AndreasG Wrote:
From a scientific point of view, there's no evidence to support that
belief. But I do understand your point and I do not want to get into
a debate about ABX blind testing...
The process of adaption is the strongest reason why it is necessary to
switch between sources
P Floding Wrote:
... So even if the second system is more accurate, and will sound far
better in the long run, in an A/B you might well chose the first system
as the better one.
The debate here, back in the mists of time, was NOT about deciding
which is better - it was about whether blind
opaqueice Wrote:
The debate here, back in the mists of time, was NOT about deciding which
is better - it was about whether blind A/B tests are necessary for
deciding if there's a difference at all. For deciding which is better,
there's much less of an obvious reason for using a blind test,
Umm, was original problem of the person who started this thread ever
sorted (if so, I can't quickly find the answer in this thread)?
Did he have a wrong setting or was he *appearing* to hear a difference
betwen wav and flac (please note the word appearing).
The shortest answer wins the prize.
MC
ModelCitizen Wrote:
Umm, was original problem of the person who started this thread ever
sorted (if so, I can't quickly find the answer in this thread)?
Did he have a wrong setting or was he *appearing* to hear a difference
betwen wav and flac (please note the word appearing).
The shortest
ModelCitizen Wrote:
Umm, was original problem of the person who started this thread ever
sorted (if so, I can't quickly find the answer in this thread)?
Did he have a wrong setting or was he *appearing* to hear a difference
betwen wav and flac (please note the word appearing).
The shortest
I found that when using the analog outputs, the sound was better with a
12dB passive attenuator before my amp and the SB3 volume near 40. With
the digital output feeding a Musical Fidelity X-DAC v3, however, it
actually sounded better without the attenuator and the volume lower (in
the 20s). I
P Floding Wrote:
However, I strongly believe there are things in sound reproduction that
a flick between the boxes quick A/B test cannot reveal.
From a scientific point of view, there's no evidence to support that
belief. But I do understand your point and I do not want to get into
a debate
AndreasG Wrote:
Imagine you would have to compare two colours, or two shades of grey
and decide which one is brighter. This is very easy if you see them
next to each other, it will be very hard if some time passes between
seeing the one and the other. Adaption is the reason for that.But
Patrick Dixon Wrote:
But you're making an analogy between sound (rather than music) and
colour. You don't enjoy music in an instant, you enjoy it over a
period of time.
Interestingly, the medical industry (which is often cited as an
equivalent example of the use of blind or double blind
opaqueice Wrote:
It seems to me the color analogy is rather better than your medical
analogy... But then you seem to go on and cement my medical 'analogy' in the
two
quotes below!
First, because it's of paramount importance in medical tests that the
test be blind (because it's almost
Patrick Dixon Wrote:
Why is the onus on me? Are you going to pay me to do this research or
something?
The difficulty is that a 'proper' piece of research would be expensive
to conduct, so people (like you) who don't really think we can hear the
differences would rather shortcut the
I personally don't have any issue over the blind bit. The problem is
that proper blind testing over a reasonable period (days rather than
minutes) is difficult to do. My view is that the danger of making a
biased decision is probably less than the danger of making a wrong
decsion based on too
I have little experience with the Squeezebox but quite some experience
with audio gear...
1.
If you say that the output level of the Squeezebox is lower than that
of your CD player, this makes a comparison very difficult. If you want
to compare the quality of two sources, you need to match
No. The volume control on the SB3, whether digital or analog, should be
as close to max as is practical in your system. In general, amps and
pre-amps sound better with less gain, not more.
--
ezkcdude
SB3-Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC-MIT Terminator 2
interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step
steelee Wrote:
Also sorry to sound a bit'dim' but is sound quality affected by a weak
(44%) wireless connection?
All a weak connection will do will be a potential source for dropouts.
You may see the display stutter, the remote not able to respond to
keypresses (well, actually, the server
Thanks Guys
--
steelee
steelee's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4547
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22273
___
I have found the same issue with the SB3 - particullary with the bass
there seems to be a significant loss of control and boomy ness -
Unfortunately I do not have a high quality CD player to compare it to -
I am in the process of upgrading my stereo and the speakers were the
first big investment.
