adamslim;227896 Wrote:
OK then, either of you - an evening at the most excellent Jerusalem
Tavern, one of the very few pubs to get 'five pints' out of five at
fancyapint.com :)
You're on. Since the universe is (well... probably) infinite, a new
format has been invented somewhere since you
Oh, wait. Since the universe is infinite there is some brane somewhere
in the strings where I not only won the bet but have enjoyed that pint
with Adam already.
Boy, that was fun, good beer too.
--
tomjtx
tomjtx's
I use a Monarchy Audio DIP Classic (which is similar to thwe Big Ben) to
do the anti jitter stuff before the digital signal from my SB3 enters my
Perpetual DAC - massive improvement compared to going direct to the DAC.
--
unclepuncle
adamslim wrote:
My assertion - and I agree
that's all it is - is that we will not see a HD-DVDA or HQA-Blu-ray.
Bet you 10p :)
Oh, be brave, bet a pint at your local.
You'll still never win, but its more fun.
--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html
opaqueice;227819 Wrote:
You're assuming, contrary to all evidence, that the music industry
learns from its mistakes. :-)
Good point well made :)
opaqueice;227819 Wrote:
I'm sure there will be new hi-res formats. In fact I expect we'll see a
rather large proliferation of them in the
Pat Farrell;227885 Wrote:
Oh, be brave, bet a pint at your local.
You'll still never win, but its more fun.
OK then, either of you - an evening at the most excellent Jerusalem
Tavern, one of the very few pubs to get 'five pints' out of five at
fancyapint.com :)
--
adamslim
Those are my
Here we go again.
Every one is a musician , and every one is seasoned audiophils, or
physics engineers , and there for there word matters most.
Dubbel blind test is tricky and many time faulted , in reallity it will
only work if you could listend to A/B system at the same time through
the
gdg;227485 Wrote:
I forgot that many people here don't actually follow the debate and take
posts out of context. For anyone who is offended, if you actually had
followed the full discussion, you'd know I was responding to the
statement that anything better than 16/44 is inaudible.
When I
gdg wrote:
I forgot that many people here don't actually follow the debate and take
posts out of context. For anyone who is offended, if you actually had
followed the full discussion, you'd know I was responding to the
statement that anything better than 16/44 is inaudible.
When I stumble
harmonic;227533 Wrote:
Just about every thing you do or change in a audio component will
change the sound ,even if some dont here it , or dont whant to here it,
or dont beleive it, but that dossnet mean its not true, have musical
a system sounds cant be measured either.
Harmonic,
I
Hi darren
Thanks for sharing you oppinion it truly reflects have complicated
music playback really is.
I have atended several of blind test´s at different dealers mostly
linn demos, and not one time where the cheaper player better.
I also one time A/B compared a dvd player to a lyngdorf
darrenyeats;227583 Wrote:
It's a bit like (I wish!) measuring the FR in your room and finding
it's flat. After that, you quit worrying about colorations real or
imagined. Because you know they're imagined or to do with the
recording. Darren
That will never happen (unless you happen to
Phil Leigh;227605 Wrote:
Actually, what comes after RC is PC - Producer Correction...you know, it
can fix those cardboard drums on some ELO albums, the strange sound Phil
Collins managed to put on those Eric Clapton albums...
Then: AC - Artist Correction...so Bob Dylan and Tom Waits can't
darrenyeats;227620 Wrote:
Followed by TC...Taste Correction. You play Britney Spears and out comes
the Beatles.
Darren
oooh = that's good. Of course you would only ever use that when:
1) visiting friends
2) someone has hold of your remote
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path
darrenyeats;227583 Wrote:
...
So I would say blind-tests and measurements have great potential for
removing unnecessary angst. If you're the obsessive type - and because
you're here, you might be ;-) - at least they prevent some (!) worries
from spoiling the music. It's a good thing IMO.
I want MLC - music library correction. It goes through your library and
deletes whatever you haven't played for years, and automatically
downloads FLACs that are similar to what you do listen to.
Of course, once it's been going for long enough, it will replace all
your music with Abba, as
Perhaps another way to phrase it is that cables can't remove jitter from
a jittery source unit, but they can add jitter if the cables are not of
high enough quality. In this way cables can add jitter and they are
not capable of removing existing jitter from a system (unless replacing
a poor
So I have an SACD player and to my ear it is superior to cd. But I am
concerned about the depreciation on the player when various audiophile
formats become available on Blu-ray or HDDVD. And what about the
depreciation on a Transporter if a new model is created that will
decode SACD or another
gdg,
you really are out of line.
