edwardthern wrote:
> Well for this I did not do a DBT, but I did do a DBT to compare
> Squeezelite and MPD. I posted a thread on that
>
> Because someone could not make a valid argument to explain how I heard a
> difference they claimed it was due to variability in the components in
>
edwardthern wrote:
> Look you guys are grabbing at straws. Just because there are a number of
> you who are confused don't make your points valid.
>
> Bottom line = Subjective impressions based on perceptions gained via the
> senses are validPERIOD.
>
>
> CHECK MATE
Valid for what ?
You still misses the piont . For a subjective listenings test to be used
it must be a level matched DBT . Even better a if a full suite of
measurements was done, a bunch of guys deluding each other on forum that
compares DAC tastes does not contain any information at all if there is
an audible
edwardthern wrote:
> This statement takes away your whole previous post and contradicts your
> past rhetoric.
>
> Yes the DAC chips do have their own qualities to begin with, which in
> listening tests makes them sound different.
Thta was not what i meant ;) by qualities i mean resonaböe
Jeff07971 wrote:
> LMFAO !
>
>
> Absolutely
>
> In the review it says it can be setup as a squeezebox protocol to be an
> endpoint for ROON though.
I did not find that , my bad did not read well enough .
Then it can also be an endpoint for LMS .
Did they implement Squeezelite ? What kind
edwardthern wrote:
> Here is an excerpt from a review which compares 3 dacs made by the same
> company in question "Audiogd". Notice the reviewer mentions the
> different sound signatures from the different dacs which all share the
> same topology and analogue stage but use a different dac chip.
arnyk wrote:
> Smoke and mirrors - all of it.
>
> The classic configuration of a PC with a quality internal or USB audio
> interface suffices for the ultimate in real-world quality audio.
>
> The only jitter filtering that matters is in the DAC. This idea of
> using servers as jitter
Can we get back to the original show ? This Euphony audio server .
Anyone fished up some more info .
As discussed, a drawback is that you are suposed to playback from the
same machine ? There seems to be no remote endpionts in thier
architecture ( which then removes all audio quality demands
Further off topic .
With the act of ripping CD's you beat almost all old fashioned hign end
CD drive or id at par with the best ( some use reread functions like a
computer ). With some samsung or TSST 20$ rom drive .
The separate CD drive what a scam that was , rip out the DAC and analog
stage
Yes DAC design and chips can be interesting with the rigth aproach ( i
dont design dac hardware so i cant contribute )
Hint its not like changing pickups on a turntable , with the rigth
design of the complete DAC you yield similar and god results ( a humanly
transparent DAC with low noise and
drmatt wrote:
> So in other words you are venting your spleen. Good for you. Welcome to
> the playground.
:)
+1
Note that I sugested "pull the plug and listen to the player buffer" as
a way to actually understand how little the server does vs SQ . Not as
a serius sugestion .
( hint it sounds
Sorry , I forgot to add the DAC chip must have some qualities to begin
with .
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3
sub.
Is not implementation "everything" ? A chip does not perform in
isolation , the whole total design is what makes it perform .
And from what I read the TP designed to to make god use of this chip .
And anyone can notice how many other DAC's often brags about what chip
they are using as marketing
edwardthern wrote:
> Yes RIP's can and do sound different. You should use a very high quality
> DVD drive with the best software you can find.
There is a system called accurate rip .From dB power amp or EAC you can
get flawless rips with any hardware that can find the bits . The ripper
tells
edwardthern wrote:
> No I can't explain it.my ears tell me what they like and I listen.
> Sorry I've been trying to figure out a quantifiable solution to justify
> what my ears say they don't like for a long long time. All I know is
> [placebo or not] my ears like less jitter from a source.
What I'm trying to say is that with a dedicated endpiont like a
squeezebox Touch or PI is that all playback "issues" are moved to the
player . The server plays no audio at all .
You can have jitter and all other well known audio problems on the
player, thats the whole piont . Server can be
But theier simply is no transport "jitter" to a squeezebox over the
network ? It's meanigless question in this context.
If the ipmpackers arrive and can fill the players internal buffer your
alrigth .
