OK Guys! Having caused such a stir with the 63 tweak, a good friend on
another Forum (Thanks D) suggested another, and after two nights with
it, I subjectively sense a lower noise floor. Although this new tweak
is not nearly as beneficial as the fixed S/PDIF level and 63 Tweak
(which took the
CFP Wrote:
You're right. Perhaps one day science can tell us how computers work.
Well that's kind of the whole issue in a nutshell. Computers are
deterministic systems; for a given set of inputs a set of outputs can
be accurately predicted, measured and confirmed as factual/correct.
An audio
Phil Leigh Wrote:
Computers are deterministic systems; for a given set of inputs a set of
outputs can be accurately predicted...
I'm sitting here in front of a Microsoft-based computer, and I just
can't follow the logic of your statement :-)
--
cliveb
Performers - dozens of mixers and
ezkcdude Wrote:
Then I don't believe the effect is real! We're not talking about an
objective measurement with an indisputable value. I wouldn't have any
argument if you told me the tweak lowered jitter, for example. How can
I argue with that? With a subjective measurement alone, though, it
Would you believe I actually find the attenuation on 0 preferable to
63... Oh yes.
Yes, I do find things sound more real with the 63 att especially with
regards to voices which is rather good. However, things seem generally
quiter and more distant (even when turned up), but more Real:-D
Deaf Cat Wrote:
What I want to know is how do I get the realness when on 63 and keep my
forwardness/footappingness?
Please, any one know ?? :)
Set it to 31.5?
--
Skunk
Skunk's Profile:
Deaf Cat Wrote:
Would you believe I actually find the attenuation on 0 preferable to
63... Oh yes.
So now ezkcdude is a believer in this tweak... ;-)
--
PhilNYC
Sonic Spirits Inc.
http://www.sonicspirits.com
Skunk Wrote:
Set it to 31.5?
That is absolutely hilarious! :D But who knows, it might actually
work! I must say that I have been following this thread and am quite
amazed that my simple mute suggestion (and I have to side with those
that have found a noticable improvement) has generated
PhilNYC Wrote:
So now ezkcdude is a believer in this tweak... ;-)
Well, let's say it's a step in the right direction. At the very least,
it's nice to see someone actually characterizing what they hear, and
not just saying it's better.
--
ezkcdude
SB3-Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC-MIT
I would set it at 63 and try a good quality EQ device or a software.
Hiroyuki
On Aug 20, 2006, at 10:10 AM, Deaf Cat wrote:
Would you believe I actually find the attenuation on 0 preferable to
63... Oh yes.
Yes, I do find things sound more real with the 63 att especially with
regards to
CFP Wrote:
You're right. Perhaps one day science can tell us how computers work.
Science can explain how a computer works because it's relatively easy
to figure out. The problem comes when some scientists become arrogant,
probably as a result of fear or insecurity, and claim that something
andy_c Wrote:
Actually, Kurt was quoting me in the referenced article, using quotation
marks instead of the QUOTE tags.
Certainly, this change can do no harm and costs nothing. However,
claiming something makes a big difference in sound, and saying it does
no harm are two different
PhilNYC Wrote:
This isn't true. There are plenty of tweaks that I've tried that have
made things sound worse in my system.
Well, I'm still waiting for the first person who says this 63 tweak
(thank god it's not 69) sounds worse.
--
ezkcdude
SB3-Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC-MIT
ezkcdude Wrote:
Well, I'm still waiting for the first person who says this 63 tweak
(thank god it's not 69) sounds worse.
What if it doesn't?
--
PhilNYC
Sonic Spirits Inc.
http://www.sonicspirits.com
PhilNYC's
PhilNYC Wrote:
What if it doesn't?
Then I don't believe the effect is real! We're not talking about an
objective measurement with an indisputable value. I wouldn't have any
argument if you told me the tweak lowered jitter, for example. How can
I argue with that? With a subjective measurement
ezkcdude Wrote:
Then I don't believe the effect is real! We're not talking about an
objective measurement with an indisputable value. I wouldn't have any
argument if you told me the tweak lowered jitter, for example. How can
I argue with that? With a subjective measurement alone, though, it
P Floding Wrote:
Less jitter will always sound better if you have a good enough system to
hear the difference.
