PS. In reference to the original topic of this thread, I much prefer the
DAC in my Bryston BP25DA (now BP26DA) over just the SB2 DAC.
For headphone listening, I've been going back and forth between the SB3
DAC and the Headroom Desktop DAC, but in the end decided in favor of the
SB3. (The
Thank's for the Big Ben tip - but now I've already bought or ordered
most components for the media server so I'm sort of stuck with that.
And then of course I'll get a convenient way of watching those .avi
files that are such a nightmare to re-code for burning DVD's.
Anyway the dCS gear; I got
...a major advantage to having a PC+soundcard is that with the dCS
equipment I can rip SACD's to hard disk. With the soundcard (Lynx Two)
I think I can only get a maximum of 96 kS/S on the digital inputs (not
entirely sure there) but it is still pretty good.
SB3 doesn't support this sample rate
Hi!
Well, I'm very pleased with my SB3. For the price, it is unbeatable.
However, I would have loved an SB3 audiophile version which could be
slaved to a word clock and with balanced digital output (AES-EBU). The
PSU could possibly be upgraded but that is not as critical as long as
we are still
Why go to all this trouble for such a seemingly small amount of
improvement? I understand spending a lot on speakers and even
amplifiers, but to spend that much money on the dCS gear? I just don't
see how it is justified, unless you're so loaded that it doesn't really
matter. Is it only for
CarlOtto Wrote:
Well, I'm very pleased with my SB3. For the price, it is unbeatable.
However, I would have loved an SB3 audiophile version which could be
slaved to a word clock
If you don't want to do your own word clock mod
(e.g. a simple way to do it is to take an Apogee Big Ben
and use
reeve_mike Wrote:
If you don't want to do your own word clock mod
[e.g. a simple way is to take an Apogee Big Ben
and use it to generate a 256x superclock (synced from the dcs stack)
in place of the SB's oscillator]
And of course, if you are willing to use the SB's oscillator,
you can use
I run my SB2 into the digital input of my Cary 303/200 player. It is
clearly better sounding than using the analog outs on the SB2, but then
it should be as it cost me about 5x the cost of the SB2.
--
rblnr
rblnr's
The picture on the website clearly shows the Pb symbol on the battery
warning label.
--
crooner
Squeezebox 3 with Power One Linear Power Supply
Lite Audio DAC60 tube DAC
Pioneer SX-1980
Vandersteen 2Ce Signature
Vandersteen 2W
crooner Wrote:
Akwok's picture (reproduced below) clearly shows the Pb symbol on the
battery warning label.
I believe it was made that way for easy replacement after the battery
eventually dies in a few years. The battery can be found anywhere for
$20.
By the way.. how did you attach the
Man that's one beautiful DAC. I guess the relatively large battery
necessitates the extra depth and height of the enclosure. It reminds me
of the Sony SCD-1 SACD player.
--
crooner
Squeezebox 3 with Power One Linear Power Supply
Lite Audio DAC60 tube DAC
Pioneer SX-1980
Vandersteen 2Ce
crooner Wrote:
Man that's one beautiful DAC. I guess the relatively large battery
necessitates the extra depth and height of the enclosure. It reminds me
of the Sony SCD-1 SACD player.
Yep.. I think so. The battery eats up a good 1/3 of the enclosure..
heh.
--
akwok
I currently purchased a very, very good DAC from Hong Kong; I previously
owned the Benchmark and I prompty sold the Bench after lengthy A/B
comparisons.
It is a looker too.
More info in my Head-Fi thread here:
http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=168113
--
akwok
akwok Wrote:
It is a looker too, for $500 shipped. Battery operated, with a digital
switch that charges when it's low on battery, and can run off the wall
and charge at the same time. NOS design, 8x TDA1543 in parallel.
Wow. I haven't wanted anything so badly since first seeing the
Just curious. I have a Derek Shek NOS DAC (the black box version). I
don't suppose you've compared it to that? Also, did you consider the
Zhaolu 1.3? What made you decide to go for the Storm?
