adamslim;203201 Wrote:
> What actually is the reason for the lack of 24/96 support on the SB3?
> Adam
The DAC is probably the least of the problems with an SB3 supporting
24/96
I suspect the reason is processing power of the SB3's DSP, although I
haven't looked closely enough at the hardware
seanadams;202839 Wrote:
> I think you are still under the misconception that 96KHz is supposed to
> work on SB3. Though technically correct, it seems kind of silly to call
> it a "known issue" when it isn't supposed to.
What actually is the reason for the lack of 24/96 support on the SB3?
I thi
TiredLegs;203187 Wrote:
> I'm stumped why people seem so concerned about compression.
Well, if you can, and it's easy (it is) then why not?
Although disc space is cheap, it's not free, and you start to run into
major expenses once you get above 500 GB - you need expensive 750 GB or
1 TB drives
TiredLegs;203187 Wrote:
> Hard disk space is dirt cheap these days. Just bought a 500GB drive for
> $100. That's $0.20 per gigabyte. My 387 CDs ripped to WAV take up a
> total of 197GB.
>
> The only downsides to WAV are the lack of tagging, and possible
> bandwidth constraints if you're running
AndyC_772;202585 Wrote:
> IMHO the best quality widely compatible format you can get is WAV...
>
> ...provided I'm not the one paying for the disc space! :)
Hard disk space is dirt cheap these days. Just bought a 500GB drive for
$100. That's $0.20 per gigabyte. My 387 CDs ripped to WAV take up a
seanadams;202839 Wrote:
> I think you are still under the misconception that 96KHz is supposed to
> work on SB3.
No, I understand fully that the SB3 doesn't support 96K, and I
understood if fully when I bought my two Transporters that do...
I've put together a whole house system, with 3 SB3's an
DCtoDaylight;202822 Wrote:
> Just for the record, my comment was NOT meant to be a critical of the
> SB3, simply to point out that you might be misled by a problem in
> hardware or software, and that just because a file format is lossless
> you can't assume it's handled properly.
OK, so by the
seanadams;202536 Wrote:
> This is the problem sometimes with responding to every customer feature
> request. SB3 does not support 96Khz playback.
Just for the record, my comment was NOT meant to be a critical of the
SB3, simply to point out that you might be misled by a problem in
hardware or s
cliveb;202579 Wrote:
> At the risk of having my audiophile epaulets torn from my jacket, I'd be
> tempted to suggest that the best quality widely compatible format you
> can get these days is 320kbs CBR MP3.
ROFL! This reminds me of the beginning of the old TV show
*'\"Branded\"' (http://www.yo
willyhoops;202704 Wrote:
> but they don't have that secure mode which is why we all flagellate
> ourselves like medival monks with EAC and dbpoweramp to flac :-)
AFAIK dbpoweramp now incorporates secure mode ripping as well as
allmusic integration for tagging.
--
egd
Transporter >> SCA2 >> S
opaqueice;202657 Wrote:
> You didn't read very carefully...
I was wondering how to point that out without offending ;-)
--
egd
Transporter >> SCA2 >> SCM100SLAT via balanced XLR
Linux and loving IT!
egd's Profile: http:
yes itunes and media player do a much better job of tags and artwork and
are so easy to use... but they don't have that secure mode which is why
we all flagellate ourselves like medival monks with EAC and dbpoweramp
to flac :-)
--
willyhoops
-
Any lossless compressed format is fine. You just need to pick the one
that works for your equipment the best.
Personally I think some of the commercial formats (that use commercial
tools) do a more consistent job at tags and artwork.
--
mswlogo
-
willyhoops;202569 Wrote:
> Hey he is comparng lossless to lossly here. He is NOT saying apple
> lossless is better than flac.
>
You didn't read very carefully - he says it's a good compromise to use
ALAC rather than uncompressed. What compromise? Later he says it has
"a remarkable sound for
egd;202639 Wrote:
> Are there *ANY* decent hifi publications still in existence?
I subscribe to Hi-Fi World and enjoy it.
--
DennyL
DennyL's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8446
View this thread:
DennyL;202634 Wrote:
> Of the UK hi-fi mags, What Hi-Fi is by far the worst. I don't know how
> hi-fi marketing works, but I had always assumed that this mag has
> always seen its role as a provider of hype that can be quoted in
> advertisements. I have never been able to take anything about it
>
egd;202499 Wrote:
>
> Clearly, this is a magazine not intended for anyone capable of thinking
> for themselves, I'd even go so far as to label those articles
> irresponsible journalism.
Of the UK hi-fi mags, What Hi-Fi is by far the worst. I don't know how
hi-fi marketing works, but I had alway
yes everything does wav but the big problem with it that the offical wav
standard does not allow id3 tags to be attached. if you put an id3 tag
on a wav it might come through as a blip of static at the end when you
play!
but we don't need to worry that much... thanks to conversion programs
we sq
AndyC_772;202585 Wrote:
> IMHO the best quality widely compatible format you can get is WAV...
Yes, good point. I'd forgotten about uncompressed formats. As a matter
of interest, do all devices actually support WAV?
--
cliveb
Performers -> dozens of mixers and effects -> clipped/hypercompress
IMHO the best quality widely compatible format you can get is WAV...
...provided I'm not the one paying for the disc space! :)
--
AndyC_772
AndyC_772's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10472
View t
egd;202499 Wrote:
> quoting from "What HiFi planet are we on?":
> page 80 -"Sound Advice" : "Quality vs file-size conundrum"-- "*Apple
> Lossless is the best-quality widely compatible format*
"
What is their definition of "widely compatible"? None of the lossless
codecs are universally playable.
> the most effective compromise is to rip all your music to iTunes using
> the Apple lossless format: it sounds significantly better than any
> lossy compressions, yet is not as slow and hard-drive devouring as the
> uncompressed file.
Hey he is comparng lossless to lossly here. He is NOT saying
DCtoDaylight;202532 Wrote:
> At the risk of stirring things up, it's worth pointing out that our
> beloved SB3's currently cannot play back all 96/24 flac files cleanly.
This is the problem sometimes with responding to every customer feature
request. SB3 does not support 96Khz playback. But som
At the risk of stirring things up, it's worth pointing out that our
beloved SB3's currently cannot play back all 96/24 flac files cleanly.
That is, they play, but contain obvious, audible problems. On the other
hand, they CAN play uncompressed wav's without these problems. I offer
this as proof
adamslim;202509 Wrote:
> You took quite a long post to get there... ;)
>
> Adam
Clearly, however, I couldn't resist quoting some of the crap they
extol. Their observations are so ludicrous they had me laughing.
Next time I'm on a long haul flight I'll pick up a comic, it's bound to
me more a
Hmm - posting on a audiophile forum, senior member... and yet you're
surprised by crap audio journalism?
Something isn't right.
--
opaqueice
opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234
Vie
egd;202499 Wrote:
> Clearly, this is a magazine not intended for anyone capable of thinking
> for themselves
You took quite a long post to get there... ;)
Adam
--
adamslim
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have
others
http://www.last.fm/user/AdamSlim/
'Last.fm
Quotes from the June 2007 edition:
pages 65 & 66 -"HI-FI Sound From Your Laptop"-- "…the most
effective compromise is to rip all your music to iTunes using the Apple
lossless format: it sounds significantly better than any lossy
compressions, yet is not as slow and hard-drive devouring as the
unc
28 matches
Mail list logo