Really? I didn't know this was a proven fact. My bad.
--
ezkcdude
SB3-Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC-MIT Terminator 2
interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators
ezkcdude Wrote:
Really? I didn't know this was a proven fact. My bad.
Actually, audio reproduction is not an exact science. There is no
ultimate sound system on this planet that sounds perfect to all ears.
Perhaps I overstated the case, but the fact remains that it is hard to
believe that more
P Floding wrote:
ezkcdude Wrote:
Really? I didn't know this was a proven fact. My bad.
Perhaps I overstated the case, but the fact remains that it is hard to
believe that more jitter will sound better.
Just a little, perhaps.
There are thresholds of inaudibility for any of a number of
ezkcdude Wrote:
Then I don't believe the effect is real! We're not talking about an
objective measurement with an indisputable value. I wouldn't have any
argument if you told me the tweak lowered jitter, for example. How can
I argue with that? With a subjective measurement alone, though, it
opaqueice Wrote:
One can imagine lots of possible effects which would sound good to
almost everyone - like making the volume slightly higher, for example.
Yes, but in that case most people would also hear the change. We're
talking about a tweak in which half of us don't hear anything, and
pfarrell Wrote:
P Floding wrote:
ezkcdude Wrote:
Really? I didn't know this was a proven fact. My bad.
Perhaps I overstated the case, but the fact remains that it is hard
to
believe that more jitter will sound better.
Just a little, perhaps.
There are thresholds of
P Floding Wrote:
Actually, audio reproduction is not an exact science. There is no
ultimate sound system on this planet that sounds perfect to all ears.
Perhaps I overstated the case, but the fact remains that it is hard to
believe that more jitter will sound better. Especially since we know
ezkcdude wrote:
opaqueice Wrote:
One can imagine lots of possible effects which would sound good to
almost everyone - like making the volume slightly higher, for example.
Yes, but in that case most people would also hear the change. We're
talking about a tweak in which half of us don't
That's a terrible analogy. Sure, people will tell you it's sweeter. Will
they universally tell you it's better and the other ones it's no
different? So, what, everybody either loves sweet coffee or doesn't
know the difference? You should think carefully before employing
analogies.
What exactly
ezkcdude Wrote:
Yes, but in that case most people would also hear the change. We're
talking about a tweak in which half of us don't hear anything, and half
think it's the best thing since sliced bread.
Not necessarily. Small differences in volume are quite difficult to
judge by ear, but can
ezkcdude wrote:
That's a terrible analogy. Sure, people will tell you it's sweeter. Will
they universally tell you it's better and the other ones it's no
different? So, what, everybody either loves sweet coffee or doesn't
know the difference? You should think carefully before employing
CFP Wrote:
I thought it was because they were still trying to compensate for
certain deficiencies of analog recording when it was unneeded for
digital.
So how is this different than any other piece of computer hardware?
Minus of course, the dedicated FLAC Machine with gate logic
P Floding Wrote:
If you are going to be a sceptic, then at the very least learn to read
carefully and apply logic. no-one can claim the situations are fully
equivalent is all I said.
Nice backpedal.
Of course situations cannot be fully equivalent - but that's a
meaningless statement it is
CFP Wrote:
Nice backpedal.
Of course situations cannot be fully equivalent - but that's a
meaningless statement it is tantamount to saying, they are not the
same because they are different. Wow, such a philosophical
breakthough! Do I smell a Nobel Prize?
Well duh, of course the
CFP Wrote:
On any scientific site if someone contended WAV sounded better than FLAC
on their computer due to the processing differences he/she'd be
laughed out of the house.
These scientific sites are often populated by people who either don't
have great ears or don't have great systems.
JohnnyLightOn Wrote:
These scientific sites are often populated by people who either don't
have great ears or don't have great systems. I've read on
Hydrogenaudio a dozen times that good MP3s and CDs are
indistinguishable, which is clearly not the case.
I'm not saying I think FLAC sounds
Phil Leigh Wrote:
Well, according to my TACT measurements, there is no rolloff of HF with
the SB (2 or 3).
I think what you're hearing is correct - the SB has a smoother top end
than many digital sources/CDP's.