--
ezkcdude
SB3-Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC-MIT Terminator 2
interconnects-Endler Audio 24-step
akwok Wrote:
I haven't tried the Derek Shek NOS DAC. Perhaps you should try the
Storm and write up a review? :D
I wish. If I hadn't upgraded every component in my system over the last
several months (SqueezeBox, DAC, Passive Attenuators, Amp, Cables,
Subwoofer), maybe I'd have the money :)
That's a sweet looking DAC. I love my DAC-60s look and feel but that one
is simply incredible!
--
crooner
Squeezebox 3 with Power One Linear Power Supply
Lite Audio DAC60 tube DAC
Pioneer SX-1980
Vandersteen 2Ce Signature
Vandersteen 2W
One follow-up:
I had a Lavry DA10 in-house for some six weeks. I sent it back for a
repair, they are backordered, and now I'm getting a refund. I guess I
can order another one down the line.
Anyway, here's my take, having heard the Benchmark and, extensively,
the Lavry in my house: I think
highdudgeon Wrote:
One follow-up:
I had a Lavry DA10 in-house for some six weeks. I sent it back for a
repair, they are backordered, and now I'm getting a refund. I guess I
can order another one down the line.
Anyway, here's my take, having heard the Benchmark and, extensively,
the
Still can't report on this as the dealer had sent back the DAC to
Chord as they had no interest in the Chord gear they had in stock. So -
did listen to a Cyrus DAC-X and I won't be buying one. Not suprising as
I listened to their CD8X CD player with the PSX-R psu and that went
back to the dealer
Sorry, but none have made it down under yet. Shipping costs on 8kg
don't help, but it's probably something people have to hear for
themselves first. So far, everyone that has, has ordered one.
There's one in a CSD2/NAC552/NAP500/DBL system which the owner is very
pleased with. I don't know
That is right my study system is doing duty at friends place who is in a
separation. To hear music in the study I just crank up the main system.
Amazing how the briks fill the house with music.
I think the SB is quite revolutionary, not just the way we play cds
but also the way we listen to the
I was using cheapo optical in, plus Stereovox HDVX coaxial in and nice
quality (but not audiofool) XLR cables out made from Van
Damme/Neutrik bits.
It is possible that the characteristic colorations of the 'briks are
making it hard to notice the differences. In which case you shouldn't
worry
Andrew,
I use identical cheapy din-rca leads and a reasonable diy bnc-rca coax.
I tried the dac1 at a mate's house where we compared the xlr and rca
outputs into a Belcanto/BW system. XLR was marginally better.
I always thought that colouration meant that the sound gets changed in
a certain
Patrick. thanks for the offer but I live in Australia.
I saw some of your posts in pfm. The SB2+ looks very intersting. Are
there any in Perth?
I was just very surprised to see how similar my sources sound. Perhaps
the difference lies in soundstage and pratt etc. Another friend has a
highdudgeon Wrote:
I'm wondering how many people have done careful listening comparing the
Squeezebox with and without a high-end external DAC? IE, is there much
benefit to be gained? Little? None at all?
Personally, I think it sounds quite good. I do have a re-clocking DAC
on order.
pfarrell Wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 22:22 -0800, Brad Smith wrote:
I want to jump in here with a more beginner level question...
Beginners always welcome. But be warned, this can be an adiction
when you
are referring to an external DAC, I assume you mean using the
optical
Andrew B. Wrote:
I think you mean optical or coaxial. SPDIF is a digital format, not a
physical connection type. So both the optical and coaxial outputs are
likely to be SPDIF format in most digital outputs on consumer
electronics(there are other professional formats).
Sorry to be picky.
pfarrell Wrote:
Phono or is it really supposed to be BNC? (since it is
hard if not impossible to stay 75 ohm with RCA)
IIRC it does say RCA - but as you say it's impossible to get 75R RCAs.
