gsawdy;322154 Wrote: > Can folks on this board explain how this review's claim about the > digital out of a modded and non-modded Duet be true. Here is a link to > the review: > http://www.computeraudiophile.com/bolder_cable_company_squeezebox_duet_review > > The parts that I find puzzeling are: > " I connected the stock SB Duet and the Bolder Cable modified SB Duet > to my system via coax digital out from the SB Duets into a Benchmark > DAC1 PRE. Using my MacBook Pro music server I served nothing but > uncompressed AIFFs to the two boxes. I did connect the modified Duet to > a Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC briefly to insure bit perfect digital > output. It was nice to get visual confirmation, that the stream was bit > perfect, by illuminating the HDCD indicator on the Alpha DAC whenever I > played an HDCD track." > This part I think I understand. The duet can't take advantage of HDCD > coding but will pass that info along in its digital outs. Thus bit > perfect! Right? > > and then: > "What really set the Bolder Duet apart from the stock Duet was its > analog performance. I must clarify this statement by noting the digital > output through a good DAC is far better than the analog output. But the > difference between the stock and modded Duet is less pronounced when > listening via the digital outputs." > > "...difference between the stock and modded Duet is less pronounced > when listening via the digital outputs..." Is this possible? If the > digital outputs are bit perfect from both the stock and modded then > they should sound the same via the Benchmark external DAC. Or is my > understanding flawed? The only explanation that I can think MIGHT be > relevant is if the stock had much higher jitter--so much higher that > the Benchmark couldn't correct it. Seems unlikely to me but maybe some > one can explain. > > Of course one has to doubt any of this would stand the test of a DBT, > but I am curious to know if there could be some basis in theory. > > George
Hey George, The review does seem convoluted. It is almost as if the review didnt bother to proof read it, to see where he contradicts himself as well as his findings. There also seems to be some question as to whether the reviewer's motives should be trusted, as it seems he is sort of "Hawking" Bolder Cables products. They "Asked" him to review the product. Funny how after he wrote his review it now is part of Bolder Cables actual sales ad. Not a click here link to see some possible or honest reviews. See this URL: 'Bolder Cable Duet Mod' (http://www.boldercables.com/servlet/Detail?no=393) Also in the review he says he doesn't like Squeezebox so where did he get the standard one to A/B with? He labels the SB3 and Duet as Mid-Fi. An upgraded PS and a few caps could not change that. Additionally, who in their right mind pays $1425 for a Duet (mod plus power cable plus Duet) or $1175 for an SBR? If one were going to buy a Duet to have them modify, one is better off buying a Transporter that needs no mods and add an SBC! -- iPhone *iPhone* 'Last.FM' (http://www.last.fm/user/mephone) Media Room: Transporter, VTL TL-6.5 Signature Pre-Amp, Ayre MX-R Mono Blocks, Vandersteen Quatro, VeraStarr 6.4SE 6-channel Amp, VCC-5 Reference Center, four VSM-1 Signatures, Runco RS 900 CineWide AutoScope 2.35:1 Living Room: Duet, ADCOM GTP-870HD, Cinepro 3K6SE III Gold, Vandersteen Model 3A Signature, Two 2Wq subs, VCC-2, Two VSM-1 Bedroom: SB3, NAD C370, Thiel 2.3 Home Office: SB3, Parasound Vamp v.3, VSM-1 Sigs Mobile: SB3, Audioengine A5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ iPhone's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13622 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=50147
_______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
