And that is not being talked about.
So.someone here has seen fit to point out my TDR work on AC.
Has anyone noticed that an important person here also does not like SC
transformers? Can we finally agree that they are mostly marketing
hype?
As for the bead...for those of you who did
ar-t;236631 Wrote:
The logic of paying 2-3X the cost of the unit to be improved, by
sometimes dubious means, escapes me.
That's because logic hasn't got anything to do with it.
--
opaqueice
opaqueice's Profile:
Hey Pat welcome to the Slim Devices forum. Looking forward to your
insights!
--
crooner
Customized dual chassis Super Squeezebox
EAD DSP-7000 Series III DAC with HDCD and mods.
VPI Scout with Benz Micro Glider M2
Marantz 10B tube FM tuner
Audio Research PH3, SP16L and VS110
Vandersteen 2Ce
acousticsguru;229431 Wrote:
I'll admit it, I'm new around here, but have spent several days reading
through hundreds if not thousands of posts here and on other boards,
and come to the conclusion that many, if not most (!) audiophiles are
looking for exactly the same product as I am: an
crooner;236650 Wrote:
Oh, BTW, who's the fella that doesn't like the SC transformers,
ezkcdude?
Sean Adams, IIRC.
--
opaqueice
opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234
View this
ezkcdude;229635 Wrote:
David, I read the dCS paper, actually a long time ago. If you get time,
here is a paper by Ashihara et al. (in AES, 2005) that shows *random
jitter is not detected unless greater than several hundred nanoseconds
(ns)*:
jhm731;230631 Wrote:
Contact www.mauimods.com or www.db-system.ms/
hmmm...so it is possible - thanks!
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some
acousticsguru;230829 Wrote:
11.2896MHz superclock from db System only, no other choice. Cost of this
modification 250 Euros (ca. 356 USD) - somewhat exorbitant.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Yes - not exactly a cheap mod. Also, not one I am contemplating at this
time. I find that
The XP is a pretty major rework of the 2.2X - the entire brain is
redone. The Altmann works perfectly with everything else. Your answer
is what TacT gave me though. :)
Vinnie at Red Wine Audio is going to do the surgery on my SB. I don't
believe he is generally offering SB mods any more but
Yeah, the Altmann is an awesome DAC. Mine would'nt work with my TacT
2.2XP, even after sending both pieces to TacT. So, the TacT went away
but I still have the Altmann.
I also have a Lessloss DAC which allows for clockery, of the superclock
kind. It will natively work with the clock frequency
I have done side-by-side experiments, albeit with a CD transport. Clock
linking sounded better in this context.
--
miklorsmith
miklorsmith's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4349
View this thread:
miklorsmith;230858 Wrote:
Yeah, the Altmann is an awesome DAC. Mine would'nt work with my TacT
2.2XP, even after sending both pieces to TacT. So, the TacT went away
but I still have the Altmann.
I also have a Lessloss DAC which allows for clockery, of the superclock
kind. It will
miklorsmith;230875 Wrote:
I have done side-by-side experiments, albeit with a CD transport. Clock
linking sounded better in this context.
I wouldn't disagree. Clock linking of a spinning transport with all its
noisy servos etc potentially messing with the SPDIF should sound
better...
Now,
If jitter-bugging isn't the theme of this thread then what is it?
As Sean said earlier, the only reason to use wordclock in the context
of hi-fi is to minimise jitter.
There are other techniques which also achieve similarly effective
results. Not just my opinion - I believe this to be a widely
Phil Leigh;230824 Wrote:
hmmm...so it is possible - thanks!
11.2896MHz superclock from db System only, no other choice. Cost of
this modification 250 Euros (ca. 356 USD) - somewhat exorbitant.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
--
acousticsguru
Phil Leigh;230845 Wrote:
I find that using the Altmann JISCO+UPCI in-between the SB3 SPDIF out
and the TACT SPDIF in (and then running the TACT at 96kHz to my DAC via
SPDIF) gives me what I perceive to be (rightly or wrongly) a
jitter-free sound.
I won't say this works to some extent, but
Phil Leigh;230874 Wrote:
If jitter-bugging isn't the theme of this thread then what is it?
