Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Inguz EQ/DRC
JohnB wrote: > Just a thought - can you please confirm that the files > > InguzDSP.exe > InguzDSP.exe.config > DSPUtil.dll > > are all in the folder: "C:\Program Files > (x86)\Squeezebox\server\Bin\MSWin32-x86-multi-thread" > > together with sox.exe (, etc) Hi JohnB- Thanks again. Just before I saw this post, I decided to remove/uninstall inguz and re-install. Before the re-install I also updated from LMS 7.91 to 7.92. It took me a couple of tries for the plugin to be accepted, but when it was all installed I did notice that all 3 of those files were there - and they had not been before. It does seem to be working now. I purposely choose a 48k filter file in extras, as I knew almost any thing I played would need to be resampled. And as far as I can see in this log, it's working: 20200129012112: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Write fault 232: The pipe is being closed 20200129012112: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf 1632931 samples, 154779.5504 ms (291.0876 init), 0.239 * realtime, peak -4.7238 dBfs 20200129012112: InguzDSP (version 0.9.32) -id b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf -wav -wavo -d 24 20200129012112: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Gain -16 dB 20200129012112: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Impulse Impulses\T-flat F-Default M-hogtalare 27012048.wav, matrix (null) 20200129012112: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Can't use Impulses\T-flat F-Default M-hogtalare 27012048.wav: its sample rate is 48000 not 44100 20200129012112: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Using resampled version Temp\44100_0026B57238_Impulses_T-flat F-Default M-hogtalare 27012048.wav instead 20200129012112: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf EQ flat 20200129012113: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf 16/44100 PCM => 24/44100 PCM TRIANGULAR, gain -16 dB 20200129012122: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Write fault 232: The pipe is being closed 20200129012122: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf 1639075 samples, 9996.2886 ms (214.9298 init), 3.7014 * realtime, peak -4.7238 dBfs 20200129012122: InguzDSP (version 0.9.32) -id b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf -wav -wavo -d 24 20200129012123: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Gain -16 dB 20200129012123: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Impulse Impulses\T-flat F-Default M-hogtalare 27012048.wav, matrix (null) 20200129012123: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Can't use Impulses\T-flat F-Default M-hogtalare 27012048.wav: its sample rate is 48000 not 96000 20200129012123: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Using resampled version Temp\96000_0026B57238_Impulses_T-flat F-Default M-hogtalare 27012048.wav instead 20200129012123: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf EQ flat 20200129012123: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf 24/96000 PCM => 24/96000 PCM TRIANGULAR, gain -16 dB 20200129012131: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Write fault 232: The pipe is being closed 20200129012131: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf 2220707 samples, 8567.5556 ms (281.9226 init), 2.6845 * realtime, peak -1.1036 dBfs 20200129012131: InguzDSP (version 0.9.32) -id b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf -wav -wavo -d 24 20200129012131: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Gain -16 dB 20200129012131: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Impulse Impulses\T-flat F-Default M-hogtalare 27012048.wav, matrix (null) 20200129012131: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Can't use Impulses\T-flat F-Default M-hogtalare 27012048.wav: its sample rate is 48000 not 44100 20200129012131: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Using resampled version Temp\44100_0026B57238_Impulses_T-flat F-Default M-hogtalare 27012048.wav instead 20200129012131: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf EQ flat 20200129012131: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf 16/44100 PCM => 24/44100 PCM TRIANGULAR, gain -16 dB 20200129012136: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Write fault 232: The pipe is being closed 20200129012136: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf 1927843 samples, 4942.4776 ms (229.7122 init), 8.7001 * realtime, peak -14.8925 dBfs 20200129012136: InguzDSP (version 0.9.32) -id b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf -wav -wavo -d 24 20200129012136: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Gain -16 dB 20200129012136: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Impulse Impulses\T-flat F-Default M-hogtalare 27012048.wav, matrix (null) 20200129012136: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Can't use Impulses\T-flat F-Default M-hogtalare 27012048.wav: its sample rate is 48000 not 44100 20200129012136: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Using resampled version Temp\44100_0026B57238_Impulses_T-flat F-Default M-hogtalare 27012048.wav instead 20200129012136: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf EQ flat 20200129012137: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf 16/44100 PCM => 24/44100 PCM TRIANGULAR, gain -16 dB GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Isol Line conditioner/protection. iFi AC iPurifiers>CAPS4 Pipeline w/Sonore PS >Kii Control>Kii Three speakers.iFi iOne+ Schiit Freya Pre for analog. An SB Touch, Duet Controller, a RB Pi 3B+ running piCorePlayer as an SBT emulator in additional rooms. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=109921 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Inguz EQ/DRC
Thanks again. My Sox.exe is in the same place as yours. So the question is, why is Inguz looking for it in the wrong place? And how do I "fix" that? I also followed your other advice about deleting files and restsrting LMS and the Touch. Same results as you saw above. Whenever the samplerates of thr filter and the playback file don't match, Sox isn't found. GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Isol Line conditioner/protection. iFi AC iPurifiers>CAPS4 Pipeline w/Sonore PS >Kii Control>Kii Three speakers.iFi iOne+ Schiit Freya Pre for analog. An SB Touch, Duet Controller, a RB Pi 3B+ running piCorePlayer as an SBT emulator in additional rooms. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=109921 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Inguz EQ/DRC
JohnB wrote: > You say you have loaded the FIR files into your touch. > > Are you running LMS on your Touch, rather than on a separate PC, etc? If > so you will not be able use the Inguz plugin - the Touch just doesn't > have the processing power. No. Sorry for not being clear. I've got a pretty powerful Windows server with LMS running on it. When I said I loaded the files onto the Touch, I meant I went into Extras>EQ>Room Correction and picked one of the correction filters that show up there - the ones loaded into C:\ProgramData\InguzEQ\Impulses Thanks GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Isol Line conditioner/protection. iFi AC iPurifiers>CAPS4 Pipeline w/Sonore PS >Kii Control>Kii Three speakers.iFi iOne+ Schiit Freya Pre for analog. An SB Touch, Duet Controller, a RB Pi 3B+ running piCorePlayer as an SBT emulator in additional rooms. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=109921 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Inguz EQ/DRC
Thanks for your help. I made progress. I have convolution files I made in Audiolense. They supposedly are 32 bit float, and are wav files. I loaded them into my Touch, but can't get playback. Here's the log output showing the error, I'd appreciate it if one of you can tell me what this means and how to fix it. 20200128134530: InguzDSP (version 0.9.32) -id b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf -wav -wavo -d 24 20200128134530: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Gain -16 dB 20200128134531: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Impulse (null), matrix (null) 20200128134531: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf EQ flat 20200128134531: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf 16/44100 PCM => 24/44100 PCM TRIANGULAR, gain -16 dB 20200128134531: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Write fault 232: The pipe is being closed 20200128134531: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf 578211 samples, 468.7338 ms (78.1112 init), 27.7343 * realtime, peak -10.1932 dBfs 20200128134531: InguzDSP (version 0.9.32) -id b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf -wav -wavo -d 24 20200128134531: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Gain -16 dB 20200128134532: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Impulse (null), matrix (null) 20200128134532: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf EQ flat 20200128134532: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf 16/44100 PCM => 24/44100 PCM TRIANGULAR, gain -16 dB 20200128134551: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Write fault 232: The pipe is being closed 20200128134551: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf 2718371 samples, 19409.1153 ms (78.1237 init), 3.1429 * realtime, peak -26.0895 dBfs 20200128134551: InguzDSP (version 0.9.32) -id b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf -wav -wavo -d 24 20200128134551: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Gain -16 dB 20200128134551: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Impulse (null), matrix (null) 20200128134551: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf EQ flat 20200128134552: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf 16/44100 PCM => 24/44100 PCM TRIANGULAR, gain -16 dB 20200128134639: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Write fault 232: The pipe is being closed 20200128134639: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf 3664547 samples, 47862.4218 ms (78.1093 init), 1.7341 * realtime, peak -7.2698 dBfs 20200128134640: InguzDSP (version 0.9.32) -id b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf -wav -wavo -d 24 20200128134640: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Gain -16 dB 20200128134640: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Impulse (null), matrix (null) 20200128134640: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf EQ flat 20200128134640: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf 16/44100 PCM => 24/44100 PCM TRIANGULAR, gain -16 dB 20200128155835: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf Write fault 232: The pipe is being closed 20200128155835: b8:27:eb:3a:b6:bf 3764899 samples, 7915069.2555 ms (62.4987 init), 0.0107 * realtime, peak -11.3439 dBfs 20200128165944: InguzDSP (version 0.9.32) 20200128165944: -id must be specified. GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Isol Line conditioner/protection. iFi AC iPurifiers>CAPS4 Pipeline w/Sonore PS >Kii Control>Kii Three speakers.iFi iOne+ Schiit Freya Pre for analog. An SB Touch, Duet Controller, a RB Pi 3B+ running piCorePlayer as an SBT emulator in additional rooms. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=109921 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Inguz EQ/DRC
Just installed this. When I go to plugins>EQ>settings I get "Cannot initialize Silverlight: createSilverlightControl is not defined" I do have Silverlight installed on the LMS server. What's missing? Plus: How do I add my RC convolution filters? Thanks GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Isol Line conditioner/protection. iFi AC iPurifiers>CAPS4 Pipeline w/Sonore PS >Bricasti M5 network player>Kii Control>Kii Three speakers.iFi iOne+ Schiit Freya Pre for analog. An SB Touch, Duet Controller, a RB Pi 3B+ running piCorePlayer as an SBT emulator in additional rooms. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=109921 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] TAS Reviews new Sony HAP-Z1ES player
Channel Classics has some great sounding native DSD recordings. They do minimal processing, I think there is only a PCM conversion at a few very small edit points. Other than that, the original native DSD remains. If you like Mahler, try their Mahler 1st I linked to earlier. I believe if you use HQPlayer all sorts of manipulations of DSD are possible. GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Windows 7 via FW Mytek 192 DSD DAC;Odyssey Kismet (Khartago case) Stereo Amp; Devore Gibbon 9 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car;SB Boom and SB Touch in additional rooms. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=101003 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] TAS Reviews new Sony HAP-Z1ES player
I don't have any real argument for you except what I hear. I hear a small improvement with native DSD and with DSD over hi-res resamples to PCM of DSD. It is possible that this is simply my DAC being better at converting DSD, although I don't think it is only this, as I have heard it under different circumstances. DSD sounds different. I am far from the only one who thinks so. To some ears it is better and more analog like, to other ears it is Soft. We can agree to disagree on that, it is a matter of taste. As regards a player like the SONY that upsamples PCM to DSD, again, sounding better is a matter of taste, not ideology. You can make whatever argument you want, if some people think it sounds better, then I think that's great for them. The argument is no more useful than whether tubes sound better than SS or are euphonic distortion, or whether vinyl sounds better than digital. Basically a useless argument, whidh cannot be won. Your argument about too many recording/playback formats is a good one. It may be the reason DSD doesn't really succeed. GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Windows 7 via FW Mytek 192 DSD DAC;Odyssey Kismet (Khartago case) Stereo Amp; Devore Gibbon 9 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car;SB Boom and SB Touch in additional rooms. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=101003 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] TAS Reviews new Sony HAP-Z1ES player
http://www.channelclassics.com/fischer-33112.html one example GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Windows 7 via FW Mytek 192 DSD DAC;Odyssey Kismet (Khartago case) Stereo Amp; Devore Gibbon 9 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car;SB Boom and SB Touch in additional rooms. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=101003 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A few words on the second coming of DSD!
