Archimago wrote:
:-)
Once I finish the JPLAY test, the closet is looking pretty threadbare I
think... Just in time for summer with the kids and an overseas trip.
fordgtlover is sending me a Receiver to test so I likely will do a
refresh of the older measurements of the Squeezebox gear
Hear is a similar concept, but uses Foobar2000
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/visual-studio-2012-c-and-wasapi-minimalist-player-15401/
It is called MQn so hasn't nicked the name from anyone and is free so no
fraudulent claims or snake oil.
I don't expect the resident self
Interestingly this is the methodology used by JRMC to prove that JPlay
has no affect on the sound.
Don't think there are many people who would say that JRMC sounds the
same as JPlay so there must be something that is not being measured that
affects the sound.
I don't have any view on different
ralphpnj wrote:
The manufacturers are the advertisers for whom the reviewers work and
the users are the people who buy what the manufacturers sell. For
heaven's sake why would either of the first two want anything having to
do with empirical measurements, logic, and common sense to appear on
Quad wrote:
I don't understand why, but even software players and streaming methods
sound different. ASIO, WASAPI, Kernel Streaming with USB or HDMI:
everything is different. In my setup, Squeezelite with Kernel Streaming
over HDMI out of my Windows 8 laptop into my NAD M51 sounds the
came across this link on another forum
This poor lost soul reckons he's written a better audio player by
producing a minimalist audio player
https://rapidshare.com/#users|45980080|0ae609ce616a35c8de7ac5fda4b6194c|11541
here is the readme file, you couldn't make it up and what's more he's
garym wrote:
Callesoroe, Please don't take offense, and I certainly don't mean any
(it's all about the music after all, and I myself use FLAC files at home
and a Transporter!). But it is simply amazing to me that you are able
to detect huge differences (and I assume you've tried a number of
Look at this article comparing 48kbps and 160 kbps streams
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/digitalmusic/spotify-vs-sky-songs-sound-quality-blind-test-49303980/
at the end they say
Things to bear in mind
Although conducted fairly, our test was still very subjective. Everybody
hears 'quality'
rattosecond wrote:
just wondering if there is a easier way to solve this issue.
The touch sounds very good when EDO and TT30 is used its just that
buffer issue that kills it.
I would like to do it but the code from touchsgotrythm.blogspot.sg
scares me.
Please please please help!
Quad wrote:
I've always tried to be an enlightened audiophile. I won't do double
blind tests myself because I'm too lazy, but I usually trust those tests
and I think they are a good way to find out if something is audible or
not.
I'm 36 years old and here is what I claim to be able to
you guys do know you are listening to a computer and not some magic
fairy box, of course different kernels will sound different and the way
they are compiled likewise.
SBGK's Profile:
I am experimenting with a wasapi wav player using c++ to try and
optimise the render loop.
in wasapi event mode the render loop is where the the code loops round
for the count of the number of buffers in the file say 100 times a
second for a 100ms buffer.
In the loop the code waits for a
I nominate JPlay v5 as the top end player, can use it with squeezelite
to interface with LMS or use JPlaymini for best sound quality
http://jplay.eu/manual/
of course some of you will need to suspend your belief systems to hear
any differences, while you guys pontificate the rest of the world
mlsstl wrote:
Then shouldn't you qualify your statement that it is your opinion? You
didn't. Does everyone really need to spend time explaining, in every
single post they write, that our opinions are our opinions?
Interesting - you find time to lecture someone about the need to clarify
Mnyb wrote:
It is the dac that sets the performance not the source , so we can have
a tread about the best top end dac too .
A sources go Touch is a perfectly good digital transport
think you should qualify that by saying it's your opinion.
remember the Touch isn't a magic black box,
rolski wrote:
I thought this thread had been nicely put to bed ! Wrong again
well the thread was about the best top end player, but it seems to have
been hijacked by luddites with either poor hearing or poor equipment
such that they can't hear differences the rest of the audiophile
So do you guys think that all bit perfect players sound the same ?
