tomsi42 Wrote:
Have you tried any of the latest 6.2.2 beta versions? I have been using
it since late march and FLAC playback sounds OK now.
Tom
ok, thanks for the tip!
I haven't brought up the courage to update all software yet..
--
P Floding
P Floding Wrote:
ok, thanks for the tip!
I haven't brought up the courage to update all software yet..
It isn't as scary as it sounds. You can always reinstall the old
6.2.1 version if you don't like the beta.
It is also a good idea to look at the beta thread in this forum to see
if any
dnighorn Wrote:
Quote:
JA, it was nice knowing you. I'm sure you will be reticent to come
back. Every time you do, people attack you, or at the least, question
things you have written or haven't written, reviewed or didn't review,
heard or didn't hear, tested or didn't test.
Goes with
Sorry to keep speculating etc., but hopefully the analog output will get
a great review. I think the analog sounds great, and lots of people with
setups much better than mine seem to agree. I would rather invest in a
quality vinyl rig, for the special listening sessions, and 'tolerate'
the SB as
Moreover, maybe also test it not only to something like the ML but with
a more pedestrian DAC, like a Lavry or Benchmark (ie, sub $1,000).
--
highdudgeon
SB3, Lavry DA10, Sony DVP 555es, Bel Canto Pre2, Carver Sunfire, Rane
DEQ60L, Harbeth Monitor 40s, ACI Force subs
John Atkinson Wrote:
Hi Kim, that's not actually what I wrote. In the newsletter piece -- see
http://www.stereophile.com/images/newsletter/306Bstph.html -- I was
auditioning the SB3's digital output into my Mark Levinson No.30.5 D/A.
I will be writing about the sound quality of the SB3's
And please John, don't forget to try using a potato as power supply.
Only then will the SB's true potential be unleashed.
--
Skunk
Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685
View this thread:
opaqueice Wrote:
No offense to Mr. Atkinson, but should we really care what he wrote?
Yes, some people care. Obviously- if they buy the magazine. Your post's
on the other hand- we are forced to read.
You should start your own magazine...
--
Skunk
John, there has been lots of discussion of the low jitter on the SB3, I
would be curious how it measures overall.
Also, you really should try (perhaps in a follow up) to report on the
effect of power supply upgrades on measured response, as well as your
sonic impressions. I am sure the guys as
JA, it was nice knowing you. I'm sure you will be reticent to come back.
Every time you do, people attack you, or at the least, question things
you have written or haven't written, reviewed or didn't review, heard
or didn't hear, tested or didn't test. As the Bard once wrote,
Methinks thou Slim
ezkcdude Wrote:
...but I for one, don't think JA should ever have to apologize for his
career (and hobby?) choices.
Neither do I - actually I wish more people would make such a choice,
because audio is something I care about and I'd love to see a bigger
group of people interested.
There
John Atkinson Wrote:
Hi Kim, that's not actually what I wrote. In the newsletter piece -- see
http://www.stereophile.com/images/newsletter/306Bstph.html -- I was
auditioning the SB3's digital output into my Mark Levinson No.30.5 D/A.
I will be writing about the sound quality of the SB3's
Quote:
JA, it was nice knowing you. I'm sure you will be reticent to come
back. Every time you do, people attack you, or at the least, question
things you have written or haven't written, reviewed or didn't review,
heard or didn't hear, tested or didn't test. As the Bard once wrote,
Methinks
Just imagine the pandemonium if (the hilarious) HiFi+ said that an SB3
really did knock the socks off a serious dCS, Chord, Esoteric (or more
likely knowing them some piece of crap from 1983) transport...
Immediate collapse of so-called high-end audio market in the UK...oh no
of course we'd
Phil Leigh Wrote:
Just imagine the pandemonium if (the hilarious) HiFi+ said that an SB3
really did knock the socks off a serious dCS, Chord, Esoteric (or more
likely knowing them some piece of crap from 1983) transport...
Immediate collapse of so-called high-end audio market in the
Hi,
As a reviewer of the scandinavian hi-fi magasine HIGH fidelily looking
at wi-fi product I am doing the best to be up with what is going on.