First off, I agree that DSD doesn't have a big future. Most of the music being recorded in DSD today is classical. If you like classical you can even get quite a decent library as downloads. Otherwise, there isn't much to get. I think a lot of the excitement about DSD is coming from audiophiles who have a large or reasonably large investment in SACD. For them the DSD DACs are quite a boon, now that they have a way to rip the SACD/DSD to HD. IMO, these rips sound better than the SACD they came from. Plus it adds the convenience of computer audio for the owners of these discs. There are enough of these people around to make it useful for high end audio companies to add DSD capabilities to DACs. These expensive DACs sell in small absolute numbers anyway, so adding the buyers who are interested in DSD is worthwhile for these companies. In other words, I think it is a logical business decision on their part, not just cynical check box marketing. And don't forget, the companies that don't jump on board with DSD now risk losing customers to companies who do, so that's another incentive for them. As far as sound quality, I think native DSD recordings sound fantastic when well done. Some of my classical recordings are probably the most natural, best sounding recordings of any type I have - including other hi-res (example: the Mahler symphonies from Blue Coast in DSD). I also have some analogDSD conversions that sound wonderful. To my ears, DSD is better for this than PCM - the result just sounds more natural and analog-like. So purely in terms of SQ, I think there is a legitimate place for DSD. Yes, a lot of SACDs are made from upsampled Redbook or analogue. Deriving them from upsampled PCM is a rip-off. But as I stated, I think DSD derived from analog is a very legitimate use, and from my reckoning, of about 8000 SACDs in existence, about 1500 are recorded in native DSD. Many of these SACDs still aren't available in any other hi-res format. So I don't see the problem with either the native DSD ones or the SACD/DSD derived from analog. All that said, I do think the future of hi-res is in 24/96 and 24/192. And I certainly have no problem with that. I just wish there was more new and archive material available in properly done hi-res. GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Windows 7; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; Mytek 192 DSD DAC;Custom Desinged Class AB control amp; Devore Gibbon 9 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98482 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audiolabs M-DAC
Stratmangler wrote: Not strictly true - if you hang a M2Tech Hiface 2 out of the USB port then it's quite happy sending 24/192. The next logical step of enquiry goes along the lines of I wonder if the M2Tech Young DAC can handle 24/192 over USB? I think the answer to the question is that it's more than likely. The M2Tech stuff doesn't require the use of proprietary drivers for Linux devices, and as the Touch is running on Linux. that is true only for the new generation of M2tech stuff that came out this year; the older stuff needs proprietary drivers and doesn't work with linux firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92112 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
Quote from Barry Diament, record producer who records in hi-res and has shown he can pick hi-res versions of his recordings out from standard res versions of the same master, reflecting on why 24 bit recordings are superior to 16 bit (note that he isn't talking about hearing hi-res frequencies due the higher k): Instrumental harmonics, for example, the parts of the sound that differentiate a C played on a guitar from a C played on a piano, or a C played on a Baldwin piano from a C played on a Steinway, are much lower in level than the fundamental (the C itself). Spatial information too - what tells us about the space the players are in, the size of the room, its character, is much lower in level than the loudest sounds we hear at a given moment. If this information is say, 12 dB lower in level, it will be quantized using approximately 2 bits fewer than the total word length (i.e. 14 bits in a 16-bit encoding, 22 bits in a 24-bit encoding). If it is say, 36 dB lower in level, it will be quantized usings approximately 6 bits fewer than the total word length (i.e. 10 bits in a 16-bit encoding, 18 bits in a 24-bit encoding). Some information, such as the end of a reverb tail such as in a recording made in a large room, where the music ends suddenly, can be well more than that 36 dB lower in level than the loudest sounds and will be encoded with correspondingly fewer bits. This manifests itself in the thinned, bleached and coarsened instrumental harmonics in even the best 16-bit recordings, as compared to a good 24-bit recording (or of course, the original sound in real life). It also manifests itself in the defocusing of the spatial information in the 16-bit recording compared to a good 24-bit recording (and real life). -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, Grant Fidelity B-283MKII bufferClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
Unfortunately, the picture isn't as clear or as simple as he tries to portray. The Boston Audio DBT had flaws which are pointed out in many critiques all over the net. Among other things, he seems to thing the point of high res recordings is so we can hear high frequenies (above 20k); that of course isn't the point. He talks about macro dynamics of music, but not microdynamics. Finally, he may be correct. But it may also be irrelevant that he is. Some have made the case that you can hear everything on a well produced Redbook file that you can hear on a hi-res file, only some of the detail is easier to hear on a high res file. This alone can account for the subjective impression that the hi res sounds different or better. In any case, even the authors of the DBT admit that there best sounding files were those from SACD. This they attribute to better/different mastering of the hi-res files, and not to any inherent superiority of the format. That may be. But then that alone is a good reason to buy them and listen to them. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, Grant Fidelity B-283MKII bufferClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles, Pink Floyd Engineer Alan Parsons Rips Audiophiles
Let's see: 1) audiophiles over pay for equipment (often based on looks) and forget that a proper acoustic environment is probably more important to getting good sound. IMO, that's about as true as something can be. How many audiophiles will spend thousands upgrading hardware, yet won't buy a pair of bass traps for $300, when the traps would improve the sound they hear much more than the equipment upgrade? Lots of them. 2) Cheap surround systems from places like Costco arent' bad: Again, how is this wrong? Yes, for a few hundred to a thousand dollars you can get a pretty good sounding system that will give you about 90% of the sound quality you get from an audiophile system costing several times more. Nothing surprising here. Audiophillea is all about spending lots of money for relatively small sonic returns. It's the basic economics of diminishing returns. Each added bit of sonic improvement gets more expensive the closer you get to perfection. Audiophiles think that's worth the money, other people think it isn't, and what they have is good enough. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, Grant Fidelity B-283MKII bufferClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93554 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Speaker placement question
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Magnepan-37-I-give See this thread with the entry by music producer Barry Diament, where he talks about floating his Maggies on roller platforms and how it improves the sound. He also has an article on his website about room setup -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, Grant Fidelity B-283MKII bufferClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93503 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Ripping Vinyl Experiences
Hi- The Bellari vp530 is a good unit. I don't remember their models exactly, but they make phono preamps with USB and tube output. At least one with both. As far as the RIAA curve: if you are going digital, there is a lot of software around that will apply the RIAA curve for you to your file, and good software will do it better and more accurately than just about ANY hardware phono preamp. So what I recommend is: get a phono pre that gives you the option of turning off the RIAA curve for recording purposes - Bellari actually makes one like that (you can of course use it for vinyl playback with the RIAA curve turned on). Then: 1. Record without the RIAA curve 2. Get rid of or reduce major pops, clicks, and noises. 3. Apply RIAA curve with software. 4. Listen. If you think it sounds good you are done with the audio forensics. What's left is tagging, splitting tracks, etc. If you thing the file needs further processing, do it. I personally find that automatic tools can work well if you apply very light processing. Example: I don't try to get rid of all the hiss, I just try to reduce it so it isn't so noticeable. Same for pops and clicks. I just try to reduce volume with automatic tools, not eliminate them. I find that with this approach I don't ruin the sound of my recordings, only improve them. Software: Adobe Audition is good. I use Diamond Cut. It does a great job applying the RIAA curve, by the way. The interesting thing about transferring vinyl to digital is that if you do a good job, the resulting digital tracks sound like analogue. Sort of shows that digital sounding recordings are due to something other than the inherent nature of digital. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, Grant Fidelity B-283MKII bufferClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93265 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Munroe;686387 Wrote: I am pretty sure the masterings are from the same remaster. I have two versions of the LP, as well as the 80's CD remaster ripped lossless and the more recent 24/96 I assume converted from the SACD remaster sessions to FLAC Overall, my own goal is to bring the SBT closer to, or surpass, the vinyl sound. The various versions may be from the same DSD (SACD) source master, but that doesn't mean that the LP and the high res are produced from the same master. Pretty much by definition, the LP will require mastering changes from the digital file in order to make a proper LP remaster. So yes, comparing the hi-res to the LP is an apples and oranges comparision. I agree with Phil. If you can make a high-quality rip of your LP, that might tell you something. I've ripped about 50 LPs, and the resulting digital file sounds like what most people think analogue sounds like. Like an LP. In other words, the sound many don't like about digital isn't inherent in a digital recording by it's nature; it comes from something else in the recording, mastering, and reproduction process. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, Grant Fidelity B-283MKII bufferClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Phil Leigh;686424 Wrote: It is certainly possible today to walk into a shop and purchase a CD that 99.9% of people would swear was analogue in character, even though the entire chain was 100% digital. Not to mention that more and more LPs these days are being produced from a digital source. Even older analogue masters are often transferred to digital and then the new LP master is made from the digital transcription of the original analogue master tape. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, Grant Fidelity B-283MKII bufferClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Jittery Touch