There used to be threads on here discussing the best sounding version of
LMS (squeezeserver), how could LMS have sounded different when it is bit
perfect or did you guys never hear any differences ?
Think you have all swallowed
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
What an interesting thread !! with things like jitter we could talk till
the end of eternity :-) On a serious note, I think both ralph* and jh*
have valid points. I do not have a very high end source/transport but
mostly my focus in the last few years where I have
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
TheOctavist wrote:
TT doesn;t work.
just turn it off and ease your mind.
funny, thought the OP said he was impressed with the changes TT3.0
made.
Do you have a point to make or are you just being controversial ? Maybe
it's your mind that needs to be eased.
TheOctavist wrote:
and no..DcS is not the leader in word clocks. far from it
Apogee, etc were making clocks(for proper use in professional studios)
before DcS realized they could squeeze money from stupid audiophiles.
stop being a stupid audiophile, or I am going to stamp and shout and
ralphpnj wrote:
Complete and utter nonsense - the jitter from non-asynchronous USB is
the problem and that has absolutely nothing to do with S/PDIF. There is
nothing about asynchronous USB that makes it sound better than S/PDIF.
hmm, ralph thinks s/pdif sounds good and hifi articles make
TheOctavist wrote:
a touch with external dac can not be bettered. the touch already
measures excellently add an external DAC to further nullify non existent
digital bogeymen and really, it is as good as it gets.
nothing can top it performance wise. nothing.
maybe different features,
TheOctavist wrote:
http://www.heretical.com/miscella/zfetish.html
sums up the view of the people i cant stand...
the fact you are posting on a hi fi forum identifies you as a hi fi
fetishist, it is just matter of degrees.
take the passage below
from the link
after hearing the sound quality of my nad m51 via hdmi from my laptop i
am now resigned to the fact that the touch is a dead end in terms of
sound quality improvements in my system. EDO is just a distraction it
has higher resolution, but poor sound quality.
i have not heard anything better than
magiccarpetride wrote:
I was talking about many 'out of print' recordings that sadly seem
available only in mp3 format. Publishing houses don't seem to think it's
worth their while to invest in reissuing many culturally and musically
important recordings from the '60s and the '70s, so we're
magiccarpetride wrote:
I would much rather listen to a well recorded, well mixed and mastered
mp3 than to a shoddily recorded/mixed/mastered 24/192 FLAC.
life's too short to listen to mp3, who records/mixes/masters in mp3 ?
The amount of reviews of digital music reduces the chance of having
TheOctavist wrote:
http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths/1410
I would be more persuaded by this torchured logic if the main proponents
immediately saw the error of their ways and sold off their multi
thousand
Turnandcough wrote:
So I have to decide if I go:
a) EDO Touch USB out Audiophilleo/Pure Power DAC
b) TT 3.0 Touch S/PDIF out Synchro-Mesh (with possible PS upgrade)
DAC
or as I use edo+tt3.0+sbgk usb mf vlink 192 aes/ebu dac
or as Soundcheck has used edo + tt3.0 usb gd di
chill wrote:
John
I can't tell if you're just being mischievous, but if not, are you
seriously suggesting that the mere presence of a powered-up computer in
the same house as the hifi will have an audible effect? That's a bit of
a blow for the whole computer-based audio industry. But
SuperQ wrote:
The answer is:
Expectation
Bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimenter's_bias)
to quote soundcheck - 'everything affects the sound'
fidelizer sets the system timer to 15 ms
fidelizer adjusts non essential processes to low priority
does some other things
so basically it
JohnSwenson wrote:
But that test is not necessarily defintive, it only tells you if the
processing on the Touch is the issue. There are other possible paths
from server to ears such as EMI radiated from server, noise injected on
power mains etc. Something which is changing the whole
Phil Leigh wrote:
I feel so sorry for Triode. He is trying his best to advance the state
of the art.
I suggest he stops asking for opinions and instead uses some proper
tools like ADM. Put some science back into the process.
There are NO golden ears here.