A squeezebox is completely server agnostic . TCP-IP is asynchronous.
Using a squeezebox is not
drmatt wrote:
> Like all music streamers, the resource requirements are smaller than the
> smallest DIMM module you can buy, and the CPU requirements are smaller
> than the slowest CPU you can buy.
>
> It's got to be Linux based if it works on "any PC".
>
> SSD is cheap and ubiquitous. There
drmatt wrote:
> Not really shady, I don't think. Saves an awful lot of support tickets.
> And you get to scalp a few quid on the hardware margin too. It's a
> product, not a freebie.
>
> But. Yes, there is pretty much nothing at all describing what this setup
> actually *does*.
Yes that's
drmatt wrote:
> Most likely it's a realtime Linux kernel with some open source code
> nicked off somewhere and a php custom front end. I would bet they spent
> a lot more developing the front-end than the OS.. it's probably also
> full of massive security holes (telnetd running, rlogin enabled,
There is a coming soon fancy player and server device ?
So it's a preinstalled OS + server + player you supposed to bring a
computer ( unless you buy thier server ) and a USB DAC .
Is this multi room it does not seem too ? Seems to be a HTPC but done in
some proprietary way ?
They miss out on
drmatt wrote:
> Lol, close, bit that only simulates the flaws, not the "enhancement"...
> :)
Are they not the same thing :) wonder if it does the phase faults and
almost mono bass and high channel crosstalk to ?
I did have a Breuer arm and some Ortofon MC30 back when , so it sound
was nice if
edwardthern wrote:
> About us Golden Eared Peoplewell not everyone can have ears of gold.
But you can , just imagine that you have them and your set ,thats how it
usually works it's a self apionted position , no forms to fill in just
be it :D
Julf wrote:
> Are you sure? It is my understanding that vinyl can't, because of
> mechanical limitations, take the kind of extreme loudness you see on
> modern CD's. And for vinyl, lower frequencies are usually merged into a
> mono signal for vinyl.
I think they try anyway , lower the maximum
Well i don't know of Triodes wherabouts these days .
Many open souce project depends on thier devs .
LMS aka squezeeboxserver aka slimserver has a tradition of serving up a
snapshot of the latest ech day .
But what you'd expect ? I gladly munch the latest LMS trogh my system
to find a bug
So audiophilism is our first technology based religion ? Intereting
perspective ( or does Scientology counts as tech based religion with its
sci-finorigin )
I make my offer on st atkinsons altar then :)
Main hifi: Touch +
mlsstl wrote:
> Over a 10 year period I transferred about 2,000 LPs to CD/44.1K digital
> format (which I finished 2 or 3 years ago -- now just doing the odd
> album here and there). Back-to-back and level-matched, I never could
> tell the difference between direct playback of the LP and the
kidstypike wrote:
> Why do people come on this forum and tell other people how *their*
> system/cables sounds to *them*?
>
> You'd never catch me doing it because my system sounds like shit.
>
> I bought some really, really, really expensive cable (£14.99) and that
> made it sound even
.. but that does not really work , listen for yourself in sigthed
testings when you know what you are testing is what brougth us the whole
audiophile cottage industry/cult :P
As arny said earlier , using this method anything just anything you do
will sound different ( if there is a diffrence or
arnyk wrote:
> The words you said indicate that you don't believe that that listener
> bias and placebo effects can ruin the accuracy and relevance of your
> evaluations, and therefore you understand that any well-informed person
> will completely ignore them. If that's true, why did you
Preferences are what they are enjoy :)
It quite diffrent than invoke magic and try to argue that vinyl is
somehow better objektively .
Especiallly when you can record vinyl digitally and it retails all its
properties ?
Main
Apesbrain wrote:
> We're only human...
>
>
>
> ...and we're all "audiophiles". Some of us draw a line at the
> "pseudo-sciency" stuff and others don't. If you've happy with your
> decisions, what does it matter?
>
>
> Agreed, but when I see mention of a "high end... Discrete R2R ladder
>
edwardthern wrote:
> Most people can't even distinguish between 320kHz MP3 and RedBook CD.
