I have all 3 and find the Touch sounds best, with a tossup between the
Duet and SB3, with a slight edge to the latter.
musicom's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=30459
View this thread: http://forum
jezbo wrote:
> Will the various devices intended to route the analog signal through a
> hi-fi have much the same sound quality? Are the DACs the same? Or have
> they improved (Touch > Duet > SB3)?
The electronics you feed, the speakers, and their room placement will
make vastly more difference t
jezbo wrote:
> Will the various devices intended to route the analog signal through a
> hi-fi have much the same sound quality? Are the DACs the same? Or have
> they improved (Touch > Duet > SB3)?
Many have reported that the TOUCH is "better" in terms of analog (the
TOUCH internal DAC is better
Duet & SB3 are very similar architecture and sound. Touch definitely
has a better DAC.
toby10's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12553
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?
Will the various devices intended to route the analog signal through a
hi-fi have much the same sound quality? Are the DACs the same? Or have
they improved (Touch > Duet > SB3)?
jezbo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.co
Digital Coax = orange
If you are using either Digital Coax or Digital Optical then you are
indeed bypassing the SB's DAC.
--
toby10
toby10's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12553
View this thread:
ROBBIE BURNS;550732 Wrote:
> I have recently hooked up my pc/squeezebox classic to an aduio note dac
> (via coxial cable) which in turn is hooked into my amp and speakers. I
> am ripping cds to flac via media monkey but have noticed a degredation
> in the sound quality compared to using my existi
I have recently hooked up my pc/squeezebox classic to an aduio note dac
(via coxial cable) which in turn is hooked into my amp and speakers. I
am ripping cds to flac via media monkey but have noticed a degredation
in the sound quality compared to using my existing hi fi cd transport
and dac combin
ModelCitizen;515612 Wrote:
> The transcoding could take a reasonable amount of the capacity of a very
> low spec machine, perhaps not leaving sufficient resources for other
> tasks.MC
Dell Dimension 4600 with Intel Pentium 4 running at 2.8GHz
As this is the only task this computer performs, Win
"macsband" Wrote:
> What difference would it make if the computer were particularly low
> spec?
Your SqueezeServer in your computer transcodes an Apple file to a Flac.
With a flac file it does no transcoding and streams the file as is. The
transcoding could take a reasonable amount of the capacit
iPhone;515581 Wrote:
> Hey Phil,
>
> If you have time, run those same to files against the Diff Program and
> see if the graphs line up or if there are slight differences. If you
> have time.
Yes I will do that - I've saved the ALAC file away for later. I may be
imagining things... ADM will tel
iPhone;51 Wrote:
> Important: When you stream Apple Lossless, what are your settings for
> that in the settings section of SBS? Is the Apple Lossless converted to
> MP3 or FLAC for playback? If they are being converted to MP3, that is
> why they sound inferior.
Squeeze Box Server > Settings
Phil Leigh;515573 Wrote:
> Understood.
> Now you are going to think I'm bananas, but I've just converted a FLAC
> to ALAC and played them side by side (Touch, SBS 7.5 nightly standard
> convert.conf)
> ... and the ALAC is clearly quieter by about 2-3dB.
>
> I have Replaygain OFF, but I notice t
iPhone;515571 Wrote:
> Yes the default is Native, but that doesn't mean that is what it is set
> to now. If it was changed to Disabled (for whatever reason) then the
> ALAC could be streaming as MP3 which was my point for asking to check
> the actual settings. This setting would only affect the A
macsband;515570 Wrote:
> Come by and listen for yourself. When played sequentially, the
> difference is obvious.
Not unless there is either something badly wrong with your high bit
rate MP3s or you are one of those very few people who are blessed/cursed
with an unusually exceptional ability to
Phil Leigh;515557 Wrote:
> The default setting is stream alac native... isn't it?
> Is there any way to get hold of an alac test file?
Yes the default is Native, but that doesn't mean that is what it is set
to now. If it was changed to Disabled (for whatever reason) then the
ALAC could be stream
andynormancx;515560 Wrote:
> Very, very few people can testably, reliably hear the difference between
> high bit rate MP3 and FLAC.
Come by and listen for yourself. When played sequentially, the
difference is obvious.
--
macsband
--
iPhone;51 Wrote:
> Important: When you stream Apple Lossless, what are your settings for
> that in the settings section of SBS?
