maggior wrote:
Doing this doesn't have to be hard - just revert back to your previous
setup and replay what sounded different/better. A regular scenario with
me is I'll listen to something after making a change (software,
hardware, new headphones, new speakers...whatever) and think wow,
of the review asks the question: Can an 18W Amplier at 3% Distortion be
World Class? To which Mnyb, I and several other forum members would
answer with a resounding NO!!!
Harley's conclusion offers these tid bits of insight: it's not for
everyone or every loudspeaker, it won't deliver the bass
ralphpnj wrote:
While it's true that reading TAS can at times be very similar to torture
I do find it interesting to follow along as the latest audiophile trends
are created out of thin air. For example, the current craze over
asynchronous USB and super low jitter is a DIRECT result of all
ralphpnj wrote:
Not true. The older Sony PS3s featured digital output of SACDs and many
people have used this feature to rip SACDs to DSD encoded tracks which
are then convert to 24bit/88.2kHz PCM. A simple google search will give
you lots of hits on where you find some of the these rips.
I
Ok so the ps3 can make iso's , pity I don't have one if I play games I
use my pc , but on the other hand I don't hav that many SACD hybrids
either ,will investigate other sources for the files
Mnyb's Profile:
ralphpnj wrote:
And you can burn the iso files using a computer to a DVD which will then
play as an SACD on some SACD players, such as the Oppo BDP-83. The list
of tested SACDs players can be easily found.
Unfortunately an SACD made from a PS3 derived iso file will sound vastly
inferior
Yep the Dalby D7 at only 55k£ ish prices
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?97505-Gold-Standard-in-Audio.
Can we build a complete hifi that does not work and get it up to a
million $ .
The Dalby may be overqualified , there must be something similarly
priced with really horrible
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Good to know that about Krell. It is a pity if a high-end piece of
equipment changes its sonics because of the power cord. That means its
own power supply is inadequate. Power supply should be 30-40% of an amps
circuit. (I do use some after-market power cords with my
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Gentlemen, whether you like it or not.. you have all paid for jitter
reduction circuits in your audio equipment. The more you paid for it,
the more percentage went into the jitter aspects of the design
(especially the Meridian stuff, it takes quite a bit of software
garym wrote:
To be be insulted by SBGK is one of the best compliments one can receive
on this forum.
I have him on ignore have I been insulted to ? , is there a badge we can
attach to our avatars
Mnyb's Profile:
garym wrote:
I notice these DACs also seem to use NOS approach. Mnyb's favorite.
;-)
Actually NOS without any filter and usually old multibit chips :-) thats
one of my fav flaved ideas one should add Audio notes idea of passive
I/V stage with transformer too . (NOS dac is per default broken
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Yes, currently, a DAC cannot be used in my setup. Just SBT- coax -
Panasonic - bi-amp- speakers. But I am considering new speakers and
thinking about DACs like the NAD M51. Wondering what the folks here
think is a reasonably priced DAC (surely not the ones jh suggests
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Exactly, my thoughts. I bought the Newform Research speakers used mainly
to get rid of the crossovers and power them using my TACT (but I need to
get another one M2150). Check this
http://www.newformresearch.com/digital-amplifier-packages.htm. There
will be no
maybe I'm at the ods with the -audiophile- world ,but that is because
they are mostly wrong in most cases .
Thinking that different metals sounds different or use shakti
hollographs , I'm also at odds with homeopaths et al .
just point me to a well conducted controlled test ( dbt ) where people
ralphpnj wrote:
I read this and thought Didn't I post something similar a while back?
And yes I did. My apologies to Mr. Kloss but I was unaware that I was
paraphrasing his original statement.
Excellent example of using measurements to distort what are basically
inaudible
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
I feel very silly talking to people with Meridian processors about
jitter :-) Why do you think these equipment are so pricey ? The HD621
has a buffer and reclocks things out. I feel like I am justifying your
purchases !!
The price is markup expensive exterior
Ok nice total jitter examples . but was not this tread about digital
sources . ? more precisely a digital *transport* or we also having
discussion about said source analog performance .
