I can tell the difference with nearfield monitors .In a hifi environment
,I doubt it.
jimmypowder's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=61215
View this thread:
Schiit Gungnir
Benchmark 2 HGC
Arcam Irdac
Audiolab Mdac
Parasound Zdac
Ifi micro Idsd
jimmypowder's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=61215
View this thread:
I use a Radio Shack upsampling dac which has femto clocks.
jimmypowder's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=61215
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72018
Archimago wrote:
Cool, Jimmy. You da man! Let us know what you're using it with and
make sure to post lots of pictures of your soundroom with all the
audiophile bling!
I have all Radio Shack equipment . Speakers , amp . Top of the line .
I have heard the 10,000 dollar Audioquest Ethernet cable and it is
amazing !! The differences from a standard
Ethernet cable are profound . I'm thinking of buying a pair .
jimmypowder's Profile:
atrocity wrote:
But isn't the silver lining that continuing the sell the hardware--no
matter how few units at however crazy a price--obligates them to keep
going with the software and mysqueezebox.com?
An excellent question.
ralphpnj wrote:
In high end audio the ONLY things that matter are one's wallet and one's
gullibility.
I'm all in on this isolator! If it cost 1,500 bucks I would buy it.
jimmypowder's Profile:
pablolie wrote:
i complete agree with those saying the LMS system still has extremely
complelling advantages.
these days i use a Touch with a pretty good external DAC in my main
system and i am *extremely* happy with it. i have packed the LMS system
into an OVA file so i can henceforth
garym wrote:
True! Front row at The Who in 1971 is the one that likely did the most
damage. It was LOUD. :cool:
Im just happy I don't have tinnitus.
Your right about that. Add in a 4 hour Led Zeppelin concert during the
70's and some of those high end frequencies you used to hear are gone.
garym wrote:
I got them all exactly wrong. My guesses were B, A, A. Then I again I
did report that I had no confidence in the decisions (essentially
guessing). Edit: by guessing, I mean I was trying to guess which was
24/96. And my rule-of-thumb is that I picked the one I *thought*
ralphpnj wrote:
Sometime around 1980 the high end audio discovered that the once lowly
cable could be magically transformed in a glorious cash cow, a cash cow
that never stopped giving. Of course even back then there were many
people who pointed out the so called science behind expensive
ralphpnj wrote:
All kidding aside I suggest that you do a little research on the topic
of jitter. What you will find is that most, if not all, of the
references that believe that jitter is a big bad monster, is completely
audible and totally destroys the sound are from high end audio
Audiotic wrote:
OK back to the original question, and let me show how, for me, I
created a very useable system that serves me very very well. I own an
NA-11S1 since 2 weeks. And all I can say is: I LOVE IT! OK, the way to
officially get sound from it, i.e. the app and DLNA etc isn't
ralphpnj wrote:
When it comes to music/media streaming how good a device sounds is
only half of the story. The other and equally important half is the
useability of the device. And it is this second half that just about
every high end music streamer seems to ignore. When the computer on
ralphpnj wrote:
No I have not heard it and until Marantz devises another way to
actually use the device I have no intention of hearing it. However if
you are interested in this or any other high end music streaming device
I strongly suggest that you just wait a few months for the
jimmypowder wrote:
So you haven't heard it , haven't used it , yet you you still
arbitrarily make judgements on it based on the ability to control
playback , ala ipeng ! What a joke .
Based on your responses to the Marantz and Auralic streamers , I doubt
your judgment is worth a plug
jimmypowder wrote:
So you haven't heard it , haven't used it , yet you you still
arbitrarily make judgements on it based on the ability to control
playback , ala ipeng ! What a joke .Based on your responses to the
Marantz and Auralic streamers , I
doubt your judgment is worth a plug
I would have to say you need 1,000 dollar digital cables in order to
have a great system .
jimmypowder's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=61215
View this thread:
Mnyb wrote:
He he , yea the straming part of the code has probably gone without
changes for years on end . And the fact that squeezebox streaming is
designed to be server/network agnostic . There is no mechanism
present that actualy could change the sound :) but thats logic it doee
not
deadushka wrote:
Try some jazz or any other uncompressed music. I have listened to 7.8 and
I have to admit the soundstage is fuller
.the vocals seem more detailed while the bass appears tighter . Any
grain in lower bitrate files has been diminished while the treble
appears to have
Julf wrote:
And you use duble-blind ABX?
Quadruple blind
jimmypowder's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=61215
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=101386
jimmypowder wrote:
Yes I have to get this order in within 6 months of the product launch
!
I want my Similac... Er Auralic !!
jimmypowder's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=61215
View
ralphpnj wrote:
Then I suggest that you place your order now so you can be sure that
you get one before the unit is discontinued. One thing you can be sure
of is that the Auralic is sure to get glowing reviews from all the usual
suspects.
Yes I have to get this order in within 6 months of
ralphpnj wrote:
The streaming music or, if you prefer, computer based music market
appears to be moving towards several different niches, depending on cost
and acceptable sound quality. Mass market segment - this seems to be
split between all in one systems like Sonos / computer speakers /
ralphpnj wrote:
Following Logitech's lead.
Well the whole Logitech -Squeezebox debacle has certainly encouraged me
to look at
an alternative way to play my music .
By using a direct link to a computer ,I also don't have to worry about
music services being
compatible with a network player
ralphpnj wrote:
Let's make one thing perfectly clear: A computer feeding a DAC (usually
via a USB cable) IS NOT the same thing as a server based streaming
system, such as the Squeezebox system. Some important differences are:
1) The ability to play music to multiple players, either the
garym wrote:
just curious on this point. Are you saying that there are also long
USB cables in the wall so that you can connect the mac mini to your
DAC/stereo, which could be far away from the Mac Mini? (as an aside,
what is the max length one can run a USB cable? Several hundred feet?
Mnyb wrote:
Can you play not the same music at two locations at the same time ?
I can play different music either outside or inside .
I cannot play two different music inside the house in two different
rooms but I really don't
care about that .
28 matches
Mail list logo