The documentation I've read says that Squeeze Box Server converts ALC
to FLAC for streaming to the Squeeze Box player. According to my
understanding, this is neces
macsband;515558 Wrote:
>
> MP3 files, even those at high bit rates (192 and above) sound less full
> than FLAC files, which is expected.
Very, very few people can testably, reliably hear the difference
between high bit rate MP3 and FLAC. If you aren't doing a double blind
test (with a thorough c
The ALC files were ripped with iTunes using its default settings for
Apple Lossless. Over time, various CDs, (old and newly procured) were
ripped using the current version of iTunes (most recently, version 9).
The FLAC files converted from ALC were converted by MediaMonkey using
the default sett
iPhone;51 Wrote:
> Important: When you stream Apple Lossless, what are your settings for
> that in the settings section of SBS? Is the Apple Lossless converted to
> MP3 or FLAC for playback? If they are being converted to MP3, that is
> why they sound inferior.
>
>
The default setting is
macsband;515384 Wrote:
> A year ago, I ripped my CD collection in Apple Lossless format via
> iTunes. With Squeezebox sending the music to a $2,000 amp+speaker
> system via digital connection, I expected beautiful music. I was
> disappointed. The sound was muffled and vague.
>
> A couple da
There's been a spate of similar posts recently and in all cases I
believe something odd is going on with transcoding... can't get to the
bottom of it yet...
It looks like usual suspects can be ruled out (prefs, lame). Seems to
mostly involve some cross platform issue like mac formats on PC or PC
f
If the Apple Lossless files were definitely streaming to the player as
Flac (and not MP3) then there *should* be no difference all.
It is a bit worrying that you have heard some. A perceived difference
in sound quality can sometimes come as a result of a volume change. It
does seem unlikely, but
macsband;515528 Wrote:
> My intention was not to improve sound quality because the literature
> states that lossless = lossless. I did not anticipate a change in sound
> quality. My intention was to get away from Apple's proprietary way of
> doing business. However several people have listened
dsdreamer;515386 Wrote:
> you've just pre-converted the files off-line instead of having them
> converted on the fly.
I guess I didn't make myself clear. This was the whole point of my
post: pre-converting the files off-line instead of on the fly made a
HUGE difference in sound quality.
Mac
My intention was not to improve sound quality because the literature
states that lossless = lossless. I did not anticipate a change in sound
quality. My intention was to get away from Apple's proprietary way of
doing business. However several people have listened to the system
before and after.
macsband;515384 Wrote:
> Something I've never read in the Squeezebox literature or in this forum
> is that there must be a significant loss that takes place when
> SqueexCenter Server converts Apple Lossless to FLAC when sending Apple
> Lossless music files to Squeezebox.
You've never read it bec
Makes me think that bitrate limiting might have been turned on, and set
to a low quality mp3. Seems I recall that LAME V9 (very low quality) was
the default on bitrate limiting when I installed SbS. So perhaps he was
accidentally listening to 32kbs files.
--
garym
--
If the change was as dramatic as you describe, then I can only imagine a
bad ALAC binary or misconfiguration of the file conversion pipe was to
blame.
I assume you didn't re-rip your CDs? If not, you've just pre-converted
the files off-line instead of having them converted on the fly. The
result
A year ago, I ripped my CD collection in Apple Lossless format via
iTunes. With Squeezebox sending the music to a $2,000 amp+speaker
system via digital connection, I expected beautiful music. I was
disappointed. The sound was muffled and vague.
A couple days ago, I got tired of dealing with
Newfiestang50;493316 Wrote:
> I have a Western Digital Mybook (500gig). Do you know if the Touch will
> support it, I believe the USB drive has to be FAT32 but I cannot find
> info that says the WD Mybook is or not..
Touch supports fat32 + ntfs
Newfiestang50;493316 Wrote:
>
> Getting back to
Newfiestang50;493316 Wrote:
> I have a Western Digital Mybook (500gig). Do you know if the Touch will
> support it, I believe the USB drive has to be FAT32 but I cannot find
> info that says the WD Mybook is or not.