Depends on how you're using the term: the avoidance of jitter, in my
terminology, is not the same as the cleaning up of a jittery signal.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
--
acousticsguru
CPC;230884 Wrote:
Who's going to do the clock mod on your SB?
That's what I'd like to know, too.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
--
acousticsguru
acousticsguru's Profile:
acousticsguru;230943 Wrote:
You do realise, however, that there are transports with lower intrinsic
jitter? So if jitter is what this discussion is about, I may be missing
your point.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Not spinning ones...
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path
acousticsguru;230942 Wrote:
Depends on how you're using the term: the avoidance of jitter, in my
terminology, is not the same as the cleaning up of a jittery signal.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
You can't avoid it - it is present in the source material (to some
extent) and then more
Phil Leigh;230960 Wrote:
You can't avoid it - it is present in the source material (to some
extent) and then more gets added...
I'm talking about the path: the point of clocking backwards is
avoidance, whereas jitter bugs are devices or in-built receiver chips
that clean up - at least that's
seanadams;230265 Wrote:
In fact the ASRC does make it quite unaffected by input jitter, although
personally I prefer to avoid the problem entirely by not using s/pdif to
transmit the clock.
And do what instead? Slave the source to the DAC?
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
--
acousticsguru;230375 Wrote:
And do what instead? Slave the source to the DAC?
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Definitely YES.
At present, all of the DACs wich have a masterclock inside require a
dedicated transport-that's why we have so many DAC wich can can work
only when slaved to the
betto;230382 Wrote:
Definitely YES.
At present, all of the DACs wich have a masterclock inside require a
dedicated transport-that's why we have so many DAC wich can can work
only when slaved to the source: such DACs are considered a universal
upgrade.
Now think of a Squeezebox wich can
So far the conversation has been:
1. I want an AES/EBU connection with word clock input on a
squeezebox.
2. Are you sure there's a difference? Did you test it blind?
3. Yes.
4. Blind with the latest jitter-immune DACs?
5. Hang on are they jitter immune or not?
6. Yes, we have measurements.
The original suggestion (a SB with some kind of higher-quality digital
out) was a bad one, in my opinion.
It's ideal having the DAC directly connected (as in, on the same
circuit board) to a clean data buffer. That's much simpler than trying
to slave one box to another, or design a jitter
opaqueice;230386 Wrote:
I think Sean was referring to a product known as the squeezebox.
Impossible: there the clock signal is embedded in the S/PDIF, and there
is no word clock input. He may have referred to the Transporter, which
you can slav to a DAC, but I may be forgiven for thinking that
opaqueice;230404 Wrote:
It's ideal having the DAC directly connected (as in, on the same circuit
board) to a clean data buffer. That's much simpler than trying to slave
one box to another, or design a jitter immune DAC. So why would you
want to spoil that ideal arrangement? If anything
opaqueice;230404 Wrote:
It's ideal having the DAC directly connected (as in, on the same circuit
board) to a clean data buffer. That's much simpler than trying to slave
one box to another, or design a jitter immune DAC. So why would you
want to spoil that ideal arrangement? If anything
darrenyeats;230399 Wrote:
So far the conversation has been:
1. I want an AES/EBU connection with word clock input on a
squeezebox.
2. Are you sure there's a difference? Did you test it blind?
3. Yes.
4. Blind with the latest jitter-immune DACs?
5. Hang on are they jitter immune
acousticsguru;230409 Wrote:
#2 has been answered (= by me)
is what I meant.
Regards, Darren
--
darrenyeats
SB3 / Inguz - Sony DAS-703ES DAC - Krell KAV-300i - PMC AB-1
Dell laptop - JVC UX-C30 mini system
acousticsguru;230405 Wrote:
Impossible: there the clock signal is embedded in the S/PDIF, and there
is no word clock input. He may have referred to the Transporter, which
you can slav to a DAC, but I may be forgiven for thinking that 1700 USD
extra for just that is out of the question.
I
I think what acoustic wants, and he can correct me, is a Transporter
with out the er. IOW, a Transporter minus the output stage. I would
also be interested in such a component, perhaps, with only a single
display. If that came in around $1000, I'm sure there would be plenty
of folks who would
opaqueice;230411 Wrote:
I think you're missing his point (or maybe I am), which was that the SB
and/or TP, when used with its internal DAC, avoids this problem
entirely.