I think in the early days of digital, they just didn't realise it
mattered.
Just like even today,
pfarrell Wrote:
Patrick Dixon wrote:
I think you mean optical or coaxial. SPDIF is a digital format, not
a
physical connection type. So both the optical and coaxial outputs
are
likely to be SPDIF format in most digital outputs on consumer
electronics(there are other professional formats).
This thread got me thinking that I never gave the internal dac of the
SB3 a fair go. So I hooked the SB3 analog out into the preamp as well
and am able to flick between SB3 and dac1 with the push of a button.
First impressions are that they sound pretty much the same. If there is
a difference
Andrew what cables did you use on the dac1?
I am wondering if I am not getting the best out of my DAC1. I really
couldn't hear a clear difference between it and the SB3.
Perhaps a test at volume will be more revealing but that will have to
wait till tomorrow as it is the middle of the night in
rajacat Wrote:
How does it sound? I'm interested in either the Paradisea or the
Renaissance II from MHDTlabs to work in conjunction with the SB3.
i will write something thorough once i do some blind tests and get some
outside input.
right at first, with no warm-up or break-in, i didn't
gobikey Wrote:
to anyone interested, i ordered a MHDTLabs Paradisea last friday the
24th, and it's here! i'll write a review of what i *hear* when i get
to hook it up. i also received my bluejeans digital cable today. woo!
___
krell kav-400xi integrated
rajacat Wrote:
How does it sound? I'm interested in either the Paradisea or the
Renaissance II from MHDTlabs to work in conjunction with the SB3.
Raja, just to be thorough, you may want to look at Derek Shek's NOS DAC
on eBay. I bought one recently (you can search the other threads). Derek
is
ezkcdude Wrote:
Raja, just to be thorough, you may want to look at Derek Shek's NOS DAC
on eBay. I bought one recently (you can search the other threads).
Derek is great to deal with. When I first got the DAC, I accidentally
fried it, trying to upgrade the power supply. I sent it back to him
Here's a pic next to my SB3. It really is just a black box, but that's
kind of the charm, I think.
+---+
|Filename: black_box.jpg|
|Download:
I could not hear any tangible difference between the analog outputs of
the SB3 and running coaxial cable into the digital input on my Proton
(privately labeled as Dynaco) 5.1 home theater integrated amp. It
wasn't a terribly expensive amplifier - I bought it on Ebay at a
closeout price over 3
to anyone interested, i ordered a MHDTLabs Paradisea last friday the
24th, and it's here! i'll write a review of what i *hear* when i get
to hook it up. i also received my bluejeans digital cable today. woo!
___
krell kav-400xi integrated amp
vienna acoustics
I got a great tip from a Toslink user, Victor Lee, at another audio
forum ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). He soldered in a 0.1 uF ceramic cap
between the 5V pin and the ground pin of the Toslink module of his
SB1 and got much better sound. He found that there was no local
filtering for the toslink
Hiroyuki Hamada wrote:
I got a great tip from a Toslink user, Victor Lee, at another audio
forum ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). He soldered in a 0.1 uF ceramic cap
between the 5V pin and the ground pin of the Toslink module of his SB1
and got much better sound. He found that there was no local
PhilNYC Wrote:
A good high end DAC is going to have a few advantages over the SB3.
First and foremost, there is an opportunity to design a more
sophisticated analog output; even from just a materials quality
perspective, this is possible. Beyond that, power supply quality,
physical
What model are you suggesting?
I'm not suggesting or recommending a specific model. There are in fact
many contenders depending on one's taste. I own an example, but there
are many more to be found. My point was that you don't have to spend a
grand on a DAC to get a decent one.
The DAC's I
pfarrell Wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 13:21 -0800, ezkcdude wrote:
pfarrell Wrote:
When audiophiles talk about an external DAC, they mean an external
box
that just does Digial to Analog Conversion. Whether the optical or
SPDIF wire is used is a separate issue.