Attach your USB drive to a pc and check the format. On Windows (XP)
right click
ModelCitizen;493070 Wrote:
> The Sonos solution is more robust but a lot less flexible. The Sonos
> hand held controllers are well-built, heavy and two handed (apart from
> the latest one which is larger than an iPhone but lacks all the best
> bits... and costs more!). The Logitech Controller is
For a new user/purchaser, I would recommend getting an SB3 (Classic) or
waiting for the Touch. The Duet is network needy and if ones WiFi
Network is not up to the task it can be frustrating when first starting
out.
The Touch or Classic with an iPhone/iTouch running iPeng blows the
Sonos away in m
As an original Squeezebox owner who then purchased a Sonos system
(ZP100/120 & ZP90) along with that awful controller I think Im qualified
to reply ;) I have since sold the Sonos system and settled with the
Squeezebox Classic range.
The sound quality of the ZP100/120 is suitable for background,
The Sonos solution is more robust but a lot less flexible. The Sonos
hand held controllers are well-built, heavy and two handed (apart from
the latest one which is larger than an iPhone but lacks all the best
bits... and costs more!). The Logitech Controller is light, a bit tacky
but can be held a
All I can say is that I made a decision for SB against Sonus a few
years ago when they were pretty much the only game in town (there was
also a Roku box that seemed really low end). The Sonus solution seemed
more bloated (I would never want an integrated amplifier) whereas the SB
solution gave me
Guys, I am trying to decide which product I will be going with, the SB
Duet or Sonos system and was wondering if anyone on here knew which
device sounds better. Does anyone know which DAC the Sonos unit uses, I
searched their forum but came up empty. Also, I read over there that the
Sonos only sam
Has anyone noticed sound quality differences between a flac and wave
file? I am certainly aware that flac is "lossless" however playback of
flac files sound flat and dont seem to have great imaging effect on the
sound than Wav. anyone?
--
Louishlomador
--
rydenfan;421517 Wrote:
> So, I have found a major issue with SqueezePlay, it does not output
> sound!! When I hooked my DAC up via Firewire there is no sound. I can
> use other front-ends and it works fine but nothing with SqueezePlay.
> There is no way to set the output device. Hopefully will ge
So, I have found a major issue with SqueezePlay, it does not output
sound!! When I hooked my DAC up via Firewire there is no sound. I can
use other front-ends and it works fine but nothing with SqueezePlay.
There is no way to set the output device. Hopefully will get resolved
soon!
--
rydenfan
pippin;421301 Wrote:
> What about SqueezeSlave?
I have not tried squeezeslave yet. I am not super technically inclined
when it comes to computers so I am still trying to figure out how to
make it work properly.
--
rydenfan
--
What about SqueezeSlave?
--
pippin
---
see iPeng, the Squeezebox iPhone remote, at penguinlovesmusic.com
pippin's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13777
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.
Sadly i think SqueezePlay would just use the system default audio
setting on any platform, and even ignore it on Mac ? i've read in some
tread, somebody tried an usb soundcard and still got the music trough
internal laptop speakers ?
On ubuntu it plays 24/96 files but ! they get truncated to 16/
rydenfan;421099 Wrote:
> is this a given that the Mac Mini will do this? or is this an
> assumption?
It's an assumption based on a decent understanding of how these things
are typically done. It's usually possible to get a bit-perfect channel
all the way through (at least it is on Windows) but i
David (Rydenfan) and I are on the same quest (and we're working together
on this), to use a software player and Squeeze Center to send a bit
perfect signal, through firewire, to a firewire DAC (Weiss DAC2). This
way we get to keep our SC as our music server, use FLAC, and use iPeng
app/iPod as ou
pippin;421080 Wrote:
> I think the two questions here are:
> 1. Does SqueezePlay support lossless formats (flac) on Mac? Yes, I
> suppose.
> 2. Does the Mac Mini have an SPDIF out?
I will actually be going Firewire to the DAC.
--
rydenfan
--
and 3. What happens to the stream between the source app and the ouput.
Don't assume it gets through unmolested, there are often mixers,
resamplers, EQ, etc in the mix.
--
radish
radish's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices
I think the two questions here are:
1. Does SqueezePlay support lossless formats (flac) on Mac? Yes, I
suppose.
