ncarver;583821 Wrote:
> I think you are proposing using the Touch's digital volume control to
> equalize outputs, but I would prefer to avoid that since this is
> supposed to be for a test of sound quality so I really don't want the
> Touch modifying the source. However, this gives me an idea: s
SuperQ;583497 Wrote:
> Use a white or pink noise track.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_noise
>
> I would just figure out a good calibration volume at the source. Use
> the digital volume control of the squeezebox. This way it's easy to
> write down the calibration levels of various DACs.
ncarver;582936 Wrote:
> Oh, you are suggesting open circuit measurement--I missed that. OK, but
> that is kind of a pain as I would have to figure out preamp volume
> setting for one source for a particular music track then disconnect
> speakers, run measurements to determine volume for other so
Mnyb;582947 Wrote:
> On that you are probably entirerly correct I have one of those RS meter
> :-/
> with digital read out but who says that it is consistent from time to
> time .
> And even on slow moving the hand a bit is not alter the result and
> 0.1dB resolution nah ?
>
> If I have to do it
ncarver;582937 Wrote:
> Hey, yeah, I have a meter somewhere. Have never used it since we moved
> here. Wonder where that thing might be? Never found it nearly as
> easy/reliable as making voltage measurements, though.
On that you are probably entirerly correct I have one of those RS meter
:-/
Mnyb;582892 Wrote:
> Or spl meter measuring the actual output in the room.
Hey, yeah, I have a meter somewhere. Have never used it since we moved
here. Wonder where that thing might be? Never found it nearly as
easy/reliable as making voltage measurements, though.
--
ncarver
--
SuperQ;582881 Wrote:
> Whups, sorry I missed it. The method I was suggesting for calibration
> would allow you to do the white-noise test at a lower volume (because
> you measure post-amplification) and then you know what gain diff
> between your sources is. With the voltmeter method you can do
SuperQ;582881 Wrote:
> Whups, sorry I missed it. The method I was suggesting for calibration
> would allow you to do the white-noise test at a lower volume (because
> you measure post-amplification) and then you know what gain diff
> between your sources is. With the voltmeter method you can do
ncarver;582764 Wrote:
> Sorry but I pointed out in a different post how I avoided having to do
> exact level matching last night
Whups, sorry I missed it. The method I was suggesting for calibration
would allow you to do the white-noise test at a lower volume (because
you measure post-amplifica
SuperQ;582703 Wrote:
> As other people have pointed out here, level matching is still very
> important here. Both DACs will have different gain levels on their
> line-out stages. Having a voltmeter or SPL meter attached while
> playing some white noise should let you get things calibrated.
> (
ncarver;582678 Wrote:
>
> Sorry, I did not mean those quotes to apply directly to you, and I
> should have made it clear that I meant them as generic statements that
> I feel reflect the gist of statements I read all the time on this list.
> I truly apologize for any confusion. However, I did t
ncarver;582698 Wrote:
> So close that at this point I would not be able to reliably tell them
> apart (still not that familiar with regular system sound due to so many
> changes over the last month).
As other people have pointed out here, level matching is still very
important here. Both DACs
OK I actually decided to bite the bullet and listen to the Touch's
analog output. Have to say the sound quality is extremely impressive!
Very, very close to my DAC. So close that at this point I would not be
able to reliably tell them apart (still not that familiar with regular
system sound due
MBlue72;582396 Wrote:
> ... and all I asked was whether next to buy a Touch or a DAC.
>
> Dave
>
> PS ... I'm leaning toward the DAC.
I am close to being motivated enough to actually go to the trouble of
listening to the analog output of my Touch vs. through the DAC I have
in this system, whi
I agree this is getting pointless, as no actual concrete evidence is
forthcoming, but I don't want to make it appear I was intentionally
misrepresenting what opaqueice said:
opaqueice;582251 Wrote:
>
> > > > So I am not going to just take your word for it that there have been
> > "numerous test
opaqueice;582254 Wrote:
> By the way, you didn't answer this question. Would you mind doing so?
Depended on the types of tests that we were doing, but sometimes yes.
I find this important only in doing immediate back and forth
comparisons, however, which was not always what we were doing. We
MBlue72;582396 Wrote:
> ... and all I asked was whether next to buy a Touch or a DAC.
>
> Dave
>
> PS ... I'm leaning toward the DAC.