Mnyb;686234 Wrote: Yes I read that post to very helpfull of john s, no need to cry wolf rigth now then ? But does anyone have jitter measurment from the spdiff ? I'm painfully aware of the fact that seem to be many ways of measuring it . Stereophiles measurments is done via the analog outs. Can you assume that a device with reasonably ok jitter on the analog out also must have ok jitter at the spdiff out ? They may differ ,but 10/1 or 100/1 difference ? Edit: just curius I do get that it is only the end result that counts if the connected dac can fix it so that it's analog out is the same as with a better source the source jitter did not matter. My Touch, before mods, measured by Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio, from SPDIF out: The P-P Jitter below 1MHz was 300psec, which is WAY less than the quoted measurement in OP -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, Grant Fidelity B-283MKII bufferClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93232 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Jittery Touch
darrenyeats;686270 Wrote: You make two statements which are different Firedog. The first one is purely about jitter, and I disagree with that one. There are DACs that eliminate jitter e.g. Benchmark. Yes it's a claim as you put it, but unlike your claim Benchmark publish measurements as evidence for their claim. (Not that you could publish measurements for every DAC anyway...) As for your second statement, which is about jitter and noise, I don't know about that area. Regards, Darren I stand by my claim. The Benchmark doesn't eliminate jitter. It's a marketing claim. If it is fed a jittery signal, there are methods for improving the result, but the jitter isn't eliminated. In real life there isn't digital audio with NO jitter. Low jitter, yes. NO jitter, sorry. http://www.head-fi.org/t/465286/does-the-benchmark-dac1-or-any-dac-eliminate-all-jitter http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Reclocking-DAC-immune-transport-jitter -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, Grant Fidelity B-283MKII bufferClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93232 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Jittery Touch
You have to be very sceptical about any jitter comments. There is no standard way to measure jitter. So what jitter are they talking about? Where did they measure it and how? What type? In general the Touch is considered a relatively clean source in the digital realm. Can you get something with a lower jitter measurement? Sure. But the Touch does pretty well (see the reviews http://www.avguide.com/review/logitech-squeezebox-touch-tas-206 ; or the Stereophile review with Atkinson's measurements: http://www.stereophile.com/content/logitech-squeezebox-touch-network-music-player-measurements) Anyway, why do you care about that quote anyway? If you like how the Touch sounds, that's what counts. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, Grant Fidelity B-283MKII bufferClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93232 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Is there a device to make internet radio streams sound better?
My experience with lossy files is that they sound better with: a better DAC; a tube buffer or some type of tube amplification. The tube sound makes the lossy files sound a little more like the real thing. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, Grant Fidelity B-283MKII bufferClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93155 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Duet - sound quality compared to Touch, DAC etc. ?
swayzak;682107 Wrote: Really ? That's interesting - never heard of them. You mean like this: http://www.destiny-audio.com/cms/en/pre-amplifier/tube-buffer.html Looks cool as well. How does the sound change ? Is it subtle ? I have a similar one. I have seen them for as little as $145 direct from China: http://audio4lessonline.com There are many others, at prices up to the $thousands. doddaudio.com makes a battery powered one in the US for $300 which is supposed to be much better. It also is on sale as a kit. Sound change: just makes the sound a little more rounded and softer, more musical. I think basically it is adding harmonics, or you might want to call it a euphonic form of distortion. On really good modern recordings I don't think it does much; on older recordings transferred to digital or with mp3s, I think it definitely makes them sound less harsh and more musical. My recordings of 60s rock sound more like an LP through this. I wouldn't say the change is dramatic, but it is noticeable. It also makes the soundstage larger on my system. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, Grant Fidelity B-283MKII bufferClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92805 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
magiccarpetride;682173 Wrote: John Lennon is standing right in front of you at his 5'11'' height, and you can 'see' him opening his mouth at that exact height. John Lennon probably wasn't 5'11''; various sources give his height at anyhwhere from 5'9 to 5'11, but IMO if you look at pictures of him next to other people the 5'11 can't be right. He was probably an inch or two shorter. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, Grant Fidelity B-283MKII bufferClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Duet - sound quality compared to Touch, DAC etc. ?
I tried a tube buffer in my system, and it made mp3s sound much better - more like music that hasn't been compressed. You can get a decent tube buffer for $150-$200. I think if you listen to mp3's that would be a more cost effective use of your money. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, Grant Fidelity B-283MKII bufferClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92805 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audiolabs M-DAC
Before mods, my Touch was measured: P-P Jitter below 1MHz was 300psec, which seems quite different than what's being talked about here. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, Grant Fidelity B-283MKII bufferClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92112 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio-gd experience?
The brand is much more well known in Oz. See the above forum, where lots of users wanting an affordable DAC are very happy with them. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, Grant Fidelity B-283MKII bufferClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92109 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Honestly I'd love to see a DUET 3 kind of device. They should focus on a small, simple, no frill streaming black box. Main focus on sound quality. Probably won't happen. They are trying to hit the mass market, and the relatively cheap box with the screen is a good selling point. 99% of the public has never even heard of a hi-res file and doesn't care. For a Duet type device to succeed, they'd have to have a separate controller more like an iphone or iPad with a large touch screen, and not much point in them producing that. I doubt we will see any more truly audiophile products in the SB line (like the Transporter) with Logitech in charge. It just isn't what they do. praganj;676926 Wrote: I hope that Logitech will read it... I don't know any SBT owner using the touch screen. :) I do, because I listen from next to the Touch. And it is one of the things I like about the Touch. At some point I may get a tablet to control it though. I agree that I'm probably in the minority. Again, I think the touch screen is great for marketing. Most buyers probably don't realize it won't be useful for them. But most have iPhone type devices, so don't need it. The way for Logitech to go might be to make something like the Touch with a 7 inch screen, so it could actually be seen from 3m/10ft away, and then the included remote would be sufficient (like the SB3). -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, ClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Touch DAC
The new Peachtree Audio DAC-iT is getting very positive reviews. The Schiit Bifrost DAC is too. Both are said to outperform their price point. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, ClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92202 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audiolabs M-DAC
Is this the same DAC as the 8200 DAC/pre, but without the pre? -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, ClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92112 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] $30, 000 audio power cable introduced
garym;673389 Wrote: Or another thread where a user is trying to decide whether there is better sound quality from using windows pro, vista, or XP. sigh Acutally different versions of Windows do sound different. It's not because of 0's and 1's per se, but how they process sound. XP has kernel mixer. Newer versions don't. Vista and W7 are setup for WASAPI. So Windows, especially XP, does alter the sound of your music output unless you specifically set it up not to. The amount and type of processes you have running on your PC can also affect the sound. In various setups, some Windows versions my be better suited for turning off unwanted processes than others. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, ClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91896 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Amarra software
Darren- Wouldn't argue your points about room EQ. That's why I phrased what I wrote carefully and said that room interaction needs to be treated in some way. How is a different question. I also use physical room correction (panels) and find it quite satisfactory. However, I have no doubt that EQ can help in some cases; also much more sophisticated methods are also available such as DSP RC, which can correct for both time and frequency. I've used it in the past and found it can work quite well. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, ClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91692 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] $30, 000 audio power cable introduced
Ron Olsen;673117 Wrote: If you have $30K to spend on your audio system, buy fantastic speakers and forget nonsense tweaks. I don't think of clean power as a tweak. However, I do question whether it takes $30K to get there. Butpeople who have $30K to spend on a cable or on separate dedicated power supply to their listening room probably are spending a minimum of $100K, if not several times that, on their audio system. Their are lots of of fantastic speakers available for multiples of $30K. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, ClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91896 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Amarra software
Wombat;672898 Wrote: Just 3 questions because i know nothing about apples digital outs or alike. Only 3 questions about the 3 advantages of this software that were made. 1. Is the digital out of any Apple computer measured better as the one of the Squeezebox? Links please. 2. How does one qualify the sound of an Equalizer? Shouldn´t the most difference come from the applied gains? Not one Equalizer does exatly have the same curve. How to qualify this against other implementations? Besides that on a good system there shouldn´t be ANY equalizing so this is s non-issue. 3. Someone mentioned Amarra sounds best on Upsampling!? This is as dull as any claim can get. Perfect upsampling has NO sound. Maybe the device that is feeded by higher sampling-rate sounds better because of its strange design. 1. You'll be hard pressed to find comparable measurements of a Touch and an Apple computer. One, b/c there isn't a standard for jitter measurement. Two, b/c what are you comparing? What outs? The two devices aren't necessarily directly comparable. Quite possible that in one setup the Touch is superior and the Apple in another. So I'm not sure any measurements that were made would be useful in terms of what you would actually hear in practice. That's why you need to judge equipment on how it sounds, and not on it's specs or parts. 2. Equalizer: Amarra has software equalizers that let you boost or reduce certain frequencies. Not based on a set curve. Some equalizers don't just change frequencies,but add their own sound signature or distortion. The one in Amarra is reputed to be transparent, i.e., no sound signature. Having a good system and equalizing aren't opposed. Your room adds its own sound signature, and can boost or reduce some frequencies. Many who want the most accurate sound think that they come closer to accuracy by measuring their room response, and then ensuring that the output it flat when room interactions are taken into account. This has nothing to do with whether the sound reproducing equipment itself is accurate. 3. Upsampling. No, your view is a little simplisitic. Some devices are known to sound better working at some sampling rates rather than others. In addition, some users prefer upsampling b/c it enables different filtering to be used which results in a different sound. Again, this has nothing to do with whether the upsampling is done perfectly or not. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, ClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91692 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] $30, 000 audio power cable introduced