2. Does the Mac Mini have an SPDIF out?
--
pippin
---
see iPeng, the Squeezebox iPhone remote, at penguinlovesmusic.com
--
What comes out of SqueezePlay will be bit perfect (volume adjustments
notwithstanding) - but what the Mac does to it after that is anyone's
guess :)
--
radish
radish's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?user
In one of my rooms I have a Transporter and in another I am planning a
Mac Mini running SqueezePlay and external DAC. I am just wanting to make
sure that the new SqueezePlay is a bit perfect solution. I am assuming
SqueezePlay passes the exact signal that get passed to my Transporter
but just want
If you email me or send me a pm with your email address I will send you
what I call the purchase kit. It contains the complete manual with many
screen snaps, the license agreement and how to buy it. The price is
$29.95 via paypal. That does not include the Pronto, just the software
for a Pronto.
barrygordon;418414 Wrote:
> Chenrikson, Thanks for the plug. I have sold over 200 of the Pronto
> control system (very low price). Many, especially in Europe, have
> bought into the Slim Solution because of that application for the
> Pronto.
Sounds very cool, is there a web page that shows how
Chenrikson, Thanks for the plug. I have sold over 200 of the Pronto
control system (very low price). Many, especially in Europe, have
bought into the Slim Solution because of that application for the
Pronto.
--
barrygordon
---
barrygordon;418162 Wrote:
> dsdreamer, thank you for the very well constructed and intelligent reply
> (no denigration to other replies intended). Yes with clock
> reconstruction as you indicated, there is the case for some waveform
> edge jitter, but as I said I have old ears so maybe I just wa
pfarrell;418186 Wrote:
> funkstar wrote:
> > 48khz is the maximum output frequency of the normal players.
>
> Yes, but there is not a lot of material using that maximum. All RedBook
>
> is 44.1
>
>
> --
> Pat Farrell
> http://www.pfarrell.com/
Yes quite so, I only seen 48k with 96k tra
--
funkstar wrote:
> 48khz is the maximum output frequency of the normal players.
Yes, but there is not a lot of material using that maximum. All RedBook
is 44.1
--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/
___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices
pfarrell;418177 Wrote:
> Do you really mean 48? or 44.1?
48khz is the maximum output frequency of the normal players.
http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/HardwareComparison
--
funkstar
my collection:
*1*x boom
*2*x controller, *1*x receiver
*2*x sb3 (sliver/black, *1*x sb2 wired (silver),
Mnyb wrote:
> Eh the "lesser" boxes are actually doing 24/48 not only 16/48 .
Do you really mean 48? or 44.1?
--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/
___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/
Eh the "lesser" boxes are actually doing 24/48 not only 16/48 .
SC is transcoding 24/96 to 24/48 for the "lesser" players.
Imho a SB3 or SBR will do just fine as a "transport"
The edge the TP has is 96kHz . I have a whooping 20-30 albums of these
among my >1440 albums.
And a clock input which c
dsdreamer, thank you for the very well constructed and intelligent reply
(no denigration to other replies intended). Yes with clock
reconstruction as you indicated, there is the case for some waveform
edge jitter, but as I said I have old ears so maybe I just waste money
on my toys.
The downstre
barrygordon wrote:
> Okay guestions bring answers and ansers bring more questions. I
> understand about the 24/96 vs 16/48, but other than that...
>
> Addressing the connector - so what. It is a digital stream. If all
> the bits get transmitted with negligible jitter ( a whole other
> discussion
You were very clear, but the matter is not as clear as you would like it
to be.
The Transporter and the lesser boxes all claim to be "bitperfect", but
data can be lost or corrupted in the transfer to you DAC. Whether you
can hear this will depend to some degree on the resolution of the DAC
and th
barrygordon;418137 Wrote:
> My assumption is that if I play my music out of the optical connection
> on any Slim Devices player there should be no difference in sound as
> DAC quality of the player does not come into it. Am I correct in that
> assumption? That is, a $2000 Transporter and a $120
Okay guestions bring answers and ansers bring more questions. I
understand about the 24/96 vs 16/48, but other than that...
Addressing the connector - so what. It is a digital stream. If all
the bits get transmitted with negligible jitter ( a whole other
discussion, as I do not believe in it a
Perhaps I wasn't being clear. Lets forget about the Audio chain after
the player for the moment. Will the exact same digital stream be put
out by all of the players to their digital outputs i.e. optical or
coxial. I guess that is my question.
I own every type of player that Slim Devices sells,
Exactly the same? It may depend on the DAC and replay chain you are
feeding. S/PDIF optical and through the RCA socket is compromised to
some degree. An RCA phono socket is the silliest connector to use, but
. . . boxes built to consumer standards seem to love them.