It is the dac that sets the performance not the source , so we can have
a tread about the best top end dac too
Jeff52 wrote:
Here is a link
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?1151-Audible-Jitter-amirm-vs-Ethan-Winer
to an interesting debate about audibility of jitter and jitter in
general which may be of interest to readers of this thread.
Thats intresting mudwrestle :) gives some valuable
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Many of you posting here and who claim that jitter is inaudible seem to
have very good audio equipment (especially other than the digital
source). I can only guess it is possible, that the DACs you all use have
good jitter suppression. It is also possible that the
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Just saw this post from the person arguing jitter is not audible in that
quoted link - Folks, all anyone has to do to convince me that a typical
amount of jitter is ever audible is to post a Wave file proving the
point! . Complete ignorance of what jitter is. He is
garym wrote:
Softwireengineer :
Bottom line. Jitter is a bogeyman of audiophile magazines.
it is about proportions ( not seeing the forest because off all the
trees ) .
Of course jitter is factor any good DAC or source designer should care
about . If the DAC designer strives to accomplish
Julf wrote:
Isn't appealing to a higher authority something from religion and belief
systems rather than science?
Higher authority in high end :) is there such a thing ,I know there
actually are a tiny minority of knowledgeable people .
But sometimes we have to quote experts in fact no one
The audiophiles surely invest much emotionally towards the equipment ?
Almost on the verge of anthropomorphize it .
Giving it emotionally loaded attributes , the musicality and feelings
comes from the performers and possible thier instruments ( really the
instrument maker ) . Hifi is the exact
x-transporter wrote:
Hello
No more sound by using SPDIF optical or coaxial with my SlimDevices
Transporter :-/
Just some glitches sometimes.
I don't know what to think: dead DAC or not ?
Have you tried streaming to transporter directly from the server ? If
you get sound then the DAC
desertrat58 wrote:
The Transporter SE is available on the Logitech VIP site, as stated
above, for $750 often. Without getting a special email from Logitech, I
went to the VIP site and the TP SE is listed for $999 today. The Touch,
Radio, and Duet are no longer available from the Logitech
desertrat58 wrote:
I have a long cable run to the speakers. The speakers are active studio
monitors and a subwoofer (2.1, as they say), and have both balanced and
single-ended in/outputs. I use the balanced analog out of the TP because
of the distance, and I was already cabled for this. I
On the subject of 5 year old tech ,IMHO in digital audio it may *seem*
that a lot is happening with new chips and all .
But the main rush of development was in the late 80's trough the 90's .
The TP has awesome specs very low thd and noise , as of course do many
other quality DAC's from dcs
garym wrote:
damn, the way you're talking you're making me want to buy one just to
use with my home theatre setup instead of the Touch. But seems a waste
for the 3 hours a month I use the touch on that system vs. my
transporter in my 2 channel system (8-10 hours a day).
I probably would if
stop-spinning wrote:
The improvement is obvious in Spotify also! Obviously I can only use
Triode's Spotify on the Duet but nevertheless... Spotify on the
iPhone/Dock is running at highest quality to keep things even. And it's
not that have I to fine tune the volume control levels, the
ralphpnj wrote:
In other words - since the Duet (and all other SB steaming devices) are
known to be bit perfect transports, e.g. they can all pass DTS encoding
without error, then the difference/problem must lie with the iPod/iPhone
device. I believe that this is fair assessment although it
Yea more testers please , this is still a very small dataset :)
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=97530
:) interesting , I actually never heard Vandersteens , they never been
able to market them successfully where I live .
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread:
ralphpnj wrote:
I would guess that is most likely because most Vandersteens are floor
standing speakers and most Swedes can not use floor standing speakers
where they live, which more often than not tend to be apartments and not
private homes. I live in a fully detached private house where I
Julf wrote:
Shooting the messenger is a popular solution to a lot of problems...
!
See climate problem :) half a population in denial ? (no it is a fact
,debate is over )
Mnyb's Profile:
Here is an example of perverting real science and apply it and make a
fake appliance out of it it :)
http://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/rr77/rr77_01.html
A description of the real thing ,ok it's wiki but's seems legit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumann_resonances
Schuman resonce is
mwiedrick wrote:
What do people think of the idea of taking a Stanton T.92 or ST.150 and
attaching it to the Transporter via the SPDIF output on the turntable?