If so, again, no disagreement, just the wrong thread. See the original
post, it's about what most audiophiles not born
ezkcdude;230412 Wrote:
I think what acoustic wants, and he can correct me, is a Transporter
with out the er. IOW, a Transporter minus the output stage. I would
also be interested in such a component, perhaps, with only a single
display. If that came in around $1000, I'm sure there would be
ezkcdude;230412 Wrote:
I think what acoustic wants, and he can correct me, is a Transporter
with out the er. IOW, a Transporter minus the output stage. I would
also be interested in such a component, perhaps, with only a single
display. If that came in around $1000, I'm sure there would be
seanadams;230299 Wrote:
The ferrite bead (usually not called an inductor) is there for EMI
suppression and should be left in place for regulatory compliance.
Although it smooths the waveform just slightly, I don't think it
materially affects jitter either way. The different TDR response is
acousticsguru;230225 Wrote:
I realise ezkcdude is able to defend himself and don't mean to patronize
you people, but that's probably not why he said that (Because there
aren't enough of you guys?), just that if there were more people like
me, that audiophile Squeezebox to replace one's
tonyptony;230497 Wrote:
Start here
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=41593.0
(you need this part for how it all started), then go here
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=45330.0
then here
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=45590.0
seanadams;230164 Wrote:
You're thinking of house sync, not word clock. House sync is so
_multiple_ devices (usually video+audio) can share one clock master.
Word clock (as in, a point-to-point audio sample clock going from the
DAC to the source) has no purpose except to reduce jitter.
tonyptony;230497 Wrote:
Start here
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=41593.0
(you need this part for how it all started), then go here
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=45330.0
then here
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=45590.0
ezkcdude;230395 Wrote:
Ironically, if not predictably, separating the DAC from the transport
only lead to more (different) problems, that took approximately another
decade to fix - and maybe not even?
Of course it wouldn't have, had it been done right from the start, as
in studio
Phil Leigh;230519 Wrote:
IF that is what you mean, then can someone advise as to how to get
wordclock fitted (modded) to my SB, TACT and DAC?
Now we're talking!
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
--
acousticsguru
TacT told me this is not possible - I asked. For the DAC, if it's
outfitted for this, you're good. Otherwise I wouldn't bother - it'll
be cheaper and probably better to buy one that was designed for such
from the outset.
For the SB, Vinnie at RWA has told me he will do this. When I get the
ezkcdude;230395 Wrote:
What's funny to me is that we had at least a decade there (the 90's)
where external D/A was considered the -sine qua non- for cd playback.
Ironically, if not predictably, separating the DAC from the transport
only lead to more (different) problems, that took
Phil Leigh;230519 Wrote:
IF that is what you mean, then can someone advise as to how to get
wordclock fitted (modded) to my SB, TACT and DAC?
Contact www.mauimods.com or www.db-system.ms/
--
jhm731
jhm731's
Just now reading the Stereophile reviews on Squeezebox and Transporter -
Wes Phillips saying in the latter: Is the Transporter perfect? If you
ask me, it's pretty darn close. I'm not sure I could ask for more, but
I could see a market for a Transporter that offered less. Remove its
DAC and source
acousticsguru;229887 Wrote:
How good of you to go into somewhat more detail, but why would the above
apply to S/PDIF only, and not AES/EBU as well (up to that point, you
took care to include both or compare)? Just a momentary lapse in your
train of thought?
Read my initial post at the
acousticsguru;229954 Wrote:
Can't possibly enumerate all the systems in which I was shown
differences between connections and/or cables in sighted comparisons
(note that difference with me does not automatically imply that it's
worthwhile, let alone from a quality-price-ratio perspective).
darrenyeats;23 Wrote:
I hate to repeat myself, but I'm going to. The technology has got
better.
