Jump to content

stereo coffee

Members
  • Content Count

    178
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

73 Above Average

About stereo coffee

  • Rank
    50+ Post Club

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Wellington
  • Country
    New Zealand

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. FLAC is as their web page states "non-proprietary, is unencumbered by patents, has an open-source reference implementation, has a well documented format and API, and has several other independent implementations." https://xiph.org/flac/ If we hold to the view that those statements are better than a 1991 format that has "no current plans to be revised" http://wiki.dpconline.org/images/4/46/WAV_Assessment_v1.0.pdf we are stepping outside of individual use and being like a global citizen enjoying features with FLAC that may not have been previously considered. FLAC was last officially updated January 2017, and is receiving attention by developers on a ongoing basis. I think those reasons should be added when assessing one file type vs another , and add up for me why FLAC is a great choice.
  2. Can we have a return please of the toe in images.
  3. A few tips - always have the power cord disconnected if covers are removed. Check that the voltage selector - if fitted is still set at your mains voltage. Contact Cambridge for assistance - https://www.cambridgeaudio.com/en/contact
  4. A Quad 909 would both fit the budget and be excellent, partnered with a passive pre.
  5. A passive is an excellent choice, you will need a power amplifier with reasonable sensitivity - ideally specified as requiring 1.5v or lower for full output. There are many forms passives can take, from traditional volume controls with the number of inputs you need, to opto coupled passives. You may even want to look at DIY designs.
  6. Yes companding is well known to benefit audio recording and playback, DBX made many models found here: http://vintagedbx.free.fr/index.html DBX founded by David Blackmer were always ahead of Dolby, both companies using emphasis and de-emphasis suggested by Murray Crosby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosby_system Ironically both DBX and Dolby were later used as noise reduction systems in FM broadcasting, the irony being where emphasis and demphasis originated as technique to improve signal to noise ratio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_broadcasting
  7. A 75 ohm cable is 75 ohm because of the dimension and the consistency of that dimension between its inner conductor and its shield. It falls into a class of connection called a transmission line. 75 ohm exists to try to preserve the frequencies involved with SPDIF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_line We can see using a RCA termination straight away disobeys 75 ohm connection, SPDIF should be connected with 75 ohm coax and RF connectors and the BNC is is the obvious candidate. and worse not using a 75 ohm cable guarantee's reflections across the interface of transport to DAC To measure compliance or non compliance to 75 ohm requires insertion of a VSWR meter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S/PDIF "Many S/PDIF implementations cannot fully decouple the final signal from influence of the source or the interconnect. Specifically the process of clock recovery used to synchronize reception may produce jitter " I suggested a way around this in June of 1997 http://enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0401/deficienciesofspdif.htm
  8. But if you remove the impedance matching issue first, by using source components with sufficient ability to drive a load, you are just left with the need to attenuate. Similarly if you have a power amp needing effectively a power amp disguised cleverly as a preamp to drive it, well that's a problem, but can be solved by reviewing the sensitivity for full output figure, lower being better for passives. Its a choice to be made, trying each and knowing which is better, is the thing to do.
  9. Correct, now start looking at those implementations, to see if one might be better than the other. You may find along the way certain technologies are capable of reducing distortions giving you beneficial answers vs others that add distortion.
  10. That's great , that it responds as it should.
  11. Wire if used with the benefit coax brings can largely be ignored at audio frequencies, where coax is not used wire should be considered as an antenna. You are right I was referring to the least number of components vs adding more components to a signal path, does the audio you are hearing improve or does it get worse with more components ?
  12. It was a bit broad I agree, but did it help?
  13. Lets go back to 1986 just say your at a Dire Straits concert, and you have been a fan all your life and due to expenditure on the car last week and the kids wanting more toys, you could just not afford front row tickets when they were on sale 2 months ago. Instead tonight your parked outside the grounds, well its loud enough and you have seen Mark play before on TV so you enjoy what you can, you are accepting certain distortions including sound bouncing off numerous objects and generally nicely distorting the audio event. Lets now go to where you are closer, the front row will do .... is that better or worse.
  14. Measurements of flat frequency response to upper limit of ?, but what happens after that ? If our audio systems were time invariant, or even partially time invariant, we would start to see harmonic distortions begin to cancel. Now factor in an active pre vs a passive in terms of its ability to represent timing of the electrical signal originating at the source. In this context is a short path worse or better ?
  15. Until you have heard it without those distortions.
×
×
  • Create New...