Phil Leigh;319007 Wrote:
Indeed. Studio monitors are a tool - like a microscope - to let you hear
things clearly. There are some notable exceptions (ATC for example) but
generally those speakers that are most useful as monitors are not ones
you want to have in your listening/living room.
The current (dated October 2008 - but magazines are funny with dates!)
Personal Computer World magazine (UK - longest running in this area I
think) has a one page article on Gordon Laing's experience with getting
his SB3 modded.
My summary - he felt that it made significant improvement in his
Why aim for 2nd best when you can have a Porsche!
;)
Gazjam;324357 Wrote:
Thanks for the reply.
I'd like a transporter too..
and a Ferrari..
G.
--
jh901
FLAC -- ReadyNAS/SqueezeCenter
Living Room:
SB Rcvr | Creek 6060 (Pre-amp) | Krell KST-100 | Totem Model-1
Bedroom:
SB
cmarin;325374 Wrote:
Sean,
I recently heard my Transporter through a three box Wadia 9 system (1
control unit and 2 stand alone DACs). The sound was glorious. The Wadia
has a glass fiber optic out to send the world clock signal to digital
sources (Transport). My question is what
Patrick Dixon;325317 Wrote:
Yes, you're right. But I suspect that making the small frequency
adjustments to the read clock in such a way as not to compromise it's
overall performance is not all that easy. You might like to try and
build one and see how it works!
But if you think about it,
honestguv;322582 Wrote:
Studio monitors are supposed to replay the recorded signal as
accurately as possible (setting aside questions of directivity) which
is different to reproducing music accurately.
Yeah, well, there's still a 'color' associated to each set of monitors.
I've been doing