YMMV.
Thanks Phil, switching to the Glass toslink instead of the coax, I got
SoftwireEngineer Wrote:
Thanks Phil, switching to the Glass toslink instead of the coax, I got
better results (initially, I could not tell much difference - listening
at a lower volume during night time). I am now very close to the sound
of my transport. I think stock the coax output has
sleepysurf Wrote:
Well, I spent a couple hours investigating this further tonight. In a
nutshell... RANDOM result.
Thanks for the update, sleepysurf! It did seem a bit hard to believe
that the difference could be so big.
As you point out it's also a good lesson in statistics - two
Hey opaqueice...I sent you a private message...let me know if you
received it...
--
PhilNYC
Sonic Spirits Inc.
http://www.sonicspirits.com
PhilNYC's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=837
View this
Kurt Wrote:
I predict that within a week's time, almost everyone on the audiophile
message boards will be insisting that this is an essential change that
must be made to realize the full potential of the Squeezebox with an
external DAC :)
Ya think?! ;-)
Let me ask this then.
Why not?
Actually, Kurt was quoting me in the referenced article, using quotation
marks instead of the QUOTE tags.
Certainly, this change can do no harm and costs nothing. However,
claiming something makes a big difference in sound, and saying it does
no harm are two different things. What I was
mauidan Wrote:
From the thread- SB1 digital out compared to SB2 and SB3
I just purchased a brand new SB3, and a colleague subjected the
digital outputs to a quick jitter measurement using Audio Precision
equipment. Results:
SB3 digital coax out jitter: ~99ps, SB3 digital optical out
andy_c Wrote:
I have no issue with people going with what works for them, based on
uncontrolled subjective experiments. I do this myself with my own
system all the time. But there is a difference between saying X works
for me and saying X is true. The difference is that people will
Kurt Wrote:
Andy - Perfectly summed up. We measure what we can up to a point, and
beyond that we just believe.
Hopefully we hear (and then believe)...
--
Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh's Profile:
I am one of those who agreed muting the analog volume control made a
difference. I am willing to admit, however, that when I made the
change, the difference I heard could have been caused purely by
something akin to auto suggestion. I was told there was a difference,
so I heard one, or thought
Hi Colin,
I actually have my attenuation set to 63, even though I didn't hear a
difference. I figure, why not just attenuate the signal since I'm not
using it anyway? Works for me :-).
--
andy_c
andy_c's Profile:
Did you hear the tweak about the black SqueezeBox sounding better than
the white one? It's true.
--
ezkcdude
SB3-Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC-MIT Terminator 2
interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)-Parasound
Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier-Speltz anti-cables-DIY 2-ways +
ezkcdude Wrote:
Did you hear the tweak about the black SqueezeBox sounding better than
the white one? It's true.
That's hilarious! Good thing I wan't drinking a beverage when I read
this :-).
--
andy_c
andy_c's
Andy, here's a message I posted on the Sterophile forum about this
subject, you may like it,
It is always interesting to me that when a tweak like this comes along,
there are always exactly two camps. A) Those who think the tweak
improves the sound or B) those who can't hear any change. Ask
ezkcdude Wrote:
Ask yourself this, why is it that nobody every reports the tweak makes
it sound worse?
This isn't true. There are plenty of tweaks that I've tried that have
made things sound worse in my system.
--
PhilNYC
Sonic Spirits Inc.
http://www.sonicspirits.com
CFP Wrote:
This thread took a dive into incredulity a few pages back.
when it was proposed WAV sounded better than FLAC :P
We here have been over this before, and unless you simply search the
archives, I suggest we start a new thread if you'd like to discuss it.
(Short
I ordered the SB3 on Monday and received the package on Wednesday itself
(as I live in the Bay Area). I had earlier installed the Slim Server and
Softsqueeze and had the setup ready with some 10 or 15 CDs worth of
music on the harddrive. Thanks to this thread, I had disabled digital
and the
I also have a HTPC running RME9632. Comparing the HTPC setup with the
SB2/3 (Both with digital out to DAC) I have also noticed that SB2/3
does not have the HF extension that I can get with the RME. Now,
whethere this is digital glare, I don't know. But I like the sound of
RME better.