I still don't get the logic. Why would you spend 30K on the cable when you could put in a totally proprietary isolated electric system for your sound/AV system or room for the same money. Then you wouldn't have a last yard, b/c you would be the last yard. Wouldn't that work better? -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, ClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91896 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Amarra software
ralphpnj;672543 Wrote: Therefore after reading this thread and scanning the linked thread I am even more convinced that the $700 Amarra software is being defended by Apple fanboys simply because they cannot admit that the lowly $300 Touch is a much, much better computer based digital audio playback device than their precious Apple/Amarra computer. As the old saying goes, you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Not sure this is a fair representation. I don't have an Apple device. But over at computeraudiohile.com there is a fairly large community of people who prefer the Mac Mini as a playback solution to most other reasonably priced solutions. In fact some of them also like the Touch, but prefer the Mac Mini. Gordon at Wavelength Audio is also a Mini as music server proponent, as is Steve Nugent. I don't think all of them are Apple fanboys. Gordon and Steve are certainly in it for what sounds best to them (and what makes their products sound best), and have no particular reason to push Apple products. Like a lot of things in audio, YMMV. The results may be system dependent. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, ClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91692 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Amarra software
I don't understand the bashing of the program virtually no one who posted has actually heard. I haven't heard it either, but lot's of users have spent good money on it after downloading the trial version and trying it, so it must be worth a try. I use Windows, and can attest that programs like jplay and Fidelizer make a significant difference in SQ of playback. So maybe Amarra does also. As to the OP, Amarra does several other things. It has a very high quality EQ feature, so if you measure your room response it gives you the ability to adjust the room, and make up for room deficiencies. Users with experience have reported that it is the most transparent sounding EQ they've used (i.e., no artifacts, just the EQ). In addition,it has what many consider to be a superior sounding upsampling feature, and a well implemented memory play feature. I would say those features are worth some money. I agree $700 is a lot for the software. More than I would pay. There is also a simpler version for less than half the price, with a few less features, but apparently sonically the same. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, ClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91692 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
xtrips;669713 Wrote: Anyone who care to answer here? Thanks Sorry for asking the obvious, but are you also streaming to another SB device like a radio or a Boom? If so, server side decoding can cause problems - the server doesn't know what device to decode for, as it were, and may not send a stream to the Touch. Althogh what you are describing doesn't sound like this phenomenon. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, ClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
RadioClash;669686 Wrote: Phil's guard dogs are out in full force. :) I don't get the attacks on Phil. He's one of the more helpful people on the forum. He hasn't dissed the mods. In the past he has pointed out that a Few of Klaus' ideas/assumptions/explanations don't stand up to a critical analysis of how the SB software and hardwar work or how certain electrical/acoustical/engineering phenomena work. In other words, facts. This isn't the same as saying the mods don't work. Opinions aren't facts. And quoting that great Philosopher Dirty Harry doesn't turn opinions into facts or facts into opinions. Pointing out facts is a good thing. If you can't handle it, you should ask yourself why you insist on holding onto your opinions when they fly in the face of facts. I personally think the mods make some difference in my system. This doesn't mean that they may make NO difference in someone else's. And it doesn't mean I'm not imagining the difference I think I hear. And saying so doesn't make me deaf or any other epithet you wish to throw at me or anyone else who makes a similar comment. If some of you true believers had the balls, you'd set up a proper unsighted test and see if you really can tell the difference between a modded Touch and one that isn't. But you won't, because you prefer to live in a fantasy world and not deal with facts. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, ClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
bobertuk;668022 Wrote: Klaus, Is there any interaction between TT3.0 and 24bit/96KHz flac files? I suddenly can't play them any more - the only recent changes to my system are that I have started using TT3.0 and have updated to LMS 7.7.1 nightly. If I change Touch 'file types' for flac - native it works. It does mean that transcoding is carried out by the touch though! Could be the recent LMS 7.7.1 nightly I suppose! Bob If you are decoding FLAC high res at the server end, you can have problems if your SB units that don't play native hi-res are on and in synch mode. The server will either not play them at all or downsample them and only send them to the low res units, and not to the Touch. There are a few different scenarios, I don't remember exactly how it plays itself out. But basically, the server can only decode one stream, and it will do what it thinks best for the various units you have on simultaneously. The solution to this problem is to decode at the individual unit and not at the server. Try this together with Klaus' other mods, you may find that in your case it doesn't make a big difference in SQ. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, ClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Just listend to Steely Dan Countdown to Ecstasy - standard redbook (old) CD rip. Never heard it sound so good, so clear. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, ClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Try the Tune In plugin and look for more streams. I couldn't get BBC World Service from the main menu/search to work, but found a WMA stream of it with the Tune In plugin that works. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, ClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Sorry for being dense, can someone explain to me exactly what line(s) in the code in which file can/need to be changed here? And if I used V 3.0 to enable digital out only is there any reason to alter this priority at all? -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, ClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Klaus- I'm using the full update except: screen is on. Digital out only. I actually use the SBT screen as touch screen controller. Since I installed 3.0, I've noticed the screen is a little jumpy to the touch - over responds to slight touches sometimes. I saw one other user over at the Audiocircle forum who mentioned the same thing. Do you have any idea what this might be or what parameter might need to be adjusted to counteract for this? -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, ClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
Hi Klaus- Just installed 3.0, it works great. The help screen is a great new feature, as is the screen on-off command. Overall a more friendly, more convenient package. And I must say, I do think the SQ is improved over V 2.0. My system sounds cleaner and clearer to me. It's not a huge difference, but it is a noticeable one. I can hear some of the small details in the music more easily. And this is with the screen on. (Although on my setup I don't really hear a difference with the screen off, to be honest.) Anyway, thanks again. And to those of you who use the program but haven't donated, make a donation! -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, classDaudio SDS-470 amp; MF X-150 as pre-amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
Stilly77;664118 Wrote: agree good jitter read: http://amorgignitamorem.nl/Audio/Jitter/Detection%20threshold%20for%20distortions%20due%20to%20jitter%20on%20digital%20audio%2026_50.pdf Except that that test, just like many such tests, doesn't account for the listener and his abilities. Listeners who have been exposed to the sound of jitter and know what to listen for can detect levels a fraction of the threshold level referred to in the article. I personally passed a blind test where I could differentiate between 2 files, one with 100ns jitter added and another identical file with 30ns of jitter added. Other listeners can detect jitter at below 20ns. This is a level 8-10 times less than the lower threshold in the article. The key, like many things in audio, is training your listening abilities and knowing what to listen for. Jitter is easily detectable in sounds like the reproduction of cymbals, for instance. (Percussion can also reveal it, and so do recordings with a clear sense of the room they were recorded in). So for example, a listener that knows what jitter sounds like in cymbal reproduction can detect it at very low levels. On some pieces of music/recordings it is much more noticeable than others. In the test above listeners weren't exposed/taught what jitter sounds like, and weren't played tracks that lent themselves to hearing jitter. They can't hear low levels of jitter b/c they don't know what to listen for. With some minor training of the ear, I'm sure many of those same listeners would have detected jitter at much lower levels. The situation is much like many of my friends who think 128K Mp3 files sound identical to the CD they were made from. But when I point out the differences to them, they start to hear them. Again, listening is a learned skill. You can train yourself to hear things that weren't there before. The fact is that they were there, you had just never taught your brain to process that information before. So the idea that today's equipment reproduces music with undetectable levels of jitter simply isn't true. The question is undetectable to whom? -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, classDaudio SDS-470 amp; MF X-150 as pre-amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
Klaus is doing it for free, but if you like his software why not make a small contribution? I did. There's a link on his page. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, classDaudio SDS-470 amp; MF X-150 as pre-amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
I made the same mistake. You have to do a factory reset before the re-install for everything to work. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, classDaudio SDS-470 amp; MF X-150 as pre-amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How to browse my HD audio tracks?
So I can browse that way. It also means I can eliminate a given genre from random play if I wish. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, classDaudio SDS-470 amp; MF X-150 as pre-amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=89863 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] EQ for Linux/Vortexbox?
