You won't believe this one either, but if you disturb any burned in
cable it will go through a very quick version of burn in. The effect is
small but repeatable in tests I have done - removing the cable, coiling
it up, uncoiling it and plugging it back in. I don't profess to
understand it, but
Compared with what Tom - I hear you like it, but do you mind if I ask
what your reference is? I want to consider the Transporter, but if its
at the level of say a SB3/Benchmark I would pass.
--
Jenks
Jenks's Profile:
Jenks;151828 Wrote:
WSlam - easy to agree with you on that one. Being a scientist I bristle
unnecessarily at any self-professed scientist stating their knowledge
as uncontrovertible facts - idiotic given the very nature of science.
I should stop doing that. I do all my system selection by
Sorry WSlam, our posts crossed - I was of course referring to your
earlier post. Thanks for the clarification - exactly what I wanted to
know. Seems like I will probably be placing that order when I get paid
for my Genelecs.
--
Jenks
Jenks;151830 Wrote:
Sorry WSlam, our posts crossed - I was of course referring to your
earlier post. Thanks for the clarification - exactly what I wanted to
know. Seems like I will probably be placing that order when I get paid
for my Genelecs.
Congrat! I dont think you will regret! =)
Yes there simply are no facts. All we have is models of the world that
we choose to use, to uncomplicate things, as you say - but as soon as
we stop challenging our models we stop learning anything new. People
don't like that kind of ambiguity, but if you embrace it you are closer
to the
Jenks;151833 Wrote:
Yes there simply are no facts. All we have is models of the world that
we choose to use, to uncomplicate things, as you say - but as soon as
we stop challenging our models we stop learning anything new. People
don't like that kind of ambiguity, but if you embrace it you
Generally. moving audio reproduction circuits away from any possible
interference is a first move to improving sound quality.
The humble act of moving power cables away from source or speaker
cables in a stereo setup, for example, can in some cases make an
audible difference. In the case of a PC,
As far as I'm aware AC'97 requires that all signals are mixed to 16-bit
48KHz? In windows it's possible to bypass kmixer which does this nasty
stuff but it maybe that your onboard sound does this as well...i.e. all
Creative cards do this in hardware.
Unless you're doing things like bypassing
probedb;151846 Wrote:
As far as I'm aware AC'97 requires that all signals are mixed to 16-bit
48KHz? In windows it's possible to bypass kmixer which does this nasty
stuff but it maybe that your onboard sound does this as well...i.e. all
Creative cards do this in hardware.
Unless you're
Jenks;151851 Wrote:
I understand the point. What any individual is most comfortable with -
facts/theory/ambiguity/chaos will depend on what brain type they are I
guess. But there are times when it seems to me it is useful to treat
something as a fact and sometimes when it is not. For
I understand the point. What any individual is most comfortable with -
facts/theory/ambiguity/chaos will depend on what brain type they are I
guess. But there are times when it seems to me it is useful to treat
something as a fact and sometimes when it is not. For example we might
treat the
Jenks,
it sounds like you spend quite a lot of time doing experiments with
cables. You may not care about this, but no one (outside the
audiophile world at least) will take your results seriously unless they
are properly controlled - meaning blind and randomized. So it might be
worth trying.
highdudgeon;151740 Wrote:
Why not? I've seen Avant Gardes driven by a beefy McIntosh. They didn't
melt down. It is a waste of power, yes, but it is certainly a more
linear amp than the vogueish SETs out there.
I've heard the Avante Garde Duo 2.2's on numerous occassions, and the
only time
jhm731;151773 Wrote:
Since I removed all the boards for upgrades, I've cleaned and treated
all internal connections. After seeing what happens to SST when it
dries out, I stopped using it. Stabilant 22 is a better option, but
it's still not as effective as Rubycon ZLGs Oscons, SC shielded
Jenks;151820 Wrote:
The Japanese have Kiwis? We seem to have confused the world by calling
the kiwifruit kiwis when exporting. The Kiwi is of course a flightless
bird, that has remarkable similarities to the NZ male human - eats,
roots and leaves...
eats, roots and leaves? I thought that
Jenks;151825 Wrote:
Compared with what Tom - I hear you like it, but do you mind if I ask
what your reference is? I want to consider the Transporter, but if its
at the level of say a SB3/Benchmark I would pass.
SB3+Bolder Elpac LavryDAC10
SB3+BolderelpacSFD2MK2 (still love those tubes
DirectViewer;151814 Wrote:
Would the SB3, or the Transporter, be a sonic improvement over my
current setup? I play WAV files directly from my PC to a digital input
on a Theta Casablanca 3 with Extreme DACs.
Any advice will be gratefully received. Thanks!
Why not buy a TP direct and get a
WSLam;151834 Wrote:
If you just dream of models after models, then I guess you will be glad
to get into the String theory camp.
On the contrary. String theory is unique and has no known alternative,
despite around 90 years of effort on the part of many rather competent
people. Of course
IMHO the TP is significantly more enjoyable musically, it' gets harder
everyday to stop listening, I think Sean has really hit on something.
I doubt you would be unhappy with a TP purchase.
Most people here bought a TP unheard. How many have you heard of being
returned under the 30 day
opaqueice;151926 Wrote:
eats, shoots, and leaves - that was a panda, no?
Sigh... :)
--
adamslim
SB3 and Shanling CDT-100, Rotel RT-990BX, Esoteric Audio Research 859,
Living Voice Auditorium IIs, Nordost cables
Jenks;151824 Wrote:
You won't believe this one either, but if you disturb any burned in
cable it will go through a very quick version of burn in. The effect is
small but repeatable in tests I have done - removing the cable, coiling
it up, uncoiling it and plugging it back in.
