the UI quite complex.
But at the same time, I can appreciate the initial temptation to hear
the actual *differences* i.e. only the differences, between lossy
lossless,
I think it's great that you are putting your own system, and your own
choices, to the test. Keep going!.
--
JezA
JezA's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21219
View this thread:
JezA;397533 Wrote:
I think it's great that you are putting your own system, and your own
choices, to the test. Keep going!.
Cheers Jez!
So far I've got rid of 2 expensive spdif cables, a linear PSU and two
quite expensive bits of digital processing gear... won't be much left
at this rate...
Phil Leigh;397540 Wrote:
So far I've got rid of 2 expensive spdif cables, a linear PSU and two
quite expensive bits of digital processing gear...
Less is more :)
--
JezA
JezA's Profile:
Phil Leigh;397359 Wrote:
Just compared Mozart Requiem in D - Sanctus (Linn CD) as FLAC vs 135 mp3
vs 225 MP3 (VBR).
This is the first test I've done where the difference track is audible
without boosting the difference track - really very interesting... I'd
like someone else to
I use laptops exclusively and none of them have line in. Would the mic
input on my Thinkpads work?
--
agentsmith
System 1: Transporter, Naim 202/200/Hicap/NAPSC, Harbeth Monitor 30
System 2: SB2 connected via TOSLINK to a Meridian F80
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
