krochat;156843 Wrote:
> Beats me - I don't know how to configure them, and need the one display
> to tell me what I'm listening to. You can see the Transporter VU meters
> on the last (fourth) video at
> http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/transporter-video-tour-199926.php
>
> Here
P Floding;156840 Wrote:
> Are they nicer than the VU meters you can get on the SB3?
Beats me - I don't know how to configure them, and need the one display
to tell me what I'm listening to. You can see the Transporter VU meters
on the last (fourth) video at
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-en
krochat;156792 Wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I've now had a Transporter for a week and have done some testing with
> it and the SB3 into my TacT system (see signature). In all cases, the
> Transporter and SB3 were synchronized as to volume and source
> material.
>
> There are a large number of permutatio
jhm731;156831 Wrote:
> Are you're going to send the Transporter back for a refund?
I'm going to keep it another week to give it a fair shake (you know, it
case it wants to "break in"). If everything's the same after that it
will be returned.
So far, I really like the VU meters and have hardly u
krochat;156792 Wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I've now had a Transporter for a week and have done some testing with
> it and the SB3 into my TacT system (see signature). In all cases, the
> Transporter and SB3 were synchronized as to volume and source
> material.
>
> There are a large number of permutatio
Folks,
I've now had a Transporter for a week and have done some testing with
it and the SB3 into my TacT system (see signature). In all cases, the
Transporter and SB3 were synchronized as to volume and source
material.
There are a large number of permutations, and I've tried many of them.
I gues
richidoo;155982 Wrote:
> Glad you have found the holy grail in your system, sounds like it was in
> their all along waiting to get out! When I tested a Tact it had no
> analog inputs but made that kind of imporvement right off the bat,
> using a borrowed super high end digital coax cable.
>
> Tw
Glad you have found the holy grail in your system, sounds like it was in
their all along waiting to get out! When I tested a Tact it had no
analog inputs but made that kind of imporvement right off the bat,
using a borrowed super high end digital coax cable.
Two tongue in cheek comments:
1. Are y
davber;155842 Wrote:
> Mr. P Floding,
>
> I am thinking about getting a TacT RCS for my SB3 and also intend to
> use it from both SB3 (digitally) and from my AV system (analogously
> ;-)), so I wonder:
>
> 1. Does the TacT (with an A/D module installed...) provide a "no gain"
> mode so the volu
Mr. P Floding,
I am thinking about getting a TacT RCS for my SB3 and also intend to
use it from both SB3 (digitally) and from my AV system (analogously
;-)), so I wonder:
1. Does the TacT (with an A/D module installed...) provide a "no gain"
mode so the volume can be completely controlled by the
NewBuyer;153972 Wrote:
> Softwire (and others with glass optical cables), I often hear about
> these types of cables being very fragile because of the glass material
> used. I'm wondering, just how fragile are we talking about here? Does
> the user need to be worried everytime the cable starts to
SoftwireEngineer;143467 Wrote:
> Try this one from partsexpress. It should be better, I think.
>
> http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=180-952
>
> I have the sound professionals one and I think both are same because
> they have the same number of fibres - 65.
>
> htt
ncpl;153288 Wrote:
> I must be blind..I just cannot see where you are turning off the
> analogue o/p of your SB3. Player setting ? Server setting ?
>
> TIA
Player settings -> Audio -> Preamp volume control -> 63
--
P Floding
-
I must be blind..I just cannot see where you are turning off the
analogue o/p of your SB3. Player setting ? Server setting ?
TIA
--
ncpl
ncpl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6305
View this
jhm731;151773 Wrote:
> Since I removed all the boards for upgrades, I've cleaned and treated
> all internal connections. After seeing what happens to SST when it
> dries out, I stopped using it. Stabilant 22 is a better option, but
> it's still not as effective as Rubycon ZLGs & Oscons, SC shield
P Floding;151725 Wrote:
> I would like to try out a "full enchilada", but this is hard here in the
> UK. What internal contacts did you treat, and in what way?
>
> Anyway, the latest tweaks (extra cable, shorted inputs, SST) takes
> things to a whole new level which I wouldn't even compare to h
jhm731;151719 Wrote:
> I've tried the contact enhancements, IMO, the improvement is
> nowhere near the other upgrades I listed.