Yeah, I was just thinking about that, myself. As the o/p, I had to
wonder whether or not you actually got any guidance that you found
useful. Between this th
... and all I asked was whether next to buy a Touch or a DAC.
Dave
PS ... I'm leaning toward the DAC.
--
MBlue72
MBlue72's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13779
View this thread: http://forums.s
Gazjam;582283 Wrote:
> Please, enough with this bullshit.
>
> http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
>
> its to do with evidence of paranormal activity - not hifi cables.
> get a grip
> ffs.http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/97-swift-october-12-2007.html
--
Henry6
Typically at this point in these type discussions, when they
disintegrate into name calling and repeats of the same argument over
and over, someone mentions the Heisenberg uncertainty principle,
mercifully bringing an end to the thread. ;-)
--
garym
---
opaqueice;582211 Wrote:
> Well, to my knowledge no one has ever succeeded in hearing differences
> between cables in a controlled level-matched blind test. *If you can
> do it, you might be able to win $1,000,000 from the James Randi
> foundation (I'm not kidding)*.
>
Please, enough with thi
opaqueice;582211 Wrote:
>
> Do you recall if you level matched when you did your testing? If not
> that could easily account for the differences - if the resistance of
> the cable was enough to change the volume by a dB or so, it's well
> known that this will strongly influence the results (for
ncarver;582230 Wrote:
> And to my knowledge no one has ever conducted a blind test of cables
> where negative results meant anything beyond that test. I would be
> very interested for you to provide citations for a set of serious tests
> that have been done with cables so that I could evaluate t
opaqueice;582211 Wrote:
> Well, to my knowledge no one has ever succeeded in hearing differences
> between cables in a controlled level-matched blind test.
Well I would be very interested to see citations for a set of serious
tests that have been done with cables so that I could evaluate their
v
ncarver;582208 Wrote:
> Unfortunately this was 20 years ago, so a bit hard to recall exactly
> what we were testing. But certainly much of our time was directed at
> cables, and all three of us decided cables could sound different. We
> did both blind testing (e.g., with another person changing
opaqueice;581950 Wrote:
> Would you mind giving some specific examples?
Unfortunately this was 20 years ago, so a bit hard to recall exactly
what we were testing. But certainly much of our time was directed at
cables, and all three of us decided cables could sound different. We
did both blind
Thanks very much for the references. (Note that in the first link, the
differences that the self-identified audiophiles were better at hearing
were between 64 and 128 kbps MP3s, which is really very easy.)
I fully agree with you that hearing the difference between lossy and
lossless audio is lar
opaqueice;581884 Wrote:
>
>
> Reference please!
http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/11/few_listeners_can_distinguish.php
"Those rating themselves as more extreme audiophiles were more likely
to be able to detect the difference between the different data rates of
the Santana MP3s. This
ncarver;581944 Wrote:
> There were many occasions when we established to our satisfaction that
> differences were audible with particular components.
Would you mind giving some specific examples?
--
opaqueice
opaqueice'
ncarver;581944 Wrote:
> And this is supposed to be meaningful to anyone else why exactly?
Only in that it illustrates that blind tests don't need to be done on
short samples.
> You have a clear bias against hearing differences
Do I?
When I first got into audio, I believed most things I hear
opaqueice;581914 Wrote:
> I've tried that myself at home some years ago, where my girlfriend
> randomly chose between two components (DACs in that case) every day by
> flipping a coin, and I tried to tell the difference.
>
> I couldn't :).
And this is supposed to be meaningful to anyone else
mlsstl;581899 Wrote:
> an encyclopedia of apologetics has been written to explain why blind
> testing is inadequate for the special needs of those in the audio
> world.
michael123;581901 Wrote:
> Personally, I just cannot evaluate the sound during short tests
That made me smile...
Seriously th
michael123;581901 Wrote:
> Personally, I just cannot evaluate the sound during short tests,
> I need few good days and then switch back, as shown by -firedog-
> Blind or not blind - it does matter to me.
Just a reminder that blindness has nothing to do with the length of a
test.
--
mlsstl
---
mlsstl;581899 Wrote:
> When the same things are tested in a blind situation, those differences
> become much smaller and more subtle; sometimes the differences even
> disappear.
Personally, I just cannot evaluate the sound during short tests,
I need few good days and then switch back, as shown b
It was probably a mistake on my part to mention medical testing, but
those do not give simple "yes/no" results either. One looks at the
preponderance of evidence in those situations in deciding how to
proceed.