Waiting
Well, according to my TACT measurements, there is no rolloff of HF with
the SB (2 or 3).
I think what you're hearing is correct - the SB has a smoother top end
than many digital sources/CDP's.
YMMV.
--
Phil Leigh
Phil
seanadams Wrote:
I assumed the transmitter was hard wired. Now we learn that it probably
has a microphone pickup. I bet it's a fluke.
Oh dear, I'll have to read these threads more carefully :). If that
doorbell circuit uses a microphone, well, that's a recipe for all kinds
of false alarms.
Well, I spent a couple hours investigating this further tonight. In a
nutshell... RANDOM result.
First off, I had pulled the transmitter off the top of my permanent
doorbell chime, trying to determine how it works, what frequency, etc.
When I put it back tonight, I couldn't (initially) get
I predict that within a week's time, almost everyone on the audiophile
message boards will be insisting that this is an essential change that
must be made to realize the full potential of the Squeezebox with an
external DAC :)
Ya think?! ;-)
--
Kurt
Main Entry: au·dio·phile
Pronunciation:
seanadams Wrote:
I think you misunderstood me - neither has problems but when we are
talking about picoseconds of jitter there will certainly be differences
from one interface design to the next. The transformers we use are
Vitec 1:1 made for s/pdif. They are used for both the input and
sleepysurf Wrote:
Now, this begs the question (for Sean I suppose), WHY does this work???
It certainly sounds like there could be a permanent software fix for
this issue.
So let me make sure I understand - this chime extender thing is a
microphone that sits by the doorbell and listens for
opaqueice Wrote:
So let me make sure I understand - this chime extender thing is a
microphone that sits by the doorbell and listens for the doorbell
chime, and when it hears it sends a signal to the remote unit (which
makes a sound). You're saying if your music is playing certain notes
Q for sleepysurf: Is there a cable connecting the analog out of the SB
to your preamp?
If so, try the experiment with this cable disconnected.
--
andy_c
andy_c's Profile:
opaqueice Wrote:
There's a gadget that sits on the doorbell, and is activated when it
rings and sends the wireless signal.
ok, I see!
I didn't see that link to the actual extender!
Quite a novel product!
Then it seems almost certain that it is the audio itself that triggers
the doorbell. If
Thank you for the wonderful tweak.
I'm not sure why it matters, but yes setting that preamp mute made a
difference in my system too. Its much cleaner sounding now so I'm sure
I could crank it louder without problems too.
Here is an interesting question. Of the people that can hear an
samplesj Wrote:
Thank you for the wonderful tweak.
I'm not sure why it matters, but yes setting that preamp mute made a
difference in my system too. Its much cleaner sounding now so I'm sure
I could crank it louder without problems too.
Here is an interesting question. Of the people
I tried this and noticed no change whatsoever. My system uses a stock
SB2 going into a Berhinger DEQ2496, then a Benchmark DAC1 using TosLink
for both digital connections. I have a laptop on a table right next to
my listening chair, so I can change the setting of the analog
attenuation without
aberdeencomponents Wrote:
Phil
Not as good as your refrence transport? You need to go to the
Tacthackerforum, and tell them how it is!
I got something that might give yout tport a run, hint..?
O
I stopped arguing with Tact owners long ago... ;-)
Sure, what's the hint? My reference
andy_c Wrote:
I tried this and noticed no change whatsoever. My system uses a stock
SB2 going into a Berhinger DEQ2496, then a Benchmark DAC1 using TosLink
for both digital connections. I have a laptop on a table right next to
my listening chair, so I can change the setting of the analog
PhilNYC Wrote:
Andy, when you changed the setting to 63, did you stop the music and
then re-start it? As mentioned previously, you might have to stop
streaming to the SB in order for the setting to take effect.
It would be great if those who hear a difference would try it blind.
Just
I've got NO idea what is going on here, but the difference is clear - my
hand was resting on my subwoofer (where my mouse lives) when I changed
the settings and restarted the track and I could easily feel increased
vibration in the top of the sub cabinet...something is definitely
different.
PhilNYC Wrote:
Andy, when you changed the setting to 63, did you stop the music and
then re-start it? As mentioned previously, you might have to stop
streaming to the SB in order for the setting to take effect.