I would like to try out a "full enchilada", but this is hard here in
the UK. What internal contacts did you treat, and in what way?
Anyway, the latest tweaks (extra c
P Floding;151696 Wrote:
> I have only replaced the power supply, and treated all contacs.
> It may be "only" in terms of work, but it is massive in terms of
> performance improvement.
I've tried the contact enhancements, IMO, the improvement is
nowhere near the other upgrades I listed.
--
jhm
jhm731;151693 Wrote:
> I agree, "Money doesn't have to equate audio superiority."
>
> Sleestack found the Aberdeen NorthStar Transport also outperformed his
> more expensive Esoteric gear.
>
> Sleestack and other TacT users that have heard both the SB and Aberdeen
> NorthStar Transport, prefer
P Floding;151641 Wrote:
> I don't think I have compared anything with anyone's system?
>
> I have used a pair of Audiophysics Caldera speakers (retailed at $20k)
> in my house (I have them in storage at the moment), but currently use
> Yamaha NS-2000 instead. Money doesn't have to equate audio s
Cost - quality = "NOT"!
--
Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28307
___
jhm731;151630 Wrote:
> You must have a remarkable system, if you think it compares to
> Sleestack's gear.
>
> Other than the Aberdeen PSU, what upgrades have you done to your RCS
> and SB, and what's the rest of your system?
I don't think I have compared anything with anyone's system?
I have u
P Floding;150870 Wrote:
> My current setup sounds absolutely NOTHING LIKE just hooking up the SB3
> to the TacT! So any comparisons like the one you mentioned is not
> relevant.
>
> Lets put it this way, if I had compared the SB3 straight with the
> Transporter and the Transporter sounded like m
Update: Seems the SST does its job pretty well as I haven't had to move
any of the contacts and the sound remains spectacularly good. (And it
is surprising what recordings turn out to sound most realistic now!)
I would be interested to hear of anyone else with an SB and a TacT RCS
who have tried
Ironically, the best recording so far I've listened to with the new
amazing sound quality, is a recording of an LP. A recording I've done
myself. The LP is Vangelis "China". (Recorded off a Michell Orbe, SME
V, Kontrapunkt B, Black Cube -into a LynxONE.)
Admittedly, listning to various things tak
krell;150819 Wrote:
> Could you provide some detailed pics of this setup along with perhaps a
> drawing or schematic of the "shorting/grounding" interconnect you
> constructed. Im sure some of us will want to experiment...
I'll see what I can do. Have to open an image-shack type account.
Any
jhm731;150803 Wrote:
> No, I haven't heard your set up, and you haven't heard a fully upgraded
> Aberdeen 2.2X or an Aberdeen NorthStar.
>
> I live in the USA.
>
> Please see Sleestack's feedback on the Aberdeen NorthStar. He's tried
> the SB3 and Transporter.
>
> PS- the Aberdeen upgrades to
P Floding;150799 Wrote:
> Yes. And the analogue RCA is especially adapted for this task as well,
> with a short on the input side, no signal lead, and a 4.7kOhm resistor
> on the output side. The SB's analogue output signal has been muted as
> well.
Could you provide some detailed pics of this s
P Floding;150757 Wrote:
> You obviously haven't head my setup!
> Are you near Oxford, UK?
No, I haven't heard your set up, and you haven't heard a fully upgraded
Aberdeen 2.2X or an Aberdeen NorthStar.
I live in the USA.
Please see Sleestack's feedback on the Aberdeen NorthStar. He's tried
the
krochat;150798 Wrote:
>
>
> I'd characterize my relationship with my TacT gear as more of a
> love/hate relationship!
>
> Regards,
> Kim
That goes w/o saying. I think all experienced TACT users share your
sentiments there.
--
Sleestack
*headphone:* singlepower sds-xlr at, classe sacd2, h
krell;150783 Wrote:
> I have been following this thread with great interest but seem to have
> gotten confused a bit along the way. Ok, if understand correctly, you
> are currently running the following:
> 1. All unused analog RCA inputs on the TACT shorted with shorting
> plugs.