Is this in answer to me or someone else? Judging from personal
experience, I would agree: as (perhaps only indirectly, and if you read
closely) follows from my super-lengthy impressions (or
darrenyeats;23 Wrote:
Couple such welcome developments with modern transports such as the SB3
or Transporter - which have no moving parts and no read-errors - and
you may find the differences in connections have become moot, since the
surrounding hardware is doing its digital job much
acousticsguru;230021 Wrote:
Thanks for you patience! You may have noticed that as interesting as
some of the contributions (not my own) to this thread may be, no one
seems to show much interest in what I wanted to know, though. I'm
basically being told there can be no difference by people
acousticsguru;229955 Wrote:
I probably will. Let me ask you this, though: you're with Slim
Devices/Logitech in some indirect or direct way (likely a staff
member/on their payroll), correct?
No. Dead wrong.
--
ezkcdude
There are 10 kind of people in the world - those who understand
acousticsguru;230021 Wrote:
Ironically, despite the apparent enthusiasm for the product, what each
of them (yourself included) has to say can only lead to the conclusion
that AES/EBU and WC input must have implemented into the Transporter
for no apparent reason other than to to have
acousticsguru;229954 Wrote:
snip
Oh, and ere I forget to remind us all, myself included, of the obvous:
what does all of the above prove? Nothing!
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Interesting - thanks for the detailed summary. Have you heard
differences with modern jitter-rejecting
darrenyeats;23 Wrote:
In theory it is possible to remove jitter from an incoming S/PDIF
stream without a shared clock.Well that's what Benchmark would have you
believe anyway ...
opaqueice;230035 Wrote:
Interesting - thanks for the detailed summary. Have you heard
differences with
opaqueice;230035 Wrote:
Interesting - thanks for the detailed summary. Have you heard
differences with modern jitter-rejecting DACs? The Benchmark DAC1 for
example? According to their measurements it's totally immune to input
jitter, so if you hear a difference it would have to be for
Generally spaking, I prefer to avoid a problem rather than try to
correct it.
Jitter is an analogue fenomenon that do harm the AD convertion only.
If you put the clock where it deserves to be -as near as possible to
the DAC- jitter becomes a no issue. Remeber: jitter is a transmission
issue.
ezkcdude;230034 Wrote:
You accuse us of not reading the entirety of your posts, which I admit I
am guilty. However, did you read my post on the last page? I clearly
said that I think there could be differences due to SPDIF vs. AES/EBU.
You even responded to me. Are you just playing the
acousticsguru;230060 Wrote:
Me? LOL! Are you? Of course I read every word, or else I wouldn't reply.
So what about this non-sequitur now: you're referring to my the
question remaining unanswered, to whom and why - where, specifically,
do you think you answered this?
Greetings from
ezkcdude;230062 Wrote:
Well, did you consider that they are targeting the professional market,
as well as the consumer? Professional gear is pretty much defined by
having these features. Is that clear enough?
Did more than once, most recently in the sentence you last quoted:
note no one's
ezkcdude;230046 Wrote:
Note it says nearly immune. And in the last paragraph, will be
reproduced without the *addition of any measurable jitter artifacts*.
That is pretty clever ad writing. It does not say totally immune to
jitter or 100% jitter rejection. With the ASRC they are using,
acousticsguru;230066 Wrote:
You realise your claim now looks to be that the Transporter is
primarily meant to be used in studio applications?
I don't presume to speak for SD, as I already said I have no
connection. However, I think the professional market is quite large,
and it would make
darrenyeats;230026 Wrote:
Importantly to this explanation, there is more to the sound of a DAC
than jitter.
Right - we may not know about all the variables, but agree there may be
unknown ones. This is why I like trusting my ears first and think
second.
darrenyeats;230026 Wrote:
There
opaqueice;230035 Wrote:
Interesting - thanks for the detailed summary. Have you heard
differences with modern jitter-rejecting DACs? The Benchmark DAC1 for
example? According to their measurements it's totally immune to input
jitter, so if you hear a difference it would have to be for
opaqueice;230072 Wrote:
I don't really agree. If the jitter induced artifacts can be shown to
be below the quantization noise floor - and in the case of the
Benchmark they're way below it, at least for 16 bit audio - that's 100%
jitter immunity by the only reasonable definition you could
Acoustics, you seem to know quite a bit about dCS gear, which by any
estimates looks droolworthy. So, let me ask you this. What are the
differences between the dCS Professional and Audiophile components?