Make that almost no one under proper testing conditions with a good MP3
encoder , lame for example .
Counterintuitive enough people with bad hearing can sometimes spot MP3 ,
due that thier personal
24/48 is not really a limitation it's still better than almost all
recordings ever done ( yes I know about audiophile labels ...)
And as to this day many new projects are simply 48k in protools anyway .
And most folks library is cd formatted stuff .
My own has a slight overepresentation of hirez
arnyk wrote:
> Well they don't *all* sound the same, but the vast majority of them do.
>
>
>
> All DAC chips don't sound the same, just the ones that are well-designed
> and are designed to be sonically transparent.
>
>
>
>
> The idea DACs need special attention in the power supply or
drmatt wrote:
> I don't disagree. But I am sure I can tell the difference.. therefore
> what differences there are must exist in that top 13 bits or so of
> dynamic range.. cue the sirens..
>
> I doubt I could tell the difference with a frequency sweep though.
You have to test that sometime ?
There is also what it drives, so me DAC's may not very low impedance
output stages or it varies with frequncy.
Is it migrh not work splendidly with for example passive preamps .
Is not Touch a bit picky in that regard ? And signal levels can upset
things to . I migth have idealised some , due to
drmatt wrote:
> I remain sceptical that a test designed solely to make it hard to tell
> the difference is representative of long term differentiation
> capability. But that's just my opinion and we are very aware that many
> people disagree with that.
You dont need to rely on that look at the
Apesbrain wrote:
> I have a big, battery-powered, portable speaker running off the analog
> output of an original RPi/piCorePlayer and it sounds fine.
Ok thats put things into perspective , portable speaker ok :)
Main hifi:
edwardthern wrote:
> For places like the bathroom or kitchen I would use the RPI analog
> output.
Ok ive heard that it gotten slightly better now on pi3 :) then its
really not expensive . I've read that the older pi have really terrible
analog out ? But if the new version pi3 reached " good
+1 regarding sync.
However i think squeezelite able products are the next best thing
compared to a real squeezebox.
And its a bit of fun . I havent exactly searched for them but I'm
convinced there are cheaper dacs than the hifiberry for those places
like bathroom or patio where hifi listening
drmatt wrote:
> This thread reminds me why I like SB Receivers. Cheaper than a Pi plus
> DAC setup, more reliable and all the in/outputs you need..
You can use some of the pi distros for just that build fit and forget
players .
It does not have to be a tweak cornocopia
Interesting about the native roon bridge ( roon does squeezebox and
Squeezelite to ).
I've intended to try roon it has it flaws and some features that LMS
does not have.
I seen no software close to replace LMS roon is a contender , but wonder
if not LMS will outlive roon too ?
Is dietpi more
edwardthern wrote:
> Oh I forgot to mention that it seems like there are some "Hi-End"
> manufacturers using MPD ie Bryston et.al. I've never heard their take on
> MPD but trying to follow their lead I even tried MPD with various types
> of hardware [RPI, BBB and lots of different types of
>
The point is that some (maybe quite many) modern DAC's will ofcourse be
even better but you wont hear that . They all surpassed our hearing
abilities a decades ago , unless tweaked to "sound diffrent" .
And TP was very good at it's time and audio is mature tech there is not
as much development as
It would be impossible to say for sure , the Transporter is well
designed product developer by sane people .
So the outputs should be ok all of them , the may differ measurably ,
but a product like this do not really have audible jitter levels for
example .
AES/EBU is actually not better than
Here's one example of a mesurment
http://archimago.blogspot.se/2016/11/measurements-crystal-cable.html
And this is actually a good result , best result the super expensive
cable perform like any other correctly designed cable.
Small measurable variations ,but way below any audiability treshold
What was the company and brand of the DAC ? Thats most interesting
It could serve as a warning to us all , there are some known scamsters
out there and it seems that people only dona qick google if att all , to
check things out ( usually reading rose tinted testimonials on mfg
website ).
For
You pretty much have to jack the prices . It really does not cost much
to make a good enough cable for any hifi aplication .
So thTs the snake oil its well inown electrical engineering how to make
a cable .