> 2. Digital co
Sleestack;150795 Wrote:
> Are you the other Korean Kim that loves his TACT gear?
Sorry, I'm English/French. Kim was a popular name to give a baby boy
back in the 50's.
I'd characterize my relationship with my TacT gear as more of a
love/hate relationship!
Regards,
Kim
--
krochat
--
SB
Are you the other Korean Kim that loves his TACT gear?
I haven't tried that. I should take the time to try that with the
Esoteric P-03 as well, as I can output that signal at multiples of 48
or 44.1.
krochat;150789 Wrote:
> I and other Tact owners think the sample rate converter in the TacT
Sleestack;150787 Wrote:
> While I feel that the Transporter is an excellent piece that I happily
> use for 90% of my listening, the North Star via AES and w/ upsampling
> on, achieves perfect transparency and adds a smoothness to the TACT
> setup that I have yet to hear w/ any other transport.
I
I use an Aberdeen modified TACT TCSMKII, RCS2.2.XP and BOZ 216/2220s in
my HT and 2.2 setups. I use an Aberdeen modified North Star transport
and Transporter in my 2.2 setup. Personally, I feel that the North
Star transport is the best redbook transport for the TACT units. I
moved my Esoteric D-
I have been following this thread with great interest but seem to have
gotten confused a bit along the way. Ok, if understand correctly, you
are currently running the following:
1. All unused analog RCA inputs on the TACT shorted with shorting
plugs.
2. Digital coax from the SB to the TACT and tr
P Floding;150752 Wrote:
>
> YMMV, but I haven't heard any CD playback system that approaches the
> sound I have at the moment.
>
> As before my preamp is a TacT RCS 2.2x with room correction in use. It
> also has a power supply upgrade by Aberdeen, and some internal contact
> treatment tweaks b
jhm731;150756 Wrote:
> Try the Aberdeen Northstar transport and forget about the SB.
You obviously haven't head my setup!
Are you near Oxford, UK?
--
P Floding
P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.ph
I'd just like to give an update on the progress on these tweaks.
I eliminated one of the two analogue grounding interconnects, since I
figured nothing good could come from having more ground loops.
Generally I needed to move the connector often to maintain the improved
sound quality. The lazier
Phil Leigh;145135 Wrote:
> PF
> I've been trying to follow this but got a bit lost - are you saying
> that connecting the ground of the SB to the ground of the TACT is
> basically what makes the difference (ie the normal SPDIF ground
> connection doesn't do the job)?
> Thanks
> Phil
Yes.
But sig
PF
I've been trying to follow this but got a bit lost - are you saying
that connecting the ground of the SB to the ground of the TACT is
basically what makes the difference (ie the normal SPDIF ground
connection doesn't do the job)?
Thanks
Phil
--
Phil Leigh
khewa;144798 Wrote:
> any idea why the connectors has to be fiddle around to maintain the
> sound quality ? maybe it's oxidation of the conacts, but oxidation
> should not occur that fast.
>
>
> looks like the old analogue format still has a lot of life in it yet.
> I've been thinking about th
khewa;144797 Wrote:
> thanks for the feedback. Now it's much clearer what Naim was talking
> about. I've always wondered what what were actual benefits of the DIN
> connectors compared to the RCA connectors.
> Coming back to that point, despite what Naim says, does it really make
> an observable
P Floding;144743 Wrote:
> As it turns out it seems I have to fiddle with these connectors at
> least every day to maintain great sound.
>
any idea why the connectors has to be fiddle around to maintain the
sound quality ? maybe it's oxidation of the conacts, but oxidation
should not occur that
P Floding;144744 Wrote:
> Not necessarily, as the Naim rationale for the DIN solution is to avoid
> signal ground loops that result from using two separate interconnects
> (left and right). Not to stop RF entering unused connectors.
thanks for the feedback. Now it's much clearer what Naim was ta
khewa;144701 Wrote:
> Is Naim gear affected by the unconnected input sources as well ? Naim
> has always pride itself on it's DIN connectors as opposed to the RCA
> connectors claiming that it is superior compared to RCA connectors. If
> Naim is also affected, then all those claims are just marke
khewa;144616 Wrote:
> Hi P Floding,
> I would like to get the same sonic nirvana as you did. Did you modifiy
> your SB3 to get the level of sonic quality that you're currently
> getting ? is the linear power supply from Elpac ?