From the website, I gather the Audiophile gear is *more expensive*
(counterintuitively to my
Patrick Dixon;230089 Wrote:
It isn't just the absolute noise level that determines whether something
is audible or not; otherwise you wouldn't be able to make out a
conversation in a crowded room - even when it's much quieter than the
background noise level.
If the Benchmark really was
betto;230047 Wrote:
If you put the clock where it deserves to be -as near as possible to the
DAC- jitter becomes a no issue. Remeber: jitter is a transmission
issue. Backwards jitter goes up but that's non harmful because can't
corrupt the data, so sound quality is not affected. It's just
Phil Leigh;230102 Wrote:
In other words, with a perfect bitstream and zero-jitter at the input
to theDAC would transports really sound different?
Personally I don't think they would.
A perfect clock cannot be transmitted, because it is impossible to
transmit or receive true square
ezkcdude;230111 Wrote:
A perfect clock cannot be transmitted, because it is impossible to
transmit or receive true square waves pulses. That would require
infinitely fast logic gates, which don't exist, and instant
transmission across cables without loss (which doesn't exist either).
I
Phil Leigh;230102 Wrote:
In other words, with a perfect bitstream and zero-jitter at the input to
theDAC would transports really sound different?
Personally I don't think they would.
Fully agreed.
Cheers, Betton
--
betto
ezkcdude;230113 Wrote:
Because there aren't enough of you guys?
Wordclock was not invented to treat jitter!
It was designed to eliminate the need for debate over who was the
clock master in a studio environment where every digital device is
potentially a having to generate/recover embedded
acousticsguru;230108 Wrote:
Remember where I started from: why do we audiophiles who want an audio
server to replace a CD-Transport, are attracted Slim Devices products
because one doesn't need to be a dedicated PC hacker to use them, have
to pay 1700 USD more to get a WC input (and, if
ezkcdude;230091 Wrote:
What are the differences between the dCS Professional and Audiophile
components? From the website, I gather the Audiophile gear is *more
expensive* (counterintuitively to my thinking). Both have balanced
inputs/outputs, word clock, etc.
The sonic differences between
Phil Leigh;230122 Wrote:
Wordclock was not invented to treat jitter!
You're thinking of house sync, not word clock. House sync is so
_multiple_ devices (usually video+audio) can share one clock master.
Word clock (as in, a point-to-point audio sample clock going from the
DAC to the source)
ezkcdude;230113 Wrote:
Because there aren't enough of you guys?
As valid an assumption as any, I'm afraid.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
--
acousticsguru
acousticsguru's Profile:
betto;230120 Wrote:
Fully agreed.
Wouldn't swear on it as (proven) fact, but tend to think so, too. But
then, what do I know, right?
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
--
acousticsguru
acousticsguru's Profile:
So, I went to the Stereophile archives to look for JA's DAC
measurements. I found some very interesting things. First, both the
Squeezebox and Transporter perform very well compared to even the best
gear, in terms of p-p jitter. The Squeezebox is around 300 ps, while
the Transporter is around 200
Phil Leigh;230122 Wrote:
Wordclock was not invented to treat jitter!
It was designed to eliminate the need for debate over who was the
clock master in a studio environment where every digital device is
potentially a having to generate/recover embedded clocks. This allows
buffer
ezkcdude;230220 Wrote:
It also makes one question the marketing claims.
Excuse my cynicism, but is anyone buying into those anyway? (And Nagra,
in my experience, isn't more prone to making extravagant claims than any
other manufacturer.)
Greetings from Switzerland, David
--
acousticsguru
acousticsguru;230229 Wrote:
Excuse my cynicism, but is anyone buying into those anyway?
Yes, I believe so. Just take a look at some of the threads over at
head-fi in the Dedicated Source Components section. I can't tell you
how many times I've heard the phrase jitter immunity come up.
--
Some reading on SPDIF and AES/EBU:
http://www.epanorama.net/documents/audio/spdif.html
TDR pictures of SB3's SPDIF RCA output stock and with the SM inductor
removed.
+---+
|Filename: sb-03.jpg
opaqueice;230242 Wrote:
Benchmark has graphs posted on their website plotting THD+N as a
function of input jitter. It's basically flat, which confirms a
specific version of their claim of jitter immunity.