You are
Please be sure to file bugs on the ones that don't work!On 11/1/06, DCtoDaylight
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Well 24/96 support was one thing I wanted, but hadn't actually tried out
until tonight.I ripped a couple of 24/96 music DVD's, and gave them atry.My first experiment was just to play raw .wav
azinck3;151684 Wrote:
Don't know about your Bose specifically, but I suspect it's like most
mid-to-low-level consumer audio equipment in that it converts all
analog inputs into digital, then back to analog again before going to
the amps. That adds 2 extra conversions in the pipeline. This
I just want to thank the folks in this forum who have helped me be
finally at peace with what I like or believe. Ever since the invention
of the CD-ROM I have been bothered by the claims of the effects of CD
'errors.' The appearance of SqueezeBox should put (but didn't) an end
to such claims.
nicketynick;151976 Wrote:
Now I'm curious, but haven't had any luck with google yet - anybody have
any suggestions where I can find out what goes on inside my Denon DRA
F101?
If it has a Dolby Pro-Logic II mode it must have an ADC since PLII is a
digital process.
The DSP modes are all
Hi Mark,
Unless I've haven't paid attention correctly, the Denon DRA F101 is
strictly stereo audio, none of the fancy stuff you get on an A/V
receiver. Additionally, it does have a direct/bypass mode, which is
what I use, which bypasses the tone controls, etc., so I would suspect
then that it
nicketynick;152005 Wrote:
Unless I've haven't paid attention correctly, the Denon DRA F101 is
strictly stereo audio, none of the fancy stuff you get on an A/V
receiver.
Ah. I didn't look into what the model was because they use a different
model number in each market, plus there are certain
Coffee;151980 Wrote:
I just want to thank the folks in this forum who have helped me be
finally at peace with what I like or believe. Ever since the invention
of the CD-ROM I have been bothered by the claims of the effects of CD
'errors.' The appearance of SqueezeBox should put (but didn't)
I'm running the latest nightly 6.5 build on FreeBSD 6.2-PRERELEASE with
a Transporter. Played back some standard 24/96 2-ch FLAC files with no
trouble at all.
Well, actually, I ran into one issue: it was pushing the limits of my
Wireless G connection and would stutter occasionally. Gotta deal
peejay;151849 Wrote:
I Agree, it is all subjective - in the ears of the beholder, so to
speak. Computer and audio delivery technologies are inevitably merging,
but discreet audio devices such as the squeezebox, still have the edge,
IMHO.
I agree with you there. Takes some very high quality
funkstar;151710 Wrote:
From what i've read about Bose systems, i think there is a lot of
tweaking of the audio to make it sound 'good' in the right environment
throught their basic paper speaker cones.
here is a good right up: http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html
Quote
Frequency Response
This has been an interesting thread I must say! The more I was reading the for and against arguments, the more I was thinking this was a thread about religion. I'm almost curious how it translates to what the people believe :-) I'd say:
- atheists don't believe in burn-in - no prove!- agnostics
I downmixed those 6-channel test files I have to 2-channel and the WAVs
play back fine on the Transporter.
FLACs with no ReplayGain data play back fine as well. However when I
tried to add RG, the FLAC encoder wouldn't allow me - it doesn't
support RG with 96 kHz material. I added RG with
http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=4463
It's marginal - not many Transporter users will be using ReplayGain,
even fewer are playing back 24/96 material, and since the FLAC encoder
doesn't support adding ReplayGain anyway, the whole thing may just be
too obscure to waste effort on.
--
jan van mourik;152114 Wrote:
This has been an interesting thread I must say! The more I was reading
the
for and against arguments, the more I was thinking this was a thread
about
religion. I'm almost curious how it translates to what the people
believe
:-) I'd say:
- atheists don't
tomsi42;151817 Wrote:
If you are using windows, it is a big possibility that you aren't
getting the best sound possible. Windows does some processing to the
files before they go the the DAC.
In your case, I would recommend the SB3, and that you convert your
music files to FLAC or Apple
probedb;151846 Wrote:
As far as I'm aware AC'97 requires that all signals are mixed to 16-bit
48KHz? In windows it's possible to bypass kmixer which does this nasty
stuff but it maybe that your onboard sound does this as well...i.e. all
Creative cards do this in hardware.
Unless you're
tomjtx;151923 Wrote:
Why not buy a TP direct and get a free SB3?
That way you can compare both. If you don't think the TP is better,
sell it for 1,700
and break even. There are plenty of people who have SB's that would
love to get a TP for 1,700.
Well, it seems clear from the postings that
Craig;152093 Wrote:
Quote
Frequency Response 280 Hz to 13.3k Hz at ±10.5 dB
:-)
Craig
No highs, no lows, must be Bose :)
--
radish
radish's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=77
View this
tomjtx;152120 Wrote:
Maybe the answer lies in something I saw written on a wall in a
bathroom:
to be is to do , Descarte
to do is to be, Neitche
do be do be do Sinatra
Doh! Homer Simpson
--
Jetlag
Hi,
Looking for used DAC To partner with the SB3 to improve the sound. Over
at my place, I could get the NorthStar 192 or Meridian 563 or Musical
Fidelity A324 at about the same price.
May I know which is most compatible with the SB3. Looking for warm,
lush and laid back kind of sound. Bright
42 matches
Mail list logo