Looking to do EQ (NOT DRC) with a Touch system with SBS on a Vortexbox machine. Have read that BruteFIR can do the trick, but that it won't work with the Touch interface. Can it be controlled through the browser interface for SBS? Or can Inguz be installed on Linux/Vortexbox? I'm reading conflicting stuff about whether or not there is a version that suits Vortexbox. Thanks for your help. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, classDaudio SDS-470 amp; MF X-150 as pre-amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=89714 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
Hi- Using a Touch with Klaus' 2.0 toolbox. Updated SBS to 7.6; Touch updated to r9548 Can't get ttbuffer 4000 to take. When I execute the command, it reports back that the mod is being applied and unit is rebooting. After reboot I check with ttstat: buffer is still at 2. I've done this several times, same result. Any ideas? BTW, what is modification Jive2? Says disabled in my ttstat window. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DACV3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
Covenant;639777 Wrote: Thanks chaps. The crackling is only when changing something-flicking between favourites for example. I guess I might just have to put the buffer back to 2. Sure you have all the sound effects turned off? Or is there some kind of plugin or something else you have going that is trying to make a sound effect? Have you tried disabling all plugins and seeing if that makes a difference? -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DACV3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezebox audio quality, really that good ?
Ralph- As everything in audio, it depends on the implementation. There's good USB which sounds as good as anything else around, and not so good USB, which can sound very bad. As computer audio becomes more popular, USB is being used more and more by DAC makers for 2 reasons: (1)it's ubiquitous on just about every PC/MAC/XXX Box computer made in the past 10 years, and will continue to be for the predictable future; (2) modern USB hardware and drivers have made the sound at least the equal of the other formats (SPDIF/FW). Some of the quality USBSPDIF converters out now have been demonstrated (reviews, listening tests) to be the best sounding option for many DACs - even better than straight SPDIF. Yes, getting high quality USB reproduction does cost a few bucks extra. But not fair to say that it is inherently inferior. Read some recent reviews of the better USB devices/DACs out there and see what they say. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DACV3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=88540 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Blind tests? I don't get it...
The human brain has the power to change our perceptions - we actually see and hear with our brains, as the brain processes the data our senses provide. Even, if we think we are objective, we aren't. Obvioulsly AB testing can't tell you if you like something. But it can tell you if your preference of A over B is based on a real difference (based on data delivered) or your brain's expectations/prejudices. If your properly A B test two components or two sources and the test is truly blind, you may not be able to reliably hear a difference you can hear in a non-blind test. If you can't tell two setups apart in such a situation, it means that the difference between them isn't audible to you. Many people find that they can't reliably hear a difference in a blind test that they were SURE was there in a sighted test. So, for example, if you can't hear the difference between a $500 DAC and a $1500 DAC in a blind test, it's telling you not to spend that extra $1000 (unless your decision is based on looks and features, and not on sound). -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DACV3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=88345 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
Run ttstat for the Toolbox and see what the reported buffer size is. That's the actual set buffer size, in spite of your error message. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DACV3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hearing the differences
found in at least several responses here. You simply don't want to listen to anyone but yourself. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DACV3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87051 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] very useful Foobar plugin....
I just played with the plugin for a few minutes. Many classical and jazz albums (even small bands / acoustic only quartets) came out with 15-17 - clearly one of the reasons I prefer their SQ. Rock/Pop not a lot of cuts with a number over 12. Many at the 5-10 range. In some this means there was light/heavy limiting, in others it probably just means the actual dynamic range of the music isn't so great. The Beatles remasters: to my surprise a quick sample of various cuts showed the stereo and mono versions not to be too different: Between 0-2 difference per cut. So that backs up Apple's claim that the limiting was light on the stereo versions. Band on the Run hi-res remaster limited version was only about 2 less than the unlimiited version. So again this backs up the claim that the limiting was light. New Paul Simon album So Beautiful or So What - Range of 5-7 per song and it sounds like it - sounds very compressed. A shame. Let it Bleed CD from the 90's (I think) averaged 11; new 88k download averaged 10 - not what I would have expected.Pretty much cut for cut the hi-res tunes were 1 less than the counterparts on the CD. And the hi-res download sounds both louder and more dynamic. So maybe I don't understand these nubmers very well. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DACV3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87106 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
snottmonster;625526 Wrote: Really? I haven't seen any such definitive measurements, though as a new guy around here I could quite easily have missed something. I did recently see some info that showed the buffer modification changed the noise induced on the processor power supply (maybe even earlier in this thread), but nothing that showed the change in noise profile made any difference to the analogue output. That said, I'm 100% convinced there are modifications that could improve SQ as yes - the unit will always be a compromise when designed to a budget - but I've yet to see any supporting evidence that these particular sofware modifications make any difference or even credible theories that could explain the claimed improvements, and so ridicule is an entirely natural and, IMO, appropriate response So in all seriousness, please point me to any such measurements - I'd be very interested to see them and the conclusions drawn. It seems to me that the measurements Phil and John did (see post around #511 for what John did) show that the mods do have some measurable effect. Certainly it is possible the effects are audible, and we can imagine why these results might result in an audible difference. For me that alone would take the mods out of the realm of deserving ridicule. I have applied the mods (except for turning off the screen): I'm running wired anyway, and modded my Touch to remove the analogue outs, so the mods don't have any cost for me. I think they do make a small improvement - certainly not the dramatic kind that others have been reporting. But I could be imagining it - I certainly don't have the ability to run an objective test with my setup. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DACV3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hearing the differences
There seem to be 2 camps of extremists: 100% objectivists, who believe only in DBT, and say (other than tubes, speakers and turntables) all reasonably well made electronics sound the same. In the other camp, there are the subjectivists, who make extravagant claims about different components, but have never tested themselves in an objective manner to see if they are imagining differences. And sorry, but many times they are. The sad part about these people is that if they tested themselves and found out they couldn't reliably pick out a expensive component vs. a moderately priced one, they could save a lot of time and money. (Of course, maybe they enjoy the hobby just for the endless discussion and upgrading.) I fall somewhere in the middle. I think a lot (even most) of the DBTs we see bandied about as proving something aren't conducted in a manner that proves anything - they're either poorly designed or run on crummy equipment. On the other hand, I think a lot of us couldn't pass a well run DBT on a lot of the differences we think we hear. Example: sound quality differences between FLAC and WAV. (Please don't flame me on that one, I don't want to get into that debate.) But there are are some grey areas: My experience tells me that most people (even experienced listeners) can't reliably tell the difference between (a) hi-res files and standard files (from the same master); (b)or between differing small amounts of jitter on the same file. But I've encountered a few people that can reliably pick out these differences, so to me obviously there are some learned listening abilities involved, or even a small percentage of listeners who have exceptional listening abilities that the rest of us don't have. As a result, I also reject the pure objectivists who claim that it's not possible to hear any audible difference between X and Y. They'd be more accurate if they said, the vast majority of listeners can't discern a difference between X and Y. Unfortunately both camps of extremists love to post about what idiots the others are. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DACV3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87051 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
soundcheck;625773 Wrote: @firedog You run an EA Pacecar (1250$!) according to your signature, right? And your Touch is even slaved to the Pacecar!?!? The Pacecar is supposed to be doing quite sophisticated reclocking, right? The only reason for that device to exist is to clean up the mess supplied by the source - any source. You IMO shouldn't hear any differences with any of my Touch mods assuming that Steve knows what he's doing. ;) As I always been saying. My mods will have more impact on one system and less on others. Not any system in the world will sound the same. And arguing about it is waste of time. ;) First, running an old, second hand PaceCar (not $1250). Second, I heard the Touch before it was modded and slavedAnd I've also had an off the shelf Touch in here since for comparison purposes. Sorry, I guess I should have stated that for ultimate clarity. Third, you claim that running a Touch over ethernet with wlan circuits turned off makes an audible difference, even on a standard Touch running as a digital transport only. If so, what's your explanation for the difference this makes in the resulting SQ? In my understanding, if these mods actually work, they should have some impact in my present setup also. If this is totally incorrect, let me know - I'll remove the mods and only use them when I get a second, off the shelf Touch. Finally, Klaus, why so defensive? All I said was that I thought your mods make a small positive difference. I can't be sure b/c I don't have the equipment to run a proper blind test. Does it offend you that not everyone describes your mods as making orders of magnitude improvements? I've actually defended and recommended your mods on this and other forums, and BTW, I made a small donation at your site in recognition of your efforts. In my book, once you have good equipment, even small improvements tend to be quite costly. So I think the small improvements your mods bring are welcome and significant, especially since they are free. But audiophillia is full of descriptions about upgrades that are wildly significant, when in fact the resulting improvements are actually small or nonexistent. I don't see any reason that I have to be in that camp. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DACV3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
Guys- I know it's fun to snipe and sound superior, but both Phil and John have taken measurements that MIGHT explain a positive effect on sound of Soundcheck's mods. They've at least taken measurements that show that the mods do have some measurable effect on the output of the Touch. So the mods can't be dismissed out of hand, even by objectivists. Those measurable results might improve SQ. As far as the oft repeated claim in this forum that mods are by nature silly b/c obviously Logitech engineers designed the optimum sounding device, or something to that effect: such an assumption has no basis in fact or in the reality of how products are designed and marketed. Virtually all products are designed so that their cost meets a price point. By definition, this will force some compromises to be made that could negatively effect SQ of the device. In addition, I don't think that designers are even trying to make the best sounding device they can. Especially with the Touch, they are trying to make a device which has lots of features, and will attract a broad audience. SQ is important, but not the only design goal. One could say that Logitech is trying to make the best sounding device it can that has a specific feature set and meets a certain price point. Example: let's assume that running the screen of the Touch does slightly degrade SQ, but the difference is only audible on a relatively high-end system. Is Logitech then going to change the fundamental nature of the product to function without a touch screen? NO! They are going to slightly compromise the SQ in order to build the product that they think will be successful. It will have a screen and the SQ will reach a level that will satisfy most users, especially considering the price of the Touch. There are potentially dozens of decisions like this that have to be made when bringing such a product to market. So there are also potentially dozens of hardware or software mods that could possibly improve SQ. Whether the improvement in SQ these mods bring - if any - is worth the possible loss of features or convenience is something those using the mods have to decide. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DACV3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] squeezebox setup for audiophiles
Are you decoding flac at the server and not at the device (file settings in SBS)? If so, the files won't play on the duet, as the decoding is done at the native level, which is too high for the Duet. If you have a Duet and a Touch on your network and want the files to play on both, you need to have decoding in FLAC at the device level. That's the default setting. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DACV3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86419 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Differences between Tact 2.2 mini and 2.2XP?
