Wombat wrote:
> Didn't we have something similar lately with a Brokkoly DAC?
Fair call!
But then I'm still enjoying the suspension of disbelief, as indeed you
may well be with your modded Transporter...
Dave :cool:
Recoveryone wrote:
> my first clue about his status was his remark about the Hi Rez files not
> sounding Audiophile quality. How many years have this board and many
> others had this debate on audiophile quality, when we all know or should
> know it all starts at the master recording. Just
Recoveryone wrote:
> my first clue about his status was his remark about the Hi Rez files not
> sounding Audiophile quality. How many years have this board and many
> others had this debate on audiophile quality, when we all know or should
> know it all starts at the master recording. Just
Wombat wrote:
> Didn't we have something similar lately with a Brokkoly DAC?
I guess the placebophile snake oil pushers are getting more desperate...
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
my first clue about his status was his remark about the Hi Rez files not
sounding Audiophile quality. How many years have this board and many
others had this debate on audiophile quality, when we all know or should
know it all starts at the master recording. Just because a file is in
FLAC of
Didn't we have something similar lately with a Brokkoly DAC?
Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers
Wombat's Profile:
drmatt wrote:
> I have to say it's a crap marketing tactic to go slagging off a much
> loved obsolete music streamer to attempt to plug your portable music
> *player*. It's not even got a common function to talk about, it's just,
> different.
>
The OP was no doubt rooted in perceptions based
drmatt wrote:
> I have to say it's a crap marketing tactic.
I'm of the opinion that all marketing *-tactics -*are crap...
Dave :)
BTW, I'm preferring the prospect of the UK's incipient "Coalition of
Chaos" to the politicking on the left-hand side of the pond :cool: !
I have to say it's a crap marketing tactic to go slagging off a much
loved obsolete music streamer to attempt to plug your portable music
*player*. It's not even got a common function to talk about, it's just,
different.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk
--
Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x
Julf wrote:
> Considering it was his only posting, I think you are right.
.
.
I even sent the OP a PM to let him know not to read any tone into my
post and that I didn't notice it was his first post yet because his
first post was in the Audiophile section, that wasn't a good place to
start. I
ralphpnj wrote:
> My guess is that the OP is/was a troll trying to cast doubt on the sound
> quality of the SB Touch while building up the wonders of the "great"
> FiiO X5 Gen II
>
> Just saying.
Considering it was his only posting, I think you are right.
"To try to judge the real from the
My guess is that the OP is/was a troll trying to cast doubt on the sound
quality of the SB Touch while building up the wonders of the "great"
FiiO X5 Gen II
Just saying.
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. &
sub
Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas
drmatt wrote:
> OP is absent. Was this a UDP question?
>
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk
.
.
I should have looked at the OP first before posting for I didn't notice
it was his first post. Hope I (we) didn't run him off as we are actually
here to help!
*iPhone*
Media Room:
OP is absent. Was this a UDP question?
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk
--
Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with
Debian+LMS 7.9.0
Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x 24/44k
albums..
output555 wrote:
> The main reason I bought the SB Touch was to use it as a music server
> for my Flac and AIFF high-res audio files.
.
.
Quick note on a simple Server Idea. First there is the R-Pi (Raspberry
Pi) option and second one can use Vortexbox 2.3 ( www.vortexbox.org )
with just about
AIFF hires migth need some transcoding that the onboard server on Touch
can't handle .
Native aiff and alac above 16/44.1 had some bugs in the past ? , better
let a real LMS server turn those to hirez flac with its transcoding
output555 wrote:
> The main reason I bought the SB Touch was to use it as a music server
> for my Flac and AIFF high-res audio files.
As others have pointed out, the Touch was never intended as a server -
the server functionality was an afterthought and a crude extra. It is a
great streamer, so
Yeah, I wouldn't use the SBT as a server myself. Though it does work, if
you have plenty of patience.
--
Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with
Debian+LMS 7.9.0
Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x 24/44k
albums..
Buy a raspi using the Touch as a music server is a dead end it barely
works .
Yes OP intends to use Touch as the server to not only as player .
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
Indeed.
Though also make sure the touch has not been configured to use bitrate
limiting in LMS as your music will be compressed to accommodate, and
note that the digital out would only be "bit perfect" if the SBT volume
control is set to 100%.
But assuming you are configuring the SBT to just
output555 wrote:
> However, when I use the S/PDIF digital out from the Touch and feed the
> signal into my headphone/DAC unit I am underwhelmed by the audio
> quality. It's far below audiophile standards.
> So, my question is can I completely by-pass the Touch's DAC and only use
> it's
The main reason I bought the SB Touch was to use it as a music server
for my Flac and AIFF high-res audio files. However, when I use the
digital out from the Touch and feed the signal into my headphone/DAC
unit I am underwhelmed by the audio quality. It's far below audiophile
standards. Compared
22 matches
Mail list logo