If you're using a low-fi amp and are not happy with bass control, I
would look at upgrading that before the source. Before doing that
however, it would be worth making sure your speakers are properly
supported / isolated from what they are seated on, and positioned.
(I'm assuming from your
bludragon Wrote:
If you're using a low-fi amp and are not happy with bass control, I
would look at upgrading that before the source. Before doing that
however, it would be worth making sure your speakers are properly
supported / isolated from what they are seated on, and positioned.
(I'm
I am feeding my SB2 to a Benchmark DAC1 going *DIRECT* to my Amp. Also
using the Elpac linear PSU. I have adjusted the Benchmark volume such
that I can run the SB2 at 35-40 volume (thus minimal or no loss of
digital bits). IMHO, the addition of the Elpac PSU offered a slight
audible
Benchmark DAC1 seems to be a pretty popular DAC - what makes it such a
stand out?
--
j.wales
j.wales's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4569
View this thread:
j.wales wrote:
Benchmark DAC1 seems to be a pretty popular DAC - what makes it
such a stand out?
It is well made and well designed.
Has a good power supply, decent controls, etc.
I really like mine, but my SqueezeBoxen are SB1s
which don't have Sean's coolest new features.
I expect, altho I
j.wales Wrote:
Benchmark DAC1 seems to be a pretty popular DAC - what makes it such a
stand out?
A good review
from you-know-who
--
Skunk
Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685
View this
andrei_c wrote:
I've tried encoding to FLAC instead of using WAV but it didn't make any
difference I could hear. I also checked for obvious stuff - upgraded
server software, switched interconnects, made sure SB is not connected
to PHONO, to no avail. NAD 541, priced around $500 IIRC, still
andrei_c Wrote:
First of, I do not consider myself an audiofile and my requirements are
pretty modest. I am using NAD C541 player and NAD C370 integrated amp
with Vienna Acoustics Bach speakers wired by a Kimber Kable 8VS and
interconnects that are marginally better than consumer cables in
andrei_c Wrote:
My next step is to try the liner power supply and see if it helps. I'd
appreciate any other advises on where to look for solution. Also, if
anyone used SqueezeBox with NAD amplifier, please share your
experience.
Changing the power supply is only part of the equation, you
I'm using the SB3 with an NAD T760 receiver, but I'm sending the output
through the coaxial digital out. It does sound significantly better
this way than through the SB3 analog outs.
In the bedrooms, I'm using SB3s with the analog outs going to powered
speakers, and to my ears, it sounds very
I think you are correct in saying there is no problem with your
squeezebox. I have tried it vs a similar NAD cd player and it was
clearly inferior. If you do a search for my previous posts you will
see my comments on this. In my experience power supply and cable
tweaks will not gain you enough
Robin Bowes Wrote:
andrei_c wrote:
I've tried encoding to FLAC instead of using WAV but it didn't make
any
difference I could hear. I also checked for obvious stuff - upgraded
server software, switched interconnects, made sure SB is not
connected
to PHONO, to no avail. NAD 541,
RSS Wrote:
Andrei,
I agree with you. I find SB3 sounds best with volume settings between
21-23, which produces an output far weaker than my other high level
devices. Above 23 and the sound starts to pinch - base and highs
deteriorate and the air disappears. I'm just not sure if the
I have the same 'problem'...is this a software issue?
--
steelee
steelee's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4547
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22273
GregF Wrote:
Based on some other posts I read in the forums, I initially set up my
Squeezebox at full volume (using the coax out to an external DAC). Then
I tried disabling the digital volume completely and it sounded -much-
better. Does anyone know if there's any difference internally
seanadams Wrote:
Absolutely none - these two cases are the same as far as the squeezebox
is concerned. The notion of fixed digital volume is a UI abstraction in
the server, not anything in the signal path.
Hmmm. Chalk one up to self-fulfilling expectations, I guess. I'm so
used to the analog
34 matches
Mail list logo