I realize these turntables are meant for DJs but would the sound on my
system be bad?
1. this TT Stanton T.92 already has an
kHz. And
every now and then, a decent, bona fide hi-res digital recording / but
those are all too rare. Even with those, the quality of the mastering is
much more significant than any possible difference in resolution that
you can possibly hear.
Mnyb wrote:
+1
I've been trying to say
And now I contributed , I hesitated along time between could not hear
any difference and one of the choices (i would not tell here ) but i
committed to one of them this was not easy at all and on any other day i
might have chosen the other one
mwiedrick wrote:
Believe me, the analog-to-digital-to-analog sequence certainly dawned on
me as well but I was hoping to go with that method for two reasons:
1) minimize the number of connections to my amplifier
2) utilize the volume control within the Transporter for the turntable
mwiedrick wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. I think I'll attempt to incorporate the ADC
and Transporter first, if that doesn't work I can always add the pre-amp
and bypass the Transporter altogether. This exercise is mainly meant
for fun and games but I'm also hoping to maintain a relatively
1. USB TT really suck .
3. Relatively ok ADC can be had at any music shop where home studio
people do their shopping .
But a better plan would be to replace the vinyl , get suitable digital
versions and if they don't exist record the vinyl with your computer and
make files of them .
Then there
garym wrote:
He can't elucidate. He's a troll. Check out his many posts and this will
be crystal clear.
To all newb or absent friends that havent been on the forum for a while
check out this trolls tread about tuning win 7 to sound better as a LMS
server ;)
jhonsber...@msn.com wrote:
So which do you think would sound better ?
Macmini connected via USB to a Mdac or
Squeezebox Touch connected via Spdif
to Mdac using apple lossless or flac files
and the same speakers?
Did you ask this in the right tread ?
But mac-mini, a computer how do you
ralphpnj wrote:
That would be completely dependent on the price of the USB cable :)
Linear dependent or logarithmically must be some logX to take into to
account the law of diminishing return , hence one would extrapolate our
relative sound-quality purely from the price .
Some kind of
More entertainment ( for you ) I recycled a bunch of old audio cables
today , audio quest ( including one pair of caldera speaker cables ) van
den hul Goertz .
It would be best for all if these where forgotten .
So if you in a couple of years get blacker blacks when turning of the
light or wife
Julf wrote:
Not so pure at all - probably DSD noise shaping from a bad resampling
from SACD.
A lot of the hi-res stuff is pure fraud - upsampled 16/44.1 (CD/Red
book) material. Some is genuine 24/96 or 24/192, but from an analog
tape copy with only tape hiss and electrical noise above 20
ralphpnj wrote:
Thanks Archimago for that very well written and highly informative link.
The sad part is that, at least here in the USA, there has been a
prolonged war on science and other evidenced based beliefs in favor of
pseudo-scientific and subjective belief systems. In this respect
ralphpnj wrote:
However on the other hand I don't always believe in the power of
technology and science to solve every problem. For example here in the
US we have been spending tons of money and using lots of resources for
the past 40 years in search of a cure for cancer and yet none have
Ime it can be hard to tell what file actually would confuse a codec , so
don't fall into the trap that this track sounds good and audiophilish
and therefore must be hard to code with lossy codec .
afiak classic orchestral works is easy to code just because it is
complex and much of the sounds
RonM wrote:
Well, what I am saying is that we have to be careful drawing conclusions
based only on subjective experience. Maybe those high priced bits
actually work, but I would be very reluctant to believe this without
properly controlled evidence.
Ron
What about the subjective -design
The new benchmark dac2 ? or the old dac1 and use it's built in
attenuators for correct gain scaling .
AFAIK many of benchmarks models can have preamp capability as an option
, gain scaling and a volume control some also has extra analog inputs .
And gain scaling is important ,what good are
mlsstl wrote:
I'll have to mildly disagree. If the problem had never made it past
American Idol, I wouldn't know of its existence. .
