Phew - I think the SD product line is a bit young to have a flat-earth
retro movement (although Firmware 15 nearly achieved that!)
--
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+Stontronics PSU - Altmann
JISCO/UPCI - TACT R
jimi00;342561 Wrote:
> I catch your drift but as I said earlier, even non-transcoded mp3s sound
> better on the slimp3, so that about reduces the possibilities to:
> 1) My unit is faulty
> 2) The slimp3 is actually better than the SB3
> 3) As NonReality suggests, I might just prefer the sound of
jimi00;342561 Wrote:
> I catch your drift but as I said earlier, even non-transcoded mp3s sound
> better on the slimp3, so that about reduces the possibilities to:
> 1) My unit is faulty
> 2) The slimp3 is actually better than the SB3
> 3) As NonReality suggests, I might just prefer the sound of
jimi00;342561 Wrote:
>
> On the other hand, I might as well repeat myself... would it be
> shamefull for anyone to run an A/B test and tell us what they think?
I'm not sure many people here have both. But frankly speaking, the
odds anyone will agree with you are near zero.
The other day I ran
Phil Leigh;342518 Wrote:
> They make perfect sense.
>
> You are comparing MP3 on a SLIMP3 against lossless FLAC on an SB3,
> right?
>
> 1) If the SB3 was faulty it might sound worse than the SLIMP3
> 2) If the rips were faulty in some way they might sound better when
> transcoded compared to th
The dac in the SB3 is a good quality dac. You will not beat it in terms
of quality in a receiver under 1000-1300. You might like a cheaper
receiver's sound better but that doesn't mean it's a better dac. It
just means you like that sound better.
--
Nonreality
-IF THE RULE YOU FOLLOWED BROUGH
jimi00;342515 Wrote:
> Yes, I did check that the server does not transcode files for the SB3.
> Come to think of it, I'm sorry but these asumptions would not make
> sense anyways. If any of the above were the case, on what grounds could
> it explain that my Slimp3 sound better than my SB3 (appart
Phil Leigh;342501 Wrote:
> Are you sure that your audio/file settings for the SB3 are correct?
>
> That would explain it.
>
> Another less likely explanation could be the way the rips are done - if
> there is an issue here it could be masked by the mp3 transcode.
>
> Or the SB3 could be faulty
Are you sure that your audio/file settings for the SB3 are correct?
That would explain it.
Another less likely explanation could be the way the rips are done - if
there is an issue here it could be masked by the mp3 transcode.
Or the SB3 could be faulty.
You need to see if your experience is r
Slimp3 has a very primitive DAC circuit, terribly noisy power rails in
comparison to SB3, and is simply inferior by any metric. I'm not saying
it sucked for its time, but we've come a long way since 2001. And it
doesn't even support FLAC/AIFF, so everything is being converted to
MP3. The sound you
I dont have any audiophiles around me, but I recently had a friend over
who wanted to show me his new power amp. So we played a bit with the
sources to see what would give the best results and the SB3 got the
worse rating between an iPod Classic, a Slimp3, a Denon DVD-1920 and
the stereo dac of a
I don't think that the Crystal is better (or worse) than the BB. It's
simply a matter of overall implementation.
I'm not amazed that SB3 might sound worse than Slimp3, after all SBR
sounds a bit under SB3 too. It IS intriguing, though, that the SliMP3
sounds better than the SB3 fed with lossless.
Phil Leigh;342369 Wrote:
> Welcome to dreamland :o)
>
> The SB2 or 3 beats the SB1 for sound quality.
>
That's NOT what I said. I was comparing a SB3 with a SLIMP3, not a SB1
(which, by the way, does not carry a Crystal DAC chipset).
I truthfully dare anyone who still has a Slimp3 unit to comp
jimi00;342312 Wrote:
> I'll revive this thread once again beacause I have had the occasion to
> compare the analog output of my good old Slimp3 with a brand new SB3.
> Even if the parts and numbers should give a clear advantage to the
> newer model, all I can say is the Slimp3 wins hands down. Th
I'll revive this thread once again beacause I have had the occasion to
compare the analog output of my good old Slimp3 with a brand new SB3.
Even if the parts and numbers should give a clear advantage to the
newer model, all I can say is the Slimp3 wins hands down. The sound
stage is more open and
iPhone;242475 Wrote:
> And hasn't technology changed in three years. Doesn't the tread need
> updated for that reason alone (since it has been brought back to life)?
Nope, a slimp3 is still a slimp3 and a sb3 is still an sb3. And cheapo
home theatre systems still don't have a direct analog pass-t
slimpy;242434 Wrote:
> This thread is over 3 years old!
> Silly me, I should have looked at the date before posting...
>
> Edit: at least I wasn't the one who revived it...
>
> -s.
seanadams;242467 Wrote:
> Heh
>
>
>
But from reading it, looks like good answers. And hasn't technol
Roy M. Silvernail;13108 Wrote:
> I have a Samsung Home Theater system
> that cost $299 at Best Buy. I've done A-B comparisons between the
> analog outs and the TOSLINK digital. The optical out sounds
> noticeably
> cleaner than the analog outs, with a certain subjective crispness that
> the ana
This thread is over 3 years old!
Silly me, I should have looked at the date before posting...
Edit: at least I wasn't the one who revived it...
-s.
--
slimpy
slimpy's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?use
Roy M. Silvernail;13108 Wrote:
> I have a Samsung Home Theater system
> that cost $299 at Best Buy. I've done A-B comparisons between the
> analog outs and the TOSLINK digital. The optical out sounds
> noticeably
> cleaner than the analog outs, with a certain subjective crispness that
> the ana
Mike Beranek;13102 Wrote:
> I was wondering if the DAC in the Squeezebox is the same as the Slimp3?
> I'd
> like to "improve" the sound quality and would go with the Squeezebox if
> it
> would help on the analog output side.
Have a look at the hardware comparison page in the wiki:
http://wiki.sl
Pat Farrell;13111 Wrote:
> At 10:27 PM 3/7/2004, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
> >I'm curious what DACs come in at the lower end of the price spectrum.
> The
> >little bit that I've looked, it seemed that $800 was a low figure.
> I'd be
> >likely to try out something in the $200 range just for gri
22 matches
Mail list logo