They don't do the same thing. TACT works on frequency and time domains. As far as miniDSP - yes, it does the DRC. It is limited to max 48k files. The TACT will work with all hi-res files. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DACV3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86557 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] squeezebox setup for audiophiles
2) Transporter: Will not use the DAC on the transporter as the Audio Research Dac 8 is far superior. It has two oscillators: one for multiples of 44.1 KHZ and one for multiples of 48 KHZ so we avoid fractional sampling and the music is played at the native frequency. Have some 88.2 khz material (vinyl rips) that I would like to play in the native frequency via my laptop. The audio research Dac 8 does this. As of now, no other dac does this, same thing goes for 176 khz. Ayre and others will upsample it to 192 and not play at the native frequency. Native frequency sounds much better. 5) DRC: not sure what you mean. Request clarification 2)The PS Audio PWD will play all files at native resolution if you tell it to; I believe there are a few other DACs (Empirical Audio DAC and also EA Off Ramp Converter)like this. 5) DRC - I think the reference is to DSP (digital) Room Correction -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DACV3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86419 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
Hi- My Touch updated to new version firmware today (7.5.3 r9377). I've reinstalled the toolbox and run the ttbuffer command 3 times, and each time I got a message that buffer set to 4000. However, when the Touch reboots and I run ttstat the buffer mod is listed as disabled and buffer size is still 2: Modification WLAN: enabled Modification Watchdog: enabled Modification Jive2: disabled Modification Buffer:disabled Unknown HZ value! (91) Assume 100. Buffersize: 2 2us Modification Screen:disabled Audio outputs: Analog: off Digital: on USB: off Modification Kernel:enabled Klaus, any ideas? BTW, what is Modification Jive2 Thanks -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DACV3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] squeezebox setup for audiophiles
Genius satire. The guys at Hydrogen Audio would probably give you a medal if you posted there. I will say however, that wired works much better on my system, in terms of almost no blips, drop outs, rebuffering etc. Especially with hi-res. But I'm not making any claims about SQ. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DACV3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86419 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Differences between Tact 2.2 mini and 2.2XP?
Okay, so go for the mini. The Tact are quite good pre-amps and DACs, even without taking the RC into consideration. The mini, even though it is expensive, is certainly not more than many other DAC/pre combinations in the hi-end audio world. With the RC added in it is actually even reasonably priced if you have no other alternative for fixing room problems. Enjoy. Let us know how it goes. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DACV3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86557 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the audiophile who has everything...
Anyone that can get people to buy that furry elephant leg and put it under an audio component in any environment that isn't an actual zoo, deserves every buck he makes off of the people that pay him good money for that stuff. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DACV3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86541 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Differences between Tact 2.2 mini and 2.2XP?
The big difference is that you lose the ability to have an analogue-in card. However, you gain 2 subwoofer cards and an analogue out card (to connect to analogue amp), which aren't standard on the big XP. If you are sure you want the TACT and are sure you don't need analogue in, then buy the mini. BTW, I had a 2.2XP, put up room treatments in my room (GIK Acoustics), and decided I didn't need the TACT anymore. The treatments were much cheaper. So if WAF isn't a factor, consider room treatments. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DACV3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86557 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] squeezebox setup for audiophiles
Computer Audiophile in its review of the touch claims that the SPDIF output of the touch is bit perfect but I have my doubts as my ears are not HAPPY! Of course the SBT is bit perfect, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what you hear. From bit perfect to the analogue you hear lots of things happen: Jitter, RF interference, filtering etc. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DACV3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86419 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quality of digital outs from the Squeezebox
Phil Leigh;617410 Wrote: Can't comment on the V-DAC, but I have just received an MF M1... and it sounds preferable to me to my modded X-DACv3. Phil,just curious. If you don't think MF has good clock implementation and your X-DACv3 required modding, why did you purchase an MF M1? Or is it just for auditioning? So the MF M1 is clearly superior to your modded X-DACv3 - good to know as it is also less expensive. Sounds like it's a good DAC for the price. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84903 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Worst sounding album in your collection
I tend to block the really bad ones out and never listen to them or get rid of them, but... A Wizard, A True Star LP by Todd Rundgren. Well over 50 minutes, and heavily compressed to make it playable. No real high or low frequencies, and the music (which I actually like) is sort of high pitched, metallic and acid trip sounding - by design. So the end result is sort of a high pitched drone without much dynamics. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=85882 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Worst sounding album in your collection
TiredLegs;615624 Wrote: There's a DCC version of Aqualung currently listed on eBay for $284! (http://cgi.ebay.com/JETHRO-TULL-Aqualung-Rare-DCC-Gold-Disc-CD-SEALED-oop-/360322542448) That price, by the way, is cheaper than for any new condition version of that CD I could find elsewhere. Not that I have any intention of paying that kind of price for any CD... I usually like the DCC versions. So I occassionally check on ebay. Don't remember ever seeing one I was interested in that wasn't over $100. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=85882 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Worst sounding album in your collection
Boy, writing that made me go back and listen to my FLAC rip of the CD. Not quite as bad sounding as the LP - I think the quiet background and greater dynamics of the CD help it - but it still sounds so flat and lifeless. I actually like the music and lyrics. But it is definitely one of those recordings that is better listened to on crappy equipment that doesn't reveal it's flaws so brutally. When I bought the LP in high school I had a 15W per channel (maybe) Kenwood solid state integrated, basic Pioneer manual turntable (with the S shaped tonearm), basic Shure cartridge, and Advent II speakers (I think that's what they were called - they were bookshelves made of white plastic), which were an even cheaper version of small Advents, for those that couldn't afford them. Even on that system it sounded sort of lacking, but good equipment like I have now just emphasizes how bad it sounds. The negative side of audiophilia - you find out how crappy some of your recordings are. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=85882 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Worst sounding album in your collection
TiredLegs;614726 Wrote: My CD of -Brothers In Arms- sounds great. I don't have the disc handy, so I'm not sure what particular version it is, but it's at least 10 years old. Regarding my own worst sounding CDs: - George Harrison: -All Things Must Pass- -All Things Must Pass- was even poor sounding as an LP, which is a shame because it has some great tunes. The damn thing sounds like it was recorded with the performers inside a phone booth, and the microphone on the outside. ATMP had the Phil Spector production with the wall of sound. So many instruments/tracks on each song they had to heavily compress and I think, bounce the tracks down (combine several tracks into one, and then add more) to complete them. That accounts for a lot of what you hear (or don't hear, as it were). For the remaster he supervised before his death, George noted the large number of instruments on each track, and the fact that much of it was essentially recorded live. He also noted that if he had to do it over again he probably wouldn't go in for that type of production. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=85882 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] RC (Inguz etc.)