The Transporter, of course, su
barrygordon;418137 Wrote:
> My assumption is that if I play my music out of the optical connection
> on any Slim Devices player there should be no difference in sound as
> DAC quality of the player does not come into it. Am I correct in that
> assumption? That is, a $2000 Transporter and a $120
My assumption is that if I play my music out of the optical connection
on any Slim Devices player there should be no difference in sound as
DAC quality of the player does not come into it. Am I correct in that
assumption? That is, a $2000 Transporter and a $120 Receiver should
sound exactly the s
Let me be the skeptic who calls bullshit on that. I'll bet my house that
there's no discernible difference at all.
--
Kvaks
Kvaks's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21610
View this thread: http://fo
twynne;385134 Wrote:
> I've just ordered a new Duet, and just wondered (as the Duet is clearly
> a newer product) is there any difference in audio quality between that
> output by the Duet as compared to the SB3? Are the components in one
> any better than the other? Any subjective opinions??I
snarlydwarf wrote:
> Ah, my Harmony never got that much use.. stupid TV really doesn't like
> it. (It is VERY picky about pauses between changing input sources...
> too short and it ignores it, too long and it is busy trying to lock
> onto a blank input and ignores it... I blame the TV since it a
twynne;385185 Wrote:
> Lol - thanks, but I haven't given all of the details. :-)
>
> I already have 2 SB3's and 2 Booms - in a 1 bedroom flat! The Booms
> are both actively used pretty much daily, and the SB3's a bit less. I
> was considering replacing one of the SB3's with the Duet.
Oh, my,
Lol - thanks, but I haven't given all of the details. :-)
I already have 2 SB3's and 2 Booms - in a 1 bedroom flat! The Booms
are both actively used pretty much daily, and the SB3's a bit less. I
was considering replacing one of the SB3's with the Duet.
The infrared issue comes in that I use
twynne;385168 Wrote:
> Actually I may have just stumbled on the deciding factor - the SB3 has
> an infrared receiver, so can be controlled by my existing universal
> remote. Presumably the Duet Receiver does not? I certainly don't see
> it mentioned in the specs...
No, it does not, since the o
Actually I may have just stumbled on the deciding factor - the SB3 has
an infrared receiver, so can be controlled by my existing universal
remote. Presumably the Duet Receiver does not? I certainly don't see
it mentioned in the specs...
--
twynne
--
Thanks for the reply.
I'm considering selling either one of the SB3's or the Receiver only
(keeping the Controller). Long story.
I'm looking for compelling reasons to keep one or the other. At the
moment I can only come up with the fact that the Receiver is wireless
(my SB3 is wired).
--
tw
Sound quality pretty much identical according to all reports. Receiver
MIGHT have slightly less noise (no VFD display) but this will be
extremely marginal at best.
--
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+Stontronics
I've just ordered a new Duet, and just wondered (as the Duet is clearly
a newer product) is there any difference in audio quality between that
output by the Duet as compared to the SB3? Are the components in one
any better than the other? Any subjective opinions??
As the types of outputs remain
I did a clean install of Opensuse 11.0 and KDE 4.1.3. And I was not
happy with the sound so I installed Vista and suddenly I got the same
sound as I have with a cd.
For some reason Linux installed Audigy drivers, but the souncard is a
SB Live 24. Maybe that had something to do with it.
--
bern
bpa;360851 Wrote:
> I would expect a display as follows from Kmix.
>
> http://docs.kde.org/stable/en/kdemultimedia/kmix/working-with-kmix.html
>
> On my Suse system KMix mixer is open by clicking on the "mixer" button
> at the bottom of the vomlume control. Alternatively start KMix from the
> a
left click the volume controlthen click the mixer tab.
settings > configure channels etc.
With my cmedia card I use the optical out which means me turning on the
IEC958 switch
--
mudlark
SB3>CyrusDACX>PreXvs>ESPAudio P09B Active filter>NAP140+260A>Rhapsody,
Avondale and Naim cable, Kubuntu I
left click the volume control then click the mixer tab. if no response
open the terminal and type kmix. Kmix is there with kde4 I think.
settings > configure channels etc.
