ralphpnj;588909 Wrote:
> ...convert redbook to 24/96 - complete rubbish. all this accomplishes is
> requiring more storage for the larger 24/96 files and greater network
> bandwidth required for the larger 24/96 files...
I've often wondered if such upsampling would, or could, make a
difference w
cliveb;588972 Wrote:
> Standard audiophile mumbo-jumbo *including* the part about volume
> control.
>
> If you set the gain staging correctly, the only degradation to using a
> modest amount of digital attenuation on redbook sources is a reduction
> in S/N ratio. And since the intrinsic noise fl
ralphpnj;588909 Wrote:
> 3) Standard audiophile mumbo-jumbo except for the volume control part -
> yes keep the volume at 100% for best results.
Standard audiophile mumbo-jumbo *including* the part about volume
control.
If you set the gain staging correctly, the only degradation to using a
modes
HeadBanger;588914 Wrote:
> I wasn't sure if he was kidding or not! If he wasn't then isn't it
> amazing what people 'hear' when they want to. I've read people claiming
> that super Sata leads, ethernet cables and even hard drives sound
> different!!!
That's nothing. I've been saying for a few ye
ralphpnj;588909 Wrote:
> Doing his best to give audiophiles a bad name.
>
I wasn't sure if he was kidding or not! If he wasn't then isn't it
amazing what people 'hear' when they want to. I've read people claiming
that super Sata leads, ethernet cables and even hard drives sound
different!!!
-
earwaxer9;588835 Wrote:
> What I do know about the Transporter is that it can be "finessed" to
> outperform itself. My experience has been that the Transporter
> "performs" the best under certain conditions. 1. convert redbook to
> 24/96. 2. use ethernet over WIFI. and finally, down the line - 3.
earwaxer9;588835 Wrote:
> What I do know about the Transporter is that it can be "finessed" to
> outperform itself. My experience has been that the Transporter
> "performs" the best under certain conditions. 1. convert redbook to
> 24/96. 2. use ethernet over WIFI. and finally, down the line - 3.
Hi earwaxer9. When converting 16/48 to 24/96 what do you think sounds
better – can you describe please? What is an audiophile grade
fuse? Do you have audiophile mains cable in your house too or do you
not need it if you have an audiophile power cable and fuse? What
difference to your sound did th
What I do know about the Transporter is that it can be "finessed" to
outperform itself. My experience has been that the Transporter
"performs" the best under certain conditions. 1. convert redbook to
24/96. 2. use ethernet over WIFI. and finally, down the line - 3.
replace fuse with audiophile gra
Phil Leigh;588714 Wrote:
> The DacMagic is a good design (especially for its price) - but it isn't
> magic :-) and it's certainly not jitter-proof.
>
> DAC's that are relatively unphased by input jitter include the
> Benchmark and Lavry designs (and a few really expensive ones!).
>
> Bottom lin
As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be any reason (other than
modest price) to get the Receiver rather than the Touch, unless you
want the Controller and get a Duet. Even if you don't need or want the
touch screen, the higher quality all around would seem to tilt the
balance in the direct
HeadBanger;588713 Wrote:
> Ah, OK.
>
> The DacMagic is renowned for being extremely resilient against jitter
> and even copes with the most noisy / jittery of computers via USB
> input. There is a review by HiFi Choice (UK) that comments on this -
> search Cambridge Audio's website as they had
Ah, OK.
The DacMagic is renowned for being extremely resilient against jitter
and even copes with the most noisy / jittery of computers via USB
input. There is a review by HiFi Choice (UK) that comments on this -
search Cambridge Audio's website as they had it available as PDF.
In short, unless
HeadBanger;588674 Wrote:
> For digital out how so (other than 24/96)? Does the Receiver corrupt the
> digital output in some way?
It doesn't corrupt the bitstream (the bits are still 100% correct), but
it is "noisier" which can make it harder for DAC's to retrieve a totally
accurate clock (hence
ralphpnj;588362 Wrote:
> However I would say that the Touch is quite a bit better than the Duet
> Receiver, whether using the analog or digital outputs.
>
For digital out how so (other than 24/96)? Does the Receiver corrupt
the digital output in some way?
--
HeadBanger
--
You may find this link worth reading. It convinced me to go with a
Touch rather than a Transporter (which is no longer in production).
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ddgtl&1246278090&openfrom&1&4#1
--
eeagle
eea
whoosh;588361 Wrote:
> Thank you - this is quite helpful.
>
> I have been pondering doing the Touch/DAC versus Transporter for a
> while now. I have all manner of i* devices, so the Touch screen and
> remote are of little consequence to me. I've had it in mind to go Duet
> > DacMagic to make use
ralphpnj;588190 Wrote:
> If you already own the Cambridge DACMagic, which I would gather from
> your post that you do, I would say go with the Touch and say yourself a
> good deal of money.
>
> In addition once you have the Touch up and running I would try
> comparing the Touch digital output in
bjast;588130 Wrote:
> I am new to the forum, and to Squeezebox. I have an oppurtunity to
> purchase a Transporter (new) but have a few questions before I
> proceed:
>
> 1. How does the Transporter's DAC section (sound) compare to the
> Cambridge Audio DacMagic - at least in terms of the differen
bjast;588130 Wrote:
> I am new to the forum, and to Squeezebox. I have an oppurtunity to
> purchase a Transporter (new) but have a few questions before I
> proceed:
>
> 1. How does the Transporter's DAC section (sound) compare to the
> Cambridge Audio DacMagic - at least in terms of the differen
I am new to the forum, and to Squeezebox. I have an oppurtunity to
purchase a Transporter (new) but have a few questions before I
proceed:
1. How does the Transporter's DAC section (sound) compare to the
Cambridge Audio DacMagic - at least in terms of the different DAC chips
used in each device -
21 matches
Mail list logo
