On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 07:13 +, Daniel Cohen wrote:
> On 16/2/05 at 11:45 pm -0700, bill wrote
> >Funny thing, I was just talking to an audiophile who owned a Squeezebox and
> >returned after several weeks because the digital output STILL swaps channels
> >on a frequent basis. This is a known an
"Phillip Kerman" wrote in message
> So, does addressing the issue do anything for my two SB with the bad IC?
Do
> I get a free upgrade when it's eventually fixed?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Phillip
Well, sounds like you're someone who really cares deeply about this problem.
Perhaps you should contact slim su
Robin Bowes wrote:
I think you'll find that there is a significant body of SB users who use
flac or some other lossless compression that is streamed as PCM (WAV if
you prefer). Check out http://bugs.slimdevices.com and search for bugs
with more than 10 votes. There are 5. Native FLAC decoding ha
John J. Stimson-III wrote:
Maybe you think I'm a wacko too, but at least I've doubled your data
set and given you a little contrast with the first sample.
But do you shake hands? :)
- Marc
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://list
Ralph Edington wrote:
>I have met only one person, in the flesh, and within the last year
>(not in the 80s or 90s), who claimed to be an audiophile. This
>person (a man) was indeed an absolute vinyl nut and had a great
>disdain for all things digitized. He was also stuck on listening to
>70's pro
Dave Owen wrote:
>That brings up a question: is there a benefit to using the optical
>output versus the coax, or vice versa, in general on digital output
>products?
There really shouldn't be, assuming a well-engineered implementation
of each, but many high-end reviewers swear that the optical co
Since I'm the one who made the claim that the problem is absent from the
coax digital outputs I just wanted to jump in here and mention that I've
gone looking for the old message in this forum that I thought mentioned this
and have been unable to find it. It would appear that I've perhaps made
thi
Message -
From: "Dave Owen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Slim Devices Discussion"
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 3:25 PM
Subject: RE: [slim] audiophile cred (tangent)
>> The true Audiophiles are in the
>> main still on vinyl because CD's "don&#
NOS designs have FAR better transient response than other DACs.
But they also have far more phase distortion, due to the brick-wall
anti-aliasing filters.
However, phase distortion looks bad on spec sheets.
Tom
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.sli
optical connectors can increase jitter/latency.
But I have no objective info on that one.
Mike
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Owen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Slim Devices Discussion"
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 3:33 PM
Subject: RE: [slim] audiophile cre
I have had similar experiences in the past, and was resigned to the
thought that a vinyl rig would always sound better than a redbook one
in some intangible way, though I still chose the convenience of CDs
and HD based storage. More recently, I came across non-oversampling
digital-filterless DACs,
> Also, the problem is nonexistent on the analog outs and
> even, I believe, absent from the coax digital output so it's not as
> though there aren't other usable options.
That brings up a question: is there a benefit to using the optical
output versus the coax, or vice versa, in general on digi
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robin Bowes
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 11:57 AM
>
>
> Carl Maskelyne wrote:
>
>
> > The true Audiophiles are in the
> > main still on vinyl because CD's "don't have the same warm feel".
>
> Rubbish. Sorry, that's too polite:
>> The true Audiophiles are in the
>> main still on vinyl because CD's "don't have the same warm feel".
> Rubbish. Sorry, that's too polite: bollocks. Early digital technology
> was not well understood and did indeed sound poor. Current technology
is
> far better and sounds comparable to "qualit
Robin Bowes wrote:
Michael Amster wrote:
Well, yes - I need an oscilloscope and do not own one. I am sure
that my 3 PSUs are working as designed (+5V digital, +5analog and
+-15v analog).
+5 analog? What's that for? As far as I could see, the DI/O requires
+5V for the digital board and +/- 15V
Carl Maskelyne wrote:
You make so many assumptions and narrow-minded statements in this mail
that it's not worth replying to. Oooops, I already did, so while I'm here...
This whole thread seems to be a bit over the top to me. I have a squeezebox
that I can move around my house listen to all of my
Michael Amster wrote:
Well, yes - I need an oscilloscope and do not own one. I am sure that
my 3 PSUs are working as designed (+5V digital, +5analog and +-15v
analog).