+1
As you i never listen to that kind of stuff , but loudness war permeates
most music ,I think even some of the later tom waits stuff has some
problems ??
Archimago wrote:
Yup, I agree - perhaps it'll have to be trying to single out bad albums
or series of albums (look at that 2009 UMG Rolling Stones remaster
series for example - who was responsible for that mess!?).
However, I still insist Vlado Meller SUCKS. More on Mr. M:
The absolute
TheOctavist wrote:
Yes, external clocks are ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY A WASTE OF MONEY.
clocks have purpose in a recording studio...IE syncing a bunch of
digital devices together
but hifi?? utter , utter rubbish
Archimago wrote:
Absolutely correct:
1. Pressings before 1994 almost always trumps the latest remasters.
2. This is why I take every opportunity I get to voice my disgust at
someone like Vlado Meller and his ilk who have destroyed sound quality.
Archimago wrote:
I had to use the online dictionary - I guess quisling means 'traitor',
right?
Maybe we should put together a 'wall of shame' of mastering engineers
and post it up somewhere :-) Anyone else you guys would nominate...
someone whose body of work has resulted in sonic
Archimago wrote:
I had to use the online dictionary - I guess quisling means 'traitor',
right?
Maybe we should put together a 'wall of shame' of mastering engineers
and post it up somewhere :-) Anyone else you guys would nominate...
someone whose body of work has resulted in sonic
Archimago wrote:
I responded to that article beginning with the Yeah.. Rrrright...
comment suggesting an ABX with upsampled 16/44 -- DSD128 (very easy
with Weiss Saracon for example) vs. native DSD128. He didn't seem to
want to go there. Oh well...
It's also possible that the Mytek just
jh901 wrote:
PCM (redbook), hi-res PCM, SACD/DSDwhatever!! When will any of us
turn our attention to the mastering engineer? I'll bet dollars to
doughnuts that I have dozens of good old redbook CDs pressed (and
mastered) before 1988 which smoke that latest and greatest.
Additionally,
Archimago wrote:
I like this article comparing PCM vs. DSD.
http://www.craigmandigital.com/education/PCM_vs_DSD.aspx
I think it makes the point very clear in pictures. Certainly fits with
the description of the nature of how DSD sounds.
Yup DSD aprox 20bits resolution in low frequncies
Archimago wrote:
Get foobar2000 and the ABX plugin:
http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx
Works very well for this kind of thing!
As for the test itself, I just wanted to present folks with (hopefully)
an easy test with some reasonable material from my collection spanning a
Archimagos test is actually better than the test in the link .
Usually it a typical audiophile cop out to blame the song but we built
this city c'mon :) why not britney spears ,
Archimago poses songs that does not sounds like artifacts to begin with
even if they are not inside everyones taste
Thinking about it would not a,b,x and some more songs been better ,but
maybe that to much work for some .
But as you say if you use a plugin with abx capability you can have it
.
Lets say a=mp3 b=flac x=unknown .also randomised in a perfect world
randomised by a third party so that not the even
.. Or designing and building fully treated listening rooms the magazines
are full of that as this is the most neglected part of the whole set-up
and logically audiophiles are addressing that . and it cost less to do
than buying more high end hifi .
I'm kidding they are not :D
But actually this
The Linn thingies are also DAC's not only transports , if you want a DAC
too ,not that I disagree with azink3 ,but these are not only transports
.
But I would be more interested in the usability differences, there is
not many here that have acess to multiple streamers of different brands
. there
Good setup , making the mp3 as flac too , it bypasses the Squeezebox
built in mp3 decoder which is not as good as lame .
So now testers can judge the file formats .
And everyone gets the same mp3 decoding ,so that's another variable
tamed ,very good .
Julf wrote:
Unfortunately there is still the possibility that people will look at
the spectrum analysis of the files (that very clearly shows which one is
the mp3), but claim they could hear the difference.
Yeah , but being positive most will not cheat ? And if they cheat :
1. This will
Now that we already blown Dennis55 tread to pieces . Sorry .