Sell them to audiophiles is well known marketting scam "snake oil" they
even refusento
Yes the transporter is foremost a squeezebox. A more typical DAC have
more inputs and features , so that can reason for a change . And the
squeezebox part can be a picore player with digital out to the new DAC
.
Seems like op does not use the transporter as squeezebox much ?
Spotifys lossy ogg coding has a magnitude greater impact than any of the
DAC's mentioned including the TP .
Also,the Apple TV does it resample ? It can have a negative impact
If noticeable it at all it would be small .
Most bang for buck would be to setup an LMS server and stream lossles
Flac
You can toggle off the smart functionality if you have albums like dance
or pop compilations that you really want to level anyway ?
Maybe that's what OP is hearing ? Albums like best of 90's would
actually be better without smart gain feature , so just turn that of
when listening to such album
You can use for example foobar2000 and redo all RG tags in one sweep (
backup first !!)
You can try the nev EBU R128 algorithm , that should match human hearing
slightly better ?
And let the encoder pick reference level ? The algorithm needs headroom
to work so level has to somewhat quiet to be
There is also a lack of context ? Is this suposed tweak for a local
player or a networked one ? The later removes most plausability for
this, op does not say ? He tweaks lms ? But lms has no sound .
It can be a case of creating your own problems bend SoX arm far enough
and i'm sure you can make
tingtong5 wrote:
> After noticiting that playing a track for the second time sounds better
> then the first time, I did some research
You have noticed a known psychoacoustic phenomen . Indeed playing the
same thing again can sometimes sound different ,some one else did the
reasearch too , but
drmatt wrote:
> What tech do you need to implement a room correction setup? I mean apart
> from just buying an AV amp..
Depends my AV controller from Meridian has it and it works very well.
There are opinions about how to do it and some solutions are percieved
better than others , the typical
drmatt wrote:
> Isn't room correction a glorified tone control anyway, albeit one where
> the controls are handed off to a microphone instead? For most people,
> buying a bigger amp is a glorified tone control, as it usually provides
> a bigger bass..
Not really there is usually a well designed
You can go two ways here . With "home remaster" .
Just please yourself :)
Or another kind of accuracy what was the original intent ? Know vinyl
limitations they mastered around ? Some producer preasure to make it
loud etc ? But that reuires some insigth and extra information about the
recording
MadScientist wrote:
> Well, for those who wish to try it, there should be available material
> shortly.I remain open minded about the format but if it encourges
> better audio mastering practices that has to be a bonus.
>
>
>
Ues thats a point a pop or rock song can be bundle of adc and shrug
sampling
:) deblur that
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel
Julf wrote:
> No. It can't tell tape hiss from music - there is some music where I
> can't always tell the music from random noise... :)
You can also hear down into to the noise on fade outs on some songs .
So maybe an engineer have to make a judgement over what's the usable S/N
ratio on the
Julf wrote:
> Absolutely. The FLAC encoder can already tell when there is no
> information in the lowest bits, allowing for a way to detect the most
> blatant cases of "repackaging".
or just good old noise , some recordings are inherently very noisy , ie
old analog tape to 24bit ADC ? can the
Julf wrote:
> Wouldn't that require AI to determine what is random noise and what is
> music? Not that I have come across any commercial recordings worthy of
> 20 bits...
Some kind of entropy analysis , i think most recordingsbwould need less
than 16 bits :/
Yes an alternative has always been some other combo of bit depth and
sample rate that for example flac support , it supports basically every
odd rate you can come up with .
"Bit freezing" seems like FUD , just do a proper resampling with dither
to 16-18 bits There about and pick some sample rate
wortgefecht wrote:
> RE: crossed out bar codes: there are several German organic food
> producers who actually print the bar codes with a horizontal line
> through them, because their customers demand it. But they believe that
> bar codes are satanic in origin ...
>
> Gesendet von meinem Nexus
I remember this crap from way back ? Still around ?
Even the cable believing tube audiophiles laughed ? But really today ,
it thought he be surpassed by people with better and slicker marketing
that makes things sound semi plausible ?