In the audiophile world however, one exception out of a hundred is more
than adequate f
Wombat;581893 Wrote:
> I remember one audiophile tester at the audio magazin mp3 test was able
> to difference most mp3s. That was because of a hearing loss and masking
> didn´t work with his ears to well. The other studies i read over time
> didn´t have audiophiles that were clearly better at pi
firedog;581828 Wrote:
>
> BTW, this has also been shown in research: random subjects were often
> unable to differentiate between compressed and uncompressed files, but
> "audiophiles" were.
>
I remember one audiophile tester at the audio magazin mp3 test was able
to difference most mp3s. That
Hi firedog,
I think most people would agree that DBTs are not needed for deciding
personal preference, especially if there's a truly audible difference
(although I can give you a few counterexamples). What they are
generally used for is deciding whether there really is an audible
difference at a
firedog;581828 Wrote:
> My personal solution to this phenomenon in testing audio equipment is
> fairly simple. I listen to setup A until I "used to it"; then switch to
> setup B.
> When I get used to "B", I then listen to A again. That's the only way
> I've found to compare products that seems to
mlsstl;581692 Wrote:
> You seem awfully anxious to close the door on an issue you brought up.
>
> Science deals far more in probabilities than absolutes. If DBTs were
> worthless, let's just toss all of the medicines we have today and head
> back to the 15th century.
>
> That's the problem wi
ralphpnj;581677 Wrote:
> I repeat: case closed.You are not reading what you don't want to read.
--
Henry66
Henry66's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=38863
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevic
opaqueice;581707 Wrote:
> Same to you. I've been involved in my share of audiophile pissing
> matches in the past - I'm done now :). I have no problem at all with
> people making their own choices, I just find them interesting.
Thank you and ditto!
--
ralphpnj
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking B
ralphpnj;581694 Wrote:
>
> As for the first part isn't it also true the field of scientific
> experiments where humans are concerned that the results of these tests
> are often never 100%, in other words there are often subjects who
> "fail" the test even when a vast majority of those tested "pa
mlsstl;581692 Wrote:
> You seem awfully anxious to close the door on an issue you brought up.
>
> Science deals far more in probabilities than absolutes. If DBTs were
> worthless, let's just toss all of the medicines we have today and head
> back to the 15th century.
>
> That's the problem wi
opaqueice;581689 Wrote:
> That many audiophiles obsess over imagined differences that even they
> cannot really hear. That makes them easy to mock; it marginalizes
> their views (note the reference to Pear cables in the label for this
> subforum). So when a real issue of sound quality comes alon
ralphpnj;581677 Wrote:
> I repeat: case closed.
You seem awfully anxious to close the door on an issue you brought up.
Science deals far more in probabilities than absolutes. If DBTs were
worthless, let's just toss all of the medicines we have today and head
back to the 15th century.
That's
ralphpnj;581687 Wrote:
> I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here.
>
That many audiophiles obsess over imagined differences that even they
cannot really hear. That makes them very easy to mock, and it
marginalizes their views. As a result when a real issue of sound
quality come
opaqueice;581679 Wrote:
> When audiophiles complain about legitimate issues like overly compressed
> pop or the growing prevalence of crappy standards like 128 kbps MP3,
> they should remember the boy who cried wolf.
I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here.
I really don't have t
mlsstl;581675 Wrote:
>
> However, at the level of making consumer choices as to which stereo a
> person wants to buy, it is only as important as the ego of the buyer
> needs it to be.
Exactly.
ralphpnj;581673 Wrote:
> Case closed.
When audiophiles complain about legitimate issues like over
mlsstl;581675 Wrote:
> Yes, that's a possible outcome.
I repeat: case closed.
--
ralphpnj
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter ->
Transporter 2 (oops) -> Touch
'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/)
-
ralphpnj;581660 Wrote:
> In other words if people can fool themselves into hearing differences to
> validate their beliefs then isn't just as likely that people can fool
> themselves into NOT hearing differences to validate their beliefs?
Yes, that's a possible outcome. But the listener then has
opaqueice;581672 Wrote:
> Sure, it's possible.
Case closed.