Michael There are some other brands with calibration files, not outrageous amounts of money (but more than the behringer) Audiolense sells a kit with mic, calibration file and mic amp on their site for 160 Euro, if my memory is good. LinearX has great mics with very good individual calibration files (if you tell them the format you need for the file, they'll make it for you in that format); if you get one of their less expensive ones it's about $175 Dayton audio makes an inexpensive measurement mic with calibration file - available for about $50. For room measurement (freq response)purposes I bet it is fine. I would think in general the individual calibration file is very important in this application -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=77084 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quality of digital outs from the Squeezebox
stop-spinning;612883 Wrote: JezA I've found out about this little device recently from Musical Fidelity http://www.musicalfidelity.com/products/V-Series/V-LINK/v-link.asp - the V-Link - something newly released! A true asynchronous converter for less than £100 creating a virtually jitter free conversion and master clock control over your computer. That could be the turning point for me at that price (as long as it's as good as they say it is on paper). Let's hope the USB on the SB works with the V-Link. My formula may end up being SB -- V-Link -- modified DPA Little Bit 3 DAC. The Vlink is a USB to SPDIF converter. It exists so you can convert USB output of a server and input SPDIF to your DAC. I'd check out that it will will work in this way before you invest(unless the 100GBP is insignificant to you); I'm not sure it will work with the Touch as you are intending. Hope I'm wrong. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84903 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quality of digital outs from the Squeezebox
chill;613049 Wrote: Yes - although not official : http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82110 But I'm also confused - what advantage do you get going USB - SPDIF converter - DAC compared to using the built-in SPDIF? If it's to make use of the asynch features of the USB, don't you lose that benefit as soon as you convert back to SPDIF? MF claims that the asynch USB setup is low jitter and the conversion to SPDIF inside it adds no additional jitter. http://www.musicalfidelity.com/products/V-Series/V-LINK/v-link.asp -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84903 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quality of digital outs from the Squeezebox
garym;611709 Wrote: hmmm, not sure about introducing jitter (jitter is about the timing of the packets as far as I understand). This might be interesting reading (I realize that this is the company's info, but the benchmark DAC I-USB gets good reviews; mostly just a starting place for a little bit more on USB DACS): http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/dac/dac1-usb Also from their website (again, I'm not suggesting this is gospel, just interesting -- and I do own a Benchmark DAC I, but an older model where I'm using S/PDIF for connecting). And note the last sentence below. == Several tests have been performed on third-party, USB-to-PCM converters to determine which technologies are bit-transparent, as an ideal USB-to-PCM converter should be. Native USB audio devices, like the DAC1 USB, have been found to be bit-transparent. Native devices are defined as those devices which use the native USB audio drivers, versus special, custom drivers. All non-native devices tested were found to NOT be bit-transparent. The Benchmark DAC1 USB is unique in that its native USB audio support extends to 24-bit operation at sample rates up to 96 kHz (with fully automatic sample rate transitions). All other native USB devices tested, including 'high-end' digital-to-analog converters, are limited to 48 kHz, 16 bit. We have not been able to find external USB interface that delivers the same level of performance as the interface that is built into the DAC1 USB. 24-bit capability is essential even when playing 16-bit material. The 24-bit capability prevents truncation in the computer caused by computer-based volume controls. A common problem with USB audio is the presence of pops and clicks. The DAC1 USB is also unique in that it is immune to these pops and clicks. Being bit perfect has nothing to do with being jitter free. A stream can be bit perfect and have lots of jitter. Nothing against Benchmark, but they do a disservice with marketing implying their DACs are immune to jitter. It simply isn't true, and in fact all digital audio has some jitter - you can't eliminate it entirely. What you'd like is to reduce it to very low levels. The Benchmark statement above about native drivers is also very nice, but not so relevant. Yes, asynch USB units that go up to 24/192 need special drivers, but who cares if they work well? That's the reason for asynch USB, as the idea is that if you let the clock of the DAC control the data flow, and not the clock of the PC (as in most USB implelmentations)you will get less jitter. General reaction seems to be that asynch USB is implemented very successfully in many devices now on the market, and for hi-end audio it is becoming the preferred implementation. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84903 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
MCR- I'm simply a consumer, per your definitions, but I'm very interested in Phil's tests. Why? I'd like to know if the small improvement I hear (or think I hear) with Soundcheck's mods is possibly based on some actual difference his tweaks make in the audio stream, or if it is entirely imagined by me. What's wrong with that? AFIK, Phil is simply curious and doing all of us a service. If you're not interested, fine. Why do you feel compelled to snipe at something many of us are intrested in? As both Phil and Klaus noted, Phil's preliminary findings are open to interpretation. Klaus obviously sees them as proof that his mods do something and aren't just operating on the placebo effect. I'd certainly see them that way if I was him. But I'm glad Phil made the effort to run his tests and report. I hope he finishes the check on the digital output and isn't put off by the negative reaction here. By the way, I have no horse in this race. I also support Klaus' efforts, and use his mods. I even made a small contribution to support the quite serious amount of time and effort he puts into these mods. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quality of digital outs from the Squeezebox
stop-spinning;610963 Wrote: I always like it when someone says you will easily achieve a high-end sound on a shoe string budget! Does everyone on this thread concur with that? I mean, if you asked a Hi-Fi retailer the same thing they will reply you get what you pay for. Or, that's why you pay more for that DAC etc etc. Are we all in agreement here that factually speaking - we can literally get a true hi-end sound on the cheap? Or are we all hoping and wishing this is the case, but in actual fact the reality is - we need deeper pockets for that to be distinctly possible? Perhaps hi-end and shoe string budget should more realistic be rephrased as excellent value for money? Or am I wrong - and real hi-end with the modern technological advances of today (tri-path amps etc) is not just exclusive to the super rich anymore? Hi-end is a relative term. Do I think the $200 DACs on ebay sound as good as some of the DACs costing $4000-$6000? No. But do they do most of what the more expensive solutions do? Probably yes. So what's high-end? For some, the Touch into a $500 DAC is high-end. For others, the Touch isn't good enough and they also have a specialized transport and a $5000 DAC. Would I call a Touch into a $500 DAC high-end? No, but most people I know would, and would think that A Touch + DAC + PC is very high-end. I think, in general, the more expensive solutions above are usually better ones, at least up to a point. The question is how much better and the price. If the cheaper solution gives 90% of what the expensive one gives, is it high-end? And don't forget, much of the price of high end components is devoted to cosmetics, as cosmetics can make or break the market for many products. You or I may not think cosmetics are important, but for many good sound is a necessary, but not sufficient, reason to buy a component. Looks also matter. At Computer Audiophile they just reviewed a complete dCS stack that costs over $3, and said it was the best digital they ever heard. I hope so. But does that mean that someone who only has a $10,000 solution isn't hearing hi-end? And what about the $70,000 dCS stack? If it's better than the cheaper version, does that mean the lesser dCS stack isn't hi-end? I don't think the label matters. What matters is: are you happy with the sound? If not, can you afford something better? Is the improvement worth it, even if you have the cash? There are some units that give more value for money than others, sound wise. (For example, the Touch). Maybe we should think more in those terms than about whether something is high-end? -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84903 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Power cords
I use a couple of relatively inexpensive replacement cords ($50). I think they make a small improvement - reducing an edge or harshenss in the sound. My guess is that the main reason for this is that they are well shielded, unlike stock cords. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=85602 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Inguz - my brain hurts!
Phil Leigh;610078 Wrote: Sorry... the outcome is that the TACT is now in the loft. Not only does Inguz do pretty much everything that the TACT did, it does it with noticeably (to my ears) less artefacts. In particular, a nasty upper-mid resonance on some material that I've been living with for over 5 years is gone. Bass feels improved in clarity (and it was pretty damn good to begin with) but the big difference for me is in the midrange - everything sounds more vital but at the same time less fraught.. hard to explain. Anyway, Inguz (and Audiolense) are staying. I may upgrade later to the top version of AL to get the group delay feature. It's a shame that can't be added to the basic software. So basically, even if you start from scratch (no mic, etc), a decently powered SB server and a few hundred bucks can get you something at least as good as a $6000 TACT RC pre. Amazing. Of course, you may also have to invest in a DAC to equal the SQ. Definitely something for me to consider when I upgrade my server to something that will run Audiolense and Ignuz (presently ATOM based server, can't handle it). -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84995 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quality of digital outs from the Squeezebox
Bas Cancrinus;608712 Wrote: I have a plain SB3 (no ext. DAC or anything) and it's time for a serious upgrade. What I understand from this thread is that I should: 1. buy an SB Touch; 2. apply Klaus' mods to free resources, which are needed for a bit-perfect S/PDIF output signal; 3. buy a Blue Jeans s/pdif coax; 4. buy an ext. DAC. Am I right? I read a very positive review of the Cambridge DacMagic (2008, EUR 425), are there any other DACs in that price range that I should try? TIA!! 2 not true. Klaus' mods may or may not improve the sound, but they aren't needed for bit perfect output. One explanation of why (if ) they work is that by reducing RF interference they lessen jitter. But in both cases the digital output of the Touch is bit perfect. Wow, there are a lot of DACs in the $400- $700 price range. You should probably try several if you can. The Music Hall, the MF-1 (just recently favorably reviewed here), the DACmini(more like $800), the higher end HRT streamer, and others. I always recommend looking at the second hand market for DACs. They don't have moving parts, so there isn't much to go wrong on a working used one. You can often get a second hand DAC with SQ well above what you could afford with a new one. Audiophiles are constantly upgrading DACs and selling their older ones, so there is quite a good second hand market for them. Of course listen to the Touch as is first, you may find it quite satisfactory on its own. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84903 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Quality of digital outs from the Squeezebox
stop-spinning;608150 Wrote: Thanks Phil - you always seem to be around to answer questions quickly. I wasn't referring to the internal DAC of the SB per se, more how the SB acts as a transport and thus feeding a clean signal out to an external DAC of any type, be it one that compensates well - or older DACs (which I would like to experiment with) which may not compensate so well. So, in essence, how good is the SB as a transport? Is it as good as any other hi-end CD transport - or perhaps better because there are no moving mechanical parts to consider. On the flip side - perhaps the SB Duet is not high enough up the food chain for the Audiophile in stock form. See here's this link I am concerned about: http://forums.linn.co.uk/bb/showthread.php?tid=7730page=1 with this reference 'I got a Logitech Duet when they came out and tried it with Numerik D/A and somewhat surprisingly, it sounded totally crap compared to a Karik CD player feeding the same Numerik D/A; in fact, the Duet also sounded crap compared to a Sonos feeding the same Numerik D/A, so it's clear that they have got something very wrong in the Duet' I've had both Duet and Touch on their own and slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car. In all cases I used them with SPDIF out to external DAC, because it improved the sound, IMO. Presently I'm using a MF X-DACV3, which is an improvement for me. There are some very good DACs these days for $300-$1000 that will give you an improvement over the stock SB sound of both units, I think. But you need to listen first, or you may waste your money. In other words, you might not hear much of an improvement, especially with the Touch. It depends on your system, your ears, and the DAC. That said, in answer to your queries: I don't think the Duet sounded very good on it's own, but through the external DACs I tried it with it was very good. The Touch is better, but also improved through a good DAC. In both cases the sound improved when slaved to the Pace Car as external clock/buffer. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84903 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Inguz - my brain hurts!
Phil- Can't the audiolense support help you with this? They must have run into this request previously. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84995 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Inguz - my brain hurts!