Ahh, you're right. I hooked it up through the analog output of the SB
and
andy_c Wrote:
Ahh, you're right. I hooked it up through the analog output of the SB
and verified that the analog level stays the same until the streaming
is stopped (not just paused) and re-started. This makes the test
harder to perform.
After changing the technique to re-start the
samplesj Wrote:
Thank you for the wonderful tweak.
I'm not sure why it matters, but yes setting that preamp mute made a
difference in my system too. Its much cleaner sounding now so I'm sure
I could crank it louder without problems too.
Here is an interesting question. Of the people
samplesj Wrote:
Maybe try a coax connection instead too.
I didn't notice that he was using the TosLink. Pure speculation here,
but I would have guessed that muting the analog out would likely not
have as much (at all?) of an effect on the Toslink out. Muting the
analog out is essentially
PhilNYC Wrote:
I didn't notice that he was using the TosLink. Pure speculation here,
but I would have guessed that muting the analog out would likely not
have as much (at all?) of an effect on the Toslink out. Muting the
analog out is essentially lowing the power demands of the power
PhilNYC Wrote:
I am not using a Benchmark DAC, but the difference is very noticeable to
me.
Phil would you mind telling us what you are using?
Larry
--
LHawes
LHawes's Profile:
PhilNYC Wrote:
I use a Dodson Audio DA-218 DAC
(Note: I'm also a Dodson dealer)
I hate to spoil the party (not sure for whom, however) but from
dodsonaudio.com:
Input signal jitter is eliminated by first clocking the input signal
into a storage memory, then re-clocking the stored input
I've had long conversations with Ralph Dodson about whether a transport
should make a difference or not with the DA-218...and the bottom line
is that even with all the high-tech buffering and reclocking he does,
the transport still does make a difference. Talking to other engineers
in the
PhilNYC Wrote:
Btw - I wouldn't discount the Bybee stuff. For 30+ years, Ralph was
head of General Dynamics' Black box division, designing military
systems (missle guidance, etc). Quantum purifiers were originally
developed for military systems purposes, so Ralph has a long history
with
Yep, it certainly sounds like nonsense...no question about that. And I
have never tried any of the Bybee products separate from my Dodson DAC,
so I couldn't tell you any A/B-comparison-type experiences. But Ralph's
engineering resume speaks for itself, and there's all sorts of published
Has anybody done comparisons between the Coax and Toslink ? I have found
that my Sound Professionals Glass Toslink beats my Zu Ash coax on my
Philips 963SA DVD player into my Panasonic XR55. My Squeezebox has
arrived today and I think I will either conneting the Zu Ash or
switching the glass
This thread took a dive into incredulity a few pages back.
when it was proposed WAV sounded better than FLAC :P
--
CFP
CFP's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6915
View this thread:
I've tried the Wireworld SuperNova 5 glass toslink cable and found it to
be very good. Still prefer my coax, but the SuperNova is 1/2 the price
of my coax cable and is 95% of the performance...
--
PhilNYC
Sonic Spirits Inc.
http://www.sonicspirits.com
Dan Banquer found an EMI problem with the Squeezebox in this thread
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=30075.0, using an AM
radio tuned in between stations to pick up the noise.
In this thread
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=30207.0, he did more
experiments and
PhilNYC Wrote:
Yep, it certainly sounds like nonsense...no question about that. And I
have never tried any of the Bybee products separate from my Dodson DAC,
so I couldn't tell you any A/B-comparison-type experiences. But Ralph's
engineering resume speaks for itself, and there's all sorts
opaqueice Wrote:
Anyway, we're at risk of falling very far off topic...
Yep...and despite taking an interest in learning how things work (or
don't work), the ultimate test is whether you like the sound or not...
:-)
--
PhilNYC
Sonic Spirits Inc.
http://www.sonicspirits.com
PhilNYC Wrote:
Here's a good article describing why you should use a 1.5m digital
cable
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue14/spdif.htm
Yikes. Any RF engineer that knows his transmission line theory and has
experience with transmission line measurements knows that the
information
andy_c Wrote:
Yikes. Any RF engineer that knows his transmission line theory and has
experience with transmission line measurements knows that the
information in that linked article is completely false.
