PDA

View Full Version : digital out vs. RCA



PAUL WILLIAMSON
2004-08-12, 12:27
>>> lists (AT) phillipkerman (DOT) com 8/12/2004 3:00:39 PM >>>
>They all seem to be 1K. I guess I was thinking more like $200 if the
>quality improvement was noticable. That is, if it's better than going
RCA
>to a good integrated amp.

Yes, getting an external DAC and a good amp is better than a good
integrated amp with optical inputs.

<snip>

>I'm not calling you a wacko audiophile because I would suspect you
can
>hear/appreciate the difference. Yeah, 10K for a DAC... I'd rather
send my
>kid to college for a couple months or whatever it costs when she grows
up.
>(I saw some wires in the stereo shop that I didn't even want to ask
the
>price. )

He's not saying he's a wacko audiophile. We have plenty of those here.

My best friend is a wacko audiophile, and I can't get him to even
listen to
a squeezebox because he says it looks like a toy, and how could
something
that only costs $200 sound better than his $5,000 CD player. Maybe I
should
buy one and sell it to him for $10,000?

He's also got the really expensive oxygen-free wires and uses this
liquid stuff
whenever he connects his audio gear together, saying it "warms" up the
sound.
I think the only warmth is from the pile of s&!t on the floor from him
shovelling it.

>
>Anyway, my general direction is one of the following (probably in
increasing
>quality):
>--SB RCA out to moderate/good quality integrated amp.
>--SB optical out to moderate/good quality surround amp with (probably
>crappy) DAC built in.
>--SB optical out to cheap DAC to a moderate/good quality integrated
amp.
>

Go with the 3rd option if you can afford it. Best of all worlds, which
is probably
why you have it listed as the best quality.

>All of this depends on how it all sounds.
>
>Naturally, this direction also makes me think I'm in for re-ripping
>everything in FLAC.
>
>Thanks,
>Phillip

IMHO, the biggest impact on the use of a squeezebox is proper tagging
and organization of music, along with copious playlists. If you don't
have
the tagging and filenaming straight but you have playlists, once you
rename the
files your playlists are for crap. RIP to lossless (FLAC, Ogg, APE,
etc.) and
make absolutely sure tags are in order. Ripping is bad enough, but
when
you have songs that are tagged wrong, it's really frustrating. Manual
tagging
is probably the only way to guarantee you'll be please with the
results.
There are many discussions about what tag program to use (I think there

was a flurry of messages on the subject this week even).

Good luck!
Paul

BigHam
2004-08-12, 12:53
Easily remedied... well kinda.

http://www.geekmods.com/slimp3/g2/images/front-clock.jpg

<On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:27:15 -0400, PAUL WILLIAMSON
<pwilliamson (AT) mandtbank (DOT) com> wrote:

> My best friend is a wacko audiophile, and I can't get him to even
> listen to a squeezebox because he says it looks like a toy,

Pbox
2004-08-12, 13:16
>
>
>Anyway, my general direction is one of the following (probably in increasing
>quality):
>--SB RCA out to moderate/good quality integrated amp.
>--SB optical out to moderate/good quality surround amp with (probably
>crappy) DAC built in.
>--SB optical out to cheap DAC to a moderate/good quality integrated amp.
>
I might state the obvious here, in that case please ignore:

The RCA Digital Out (COAX - orange) is equivalent to TOSLink (Optical
Digital Out) on SqueegeBox. Incidentally the stereo RCA out (red and
white pair) is analog, which sound quality depends on the DAC in to SB.
The ornage and optiacl ones do not depend on the DAC.

My setup is that I use a Panasonic SA-XR amp (surround, but pretty
decent in stereo mode) with an optical in form SB. I could have used the
COAX input, but my Panny only has a single input of those vs. the 4 of
the optical ones. I need to point out that this amp uses digital path,
so it does not per say feature a DAC, as it is a PWM output module,
which takes the digital singal in, and outputs the high-amp signal to
the speakers in one swoop. It got some glowing reviews in the zany world
of audiophiles in regards to cost vs. sound quality dept.

equivalent:

A. Some of the "wacko audiophile" scene claim that the COAX sounds
better. If I recall correclty the term they tend to use is "fuller"...

B. If you have a ground loop between your SB and amp you will get
diminished quality sound using COAX, since it doesn't provide galvanic
separation between the units. Contrast this with optical, which is
really just an elongated piece of insulator...