So, which do you
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 06:42 -0800, agentsmith wrote:
pfarrell Wrote:
The Benchmark has a switch on the front to select inputs, so I ran
both and flipped the switch. I can't hear any difference.
Pat you seem to be one of the more knowledgeable and scientific
audiophiles.
Thanks, It
ezkcdude Wrote:
So, which do you prefer? I've always heard that the coaxial output was
better than toslink.
I recently did an A/B test between a Wireworld SuperNova 5 glass
toslink cable and an Acoustic Zen Silver Byte coax digital cable and
strongly preferred the AZ Silver Byte. Deeper
pfarrell Wrote:
When audiophiles talk about an external DAC, they mean an external box
that just does Digial to Analog Conversion. Whether the optical or
SPDIF
wire is used is a separate issue.
So, which do you prefer? I've always heard that the coaxial output was
better than toslink.
ezkcdude Wrote:
So, which do you prefer? I've always heard that the coaxial output was
better than toslink.
I have used both and can't really say that I hear any difference. Then
again, my kit isn't up to the standard where it makes sense to compare
optical and coaxial.
Tom
--
tomsi42
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 13:21 -0800, ezkcdude wrote:
pfarrell Wrote:
When audiophiles talk about an external DAC, they mean an external box
that just does Digial to Analog Conversion. Whether the optical or
SPDIF wire is used is a separate issue.
So, which do you prefer? I've always heard
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 22:22 -0800, Brad Smith wrote:
I want to jump in here with a more beginner level question...
Beginners always welcome. But be warned, this can be an adiction
when you
are referring to an external DAC, I assume you mean using the optical
out to process it by another
Thanks for the reply, Pat. So in my situation, what would you recommend
I do? Analog into the receiver, or just go the optical route?
--
Brad Smith
Brad Smith's Profile:
Brad Smith Wrote:
Thanks for the reply, Pat. So in my situation, what would you recommend
I do? Analog into the receiver, or just go the optical route?
I suggest you try them both, especially if you have the cables. If you
can't hear any difference, choose the most convenient one, otherwise
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 11:33 -0800, Brad Smith wrote:
. So in my situation, what would you recommend
I do? Analog into the receiver, or just go the optical route?
I strongly recommend trying anything that doesn't cost much money
and judge for your self.
My guess would be that Sean's DAC will
tomsi42: if you're considering spending that amount of money, it would
really be worth having a listen to a Cyrus Dac X if you can find a
dealer locally. Multiple digital inputs mean you can also use it with
tv, dvd etc.
I also had an opportunity recently to listen to the Tact/Lyndorf
TDA2150
bludragon Wrote:
This is starting to become some serious money though.
strongVery serious money indeed./strong I didn't find a Cyrus
dealer here in Norway though.
I can't afford that kit at the moment anyway, so I will have to wait.
As the guy who brought the DAC is an Electrocompaniet
While Vinnie (RWA) and Wayne (Bolder) make strong claims that the
modified SB3's analog output sounds better than many expensive DAC's
and transports, I think it is not fair to make this comparison. A
separate high end DAC should sound significantly better than a modded
SB3's analog out.
I
If you haven't heard a SB2/3 with the modded analogue stage you're
making a bold statement. I do have a RWA analogue modded SB2 and found
they do speak the truth. Listen before you pronounce the mod dead.
BTW, I wouldn't expect the SB2/3 with digital mods to be a huge
improvement over a top
davehg Wrote:
While Vinnie (RWA) and Wayne (Bolder) make strong claims that the
modified SB3's analog output sounds better than many expensive DAC's
and transports, I think it is not fair to make this comparison. A
separate high end DAC should sound significantly better than a modded
SB3's
davehg Wrote:
A separate high end DAC should sound significantly better than a modded
SB3's analog out.
Modded or not, why do you believe this is so?