And for the loony fringe of the loony fringe , we always
arnyk wrote:
> It takes quite a stretch of imagination to actually believe that, but I
> can understand how many vinyl bigots, who are also often in denial about
> vinyl's rather grotesque sonic limitations, to be in denial about this
> analysis as well.
>
> I find the article in good
Archimago wrote:
> The funny thing Mnyb is that they know 16-bits 44kHz will give us time
> domain accuracy in the picosecond range. They seem to be basing all this
> on impulse response plots...
Yeah I suppose so , but even if they are biased by their belief that
even better accuracy
Archimago wrote:
> Yup. Overall, you're correct about a solution nobody asked for... One
> more thing - it's not "lossless" above the baseband 22/24kHz!
>
> As per Mr. Stuart:
> " b) There is no foolery here: MQA does indeed *reconstruct a
> remarkably close approximation to the original
garym wrote:
> For the "audiophile" that has everything. Oh my! :rolleyes:
>
> *A Gift for Music Lovers Who Have It All: A Personal Utility Pole*
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-gift-for-music-lovers-who-have-it-all-a-personal-utility-pole-1471189463
>
> (sorry, I don't have the full
arnyk wrote:
> Not the only product with that feature. I saw several, but the one that
> comes to mind most exactly was from an American (Chicago) company named
> Sherwood, whose good name is now in the hands of some asians.
>
> The general problem with this feature was setting it up, which
drmatt wrote:
> Yeah, I realise that there's always a cynical view.. :) but at least
> it's -something- that provides a baseline of supposed mastering
> standard. How well enforced it is is another matter..
It actually works to a degree , but not many goes the whole mile and get
"everything
drmatt wrote:
> Agree. At the very least we need a THX-like mastering standard that
> removes the desire to saturate every recording at -0.02db.. If it can be
> extended all the way back to studio recording principles then even
> better.
>
> No one would argue against this. (Except studios who
I migth be wrong about classical records they migth already do records
as good as we ever need in many cases .
But they have other challenges to cope with like a very small consumer
base .
And a very long recorded history of excellent performances that sounds
good enough for most .
Which make it
pablolie wrote:
> I think the standing question is "Do the vast majority of people benefit
> from HD Audio?" ( to which I have established my own personal answer,
> but to each their own). I am not a believer in absolute statements,
> because -as you said- they can be easily proven wrong by a
drmatt wrote:
> I've driven a few, and frankly they are all unacceptable compromises -
> except the Tesla.
>
> Have to say however the Tesla is not an environmentally friendly car.
> The performance on offer consumes prodigious amounts of energy in a
> short time, much like other supercars, and
Most travel is short comuting meaning that you charge at home and never
visit the petrol station ?
The long haul travels ? Well thats what I'm doing part of the year
there insee the problem , but most of the time i go back and forth
between the office the grocery store and home .
When the wether
drmatt wrote:
> Many million dollar supercars are bettered, in practical performance and
> all standard measurable metrics, by a $85k Tesla Model S. People still
> buy supercars.
Except possibly top speed ( who no sane person ever uses ) Paganis
people buy to get a bespoke hand built very
Supercars however overpriced and impractical they are , has some
performance advantages .
If your koenigsegg or pagani performed just like a Honda Civic , then
the choice would be as irrational as jewelry cables ?
Actual jewelry is deliberately irrational and that's ok :) it's pure
look and
scoob101 wrote:
> I`ve got a transporter connected via RCA`s to a Yamaha RX-V653, which
> drives a pair of Monitor Audio BX-5 Bronze speakers.
>
> I`m pretty pleased with the sound. Bags of detail, loads better sound
> than my old duet.
>
> However, my mate (who`s opinion is not usually
Julf wrote:
> Would the fans of such devices care about any measurements anyway?
Probably not :) I can't imagine taking the ladder DAC concept to 24bit
it , but that actually exists ?
The delta sigma ,one bit DAC and similar designs is just such an elegant
way of solving the linearity problem
Unfortunately the measurment migth stilll be needed ? Are there not new
r2r ladder dacs popular in some camps of "fantasy audio" or "novelty
electronics" :)
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH
:) and all equipment survived
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3
sub.