With my cmedia card I use the optical out which means me turning on the
IEC958 switch
--
mudlark
SB3>CyrusDACX>PreXvs>ES
I would expect a display as follows from Kmix.
http://docs.kde.org/stable/en/kdemultimedia/kmix/working-with-kmix.html
On my Suse system KMix mixer is open by clicking on the "mixer" button
at the bottom of the vomlume control. Alternatively start KMix from the
application menus.
--
bpa
-
bpa;360776 Wrote:
> Kmix usually has 3 tabs - output, input and switches. Look at "input"
> tab.
Sorry, I can't find any of the tabs. I click on the speaker next to the
clock and then the button Mixer. There is a lot of channels but only one
is doing anything.
According to lspci my soundcard i
Sounds cards in PCs have poor analog output for the reasons stated in
this thred. There is a lot of electrical noise in a computer. If you
are getting pops and clicks you can make sure your sound card is on
it's own interupt. Use "lspci" from the command line in linux. But I
don't think this is yo
bernt wrote:
> I guess I'm a little out of topic on this forum. My apologies.
>
> This has nothing to do with SC or SB. I listen to music on my computer
> through above stereo and discovered by accident how bad it sound if a
> play the music on the computer vs playing cd on the same stereo.
>
I
>
> Where do I check what inputs are enabled?
>
Kmix usually has 3 tabs - output, input and switches. Look at "input"
tab.
--
bpa
bpa's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1806
View this thread: htt
Just a guess, but it may be down to the Ubuntu soundcard driver.
Ubuntu may be using a 'generic' soundcard driver that may not be
specifically written for your soundcard.
You don't say what soundcard you have ... perhaps the manufacturer's
web site may have a manufacturer written linux driver fo
bpa;360763 Wrote:
> Amarok only plays through the "speakers" which may also be routed to a
> digital output on some cards. I'm assuming you have some output from
> the PC connected to your main audio setup.
>
> What inputs are enabled ?
I'm a little confused by the settings in Kubuntu, Where do
bernt;360764 Wrote:
> I guess I'm a little out of topic on this forum. My apologies.
>
> This has nothing to do with SC or SB. I listen to music on my computer
> through above stereo and discovered by accident how bad it sound if a
> play the music on the computer vs playing cd on the same stere
I guess I'm a little out of topic on this forum. My apologies.
This has nothing to do with SC or SB. I listen to music on my computer
through above stereo and discovered by accident how bad it sound if a
play the music on the computer vs playing cd on the same stereo.
I run SC on another pc and
>
> Everything in the Mixer is set to zero except for Front Speakers. For
> some reason this is the output source.
>
Amarok only plays through the "speakers" which may also be routed to a
digital output on some cards. I'm assuming you have some output from
the PC connected to your main audio se
It really should be mentioned here that SqueezeCenter doesn't care what
OS you're running, the sound quality should not be affected (up to the
point it drops out completely due to insufficient bandwidth). After
all, you don't even need a soundcard to run SC. SC does not use any
sound software or
Everything in the Mixer is set to zero except for Front Speakers. For
some reason this is the output source.
I have checked it from a terminal with alsamixer.
--
bernt
'LastFM' (http://www.last.fm/user/ottovonkopp/)
SB3 - SC 7.2.1 - Ubuntu Server 8.04
-
Generally the PC speaker sound output has gone through a mixer which can
combine various sources (e.g. wave, CD , mic, line-in ) into one
output. Many of these sources are enabled by default so a lot of audio
processing (e.g. upsampling , mixing, downsampling, enhanced stereo)
will be performed o
bernt;360737 Wrote:
> Maybe it's my installation that is messed up. I have installed Kubuntu
> 8.04 with KDE 3.x, installed KDE 4.x and then upgraded to Kubuntu
> 8.10.
>
> I think I try a clean install to see if that solves the problem.
>
> socistep. How do you the set the volume in Kubuntu?
Maybe it's my installation that is messed up. I have installed Kubuntu
8.04 with KDE 3.x, installed KDE 4.x and then upgraded to Kubuntu
8.10.
I think I try a clean install to see if that solves the problem.
socistep. How do you the set the volume in Kubuntu?
I have it set to 100% in Amarok an
bernt;360725 Wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have this stereo connected to my computer with Kubuntu 8.10.
> http://www.amazon.com/JVC-FS-Y1-Component-System-Player/dp/B0007XH72Y
>
> The other day I burned a music cd from flac files and put it in the
> stereo to test it. And wow! What a sound compared to pla
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