--
seanadams
seanadams's Profile:
I want to jump in here with a more beginner level question... when you
are referring to an external DAC, I assume you mean using the optical
out to process it by another device, such as a receiver. I have a
Denon 1905 receiver. Now would using it with the optical out on the
SB3 be a better
i have to agree also i have a sb2 very impressed with it but the sound
quility was good but couldn`t compare it to my cyrus cd7q + psx-r so
tried the cyrus dac x + psx-r took it to a hole new level on par with
the cd player so traded the cd player against the dac but would
definitly be intersted
I use a Musical Fidelity Tri-Vista 21 DAC, and have a/b'd an unmodified
SB3 against the DAC and a Pioneer Elite PD-S95 transport. I actually
bought 2 SB3's; one to modify and one to place downstairs so the wife
can listen.
I think the sound of the stock SB3 into my system is good, but not as
The new lavry unit (due out in a couple of weeks) buffers the incoming
stream and effectively does away with jitter.I think there's a degree of
marketing BS that goes on with this stuff;
you can't easily buffer two streams that have the same nominal rate but
are asynchronous.
Think of a
Actually, while the Benchmark does trumpet (and performs) exceptional
performance in terms of jitter management...my understanding is that it
does not buffer the incoming stream. IE, it manages internal jitter.
The new lavry unit (due out in a couple of weeks) buffers the incoming
stream and
The disadvantage of using asynchronous clocks is that sooner or later
you will have a buffer (FIFO) under- or over- run to deal with. Once
that happens I don't think you have much alternative other than to
either drop or repeat an audio sample.
Using Xtals at 30ppm accuracy, you could still
Patrick, you are right that this would be a serious problem, but it is
taken care of by the AD1896:
http://www.analog.com/en/prod/0,,765_807_AD1896%2C00.html
This chip performs the 'upsampling' and continuously adjusts the
multiplier it uses to compensate for any drift between the external and
Thanks for that, I'll have to look at it more closely, but I can't quite
believe that wouldn't do something fairly horrible to the audio!
--
Patrick Dixon
www.at-tunes.co.uk
Patrick Dixon's Profile:
cliveb Wrote:
The Benchmark DAC1 is immune to jitter because it sample rate converts
everything it receives (upsampled to its internal maximum sample rate:
96 or 192kHz, depending on the vintage). This allows the upsampled data
stream to be clocked out by the DAC1's own high-precision
Patrick Dixon Wrote:
Interesting too, that audiophiles are happy with the Benchmark approach
of upsampling CD (44.1KHz) to 2x48KHz, but baulk at the idea of Roku
upsampling 44.1KHz to 48KHz in their product! Personally, I think
people get too hung up on the technology and forget to listen
What are the disadvantages?Well the main one is that an external DAC requires
a PPL to lock it's
own clock to the incoming DATA signal. Even if you feed the transport
clock over to the DAC, you still have the effect of the interconnect
and distance to deal with.
In the 'good old days' of
jhwilliams Wrote:
As far as I know, the benchmark supports 44.1 natively.
My understanding is that this is not the case. The DAC1 upsamples
everything to 96kHz (old version) or 192Khz (newer versions).
--
cliveb
Patrick Dixon Wrote:
:-) :-)
You can't hear frequencies above 20KHz - are you suggesting that audio
systems should reproduce them too? If so, then you must be sadly
disappointed with CD ...
Well, no, but said system should at least try and maintain digital
fidelity.
So, yes, from that
Ahh, so you're a purist ... as well as having sharp hearing!
--
Patrick Dixon
www.at-tunes.co.uk
Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90
View this thread:
IMO current DAC's will be redundant in 5 years, not because of better
DAC's, but because of digital amplifiers. Squeezebox will most likely
have an (optional) integrated digital amp. Digital amps will also have
HDMI inputs, which will support copy protection (HDCP I think they're
calling it).
Patrick,
Yes, but in order to upsample it, it will still need to synchronise it's
upsampling clock(s) to the incoming signal - so it still must require a
PLL.