+5 analog? What's that for? As far as I could see, the DI/O requires +5V
for the digital board and +/- 15V for the analogue cir
Robin Bowes wrote:
Michael Amster wrote:
I have a heavily modified one and am working on a from scratch unit
that cannibalizes the ART DIO digital board...
Michael,
How are you getting on with that project? I'm considering doing
exactly the same thing and would be very interested in learning how
Don't get me wrong... I'm happy with the SB. But, the L/R swap issue is
frustrating. I'd be happily surprised if--whenever it's fixed--I get a
replacement. I think this is totally reasonable. Others may not agree.
Thanks,
Phillip
___
Discuss mailing
Sheeze,
Cut SilmDevices some slack here. First of all SB is a fairly new
product. Secondly, having a problem with a main component like the
Digital Out circuit is not something that can be fixed overnight. My
programming background started in Digital Circuit Design, so I do know
what I'm Talkin
>
> This bug only comes into play when switching between MP3 and PCM mode.
> As long as you stay in either MP3 or PCM, then everything is correct.
>
> Any audiophile worth his speakers will be streaming exclusively in
> PCM mode, so the bug is unlikely to become evident.
>
This does seem to fi
> 2. Sean (slim CEO) has addressed the optical digital L/R
> switching problem.
> It's a problem with the actual IC they're using for the
> digital out, it's
> not the result of problems with slimserver. It's solution
> must come from
> the maker of the chip--so it's not exactly like slim devi
On 16/2/05 at 11:45 pm -0700, bill wrote
Funny thing, I was just talking to an audiophile who owned a Squeezebox and
returned after several weeks because the digital output STILL swaps channels
on a frequent basis. This is a known and still unaddressed bug (correct me
if I'm wrong). Can't imagine a
Got mine the day after I placed my order
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken Gilmore
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 10:19 PM
To: discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
Subject: RE: [slim] audiophile cred
George VanWagner wrote in
news:[EMAIL
iles that I know are still
all listening to 70's prog rock that doesn't sound that great at the best of
times.
-Original Message-
From: Triode [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 17 February 2005 00:09
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: Re: [slim] audiophile cred
Michael,
I would no
bill wrote:
> I own three SBs, but would jump on another product that was similarly priced
> and with remote controllability and played flac and MP3 and had decent
> customer support.
Who wouldn't switch to a better product (by any personal
definition) at a similar price? But suc
"Marc Sherman" wrote in message
> Aaron Zinck wrote:
> >
> > 2. Sean (slim CEO) has addressed the optical digital L/R switching
> > problem. It's a problem with the actual IC they're using for the
> > digital out, it's not the result of problems with slimserver. It's
> > solution must come from t
Aaron Zinck wrote:
2. Sean (slim CEO) has addressed the optical digital L/R switching
problem. It's a problem with the actual IC they're using for the
digital out, it's not the result of problems with slimserver. It's
solution must come from the maker of the chip--so it's not exactly
like slim de
Quoting bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Funny thing, I was just talking to an audiophile who owned a Squeezebox and
> returned after several weeks because the digital output STILL swaps channels
> on a frequent basis. This is a known and still unaddressed bug (correct me
> if I'm wrong). Can't imagine
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 23:45 -0700, bill wrote:
> Funny thing, I was just talking to an audiophile who owned a Squeezebox and
> returned after several weeks because the digital output STILL swaps channels
> on a frequent basis. This is a known and still unaddressed bug (correct me
> if I'm wrong). C
"bill" wrote
> Funny thing, I was just talking to an audiophile who owned a Squeezebox
and
> returned after several weeks because the digital output STILL swaps
channels
> on a frequent basis. This is a known and still unaddressed bug (correct me
> if I'm wrong). Can't imagine any audiophile could
Funny thing, I was just talking to an audiophile who owned a Squeezebox and
returned after several weeks because the digital output STILL swaps channels
on a frequent basis. This is a known and still unaddressed bug (correct me
if I'm wrong). Can't imagine any audiophile could live with it.
I own
Michael Amster wrote:
I have a heavily modified one and am working on a from scratch unit that
cannibalizes the ART DIO digital board...
Michael,
How are you getting on with that project? I'm considering doing exactly
the same thing and would be very interested in learning how you get on.
I seem
33 matches
Mail list logo