Is their data fabricated? Or are they measuring the wrong thing, as
Patrick Dixon
CPC, if you are not art over on the Audiocircle site then you should
provide the attribution to him for these pics. He has done a whole lot
of work to show some of the folks in the Circle that there sometimes IS
a way to measure things that can help.
Sean, I've been following the work art has
seanadams;230265 Wrote:
THD+N is an extremely poor metric of jitter. There is no harmonic
component to speak of, and any change in the noise floor is pretty
small as a percentage of total N. After the DAC, jitter is most easily
observed as sidebands around a high frequency, eg 10KHz
David,
First of all, I'm sorry your first experience of this forum is so
gruelling. There are a lot of hard-nosed people on this forum, and a
lot of skeptics.
I used to be a raving subjectivist, but since some blind-test
experiences I have become a firm believer in blind-tests or, rather,
the
Darren, whist generally agreeing, I think one needs to be careful not to
take this argument to extremes. After all, that isn't how the music is
actually made...(nobody in the studio is doing DBT every time they
change something in the mix! - and try telling any musician that they
can't tell
darrenyeats;229705 Wrote:
For example, the fact I've done blind tests doesn't mean my sighted
listening is reliable from now on.
Not at all. But no one I know who's done blind hasn't done sighted ones
also - they're formative.
Scepticism is fine with me, but let me tell you something: among
Phil Leigh;229793 Wrote:
Darren, whist generally agreeing, I think one needs to be careful not to
take this argument to extremes. After all, that isn't how the music is
actually made...(nobody in the studio is doing DBT every time they
change something in the mix! - and try telling any
acousticsguru;229860 Wrote:
1) Electrical engineers (more rarely acousticians or physicists) who
stubbornly deny an audible difference something non-measurable and/or
(seemingly) unscientic makes to frowned-upon audiophiles, until some
years later, papers, tests and diagrams, i.e. scientic
darrenyeats;229859 Wrote:
Not to say I don't believe David when he says there are
differences...anything is possible. But this is one of those statements
which deserves a DBT, IMHO.
Would like to add something: I feel DBT really makes sense only if the
minimum number of variables (preferably
Assuming fixed DAC/analog components,Im only aware of 2 parameters that
can affect the sound of a a digital playback system :
a) data accuracy
b) jitter
Since a is not an issue a sanely constructed system, then it must be b:
jitter
This is where Digital meets the realms of the real world same
ezkcdude;229865 Wrote:
Of course, I presented some evidence above that only very large amounts
of jitter were audible to people, and you seemed to dismiss those
results.
Huh? Did I say that? Wasn't what I said we can't be sure it's the only
cause for an audible difference? Also, didn't we
betto;229880 Wrote:
A guaranteed a solution to the deficiencies of SPDIF is to design the
DAC as the #8220;Master#8221; clock device
How good of you to go into somewhat more detail, but why would the
above apply to S/PDIF only, and not AES/EBU as well (up to that point,
you took care to
acousticsguru;229890 Wrote:
You meant to say sighted as well as blind and double blind, correct?
I'll assume you overread that part and are not trying to get smart on
me trying to put your words into my mouth, all right? It appears to be
getting late again, long day ;^)
Greetings from
opaqueice;229907 Wrote:
Could you describe the DBT you mentioned earlier in which you heard the
difference between S/PDIF and AES/EBU? What was the source, and what
was the DAC? How well did you score?
Can't possibly enumerate all the systems in which I was shown
differences between
ezkcdude;229913 Wrote:
The galvanic isolation could provide a reduction in noise - which could
affect things, at least, in theory. These differences could be even
greater if the cable length is very long (10 meters, let's say).
Ironically, the only time I got to compare an otherwise
acousticsguru;229955 Wrote:
I probably will. Let me ask you this, though: you're with Slim
Devices/Logitech in some indirect or direct way (likely a staff
member/on their payroll), correct?
Why would you assume that?
Sorry, but ezkcdude is not a Logitech/Slim Devices employee or
I'll admit it, I'm new around here, but have spent several days reading
through hundreds if not thousands of posts here and on other boards,
and come to the conclusion that many, if not most (!) audiophiles are
looking for exactly the same product as I am: an easy-to-use streaming
client to feed
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
