cliveb wrote: > Much as we are happy to see Squeezebox-based systems come out on top in > comparisons, reading this article started ringing alarm bells. > > His comparisons were using the various players as transports, all > driving the same DAC. The differences he heard will therefore be due to > one of two things: > > 1. Expectation bias. > 2. His DAC is broken wrt. jitter rejection and/or vulnerability to > noise. > > Under normal circumstances my money would be firmly on #1, but in this > case since he describes the DAC as a "highly customised Phillips TDA1541 > (NOS) tube DAC", option #2 may very well be the case.
1+2 . Actually the NOS + Tubes probably masked the jitter and noise problems :) Add. 3. Experimental error , he did something wrong when doing the comparison or setting up the products . In that case LMS vortexbox would be ( if agilllis done his thing ) bitperfect out off the box even for the most casual user . A "normal" reviewer would have gotten suspicious if bitperfect digital transports with reasonable jitter and noise levels started to sound different and investigated further . Pity , if correctly investigated we could have learned something about the other transports. Who knows if they are actually bitperfect and other technical issues ? No problem with Agillis fine product Vortexbox it's a very good thing and an excellent LMS distro and more . But this kind of review is no help , if I had not knew of vortexbox before hand I would been anymore interested after this review . So if anyone with a more objective mindset find the review the vortexbox is great it's the review that's is questionable . ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98604 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