BigHam wrote:

>Easily remedied... well kinda.
>
>http://www.geekmods.com/slimp3/g2/images/front-clock.jpg
>
><On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:27:15 -0400, PAUL WILLIAMSON
><pwilliamson (AT) mandtbank (DOT) com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>My best friend is a wacko audiophile, and I can't get him to even
>>listen to a squeezebox because he says it looks like a toy,
>>
>>
>

Jack Coates
2004-08-12, 21:28
....
>
> He's also got the really expensive oxygen-free wires and uses this
> liquid stuff
> whenever he connects his audio gear together, saying it "warms" up the
> sound.
> I think the only warmth is from the pile of s&!t on the floor from him
> shovelling it.
>
....

that stuff is brake light fluid. It lubricates digital signal wires so
that the 0's don't get slowed in the curves, which leads to jitter. As you
know, 1's go faster than 0's and without proper lubrication you may end up
with out-of-order bits.
--
Jack At Monkeynoodle.Org: It's A Scientific Venture...
"Believe what you're told; there'd be chaos if everyone thought for
themselves." -- Top Dog hotdog stand, Berkeley, CA

Roy M. Silvernail
2004-08-12, 22:07
On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 00:28, Jack Coates wrote:
> ...
> >
> > He's also got the really expensive oxygen-free wires and uses this
> > liquid stuff
> > whenever he connects his audio gear together, saying it "warms" up the
> > sound.
> > I think the only warmth is from the pile of s&!t on the floor from him
> > shovelling it.
> >
> ...
>
> that stuff is brake light fluid. It lubricates digital signal wires so
> that the 0's don't get slowed in the curves, which leads to jitter. As you
> know, 1's go faster than 0's and without proper lubrication you may end up
> with out-of-order bits.

You got that backwards. 0's travel faster because they're lighter. 1's
get slowed down in curves because their inertia makes them scrub up
against the insulation on the wires.

But seriously, while I've no doubt it doesn't noticably affect the sound
in an audio system, Stabilant (http://www.stabilant.com/bccomp.htm) has
its uses. Years ago (when the stuff was still called "Tweek"), I used
it to cure Apple ][ Disease. (the tendency of the socketed chips on an
Apple ][ motherboard to be vibrated out of those sockets by the cycling
of the Big Red Switch)

But for audio, it makes as much difference as oxygen-free Kryptonite
speaker wire.
--
Roy M. Silvernail is roy (AT) rant-central (DOT) com, and you're not
"Progress, like reality, is not optional." - R. A. Hettinga
SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss
http://www.rant-central.com

seanadams
2004-08-12, 22:37
> Years ago (when the stuff was still called "Tweek"), I used
> it to cure Apple ][ Disease. (the tendency of the socketed chips on an
> Apple ][ motherboard to be vibrated out of those sockets by the cycling
> of the Big Red Switch)

Just be glad you didn't buy an Apple ///.

Well, I got mine free, courtesy of pop's "employee 5-finger discount".

But it still sucked. No wonder they let them walk out the back door.

:)

Roy M. Silvernail
2004-08-13, 03:30
On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 01:37, Sean Adams wrote:
> > Years ago (when the stuff was still called "Tweek"), I used
> > it to cure Apple ][ Disease. (the tendency of the socketed chips on an
> > Apple ][ motherboard to be vibrated out of those sockets by the cycling
> > of the Big Red Switch)
>
> Just be glad you didn't buy an Apple ///.

I used to lust after its form factor a bit. After all, the built-in
disc drive *was* pretty sexy.

But I didn't buy an Apple ][, either. I just worked on other peoples'
machines. $25 a pop. The Franklin Ace 1000, being a nearly perfect
clone, had the same cheap, tin-plate sockets and the same problem.
Curiously, the Bell and Howell variant (remember the charcoal color
case?) used better sockets and didn't have the problem.

Then I'd go home and hack my C64. :D
--
Roy M. Silvernail is roy (AT) rant-central (DOT) com, and you're not
"Progress, like reality, is not optional." - R. A. Hettinga
SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss
http://www.rant-central.com

Larry Truesdale
2004-08-13, 09:01
Anyone can see that the "1"s have pointy ends which stick into the
rubbery insulation which has the effect of slowing them down.
Sometimes they even get stuck there permanently causing all sorts of
problems like packet loss and bandwidth problems. The "0"s are nice
and round and therefore simply bounce off when they hit the sides.