What about good enough power supply good enough mechanics and good
enough analog circuitry :) if you make it low distortion flat frequency
response and low noise it will be transparent to humans , the oppo is a
good example .
But
Julf wrote:
Hopefully not. I was forced to pull a similar test over at Computer
Audiophile when it become clear that it was possible to cheat.
On this one I am a bit more sceptical, having seen too many fanatical
audiophiles. We All Know#153; that uncompressed sounds better than mp3,
bhaagensen wrote:
At some point you have to acknowledge that not everyone agrees with you
in this - its a premise of this entire discussion - like it or not.
Anyway. The point is that USB is a better protocol and using it avoids
the hoops one has to go through to achieve something similar
bhaagensen wrote:
Thanks for the link - I didnt yet read it though.
But you are misunderstanding my point. Which is that usb is a better
interface by purely technical metrics and probably as cheap as spdif,
and more widespread in computing, so that alone is reason to make the
change.
ralphpnj wrote:
You're right not everyone agrees with me but if you discount the clowns
who write for the high end rags (and they are clowns because clowns make
you laugh and their writing is such a joke that it often makes me laugh)
then you will find that few people who know what they are
bhaagensen wrote:
Ralph (and other critics:))
Mnyb. I undesrstand you used to shall out big bucks in cables and such.
Why have you now changed your opinion. Where your experiences not valid
back then. Or...?
..
I don't know really ,just a gradual awakening I think powered by various
ralphpnj wrote:
Where I get such a cable? Silver, moonlight and virgins beating by hand
- I bet it sounds GREAT! :) :)
Hmm , I'll take pre orders at 80k$ at piece , do you use tri wring for
your speakers ? ,( I only need to sell 10-20 of them then i can
discreetly unregister my company and
darrenyeats wrote:
PS: Current loudspeaker tech is full of compromises. Open versus closed
baffle, single versus multiple driver, dynamic versus electrostatic.
Each has pros and cons. There isn't one technology that can deliver high
performance in every way at once: distortion, impulse
ralphpnj wrote:
Nicely stated gentlemen but nowhere in either post did you mention
MAGIC, which trumps science and sound quality when it comes to
audiophile equipment.
I actually subtly implied sinus faber :)
Mnyb's
Intresting read the homepage is a cornucopia of pseudoscientific
technobabble aka audiophile buzzwords :)
More solid silver mains cables ,yes ! Read thier user agreement for the
product apereantly flipping the mains switch on/off fast could damage
the tubes , stellar engineering indeed ,just what
I encourage anyone to read about TaS computer audio series follow that
link ralphy provided.
And try to get hold of copies .
The no 1 issue for me in that whole article series is this silly claim
that *exact copies of the same file sounds different ?*
this is audio homeopathy to me . If this
Some more reading a bit off topic but refreshing
http://seanolive.blogspot.se/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html
Indeed if Mr Harley wrote the book on high end audio we are all very
sorry for it :(
But if you from the beggining have denounced all scientific methods off
testing your claims
Would these work together with my
http://www.lessloss.com/blackbody-p-200.html :P
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=97484
ralphpnj wrote:
And finally, as I've stated over and over, either the Benchmark DAC2 or
the Weiss used in a super-mega-buck audio system would be
indistinguishable from any of the super-mega-buck DACs currently
available, except of course for their solid faceplate, constructed out
Impressive list .
My impressions, the audiolab and musical fidelity stands out as best
spec among the cheaper models almost on par with the expensive offerings
.
This new benchmark models looks impressive with a well thought out
feature set .
Disclaimer , spec are somewhat hard to compare,
ralphpnj wrote:
True Darren but also keep in mind that even the best mastering cannot
rescue a bad recording. For example even the superbly remastered
collection of the original Louis Armstrong Hot Five and Hot Seven, The
Complete Hot Five and Hot Seven Recordings cannot manage to provide
ralphpnj wrote:
Sorry to disappoint you but back in the 1920's when the recordings were
made there was only 6 bits (75 cents) available and the only digital
elements involved were Armstrong's fingers.