I use a linear power supply, yes. It is not the Elpac. I haven't tes
jampot;144658 Wrote:
> I am in the UK and bought these -
>
> http://www.robertschofieldaudio.co.uk/browse.php?section=Accessories
>
> the cheapies, £1 each.
>
> On the same page are offerings for Din type to suit old Quad and Naim.
>
> This guy is fairly local to me in Lancashire and has alw
I am in the UK and bought these -
http://www.robertschofieldaudio.co.uk/browse.php?section=Accessories
the cheapies, £1 each.
On the same page are offerings for Din type to suit old Quad and Naim.
This guy is fairly local to me in Lancashire and has always given me
great srvice on bespoke cab
P Floding;144197 Wrote:
> Update:
>
> For the RCA cabling that grounds the SB3 to the TacT via the unused
> analogue outputs/inputs I created dedicated left and right cables:
>
> The signal ground (neutral) lead runs as as usual, but signal was
> removed and instead the input side was shorted
P Floding;143835 Wrote:
> OK, thanks for the info!
>
> I noticed today that some of the magic from yesterday wasn't there. Of
> course, audio memory is horribly unreliable, but memory of the general
> feeling of being there and being drawn into the performance is more
> reliable. I wasn't drawn
Just in case anyone reading this in UK also try
http://www.russandrews.com/ check out 'shorties' in Miscellaneous
Accessories - I have them on all inputs of my Meridian 502 preamp as I
too noticed difference when trying to audition DAC's and compare them
with analogue output from SB3 - removed ana
(There's a post above with a link to shorteners and to caps).
ah, here you go:
Random examples from googling:
http://www.audioadvisor.com/store/pr...Attribute_1=12
http://www.wallcoinc.com/Calrad_30_4...l22-30-486.htm
Here's another:
http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?ddaccstwek&1163466344
jampot;143249 Wrote:
> Could the 'vacant' analogue inputs on the Tact be picking up RF?
>
> plugging in the SB analogue cable connection would stop it.
>
> I don't presume to properly understand why, and hesitate to propose
> anything that may smell of snake oil, but RF shortners for unused RCA
Update:
For the RCA cabling that grounds the SB3 to the TacT via the unused
analogue outputs/inputs I created dedicated left and right cables:
The signal ground (neutral) lead runs as as usual, but signal was
removed and instead the input side was shorted and the output side was
connected to gr
joncourage;144140 Wrote:
> Thanks. (I'm good on ins/outs, hee hee - the practical stuff is easy,
> it's the electronics theory that gets over my head.)
>
> Far as my original q - I was thinking about plugging the SB's analog
> outs into unused analog ins on my receiver. Any reason to think this
P Floding;143830 Wrote:
> You don't want to "send" any unused inputs to any other equipment, as
> that will create ground loops that can only degrade sound. Every phono
> socket (female) has signal and ground right there (ground is the
> collar).
>
> I have found the TacT to be very sensitive, a
SoftwireEngineer;143669 Wrote:
> Dont get distracted by some marketing bullets written by misguided
> product marketeting/managers.
> Glass toslinks have surely less jitter. Electrical cables I find are
> just 'hit and miss' when their impedence matches the output/input
> impedence of your equipm
joncourage;143760 Wrote:
> Interesting, and a not terribly expensive penalty for those who can't
> DIY.
>
> Given your results I'm very tempted to get a set to put on unused
> inputs on my integrated receiver.
>
> As far as then grounding (is that the right term? I think you get my
> drift in a
Interesting, and a not terribly expensive penalty for those who can't
DIY.
Given your results I'm very tempted to get a set to put on unused
inputs on my integrated receiver.
As far as then grounding (is that the right term? I think you get my
drift in any case) the SB3 by plugging the (unused)
P Floding;143534 Wrote:
> I made them myself by shorting a normal male RCA.