The posters you are so uncivilly responding to are experienced
listeners who have high quality systems.
Pat, I believe, is professionally involved in the recording industry
and is very knowledgeable about sound reproduction (far more, it would
appear) than you.
A couple of observations:
1) high resolution audio in the domestic replay chain appears to be a
dead duck. DVD-A and SACD have both failed to grab the publics
attention or dollars. I see no reason why this will change in the
future. Clearly domestic audio replay technology has reached the good
gdg;227315 Wrote:
As for bandwidth I believe HDMI is a necessity in order to accommodate
both video and audio data, not something implemented because coax can't
handle the audio side of it. The first players that are hitting the
market all have the usual coax digital outputs as well as HDMI
gdg;227346 Wrote:
What are we... back to the CD gives perfect sound bullshit?
No one said that. The question is how to improve it, and personally I
don't think increasing the sampling rate or the bit depth is going to
do that in any significant way (although there's also no reason NOT to
do
Phil Leigh wrote:
1) high resolution audio in the domestic replay chain appears to be a
dead duck. DVD-A and SACD have both failed
Sadly, I agree. The home theater folks have never cared about fidelity.
Effects subs are often unusable for music.
Clearly domestic audio replay technology has
Phil Leigh;227354 Wrote:
Ignoring the whole DBT debate for a second, I've found that both
upsampling and downsampling make no real difference to me (and I can
test them easily in my system using my remote). However, when faced
with a 16/44.1 and 24/88.2 copy of (allegedly) the same master
I forgot that many people here don't actually follow the debate and take
posts out of context. For anyone who is offended, if you actually had
followed the full discussion, you'd know I was responding to the
statement that anything better than 16/44 is inaudible.
When I stumble on an audiophile
gdg;227163 Wrote:
Uh no... Read my post. I'm talking about the new High Def video
standards that include high rez audio capabilities.
How does that relate to streaming music from a SB or transporter
though?
The high resolution lossless soundtracks are only available over HDMI
anyway, as they
funkstar;227231 Wrote:
Really? Not according to the hardware comparison page on the Wiki
http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?HardwareComparison
The Burr-Brown PCM1748E dac chip can do 96kHz...
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what
Phil Leigh;227258 Wrote:
The Burr-Brown PCM1748E dac chip can do 96kHz...
Good to know. Not that it makes a difference is the SB3s processor
can't handle 96khz audio anyway :)
--
funkstar
funkstar's Profile:
funkstar;227282 Wrote:
Good to know. Not that it makes a difference is the SB3s processor can't
handle 96khz audio anyway :)
True - I was simply trying to clear up any confusion between the DAC
chip and the SB itself.
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a
People are beginning to speculate that these new formats may be utilized
by the music industry. One of the main reasons is that audio capability
will be included in virtually all players from the beginning and the
hardware base will be built into the market. It's all speculation at
this point and
gdg wrote:
People are beginning to speculate that these new formats may be utilized
by the music industry.
What new formats? SACD and DVD-A? They are hardly new, they were defined
last century. They have failed in the market. Some boutique audiophile
labels still making them, essentially like
Pat Farrell;227303 Wrote:
gdg wrote:
People are beginning to speculate that these new formats may be
utilized
by the music industry.
What new formats? SACD and DVD-A? They are hardly new, they were
defined
last century. They have failed in the market. Some boutique audiophile
one needed to buy a dedicated SACD player or pay extra for a DVDA
enabled player. This does not fly for Joe consumer. With HD DVD or
BluRay the players will have audio capabilities built in and by the
time the entire DVD industry has gone High Def the hardware base for a
high rez audio standard
gdg wrote:
Pat Farrell;227303 Wrote:
gdg wrote:
People are beginning to speculate that these new formats may be
utilized by the music industry.
What new formats? SACD and DVD-A? They are hardly new, they were
defined last century. They have failed in the market. Some boutique
audiophile
There has been more than one post and if you are too lazy to to actually
follow the thread don't blame me. Whether you care about multi channel
or not is not the issue. Multi channel is just one of the many ways the
audio capability of BluRay or HD DVD can be utilized and it doesn't
preclude
funkstar;227230 Wrote:
How does that relate to streaming music from a SB or transporter
though?
The high resolution lossless soundtracks are only available over HDMI
anyway, as they far excede the bandwidth of standard optical or coax
output.
As for bandwidth I believe HDMI is a
gdg wrote:
There has been more than one post and if you are too lazy to to actually
follow the thread don't blame me.
Contrary to some expectations, some folks get these posts via email
As for not giving a crap about home theater or multi
channel wake up.