Our great advances In technology
Triode wrote:
Not having interrupts would have a dramatic impact on sound quality - no
sound! The ehci hardware will generate interrupts one per ms. I'm not
sure if these get double counted or if there is actually two per ms, but
the linux kernel doesn't change the default interrupt
mods,
is it about time to close this thread, comments about sound quality are
not appreciated and it has turned into a triode appreciation thread.
SBGK's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=52003
View
Soundman wrote:
I did not post here for a long time because the threads often degenerate
into useless discussions, based on subjective impressions and claims,
that very often are not supported by facts. This 0.6/0.7-discussion is a
very good example...
Since you claim that noone reports
shame you can't hear the difference youself triode, otherwise we
wouldn't be having these navel gazing discussions.
do you hear a difference between 0.5 and 0.6 ? was there an attempt at
improving the sound in 0.6 ?
I am still interested in understanding why the usb irq is being called
2000
So basically the binaries are the same as jive_alsa for 0.6 and 0.7,
just recompiled.
I tried the recompiled 0.7 and it had the same issue as the old one ie
harsh treble compared to 0.6, this is on a new dac so can't blame the
benchmark dac1 for that.
back to 0.6 and very nice it sounds to.
Triode wrote:
So you tried both binaries in the zip and there was a sound quality
difference between them? If so can you post the alsa log output (from
restarting squeezeplay using /etc/init.d/squeezeplay restart with
audio.output logging set to debug) showing the difference between the
found out how to change the priorities
change the following file
/usr/share/jive/applets/EnhancedDigitalOutput/EnhancedDigitalOutputMeta.lua
eg I have changed 59 to 95 to match my priority requirements for irq 37
-- if spdif or usb output increase priority of relavent irq task
Jeff Flowerday wrote:
Which DAC you using now?
have sent you a PM
SBGK's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=52003
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94855
Triode wrote:
Please read the rest of this thread (at least from post #56 onwards) -
although some have claimed 0.6 sounded better than 0.7, no one has
stepped up to the challenge of testing the two binaries against each
other and validating that they really hear a change and/or that there
why not have the default code use the 0.6 method and then if it senses
internet radio at the start of the track make it branch to a separate
codepath that allow the internet radio format to play.
as far as I know no one is complaining about 0.6 and even the guy who
requested the internet radio
ok, to settle the question of do certain settings/program changes affect
the sound I have developed some code that allows the Touch to switch
between different settings sequentially, randomly or on command via the
remote.
It also builds up a pictorial representation of the output so you can
see
another one wiv wordz and stuff
http://www.audiostream.com/content/hd-music-download-sites
a download thread
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-audiophile-downloads/
a download quality thread
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f14-music-analysis-objective-and-subjective/
Did anyone work out how to integrate these mods into TT3.0 ? Here is one
option.
Just noticed that TT3.0 shuts down Samba, but then it is restarted in
etc/init.d/rcS file, so I have tried commenting out the lines as per
dynaudiorules instructions below.
Don't comment out the /etc/init.d/wlan
Triode wrote:
Let's be clear on this - for period count of 4, with the TXRX spdif
driver there is no point setting the buffer time above 10 as at 44.1
this gives a period time of 23219 which is is already limited by the
buffer size.
no point unless you want a more analogue type sound
changing the device in the fab4.lua file does have an effect on the
sound, think you are only going to appreciate that if you try it
yourself.
setting it to be the same device as the usb device in the EDO.lua file
gives a fuller sound than with it at default.
don't know why, but there is a
Triode wrote:
As I posted above
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?94855-Triode-s-USB-24-192-plug-in-sound-quality-impressionsp=705325viewfull=1#post705325
this value is totally irrelevant when EDO is used - it will have no
impact on sound quality.