Larry ;)

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:07:35 -0400, Roy M. Silvernail
<roy (AT) rant-central (DOT) com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 00:28, Jack Coates wrote:
> > ...
> > >
> > > He's also got the really expensive oxygen-free wires and uses this
> > > liquid stuff
> > > whenever he connects his audio gear together, saying it "warms" up the
> > > sound.
> > > I think the only warmth is from the pile of s&!t on the floor from him
> > > shovelling it.
> > >
> > ...
> >
> > that stuff is brake light fluid. It lubricates digital signal wires so
> > that the 0's don't get slowed in the curves, which leads to jitter. As you
> > know, 1's go faster than 0's and without proper lubrication you may end up
> > with out-of-order bits.
>
> You got that backwards. 0's travel faster because they're lighter. 1's
> get slowed down in curves because their inertia makes them scrub up
> against the insulation on the wires.
>
> But seriously, while I've no doubt it doesn't noticably affect the sound
> in an audio system, Stabilant (http://www.stabilant.com/bccomp.htm) has
> its uses. Years ago (when the stuff was still called "Tweek"), I used
> it to cure Apple ][ Disease. (the tendency of the socketed chips on an
> Apple ][ motherboard to be vibrated out of those sockets by the cycling
> of the Big Red Switch)
>
> But for audio, it makes as much difference as oxygen-free Kryptonite
> speaker wire.
> --
> Roy M. Silvernail is roy (AT) rant-central (DOT) com, and you're not
> "Progress, like reality, is not optional." - R. A. Hettinga
> SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss
> http://www.rant-central.com
>
>
>

Jack Coates
2004-08-13, 09:12
> Anyone can see that the "1"s have pointy ends which stick into the
> rubbery insulation which has the effect of slowing them down.
> Sometimes they even get stuck there permanently causing all sorts of
> problems like packet loss and bandwidth problems. The "0"s are nice
> and round and therefore simply bounce off when they hit the sides.
>
> Larry ;)

You and Roy may have had a point in token ring networks on STP cable,
where the 1 has no way to hold the token and consequently is slowed at
every MAU entry and egress; however, the greater width of the 0 is clearly
a factor in increasing its friction through UTP (susceptible to more bends
and crosstalk) and especially fiber.

:)
--
Jack At Monkeynoodle.Org: It's A Scientific Venture...
"Believe what you're told; there'd be chaos if everyone thought for
themselves." -- Top Dog hotdog stand, Berkeley, CA

Graham Scott
2004-08-13, 09:28
I like this line of thought. I'll have to add it to my list of nonsense
to tell the kids in my class when the term starts again next week. So
far I've got them believing that the power cables hang from the roof
because electricity flows faster downhill, thus making the computers run
faster than normal and that's why we don't need to upgrade from Win98
yet. I also make sure they clear out any old files on a regular basis to
make the machines lighter for when the technicians need to move them...



Larry Truesdale wrote:
> Anyone can see that the "1"s have pointy ends which stick into the
> rubbery insulation which has the effect of slowing them down.
> Sometimes they even get stuck there permanently causing all sorts of
> problems like packet loss and bandwidth problems. The "0"s are nice
> and round and therefore simply bounce off when they hit the sides.
>
> Larry ;)
>
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:07:35 -0400, Roy M. Silvernail
> <roy (AT) rant-central (DOT) com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 00:28, Jack Coates wrote:
>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>>He's also got the really expensive oxygen-free wires and uses this
>>>>liquid stuff
>>>>whenever he connects his audio gear together, saying it "warms" up the
>>>>sound.
>>>>I think the only warmth is from the pile of s&!t on the floor from him
>>>>shovelling it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>that stuff is brake light fluid. It lubricates digital signal wires so
>>>that the 0's don't get slowed in the curves, which leads to jitter. As you
>>>know, 1's go faster than 0's and without proper lubrication you may end up
>>>with out-of-order bits.
>>
>>You got that backwards. 0's travel faster because they're lighter. 1's
>>get slowed down in curves because their inertia makes them scrub up
>>against the insulation on the wires.
>>
>>But seriously, while I've no doubt it doesn't noticably affect the sound
>>in an audio system, Stabilant (http://www.stabilant.com/bccomp.htm) has
>>its uses. Years ago (when the stuff was still called "Tweek"), I used
>>it to cure Apple ][ Disease. (the tendency of the socketed chips on an
>>Apple ][ motherboard to be vibrated out of those sockets by the cycling
>>of the Big Red Switch)
>>
>>But for audio, it makes as much difference as oxygen-free Kryptonite
>>speaker wire.
>>--
>>Roy M. Silvernail is roy (AT) rant-central (DOT) com, and you're not
>>"Progress, like reality, is not optional." - R. A. Hettinga
>>SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss
>>http://www.rant-central.com
>>
>>
>>