FWIW, the author of the article (Steve Nugent) was a transmission line
engineer for
A transmission line engineer for Intel? That's too funny. There really
is no such thing as a transmission line engineer per se. That's like
being the proverbial Maytag repairman. People that work on things like
radar systems or wireless products that work in the GHz range must know
their
Well, I may have called it the wrong name, but I do know he's worked on
some stuff for Intel involving long distance data transmission systems
(or something like that). Perhaps the fact that Intel was never really
successful in that market says something...? I'll tell you that having
met Steve
andy_c wrote:
PhilNYC Wrote:
Here's a good article describing why you should use a 1.5m digital
cable
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue14/spdif.htm
Yikes. ... [snip] .. engineer knows that the
information in that linked article is completely false.
The referenced article
pfarrell Wrote:
By most standards, the SPDIF signal is just barely in the RF world, or
at least not in serious RF mode. There are only 1.5 mega bits per
second, just above the AM radio band.
There is also the minor detail that no wire with RCA connectors on it
can be 75 ohm, which is
andy_c Wrote:
Just to nitpick a bit, the bandwidth in the analog domain is determined
by the required rise/fall time of the pulses, not by the number of
pulses per unit time. Since the rise/fall times must be short compared
to the pulse width (time duration of a single bit), the equivalent
andy_c wrote:
By most standards, the SPDIF signal is just barely in the RF world, or
at least not in serious RF mode. There are only 1.5 mega bits per
second, just above the AM radio band.
Just to nitpick a bit, the bandwidth in the analog domain is determined
by the required rise time of the
seanadams wrote:
Precisely right... and maintaining the slope of those transitions
matters a lot if you care about jitter.
What? You mean real world wiring doesn't instantantously
keep the square wave, with infinite slope, moving down the wire? :-)
Isn't the actual, delivered slope, or
Whenever digital audio gets mentioned, it seems talk of jitter is not
far behind. Can someone provide for my reading pleasure a reasonably
scientific experiment or white paper that measures the audibility of
jitter, especially pertaining to the ranges commonly associated with
decent audio gear
pfarrell Wrote:
Isn't the actual, delivered slope, or triggering voltage, constant
with a connection that is made and left in place for a few million
cycles? let alone the months that more real world users keep their
gear connected?
I'm not sure if I follow you. I was not suggesting
andy_c Wrote:
Q for sleepysurf: Is there a cable connecting the analog out of the SB
to your preamp?
If so, try the experiment with this cable disconnected.
If there is no such cable, or the problem persists when the cable is
removed, try using TosLink between the SB and Benchmark.
sleepysurf Wrote:
I posted my doorbell chime extender observation solely because, IMHO, it
offers *objective* proof that *something* has changed.
Yep. To tell the truth, when I first read your post, I thought the
whole situation was extremely bizarre. But after thinking about it for
a
I assumed the transmitter was hard wired. Now we learn that it probably
has a microphone pickup. I bet it's a fluke.
Just try the experiment a few more times and you will find that muting
the DAC makes no difference at all. Ideally, have someone else change
the setting on the flip of a coin so
mauidan Wrote:
What pulse transformer are you using?
A properly designed pulse transformer should have no problems
with rise time or bandwidth.
Is there a pulse transformer on the AES/EBU output?
I think you misunderstood me - neither has problems but when we are
talking about
PhilNYC Wrote:
I just tried this...very cool. Lower noise floor, reduced harshness in
the vocals and cymbals...still not where my reference transport is, but
I'm pretty surprised that the gap closed as much as it did.
Interesting...
If you have a system good enough to hear the difference
Yeah, I've been thinking about that recently (my music is ripped to
Apple Lossless at the moment). Will certainly do the test at some
point soon...
--
PhilNYC
Sonic Spirits Inc.
http://www.sonicspirits.com
PhilNYC's
sleepysurf Wrote:
Now, this begs the question (for Sean I suppose), WHY does this work???
It certainly sounds like there could be a permanent software fix for
this issue.
That's astonishing. If it is really 100% reproducible then I would
start by trying to pare down the system to a
1 - 100 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