The Benchmark uses an AD1896 and upsamples asynchronously, the incoming
clock is not used at all beyond the AD1896, there's a local
highdudgeon Wrote:
I have a new Lavry DAC - which, unlike benchmark, re-clocks incoming
signal -- and I'm curious to see what the difference will be. I do
know that, with a CD player, the difference is night and day.-
? The Benchmark DAC1 reclocks. From what I've read it's one of the best
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 15:22 -0800, jhwilliams wrote:
highdudgeon Wrote:
I have a new Lavry DAC - which, unlike benchmark, re-clocks incoming
signal -- and I'm curious to see what the difference will be. I do
know that, with a CD player, the difference is night and day.-
The Benchmark
yc_ Wrote:
When connected to my North Star DAC via a Behringer equaliser, I found
SB2's performance very close to that of my regular CD transport (Sony
XA7ES). Sounded ever so slightly thinner.
Of course then you ought to be able to fatten it back up with some
minimal tweaks to the DEQ...
2005-11-07-00:12:29 dwc:
I haven't done careful listening comparisons. I use my external dac and
I'm happy with it. :)
Yeah, I'm kind of in that boat. I've just always been running SBs
into a digital in of my Arcam AVR, because I chose the Arcam for the
pleasing quality of its D/A, and because
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 19:39 -0800, highdudgeon wrote:
Oh, the thing is this: I actually have a very -- very -- revealing
system, based around Harbeth Monitor 40s. Personally, I think SB3 is
just terrific for casual listening, and I can see how a change in DAC
with lesser components might not
It's refreshing to see a little bit of sanity creeping in over this
issue. Up til now there seems to have been an almost dogmatic
assumption by many that an external high-end DAC is mandatory for
audiophile quality. But my experience is that the SB2 analogue output
sounds absolutely bloody
I've mentioned this in previous posts, but IMO comparing an SB2 to a
dedicated cd player (NAD C541) at ~2x the cost, but 3 years old reveals
the cd player edging ahead.
Compare a Cyrus Dac X against either of the above, and they really
sound much worse. The Cyrus Dac X is a very pricey though,
cliveb Wrote:
It's refreshing to see a little bit of sanity creeping in over this
issue. Up til now there seems to have been an almost dogmatic
assumption by many that an external high-end DAC is mandatory for
audiophile quality. But my experience is that the SB2 analogue output
sounds
cliveb Wrote:
directly feeding a pair of ATC SCM100A active monitors. They've never
sounded so good.
Jesus mister Backham, I've never seen powered monitors like those. 12
woofers? wow. I have a pair of Alesis monitor 2's, and I thought they
were big for monitors.
Clive's rig (bit outdated
dwc Wrote:
Jesus mister Backham, I've never seen powered monitors like those. 12
woofers? wow. I have a pair of Alesis monitor 2's, and I thought they
were big for monitors.
You should see the ATC 300's: they are ing enormous!
The SCM100A is a domestic version of pro studio monitors.
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 11:10 -0800, dwc wrote:
cliveb Wrote:
directly feeding a pair of ATC SCM100A active monitors. They've never
sounded so good.
Jesus mister Backham, I've never seen powered monitors like those. 12
woofers? wow.
Real pro monitors are big and expensive.
The smaller
I'm listening to a SB2 through the CEC DA53 DAC. I find it a little
more revealing and more engaging than through the internal DAC.
--
Bob Bressler
Bob
Bob Bressler's Profile:
When connected to my North Star DAC via a Behringer equaliser, I found
SB2's performance very close to that of my regular CD transport (Sony
XA7ES). Sounded ever so slightly thinner.
--
yc_
yc_'s Profile:
highdudgeon Wrote:
I'm wondering how many people have done careful listening comparing the
Squeezebox with and without a high-end external DAC? IE, is there much
benefit to be gained? Little? None at all?
I couldn't hear any difference at all between the Squeezebox
straight-up and running
89 matches
Mail list logo