But all kidding aside, these recordings, as well many other early jazz
recordings, just
ralphpnj wrote:
We are way, way off topic now but just to finish up the JATPS
discussion, there is plenty ersatz swing jazz still being played today
and most it happens right in NYC on W. 47th St.. The main reason I don't
like this treatment of jazz is that it treats jazz as if it's a dead
I have a complete Meridian home theater 10k$, but I would never spend
that money on the digital front end as it makes no sense .
The high end brands also have streamers ,but as a pure digital front end
they makes no difference and the LMS server combined with iPeng is the
best interface I know of
Ok linn do multi room to ,how is the user interface ? But it would be
pricey just like doing multi room with sooloos ?
I can see a sooloos system at my local hifi dealer ( he constantly tries
to sell it to me ) and a naim unit but the naim unit he showed had very
poor UI it was like an old mp3
I have no exact idea on a perfect replacement .
We can build short list .
Audiolab MDAC, Benchmark ,Lavry , arcam rdac .
Add on people .
Two trends to be vary off.
There always seems to be new ( Chinese ) DAC brand every week ,often
Internet only , promises a lot.
Flawed designs NOS DAC's and
Haven't noticed any sox performance problems on my microserver ?
HD tracks also offer 24/96 version of most thier hi-Rez or even a
pedestrian 16/44.1 version .
But given HD tracks proven bussiness ethics , there is no way to know
how any of them are mastered or if the differents version is from
... But are we on another topic , someone resurected this old tread to
discuss eventual sonically benefits of 24/192 and flaunted some common
misunderstanding of sampling ?
The bussiness case for 24/192 is another topic if someone sells and
there are buyers there is some kind of market for
Julf wrote:
There is. 'DSD over USB' (http://dsd-guide.com/dop-open-standard). Not
sure I would bother - the usual arguments I hear for DSD are mostly of
the it is technically closer to analog, so it must be better ilk...
Yea DSD is basically sony's attempt to copy protection by obscurity ,
Julf wrote:
Old habits die very hard. There is definitely a luddite, anti-technology
fringe among audiophiles. DSD, being pulse-density modulation, is a more
primitive, more analog encoding than the very computer-y PCM... So
of course DSD sounds natural and analog while PCM sounds hard,
Server going to sleep ? ,but screensaver settings looks more likely .
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=97377
Julf wrote:
Not really. Software keeps getting increasingly big and bloated (and RAM
price keeps dropping), but human hearing hasn't changed much in the last
couple of thousands of years - and if it has changed, it has probably
changed for the worse because of all the noise exposure.
Yes
bpa wrote:
IIRC the wifi signal strength comes from the chipsets and it is not
standardised. There are different Wifi chipsets in SB2 and SBT and
therefore the 2 numbers are not comparable i.e. 50% on SB2 is NOT the
same level as 50% on SBT. The signal strength is just to be used as a
Nikhil wrote:
Thanks for all the feedback. All good points. There is no inherent
incompatibility problem between the SBT and the DAC, because I have
happily used them together for years with files of all sample rates.
This problem has only surfaced after the slight digital crackling that I
+1 Try more current LMS and player fw ! ( if it/was a bug it could have
been fixed ages ago and everyone have already forgot about it ) ,
I have no trouble running 48khz or 96khz or 44.1 or 88.2
What are the file formats involved ? If you haven't try flac , this is a
good baseline and no weird
Julf wrote:
Yes - the next thing he will be claiming is that you get a clearer and
shinier sound by using USB cables with silver instead of copper wires.
A lot of old-school audiophiles don't understand digital technology, but
still apply their analog-age beliefs to digital.
I still
bhaagensen wrote:
Good times and we're all in agreement :)
But.
The one-liner scientific argument (Nyquist) doesn't carry through to the
end (the analog outputs of Your DAC). While Nyquist is a very nice
result, its theoretical and for practical purposes, non-constructive. So
an
bhaagensen wrote:
Maybe, but you can't argue that by referring to (only) Nyquist - the
main point of my first post.
Definitive is a strong word, but how about maybe...?
Usually, but not always, and by who's count - oh my head hurts :)
That begs the question - suppose there
901 - 1000 of 1831 matches
Mail list logo