I assume you are doing
Jeff Flowerday wrote:
I'm confused, which is untrue? The fact the the vlink 192 isn't
galvanized isolated on the input or that there are others on this forum
that just repeat what you say?
where's the love Jeff ?
garym wrote:
for anyone interested in jplay, there is a long thread at
hydrogenaudio.org. If one is not in the mood to read the thread, the
short takeaway is that jplay seems to be smoke and mirrors
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=92856
think the frustrating
adamdea wrote:
Triode thank you for your sterling efforts to provide something tangible
and useful namely usb and 192 output capability
I'm afraid that getting involved in any discussion about subjective
improvements in this area is inevitably going to get you into
intractable exchanges
Jeff Flowerday wrote:
FYI, SBGK, runs an asynchronous USB to spdif converter that doesn't have
galvanized isolation. Not sure why he went with the vlink 192 it
doesn't really put him any further ahead than the spdif implementation
on the touch itself.
The rest of his parrot crew might
bobertuk wrote:
Sorry - couldn't resist. A simple :) will suffice as a sign of full
agreement with your comments.
Bob
that's just pathetic, grow up.
SBGK's Profile:
Jeff Flowerday wrote:
Don't worry I have one. In fact you got all defensive and told me you
would have to get an OffRamp to compete with your Touch mods when I
suggested it to you.
LOL
that's how things move forward, the first response is always
resistance.
have you tried my mods ?
Jeff Flowerday wrote:
No, I went with the Hiface 2 and Aqvox power supply to get my sanity
back, it sounds better than it ever has with the straight touch and
various mods.
I'm just going to listen to music now.
same here, very happy with the sound now. was just tying up a few loose
ends.
posted this in the main EDO thread, but thought I'd post it hear in case
anyone feels like getting the soldering iron out.
I was still getting quite a lot of hf noise which I assumed was related
to EDO. Turns out it was due to the usb cable, even though I had cut it
down to 20cm and disconnected
triode,
here is my ouput - buffer 9 and periodcount 64
44.1
Hardware PCM card 1 'Musical Fidelity V-Link 192kHz' device 0 subdevice
0
Its setup is:
stream : PLAYBACK
access : MMAP_INTERLEAVED
format : S32_LE
subformat: STD
channels : 2
rate : 44100
Triode wrote:
This is interesting. I thought you were using a period count of 4. In
this case the period count is so large it hits another limit (total
buffer size) in the driver. This means that the period size/period time
are constrained and in this case are far lower than even the
Triode wrote:
See post #54 in this thread - you should see the set of alsa params
which are actually used - as per the details below. The values actually
used are indicated with , its my contention that you see the same
thing in the two cases. If so I can't see where the difference
have found a way to tame the EDO sound in my 'revealing system', so back
to using the Touch.
as always would appreciate Triodes comments on these
have set the alsaPlaybackDevice=default in file SqueezeboxFab4.lua,
this was an SBGK mod, default is 'default'
I then executed cat /proc/asound
Triode wrote:
For SPDIF output, TXRX device? (Yes I agree for usb, but as per post 54
I don't believe it will for spdif)
good point, was wondering why the EDO mods didn't get the vinyl like
effect of the spdif out, but the extra detail makes up for it.
So do you think 40 is the maximum
Triode wrote:
For SPDIF output, TXRX device? (Yes I agree for usb, but as per post 54
I don't believe it will for spdif)
hmm, misread your post, you are saying it does affect the buffer size
for usb and not for spdif. I noticed the effect on spdif long before I
tried EDO, so think there is
Triode wrote:
Read post 54 - 10 is already too big, no point making any bigger for
spdif with period count of 4.
yes, but there is a vinyl like sound to be obtained by going for the
larger buffer sizes (especially with spdif), that is why they are used.
10 sounds too digital to me.
garym wrote:
for anyone interested in jplay, there is a long thread at
hydrogenaudio.org. If one is not in the mood to read the thread, the
short takeaway is that jplay seems to be smoke and mirrors
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=92856
whatever
Jeff Flowerday wrote:
I'm confused, which is untrue? The fact the the vlink 192 isn't
galvanized isolated on the input or that there are others on this forum
that just repeat what you say?
whatever
SBGK's Profile:
Triode wrote:
I would suggest you need to be careful making blanket statements such as
this. At best this is a statement of what you hear in your system and
at worst its possible that you have an expectation bias of the changes
(cf your assersion that EDO 0.7 and 0.6 are vastly different...
adamdea wrote:
And that's just ones that magnify real faults. The ones that magnify
imaginary ones are the worst.
apologies triode, my posts seem to have attracted some fleas to your
thread.