> However, if you accidentally put one of these on an output you may blow
> something. Safer would be a shielding cap, but I'm not sure if it is as
> effective (or more effective!). Random examples from googling:
>
> htt
P Floding;143533 Wrote:
> I'm not sure what exactly you are thinking of, but personally I'm not
> going to pay for gold plated optical cabling. Sounds like the worst
> possible surface treatment, BTW.
Dont get distracted by some marketing bullets written by misguided
product marketeting/managers.
joncourage;143488 Wrote:
> So where would one obtain some of the aforementioned magical RF Input
> Shortener thingies? :-)
I made them myself by shorting a normal male RCA.
However, if you accidentally put one of these on an output you may blow
something. Safer would be a shielding cap, but I'm
flattop100;143526 Wrote:
> Am I the only one who does a double-take at Parts Express' website?
I'm not sure what exactly you are thinking of, but personally I'm not
going to pay for gold plated optical cabling. Sounds like the worst
possible surface treatment, BTW.
--
P Floding
--
So where would one obtain some of the aforementioned magical RF Input
Shortener thingies? :-)
--
joncourage
joncourage's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2837
View this thread: http://forums.slimdev
P Floding;143289 Wrote:
> Thanks a bunch!
> I'll see if I can get them over here in the UK.
Try this one from partsexpress. It should be better, I think.
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=180-952
I have the sound professionals one and I think both are same because
jhm731;143439 Wrote:
> The TacT RCS's digital inputs are isolated from the unit's ground plane
> by pulse transformers. The analog inputs are connected to the ground
> plane. My guess is connecting the SB's analog outputs to the TacT
> allows noise from the SB to be shunted
> to the RCS's filtere
The TacT RCS's digital inputs are isolated from the unit's ground plane
by pulse transformers. The analog inputs are connected to the ground
plane. My guess is connecting the SB's analog outputs to the TacT
allows noise from the SB to be shunted
to the RCS's filtered ground plane.
--
jhm731
---
jbm0;143339 Wrote:
> Plausible. I'd guess that if there's a potential difference (DC or AC
> or both) between the two components, and there'a only the one (S/PDIF
> coax) copper interconnect between the two, its ground will end up doing
> the job of equalizing that potential. Since in single-en
OMG, OMG, OMG!!!
I just cannot believe the sound emminating from my hifi now!
NOW, I believe CD is better than LP (but I have yet to test LP with the
changes).
I made lots of shorting RCAs and two 4.7 kOhm RCAs to put on the SB3
just in case the output also received RF.
After putting the short
P Floding;143102 Wrote:
> My initial guess is that running multiple ground paths alters the ground
> reference noise available at the SPDIF receiver and/or transmitter.
Plausible. I'd guess that if there's a potential difference (DC or AC
or both) between the two components, and there'a only th
andy_c;143285 Wrote:
> Here's the link to the glass Toslink cables:
>
> http://uniqueproductsonline.com/gltodiopca.html
Thanks a bunch!
I'll see if I can get them over here in the UK.
--
P Floding
P Floding's Profile: h
Here's the link to the glass Toslink cables:
http://uniqueproductsonline.com/gltodiopca.html
--
andy_c
andy_c's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3128
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com
jampot;143249 Wrote:
> Could the 'vacant' analogue inputs on the Tact be picking up RF?
>
> plugging in the SB analogue cable connection would stop it.
>
> I don't presume to properly understand why, and hesitate to propose
> anything that may smell of snake oil, but RF shortners for unused RCA
Could the 'vacant' analogue inputs on the Tact be picking up RF?
plugging in the SB analogue cable connection would stop it.
I don't presume to properly understand why, and hesitate to propose
anything that may smell of snake oil, but RF shortners for unused RCA
inputs are widely available for v
andy_c;143107 Wrote:
> I don't have a TacT system, but your post reminded me of something I
> read over at Audio Circle. Dan Banquer was doing some EMI testing of
> his system that had an SB3 hooked up to his DAC with a coaxial
> connection. He used an AM radio to detect radiated EMI and got so
I don't have a TacT system, but your post reminded me of something I
read over at Audio Circle. Dan Banquer was doing some EMI testing of
his system that had an SB3 hooked up to his DAC with a coaxial
connection. He used an AM radio to detect radiated EMI and got some
really bad pickup. After r
77 matches
Mail list logo