--
ralphpnj
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter ->
Transporter 2 (oops) -> Touch
'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/)
ra
ralphpnj;581660 Wrote:
> Without trying to start another pointless DBT debate I would just like
> to ask a simple question to the pro DBT people on this forum. Here
> goes:
>
> Part 1 - Background info:
>
> Those in favor of DBT are always pointing to the fact by not testing
> via DBT the liste
opaqueice;581655 Wrote:
> I'm not sure that's a valid argument in this kind of debate. After all,
> how many people have done blind, level-matched comparisons between
> different DACs and been able to tell the difference? As far as I can
> tell the answer is zero*. So going by that, the OP sho
ncarver;577406 Wrote:
> Got lots of suggestions about really good sounding hi-res tracks, but
> not a single person claimed to have done comparisons and been able to
> hear a difference between the two versions of the same track.
I'm not sure that's a valid argument in this kind of debate. A
ncarver;577406 Wrote:
> Since one of the reasons I bought the Touch rather than another Duet was
> for the ability to play 96/24 tracks, let me just comment on this. I
> started another thread on here asking for specific tracks people had
> purchased that sounded better in 96/24 than 44/16. Nob
MBlue72;577303 Wrote:
> Hello:
>
> Ive been a very satisfied user of a Squeezebox 3 for more than three
> years. It is being driven by an HP computer over our wireless network.
> Although Ive been pleased with the SB I now want to improve the sound
> quality and am considering the purchase of
If you seriously want to compare 24-bit with 16-bit, you should use the
Beatles remasters because they are the same master source.
It's just a pity it's so hard to get hold of the 24-bit versions...
As for older recordings, it all depends on what happened in the
(re)mastering...
quite easy to s
firedog;579907 Wrote:
>
> And no, I didn't "properly downsample" it to compare. Why would I? If
> you want to do that, spend your time doing it. I listened to the two
> versions and can hear differences.
>
You should cause ncarver asked explicitely about serious testing about
24bit against 16bi
firedog;579907 Wrote:
> Just listen. Lots of hi- res releases are transcribed from vinyl. And
> lots of "old" recordings were very good recordings, and the digital
> transcriptions sound great and are more revealing than the original.
> BTW, the Kinks record I referred to is from the 70's, but is
Wombat;579590 Wrote:
> A Love Surpreme is a very old recording that shouldn´t be able to use
> more then ~12bit resolution. You´ll have 12bit of noise down there i
> supppose.
>
> I wonder how with that one you can max out the dynamic range of 16bit
> with your 2-way floorstander and need 24bit
firedog;579556 Wrote:
> 24/96 "A Love Supreme" and the 24/96 Kinks "Preservation Act II"
>
> I believe I purchased both from HD Tracks
A Love Surpreme is a very old recording that shouldn´t be able to use
more then ~12bit resolution. You´ll have 12bit of noise down there i
supppose.
I wonder
ncarver;579429 Wrote:
>
>
> Where did you purchase the different versions of the two examples you
> cited in what I quoted?
>
> So far I haven't done any terribly serious listening tests, and my
> system has undergone a number of changes over the last month, so I
> still don't feel familiar en
firedog;579337 Wrote:
> I like the 24/96 "A Love Supreme" better and the 24/96 Kinks
> "Preservation Act II" better that 16/44.1 versions. I have other
> examples, but you claimed no one liked the 24/96 bit versions better.
> So there are two.
Well I just asked for some specific examples where p
ncarver;577406 Wrote:
> I started another thread on here asking for specific tracks people had
> purchased that sounded better in 96/24 than 44/16. Nobody provided
> even a single such track. Got lots of suggestions about really good
> sounding hi-res tracks, but not a single person claimed to
I haven't compared the Touch to the DAC Magic, so I can't tell you what
sounds better.
The DAC separate has the advantage of flexibility - you can use it for
other components also if you wish.
If you can't directly audition the units before buying, I'd agree with
the posters who suggested to try
MBlue72;578592 Wrote:
> Hello again:
>
> First of all, thanks to all of you who responded. You’ve given me
> good advice and I appreciate it. My “thank you” is tardy
> because we were without internet service for two days. We live in a
> rural area and I have limited ISP options. I envy friends
Hello again:
First of all, thanks to all of you who responded. Youve given me good
advice and I appreciate it. My thank you is tardy because we were
without internet service for two days. We live in a rural area and I
have limited ISP options. I envy friends that have cable, DSL, etc.
To thos
On 23/09/10 02:48, earwaxer9 wrote:
>
> I saw that you ripped 600 plus cds to hard drive in FLAC.
