P Floding Wrote:
A word of caution though:
Just hooking up something to you hifi is most likely to alter the sound
of the system, regardless of wether you are listening to it or not!
The only exception is hooking up things via optical. (Although there is
still a possibility that the
I'm using a Glass toslink cable that asylum folk have commented as a
good toslink cable. You can get them relatively cheap, around $30 or
so. Since you're using a pretty nice coax cable (Stereovox) I'd be
interested in hearing your impression vs. a good glass toslink...
ie:
Mike Hanson Wrote:
For now, we'll assume that my test was flawed. I'm still somewhat
curious, though, as this summation would suggest that I'm losing data
with Toslink (enough to cause a notable change in the sound), but it
doesn't really sound bad; it's just not as good as the coax
rmasson Wrote:
That is really funny. It's really quite interesting the number of SB
owners with the same thinking...perhaps it should be IKEA - The New
Audiophile Standard. I guess it's better then the IKEA - Swedish For
Out Of Stock.
IKEA LACK
I have used these cheap tables for about 15
Andrew B. Wrote:
There was, to my ears, a very obvious difference. The SB3, in
comparison, sounded shut in - the imaging was smaller and less solid,
the frequency extension at the low end was obviously lacking. It was not
in any way unpleasant but just less vital or alive than the Benchmark
[this is long and only sometimes on topic]
I did some more-or-less double blind listening tests using a friend of
mine who is a singer in a band (and used to be a choir boy!) as the
golden ears. We were comparing the Meridian 203 into the DAC1 vs the
SB3 into the DAC1. Both signals then passed
Andrew B. Wrote:
There was, to my ears, a very obvious difference. The SB3, in
comparison, sounded shut in - the imaging was smaller and less solid,
the frequency extension at the low end was obviously lacking. It was not
in any way unpleasant but just less vital or alive than the
ezkcdude Wrote:
I thought the DAC-1 is supposed to remove jitter through a combination
of buffering and re-clocking. If that is the case, shouldn't the
digital signal be perfectly reconstructed in either case (toslink or
coax)? This doesn't jive well with what I've been thinking, if you
ezkcdude Wrote:
I can believe the comparison between different DACs. If you do indeed
hear a difference going through the DAC-1, though, either you're ears
are wrong, or the Benchmark literature is wrong.
Either is of course possible. I'd be inclined to believe the manual,
although I suppose
Andrew B. Wrote:
Either is of course possible. I'd be inclined to believe the manual,
although I suppose it is conceivable that the optical cable was somehow
so awful that it degraded the sound. Anyway, the key point was that the
DAC1 was better than the DAC in the SB3 by some margin - just
Mike Anderson Wrote:
^^^ That's hilarious -- I just bought a piece at Ikea yesterday using
the same thinking!
That is really funny. It's really quite interesting the number of SB
owners with the same thinking...perhaps it should be IKEA - The New
Audiophile Standard. I guess it's better then
If you are going for furniture rather than 'rack' then I agree
wholeheartedly - I have used some lightweight Ikea tables as hi-fi
supports and they actually employed a very similar honeycombe
construction to Russ Andrews excellent Torlyte(?) offerings!! (you find
this out when you try to drill a
rmasson Wrote:
For those who are curious, I could find no audible difference between
the coax and optical digital out when fed through the DAC-1. This is
not really surprising though as the DAC-1 is apparently designed to
eliminate all jitter effects.
I expected the same, but in my case the
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 11:08 -0800, Mike Hanson wrote:
rmasson Wrote:
For those who are curious, I could find no audible difference between
the coax and optical digital out when fed through the DAC-1. This is
not really surprising though as the DAC-1 is apparently designed to
eliminate
rmasson Wrote:
In comparing the SB3 analogue to the SB3 digital via the DAC 1 there is
one important note to make: The output level on the SB3 analogue is
significantly higher then the DAC-1 so this needs to be adjusted for
prior to doing any valid comparison.
You should find they're
rmasson Wrote:
I finally got the time to make a good critical comparison between the
SB3 analogue output and the SB3 via digital out to the Benchmark DAC-1.
What do you have downstream? I'd think that makes a big difference;
it'd be a lot harder to hear the difference on a $300 receiver +
rmasson Wrote:
In comparing the SB3 analogue to the SB3 digital via the DAC 1 there is
one important note to make: The output level on the SB3 analogue is
significantly higher then the DAC-1 so this needs to be adjusted for
prior to doing any valid comparison. My current amp (PS-Audio
On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 14:01 -0800, mkozlows wrote:
One thing that's interesting to do in those kinds of situations is to
do the initial test, then adjust the levels to equalize it (that is,
turn up the one you thought was worse by a titch), then listen some
more. It's surprising how often the
rmasson, I'm also curious what your downstream equipment is. I've got a
DAC1 on (back)order, and plan to feed it directly to my Sunfire Amp.
--
sleepysurf
squeezebox2 (with elpac wm075-1950-760 linear psu) direct to amp, 300gb
buffalo linkstation (remote flac audio file storage), sunfire
I do not think it is at all a valid test until it is a sound equalized
double blind test.
--
gjrhine
Gary
For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality
of life, please press three.
gjrhine's
20 matches
Mail list logo