SBGK's Profile:
prutten wrote:
Hi guys,
I just stumbled across this thread today and noted it had gotten quite
detailed on the technical issues of digitization (which is rather
applies to all digital amplification), and wanted to rather respond to
the OP's question on the NAD c390dd. I have listened to
mlsstl wrote:
I gather in your dictionary, revealing system has a solid definition
that conveys a clear meaning well understood by a wide audience? Please
share it with us.
However, that's contrary to my experience. It's one of those ephemeral
audiophile catch-phrases with no consistent
Veovis wrote:
I think that device works with most USB dacs and S/PDIF converters that
have a type B female and may be useful if the dac/converter itself is
powered only by USB, such as the V-links. You simply connect your
USB-cable with the Aqvox and then the Aqvox to the Dac/converter. The
Jeff Flowerday wrote:
FYI, SBGK, runs an asynchronous USB to spdif converter that doesn't have
galvanized isolation. Not sure why he went with the vlink 192 it
doesn't really put him any further ahead than the spdif implementation
on the touch itself.
The rest of his parrot crew might
Covenant wrote:
I see there are a few devices out now which can be used to reclock the
Touch. An example is the Empirical Audio Synchro Mesh. I don't think I
would be prepared to pay for one as I am happy with the way my Touch
sounds now but it would be interesting to read comments from
Due to Wordpress having issues with copying of quotes have moved the
blog to http://touchsgotrythm.blogspot.co.uk/
SBGK's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=52003
View this thread:
Here are my thoughts on how to improve the sound of the Touch beyond
TT3.0 and EDO.
They have mainly been well received by people who have tried them, think
the only issues have been where people have had to decode on the Touch
rather than the server.
They were derived mainly from hunches,
Jeff Flowerday wrote:
SBGK why don't you do the following:
Introduce a quality Asynchronous USB to SPDIF converter that is
compatible with the EDO applet to your system. You'll basically be
taking all these supposed issues with your server and touch completely
out of the picture
SBGK wrote:
well, one reason is that I would have to spend $2000 on an Empirical
Audio offramp to better the sound I have with the settings I have with
the Touch. As you have never tried my settings I presume you are
speaking from ignorance and making a cheap jibe to get a quick laugh
from
TheOctavist wrote:
why dont you just post them publicly?
well, I am offering them to people who pm me as they were still in
development, that development is now at an end, so I may make them
available via a blog.
It requires about 6 file changes and maybe a bit of experimentation and
depends
adamdea wrote:
It's strange that there aren't more suggestions. There are usually loads
of people dying to tell everyone about their frequent night and day
changes. Perhaps there is a subjectivist convention out of town.
I'm afraid i'm no use because I got the first ever fidelity audio touch
Soulkeeper wrote:
Of course you were unable to detect any difference in sound quality.
Those who think there's a sound quality difference between server
configurations in any normal situation, simply have no clue how
Squeezebox streaming works.
a simple test is to set the LMS process
NoRoDa wrote:
As long as you're not in my head I'll survive! :D :D :D
noroda, why don't you try my settings ? then you'll be listening to
music instead of winding yourself up on here.
A few on here are using them and are pretty impressed with them.
TheOctavist wrote:
thats the most sensible thing youve ever said.
just warning him of the meme of this forum, which your post above
confirms. Although it has progressed from the Touch is perfect and
nothing can change the sound to all dacs are practically the same.