>
> Get used to re-ripping your collection! I did the same (to WAV) and
> ended up re-ripping to 24/96 WAV with dbpoweramp. The Transporter does
> a better job with 24/96 than it does with 16/44.1.
I saw that you ripped 600 plus cds to hard drive in FLAC.
Get used to re-ripping your collection! I did the same (to WAV) and
ended up re-ripping to 24/96 WAV with dbpoweramp. The Transporter does
a better job with 24/96 than it does with 16/44.1. Dont know why, but
others who know more have exp
Soulkeeper;577683 Wrote:
> My advice:
>
> 1) Buy the Touch.
> 2) Sell your CD player.
> 3) If you get good money ($600?) for your CD player, spend them on a
> DAC that is even better than DacMagic, and connect it to the Touch.
> 4) Victory!!!
+1
Best advice so far.
--
ralphpnj
Lock, Stock
My advice:
1) Buy the Touch.
2) Sell your CD player.
3) If you get good money ($600?) for your CD player, spend them on a
DAC that is even better than DacMagic, and connect it to the Touch.
4) Victory!!!
--
Soulkeeper
-that is not dead which can eternal lie. and with strange aeons even
death
MBlue72;577430 Wrote:
> 5)… I am now considering an additional outlay (Touch or DAC) for
> two reasons. First, I have read more and more about improved sound
> quality via ever-improving digital-to-analog conversion technology.
> Second, I have noticed something odd recently. During the last few
I guess one thing that I might add, and I'm not up on dac's is that you
love the sound of your sb3. Well the touch is supposed to be even
better and then like you said you could use the touch and sb3 in
different rooms. No brainer isn't it? You could start in the endless
audiophile system and al
MBlue72;577430 Wrote:
> 5)
I am now considering an additional outlay (Touch or DAC) for two
> reasons. First, I have read more and more about improved sound quality
> via ever-improving digital-to-analog conversion technology. Second, I
> have noticed something odd recently. During the last few
Well, thank you very much for all the thoughtful responses youve
provided. Several more comments/answers and some thinking out loud:
1)
thanks for the reminder about Logitechs 30-day return policy. I
just checked Audio Advisor and they have the same offer. I suppose I
could order both a Touch
ncarver;577406 Wrote:
> Since one of the reasons I bought the Touch rather than another Duet was
> for the ability to play 96/24 tracks, let me just comment on this. I
> started another thread on here asking for specific tracks people had
> purchased that sounded better in 96/24 than 44/16. Nob
If your ultimate goal is to get the best SQ then simply add a quality
external DAC. I have a DACMagic connected to a receiver and it sounds
stunning. The new Arcam DAC (rDAC?)is also getting high praise in the
UK press - worth an audition too.
--
HeadBanger
Since one of the reasons I bought the Touch rather than another Duet was
for the ability to play 96/24 tracks, let me just comment on this. I
started another thread on here asking for specific tracks people had
purchased that sounded better in 96/24 than 44/16. Nobody provided
even a single such
Perhaps I'm just demonstrating my Philistine credentials, but I'd vote
for the Touch.
I ran a SB3 with a Lavry DA-10 DAC for several years. The Lavry made a
solid improvement to the sound quality.
I bought a Touch and directly compared it's analog outs to my SB3/Lavry
combo. I synced and level
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Touch's ability to play
24bit/88.2kHz & 96kHz files. Based on that feature I would buy the
Touch. Add in the following benefits and I feel that getting a Touch is
a no-brainer:
1) The Touch has a very good DAC and its analog outputs are on par with
many
I don't have a SB 3 but I do have a Duet. The difference in sound
quality between the Duet analog and an external DAC was not subtle,
even in an only moderately good system (15+ year old entry-level
high-end equipment) and using a 15 year old DAC (PS Audio Ultralink).
The Duet analog is fine for
Hi Dave,
I -very- strongly recommend going the separate DAC route. Good luck!
--
NewBuyer
NewBuyer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7862
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthrea
The Touch has a better DAC with better analog outputs at $299 AND 30
days home trial, I say go this route first to see if you like the
change or any worthwhile improvement that you can hear. In my
experience, DACs sound quality differences are very small versus other
components such as speakers an
Hello:
Ive been a very satisfied user of a Squeezebox 3 for more than three
years. It is being driven by an HP computer over our wireless network.
Although Ive been pleased with the SB I now want to improve the sound
quality and am considering the purchase of a DAC. Expense is a
consideration s
85 matches
Mail list logo