Non sequitor.
To simplify the whole issue lets put it this way...
In future, a high quality mass production company like, for instance,
EMI could decide that all of it's Jazz releases will be done in Stereo
24/196 and, unlike SACD or DVDA, virtually everyone will already own
a player capable of playing the
gdg wrote:
In future, a high quality mass production company like, for instance,
EMI could decide that all of it's Jazz releases will be done in Stereo
24/196 and, unlike SACD or DVDA, virtually everyone will already own
a player capable of playing the format.
I would love it for them to
Do you really think you need higher resolution than 24/96?
Or for that matter, 16/44.1?
--
opaqueice
opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234
View this thread:
opaqueice wrote:
Do you really think you need higher resolution than 24/96?
Or for that matter, 16/44.1?
I'm not the guy who wrote that, but a bit better than 16/44 would be
nice. If only so that the engineers would aim higher. Serious folks say
that 20/55kHz or so is actually all we need
Well, I'm still waiting to see one single bliund listening test in which
people can even -distinguish- between 16/44.1 and something better*, let
alone care about the difference (and I'm not talking about tiny
differences in the noise floor that can be heard with massive
amplification - this is
Personally, on my system I can even hear the difference between 16/44
and the current 16/48 dvd audio standard. There is no question that the
vast majority of people are happy with MP3. Makes no difference to me.
Most of them have have seldom, if ever, even heard a live unamplified
instrument so
Three words: try it blind.
I'd be willing to bet you can't hear the difference if you don't know
in advance which is which (again, I'm talking about music at reasonable
levels, not very quiet sections cranked way up).
Here's the abstract:
Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly
opaqueice wrote:
Three words: try it blind.
Oh No, not DBT, didn't we ban all diversions to threads about DBT.
I mean, how can you tell tube amps from solid state without the orange
glow of the tubes? The eyes are near the ears.
___
audiophiles
What are we... back to the CD gives perfect sound bullshit? Have you
idiots ever even heard a good sound system? A guy who has spent his
life working with live orchestras came over the other day to buy my
Ipod. Within five minutes of listening to my system was asking me for
permission to send
gdg;227346 Wrote:
Have you idiots ever even heard a good sound system?
Who do you mean you idiots?
Did it every occur to you, gdg, that some of us might actually know
what we are talking about?
These personal attacks that you, gdg, seem to love are at best
uncivilized, and at worst make you
gdg wrote:
Thanx for the input Kim. I don't think I'd go the transporter route
because the word I'm getting is that Vista PC streaming has now
surpassed the SB.
Huh? I'm not sure what your sources are, but the quality of *any* PC
streaming depends on the audio device used. And that goes for
you mean high rez standards like the incredibly popular sacd and dvd-a?
--
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+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some
very expensive cables ;o)
gdg;227041 Wrote:
In addition I don't believe the Transporter can handle high rez
standards which may become the norm with the advent of new high def dvd
players.
I belive the transporter can handle 24bit 96khz streams. the SB3 can
also handle these, although it downsamples to 48KHz because
funkstar;227104 Wrote:
I belive the transporter can handle 24bit 96khz streams. the SB3 can
also handle these, although it downsamples to 48KHz because of the
limitations of the DAC.
Actually because of the limitations of the processor and firmware - the
DAC can do 96KHz/24-bits.
--
Does the SB3 still downsample if you're using an external DAC? Or does
it pass the digital stream intact (e.g. can it pass 88.2kHz 24bit data
to an external DAC)?
--
gcogger
gcogger's Profile:
Phil Leigh;227103 Wrote:
you mean high rez standards like the incredibly popular sacd and dvd-a?
Uh no... Read my post. I'm talking about the new High Def video
standards that include high rez audio capabilities.
--
gdg
Does anyone here use a Big Ben to reduce jitter out of the SB3? I'm
running into a Tact 2.0s which is quite sensitive to jitter so if you
have any experience in this area I'd love to hear your impressions.
--
gdg
gdg's
gdg;227035 Wrote:
Does anyone here use a Big Ben to reduce jitter out of the SB3? I'm
running into a Tact 2.0s which is quite sensitive to jitter so if you
have any experience in this area I'd love to hear your impressions.
Yes, I'm using one with SB3 and TacT RCS 2.2X. With the Big Ben, the
Thanx for the input Kim. I don't think I'd go the transporter route
because the word I'm getting is that Vista PC streaming has now
surpassed the SB. If I go that route I'd definitely want to reclock
what comes out of a computer. In addition I don't believe the
Transporter can handle high rez
56 matches
Mail list logo