What special knowledge do
pski wrote:
please work together to identify a common insanity.
neither you on the perceptive side nor your equipment will ever discern
any difference from CD quality
of course, y'all can argue about the different releases of the same
music
save us all some damn time
pski, what
BrynClarke wrote:
John, for us Linux illiterates, could you share how? I have Furutech
GT40 DAC since Monday. (USB 2.0 Fullspeed UAC 1 (adaptive) limited to
24/96). Before Monday I was on analogue out from SBT. TT3.0 worked
fine. The GT40 came, I factory reset SBT, installed EDO 0.4,
anyone thinking of using one of these Audio gd DI-DSP between the Touch
and DAC, benefits could include jitter reduction and/or upsampling
also could replace the Touch seeing as things seem to be moving to
asynchronous USB.
http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/DIv2/DIv2EN.htm
I've seen comments in
pandasharka wrote:
Boy I didn't realise there was quite so much pent up negativity around
here - chill pills chaps! I know there are trolls to be fed, but even
so...
Anyway, time for a goodbye. Am having a Linn Klimax DS and amps
installed tomorrow - home trialled over Easter, and it was
Think you will find that as the Touch is bit perfect that nothing can
change the sound quality, have you tried room compensation software eg
Inguz, moving your speakers or physical room improvements to stop sound
reflections ? These are all better solutions than any physically
impossible voodoo
Well, so far so good.
The world seems to be divided into 2 types of people, those who have
tried the settings and like them and those who haven't tried them.
Think I will call them diode settings as once you hear them there is no
going back (see what I did there).
there is a post of mine near the end of the TT3.0 thread (closed) that
explains what to do.
SBGK's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=52003
View this thread:
My low jitter mods have been trialled by members on this site with some
success, I can now take on a few more installs, if you want to know how
good the Touch could sound then just PM me for details.
As the TT3.0 thread has been closed down here is the link to Soundchecks
blog.
these are for ethernet connected digital out - install tt3.0 after
triode mod and then make these changes
I made these changes to make TT3.0 work with the triode settings, TT -b
won't work, so the buffer is set at 92790, just change that value for
the one you want where you see 92790 below.
The only problem with these triode + TT3.0 + SBGK mods is that it has
enhanced the playback of 16/44.1 to such an extent that I need a display
of the sample rate to let me know whether it should sound good as
16/44.1 can't possibly sound this good.
Can't say that I could tell a well recorded 16
I have done some more alsa buffer investigation and with the
alsaPlaybackPeriodCount=4 the no of times the mxcsdma interrupt was
called was as follows
mxcsdma interrupt count for 2 mins 32s music alsaPlaybackPeriodCount=4
countalsa buffer time
2077243400
401442
126325
NoRoDa wrote:
Interesting findings yesterday!
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=698970postcount=1936
HWmods made no difference, but at least did not sound worse.
CD-player vs SBT as a digital source made no clear difference.
Teddy Pardo TTouch PSU made a difference, and
NoRoDa wrote:
pski wrote:
Tragic? Yes, indeed ;)
well, it was John Swenson that was one of the earliest posters to
identify that the sound was better with the screen off, but I suppose
you are more knowledgeable than he is.
based on TT3.0 I thought the max buffer time setting was 5 uS, by
upping the maxbuff setting in the TT file it can be set higher, I have
maxbuff set to - don't go higher.
with the following change I can get a period size of 1024 and buffer
size of 4096 frames when the buffer time is
If you have the change below implemented then the magic alsa buffer
setting (TT -b xxx) is 92790, it gives the best period and buffer
settings for all resolutions ie period_size: 1024 and
buffer_size: 4096. It sounds full bodied and detailed, better than
500 and better than lower values. If
how about using a buffer value of -1 ? this produces quite a difference
to the sound, I think it is worth trying, sound is a bit more out of the
speakers, the bass and detail are excellent and it is quite relaxing,
surprising really. probably one of the best buffer setting I have found.
again it
thought I would post this here as it is relevant to TT3.0
how about using an alsa buffer value of -1 ? this produces quite a
difference to the sound - Alsa uses a different method to calculate the
period and buffer size, I think it is worth trying, sound is a bit more
out of the speakers, the
To prevent the other two TT3.0 threads from being polluted by
constructive ideas and positive feedback I thought I would start this
thread as there is a gap in the TT3.0 threadosphere.
So I'll start.
TT3.0 is really quite good, with a few further modifications it has
turned my £200 Touch into
101 - 200 of 502 matches
Mail list logo