And it is not vere expensive ´products, so you can't expect a huge
marketing machine behind these - for us - exiting products.
Slim Devices was not
Kim Kruse Wrote:
Slim Devices was not very known in Scandinavian. But I must say, that
when I first came into contact with Slim Devices, they where acting
very quickly, so today I am able to review three products: One from
Philips, one from Roku and one from Slim Devices.
Great. When
Stereophile actually did review the SB3 in their newsletter recently:
http://www.stereophile.com/images/newsletter/306Bstph.html
Most of his comments are favorable, although he claims his reference CD
player sounds slightly better used as a transport to the same external
DAC (a claim I give no
ezkcdude Wrote:
I think we'll see this year whether Apple can do it themselves. The only
reason I think Apple won't compete with Slim Devices is because of their
Nazi-like iTunes copy protection schemes. As storage becomes cheaper,
and bandwidth (internet and wireless streaming) becomes
Thanks for all the replies, but I'm afraid that I still don't understand
why the SB doesn't have a higher profile in the hi-fi press or why in
many cases it isn't reviewed at all. Here are a few potential reasons:
The SB is too cheap. But this can't be because why then did John
Atkinson choose
sprev Wrote:
Thanks for all the replies, but I'm afraid that I still don't understand
why the SB doesn't have a higher profile in the hi-fi press or why in
many cases it isn't reviewed at all. Here are a few potential reasons:
The SB is too cheap. But this can't be because why then did
P, no need to get so technical. Yes, I meant M$. I realize they didn't
invent the idea behind DOS, but hey, they did trademark it, right? I
don't think we have to worry about SD becoming $D, but I was trying to
make a point!
--
ezkcdude
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 18:07 -0800, ezkcdude wrote:
P, no need to get so technical. Yes, I meant M$. I realize they didn't
invent the idea behind DOS, but hey, they did trademark it, right?
Trademark DOS? No. Disk Operating System was a common term
long before the IBM PC was invented. They
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 18:46 -0800, ezkcdude wrote:
Now, you're just being a dork.
Name calling makes your argument stronger?
Who cares about the acronym? Microsoft
popularized DOS and made it a commercial venture. MS-DOS wasn't such a
bad thing. In fact, isn't it still being used in the
Sorry, about the name-calling. That was out of line.
As for the other stuff, I'm not sure how much easier they can make this
stuff. There's a lot of technology to wrangle to make the SB work,
right? I think we'll see this year whether Apple can do it themselves.
The only reason I think Apple
The complexity will work itself out eventually. I remember the early
days of PCs when I had to juggle interrupts everytime I made a hardware
change to the machine. That all got sorted out, and the difficulties in
setting up networks will do the same.
What won't sort itself out is the library
In addition to few reviews of SB (although Stuff Magazine has had it in
their top ten for ages - currently number 3 but showing the SB2 and at
a higher price than it was when it was phased out) no magazine reviews
I have seen anywhere on digital music players, home or portable, ever
mention the
I second this.
I have a worrying feeling that the developers want to finialise the
design before going public in a big way.
The interface for the SB is pathetic in comparison to the Sonos for
example even though the back end features wipe the floor with the
Sonos.
Keep in mind that Mr Joe
$$
$$ he'll just want to know why he doesn't have a beautiful wireless lcd
panel
$$
A tablet PC is the most elegant solution, and typing a Web address into
the browser of it couldn't be easier.
I do wish the GUI's were better, but I haven't contributed- and I liked
the price of the Squeezebox-
I was also surprised that Stereophile picked the AirPort Express. I can
only assume they just haven't got around to reviewing the SqueezeBox.
There's no way that one would pick the AirPort over the SqueezeBox,
unless price is the only criterion, which it is obviously not for any
Stereophile
Just for fun, I did a search for squeezebox on the Stereophile
website. No links were found, but interestingly there were sponsored
links (I assume from Google or someone like that), one of which was
Slim Devices, and one was Sonos.
ezkcdude Wrote:
I was also surprised that Stereophile
31 matches
Mail list logo
