Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] official Dynamic Range Foobar plugin

2011-09-08 Thread bakker_be
audiomuze;656348 Wrote: SNIP your fb2k plugin. SNIP Just FYI, it's not mine. I just thought I'd pass it along, as the first version is expired. -- bakker_be http://www.last.fm/user/Bakker_be Main System: Touch; Marantz SR-5004; ' TMA Premium 905' (http://tmaaudio.com/premium905.html); BK

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0

2011-09-08 Thread PasTim
Phil Leigh;656291 Wrote: A mixture... All sorts... S/pdif, TOSLINK, adat light pipe, aes/ebu etc... and Indeed... Given the large number of optical connections used in pro studios... I foolishly assumed you meant that opticals were preferred. I am now (as usual) none the wiser, baffled and

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter wont stream

2011-09-08 Thread ghostrider
Art, I had a working Transporter and I was messing around with some of the connections. I got into the same situation you are in, tried to play from any source and the VU meters would jump and freeze with no sound. I tried firmware reloads, xilinx resets to no avail. I finally did a factory reset

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0

2011-09-08 Thread adamdea
PasTim;656460 Wrote: and I foolishly assumed you meant that opticals were preferred. I am now (as usual) none the wiser, baffled and confused. I think Phil's point was simply that they are widely used and that if they were obviously inferior to coax they would not be. -- adamdea

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0

2011-09-08 Thread Phil Leigh
adamdea;656476 Wrote: I think Phil's point was simply that they are widely used and that if they were obviously inferior to coax they would not be. Correct. I don't usually have this much trouble communicating... :-) -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0

2011-09-08 Thread JohnSwenson
The issue of ground plane noise can cause problems even with an optical connection. It has to do with the transmitter, either electrical (coax) or optical, the input to the transmitter has a threshold, a voltage at which it sees the input as changing from a one to a zero, noise on the ground pin

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optical (toslink) connection

2011-09-08 Thread JohnSwenson
Yes the fiber can handle huge bandwidths, but there are two major issues with common TOSLINK. One is the fiber itself, its a multimode fiber, its physically much larger than a wavelength of the light used. The result is that light entering the fiber at different angles can take different path

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0

2011-09-08 Thread Phil Leigh
That's a completely different issue that gives rise to jitter which various dacs handle differently. Ground plane -borne noise is eliminated by galvanic isolation. Modern TOSLINK interfaces that work extremely reliably at 24/96 are clearly superior to the 1983 variety... -- Phil Leigh You

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Optical (toslink) connection

2011-09-08 Thread Phil Leigh
TOSLINK transmitters are LEDs... Receivers are photodiodes. Modern TOSLINK interfaces can easily handles 16mbps which is plenty. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC -

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0

2011-09-08 Thread PasTim
Phil Leigh;656481 Wrote: Correct. I don't usually have this much trouble communicating... :-) I'm sure it's my fault for being a bit thick or ignorant, or both :) I will say, however, that the whole topic of digital audio transmission is massively confusing, with so many contradictory

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0

2011-09-08 Thread Phil Leigh
PasTim;656522 Wrote: I'm sure it's my fault for being a bit thick or ignorant, or both :) I will say, however, that the whole topic of digital audio transmission is massively confusing, with so many contradictory statements being made (often extremely forcefully, to put it mildly), that it

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0

2011-09-08 Thread PasTim
Phil Leigh;656527 Wrote: The noise we are talking about doesn't change the bits, which is just as well or computers would be uselessly unpredictable! But unlike a computer, spdif has a clock mixed in with the bits and the noise CAN interfere with the certainty of the start/end of the clock

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0

2011-09-08 Thread adamdea
PasTim;656522 Wrote: I'm sure it's my fault for being a bit thick or ignorant, or both :) I will say, however, that the whole topic of digital audio transmission is massively confusing, with so many contradictory statements being made (often extremely forcefully, to put it mildly), that it

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0

2011-09-08 Thread castalla
Read up on 'cognitive dissonance' - it explains a lot why those who invest in lots of expensive gizmos go on to convince themselves that whatever they've acquired must be better than anything they replaced. Beyond a certain technical point, then it all depends on physiological auditory acuity

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Forget 24/192 how about 24/384?

2011-09-08 Thread vortecjr
the comments are all over the place. I don't have time to read them all, but I got the CNN version of them. There are a few reasons for having done this. BTW this was my doing:) Reason #1 and the most important reason is because my customer wanted to be able to play 24/384 on his 24/384 DAC.