Bedroom/Office: Boom
Kitchen: Touch + powered
You use splitters to make it possible to connect one output to several
inputs !
Not connect several outputs to one input , this is not a good idea .
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
An unique selling point Meridian had back in the 2000's was a fully
digital
Signal path for multich or 2ch dvda hirez.
Your hirez data was in most cases turned in to analog after the player ,
but in a Meridian hifi it could be used by a Meridian processor and
speakers still in the digital domain
The good thing with dvda was discreet 5ch pcm , like 5 ch 24/96 or any
mix between like 24/48 back channels .
The normal dvd video format can package 2ch pcm at 24/192 if you, there
was such disc formsalemfor a while .
Now you can get bluerays with it :) but its still MLP the format
meridian
Its a classic marketting scheme . First you present the "problem" and
then for some reason you have the solution :)
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2
drmatt wrote:
> Not "avoid", just don't have contacts who could help me achieve that
> locally. Where do you start? Have you done a proper ABX test to see if
> you can tell the difference? How did you arrange that? Getting it right
> is hard and I don't think you learn anything if it isn't done
I found that bt works fine in my volvo v60 streaming spotify and spotify
is set to some medium quality setting ( high can break up on the road
with 4G/3G )
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2
mlsstl wrote:
> Apologies to rkrug.
>
> Cliveb is correct. It is the digital volume control of the Touch that I
> like to keep in its upper volume range when I'm listening critically.
> Unlike digital volume controls, resistance based analog volume controls
> don't directly lose resolution at
arnyk wrote:
> Balanced provides several benefits. The 6 dB improvement in SNR is due
> to the effective doubling of the signal voltage.
>
> An additional very substantial improvement (easily up to 60 dB) can
> occur when common mode interference and noise is cancelled out by the
> balanced
StephenPG wrote:
> I always thought things like balanced connections weren't necessary for
> domestic audio, due to the much shorter connection spans and the average
> home being a far less hostile environment than the average studio.
>
> My Arcam preamp has both and they sound the same,
Any DAC would suit an old amp basically , maybe you need passive
attenuators ( rothwell is brand I bougth for this purpose ).
But check the specs ! Do you have a manual to the old amp ? Sometimes
max input levels are speced .
But in 99% of the time it works just fine IMHO .
RegardingDAC in
Yes its is this messy :/ i just wish that the home hifi world could have
used the same standard as pro audio they have predifned levels and a pro
power amps usually have gain selection .
(i had a SiriuS aka GamauT amp with this functionality it was bliss ) .
The only thing you can say vs home
I'd did that test , have some test tones from 0db to -125 dB .
If I put my ear directly on a speaker driver , I can faintly hear s
-112dB signal buried deep in the amp noise of my active speakers . With
the volume at 100% !
>From the listening position -75 dB or something gets lost in the room
Or passive attenuators at the input on the Yamaha .
I would not be surprised if an integrated amp has to much gain .
Some people have old source components the odd tape deck or tuner maybe
a vhs . 0.5 volt or less was common for a while nowadays around 2.0
volts like the Touch or sometimes more
What mlsstl describe is an attempt to get a good "gain structure" or
gain staging .
Sources can have to high output level and most likely both amps and
preamps can have to much gain .
If your always use the bottom half of you volume control your system has
to much gain somewhere .
And
Yes the filter less NOS DAC a very audiophile solution to the
"everything sounds the same" problem ;) ok enjoy the artifacts if you
fancy.
But as usual there are "explanations" that these things in some magical
ways really is "better" than a regular well designed DAC .
Honestly , I think we are
One amp per driver gives you control over q and damping factor , no
reactive components in the way like coils , less ringing and the driver
is controlled out of band to . Nice impulse response is possible say god
buy to boomy bass hello tight bass and you get amplifier damping in
higher midrange
I personally have 3 brands of active speakers .
Meridian , a speaker with digital input and digital internal crossover
.
Fostex and ADAM , analog actives . An analog active is also a great leap
compared to passive speakers . The cross over is analog , there are
tricks aviable for a digital
101 - 200 of 1831 matches
Mail list logo