Phil - Since I see that you are a TACT owner (and I used to be one)I'd be very interested in your opinion of the results of the Audiolense correction vs. TACT once you get it up and running. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84995 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Jitter measurements..
As far as I can understand - not much. There's no standard for measuring jitter Questions: where in the chain is it measured? What exactly is measured? At what frequency is the jitter measured? And with what equipment? So comparing 2 jitter measurements is like comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. Unless it was done with the same methodology and with the same equipment it doesn't really tell you anything. I'd basically just ignore any published jitter measurements, unless they meet the criteria above. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84999 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Phil Leigh;603346 Wrote: I have finally retrieved the 88 version of MMT from the garage. A quick listen confirms a couple of things: 1) this isn't a simple remaster, mix levels have been changed too Phil, all the pub for the remasters from the engineers said that there was no remix (they worked only from the stereo masters, and not individual tracks). They did do selective limiting, EQ, editing, filtering, etc on the tracks. Especially noted that they boosted bass and drums this way, and compressed overall a few db (stereo only, not mono). -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Empirical Audio Pace Car Reclocker Observations
Hi- I've done just that. I didn't have a lot of experience with the Touch before the mods, but IMO slaving it to the Pace Car definitely improved the sound. Soundstage is improved, and a generally less harsh, more musical sound is produced. I don't know what model Pace Car you have, but you might need mods to the PaceCar as well as the Touch if it is one of the older models. So the whole thing can get sort of pricey. You'd have to ask Steve about that, and it would be smart to decide before he opens it up it will save you money over having him make 2 sets of mods. That said, I think the combo sounds very good. But it's very revealing - your good recordings will sound great and your not so good ones annoying. I previously had a Duet slaved to the PaceCar (for sale if anyone is interested) and this sounds better, especially on hi-res, which you can now hear in native format up to the limits of the Touch (24/96). If I was starting over though, I think I'd buy Steve's OffRamp4 USB converter. It gives you more versatility and even Steve now says that the SQ difference between it and the PaceCar is small. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57107 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
cliveb;601345 Wrote: WTF should we have to buy so-called hi-res releases to get uncompressed versions? It's perfectly possible to make redbook versions without compression, and redbook is more than adequate as a final delivery format. Add to this the fact that all Beatles recordings were made on 60's analogue gear that doesn't come even remotely close to the capabilities of 16/44.1, what are they doing dicking around with hi-res at all? (Other than to extract more cash from the already sucked-dry consumer, of course) Sorry, you are just showing your ignorance or lack of hearing/lack of adequate sound system. Have you listened to many (or any) recent remasters of old recordings? Good 60's recordings have LOTS of information and detail that is rendered more audible in a quality digital transcription. The recent Beatles remasters are a good example - lots of detail that wasn't audible on previous CD's or LPs. In addition, the fact that the 24/44.1 versions of the same digital transcriptions reveal even more detail than the CD versions, gives us every reason to think that a hi-res version would sound even better. I'm not claiming it would sound dramatically better, but yes, noticeably better. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Wombat;601690 Wrote: You didn´t read what was written in that thread. The 24/44.1 is created different as the 16/44.1 Still no one can claim a correct dithered version of the sold 24/44.1 to 16/44.1 sounds better. Except that the engineers who worked on the two versions deny that. They specifically stated that the 16/44 is a downsample of the 24/44 master. Not to insult anyone in the other thread, but I believe them rather than amateur testers. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
The stereo remasters have what is called Light compression by the engineers, nothing like what is done in the loudness wars of today. To my ears it is not excessive, fatiguing, etc. The mono remasters have no added compression. Hopefully, together with the vinyl re-release(in progress, based on 24/192 digital transcription of original analogue) that is supposed to happen soon, we will get hi-res versions of the catalogue. Based on recent work at Abbey Road re-releasing Paul McCartney and George Harrison in hi-res, we can hope for uncompressed versions. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] RC (Inguz etc.)
Hi Installed it as per the web instructions. Questions/Problems: 1. It doesn't appear in menu interface anywhere (tried with Touch and with Squeezeplay); 2. In the SBS Web interface (using 7.52) the EQ link appears, but when I open it the EQ - Settings - Test Signals - Left/Right Identifier item mentioned in the measurement instructions isn't there. Other items mentioned in the instructions also seem to be missing form the pages Note: I'm using windows XP and have Net Framework 2 installed. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=77084 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DACs : unmodded Transporter vs Perfectwave DAC?
alekz;596917 Wrote: Sorry, I should've been more clear: 1. Network - Touch - Lens - PWD 2. Network - Bridge+PWD The 2nd system *should* sound better. The Touch is not a very good transport (but probably with the Lens it will not matter anymore), plus you need two more digital cables. Also, even without additional power/digital cables and equipment feet/spikes the 1st system costs more (the Bridge costs around $900, the Lens - $2400). I see only one advantage - separate (or rather additional) power supplies for the DAC and for the computer part (system 1). Need to check the PS Audio website, I think PWD already has two separate power supplies. Ah, I didn't understand you the first time. But for me, the Lens is basically a guality digital streamer. So if I bought one I'd just have: ServerLens(includes bridge)DAC and drop the Touch. Use iPad or iPhone for interface. This seems to me a good solution for those who already own a good DAC server. PS Audio indicated the price of Lens expected to be about $2000. Sort of a lot for a streamer. There's a similar product, the Auraliti (auraliti.com), that sells for $800. Reputed to have excellent sound. (And yes, I know it is more limited in terms of connections, netowrking, etc., but it is the same basic idea - a high quality streamer, digital out, no moving computer parts inside.) -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82155 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DACs : unmodded Transporter vs Perfectwave DAC?
alekz;596760 Wrote: Just buy the Bridge and get rid of the Touch. Why do you need the Lens? BTW, the Lens will use the Bridge to connect to the net. Also, the Bridge is much less expensive than the Lens. And the sound quality will be higher. The general consensus (and this is what my experience shows) is that PWD+Bridge sounds better than the Transporter, which is a higher-end device than the Touch. Why do you say the lens will have lower sound quality? -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82155 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DACs : unmodded Transporter vs Perfectwave DAC?
alekz;592592 Wrote: Is it the Digital Lens + Bridge what you are talking about? http://www.psaudio.com/ps/newsletters/november-2011-ps-audio-newsletter/ Yes, Digital Lens with Bridge - essentially a digital clocker/buffer that you can use hardwired to a device or as a network bridge and connect to your DAC. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; KRK Ergo, MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Mirage MS-12 sub; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82155 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] DACs : unmodded Transporter vs Perfectwave DAC?
twheatley;578453 Wrote: many thanks for your thoughts. Michael - I think you're right about the PWD in terms of soundstage. Even with a head-cold it sounds much more lifelike and spacious. The integrated bridge really does seem the way to go, however I need room correction and currently use a TACT mini for that - which of course won't work with the bridge. PS has just announced that they are going to release a product with is similar to the PWD with Bridge, but without the DAC function. In other words, with multiple digital ins and outs, and with networking ability. Perfect for use with a Tact. See the newsletter on PS Audio website. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; KRK Ergo, MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Mirage MS-12 sub; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82155 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] My perfect audiophile box
Phil Leigh;589077 Wrote: No it isn't - great sounding recordings remain (as ever) the frontier for MUSIC lovers. You don't need hi resolution for great sounding recordings. What confuses people is that in many cases the only way to get buy great sounding recordings is in SACD/DVD-A/Blu-ray/hi-res download format. But it is NOT the format that makes them sound great (it is the mixing/mastering/post-prod) and great sounding recordings are available in standard redbook form - but you will not find any record company rushing to remaster it's back catalogue properly in redbook. There's no money in it for them. I agree. Unfortunately, the only hi-res releases we are likely to see in popular music are some classics that the record corporations can be sure will sell fairly well (Beatles,solo Beatles, Dylan, Doors, Tom Petty, etc). Proper remastering for digital is apparently an expensive and labor intensive process - good results require a lot of hours of experienced engineers/ears. I'm a real fan of well done hi-res (the recent Band on the Run Remaster,e.g.), but Phil is right that the quality of the original recording and mastering is what matters most. I've got plenty of jazz and classical recordings from the 50's and 60's that were competently transferred to digital, and even the redbook CD's sound very good. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; KRK Ergo, MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Mirage MS-12 sub; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=83260 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Musical Fidelity M1 Dac
Phil Leigh;585191 Wrote: I have had some limited exposure to it. I'd say (FWIW) that is better than a stock X-DAC v3+PSU or X-DAC V8 but not as good as an Audiocom modded X-DAC V3+PSU. It has the MF family sound - which I happen to like a lot. YMMV of course :-) If it is better than the X DACs, then it is quite a good DAC and good for the price, as the X models sound quite good IMO. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; KRK Ergo, MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Mirage MS-12 sub; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82893 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Wombat;583012 Wrote: I quotet firedog cause he once mentioned hearing differences on a Coltrane fromn HDtracks. Hdtracks only sells the 24/96 version of a new transfer, no 16bit version to buy and he said he never tried to downsample it. So where´s the point? A spectrum plot leads to nothing. This diffmaker is nice if you could handle it. And if you could try to bitreduce the 24bit version with sox and compare again. But this discussion leads to nothing cause no one can prove anything here. I just wonder why still no one has tried the 24bit Beatles version directly with a 16bit version from these files, not the cd release. I Hope Robin Bowes now does :) Re: Coltrane. Yes, compared it to the 16 bit release, bit perfect ripped to same HD as the 24bit version. Again, record producer says they are from the same master, in interview I read with him. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; KRK Ergo, MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Mirage MS-12 sub; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
