Jump to content

barrows

Members
  • Content Count

    5639
  • Joined

  • Last visited

8 Followers

About barrows

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    High above Boulder

Recent Profile Visitors

13000 profile views
  1. No, but I doubt that Jesus would like to actually name any competitors' products here.
  2. I have always been a fan of bel canto. Used to own, for a brief period, the short lived bel canto CD-1-which was basically their last "full size" product. It was a single box, dedicated CD player and it was superb. Not sure how many of these bel canto made, but for anyone looking for a traditional disc player, do not hesitate to purchase this if you can find one on the used market. I used the CD-1 as my reference as I made the transition to computer based playback, I only sold it when my computer based system was able to equal the performance of the single box CD-1. I love the integrated approach of Black, for many people, it could be all you need, just add speakers and a place to store your files...
  3. I really do not know how to answer the question... One person's "minimum" might be another person's absurdly expensive model... Do you need a sealed system for sound isolation? I have a pair of Audeze iSine 20s that sound fantastic, but they are open backed, so not really suitable for loud environments.
  4. Off the top of my head and estimating, it is about 6"x 6" x 2" and around 3-4 lbs. The chassis is aluminum, most of the weight comes from the 30 VA transformer.
  5. A couple of notes. It is not unusual for some mastering engineers to master in analogue, even when presented with a high res PCM mix for mastering. My understanding is that they do this because they have preferred tools (like EQ devices and compression devices) which are analog. So it is not unheard of to go from, say, a 24/96 mix, to analog mastering, and then final capture for distribution (could be 24/96 again, or higher, or DSD, etc). Personally, I feel most DACs these days, sound better with DSD input, unless one has a DAC which is R2R rather than SDM, so I will always purchase the DSD version of something as long as I trust that the DSD capture is done well (Gus S. seems to do a lot of this, I trust him). It would make sense if ATD had a "final" analog master, which was then captured in various formats for distribution, but it does seem weird that the 24/192 was not sourced from analog and the DSD is? BTW, I would advise that people not be too afraid of oversampling for some high res (re-mastered) releases so much... I used to feel this way as well, but once I started to listen to some of these projects, I realized that some of these mastering engineers are nearly alchemists in what they can accomplish. A case in point is the Analogue Productions SACD of the Cowboy Junkies classic, Trinity Sessions release. The source recording is a DAT with just two tracks (the album was recorded using a single stereo microphone). The original CD was an audiophile treasure, but the new mastering and SACD release sounds far, far better to me in every way, I never would have believed this myself, until @ted_b let me know the SACD/DSD new version was really fantastic (thanks Ted), he was right! BTW, has anyone heard any more news on the forthcoming Animals SACD from Analogue Productions?
  6. Well, certainly the very clean USB power is an important feature of the opticalRendu. But John has some interesting ideas RE USB signal integrity, and I would not contradict him on that (these ideas are discussed in depth elsewhere on these forums). Agreed, that is why we incorporated it into the systemOptique product line. But we ARE getting a bit off topic here, sorry for that... Folks, let's try and keep the discussion here to @jabbr's topic.
  7. I was referring to customers comparing eye pattern diagrams from the USB output from different sources. I do not think your comments are relevant to this. My comment was in response to questions asking about the USB output. While the standards which you refer to are great for professionals (or enthusiastic amateurs) well versed in the subject, i still do not believe that the average customer is such, and knows how to properly interpret such tests. Clearly I am not referring to you here though!
  8. Thanks, I have these bookmarked and will likely pick up a pair for testing here, but probably not until after RMAF as preparations are taking a lot of time now. BTW folks, hope to see some of you at the Show! We will have a really nice set up there (I hope the new venue's rooms are going to be a bit better than the old venue).
  9. While I would agree, to a point (and to address marce's point, John Swenson has addressed the local power supply needs with great attention to detail, many separate ultra low noise/impedance linear regs for different sections, with multiple islands, etc on the main board of the opticalRendu and Signature Rendu SEoptical, and great attention to proper decoupling), the main power supply and first pre-regulator supply still needs to be as good as is possible for the best possible performance. Although I agree with @marce, that it would be a fools errand to pay so much attention to the main supply if the local supplies were not properly engineered first. As to the view of sharing measurements, such as eye pattern, etc. This is a tricky area to get into for a manufacturer for many reasons. Most customers would have no idea how to interpret things like this (and for those who do, great, I am not attempting to dumb you down!), and what would one compare these with? Where are eye pattern diagrams from other products for comparisons? And, even worse, if the eye pattern tests are not performed under the same conditions, one could be making a big mistake to compare one eye pattern diagram with another. So, if a manufacturer shared measurements like these, it can do more harm than good. Instead, I would suggest it is the manufacturers job to make the best product they can, and it is the users and reviewers job to evaluate the product for its performance. Additionally, in my experience in this industry, I have seen many times when a manufacturer publishes a measurement, and then the public comes back and criticizes the measurement, suggesting that the manufacturer has been disingenuous about how they made a given measurement, creating a "controversy". It is usually better for independent third parties to evaluate components, rather than for manufacturers to try and "prove" performance. I think it would be cool though, if an independent third party (reviewer) tested various Renderer's for both eye pattern on the USB data lines, and noise on the USB power lines under the same test conditions and published the results. I have seen HiFi News testing of USB cables with eye pattern results (I wonder how that LUSH USB cable would do on an eye pattern test...). OR: Or, one could just listen to the products. The improvement in sound quality from the ultraRendu to the opticalRendu in the same system is not difficult to hear, for example, as those who have listened have reported.
  10. @jabbr, Are you able to recommend a specific, single mode, 1 Gbe SFP module for use with the Sonore optical products off the top of your head? I am interested in testing single mode fiber in my set up (Although RMAF preparations and product building is keeping me very busy right now).
  11. I would expect it to be Peter McGrath, as Chris is now a "pretty important" person in the Industry based on site popularity. Who would've have known!
  12. I cannot see the numbers on the response plot... At those low frequencies normal physical bass traps may not be enough, but I would wait until your Wilson set up guy is around... At RMAF one year we had a bad room mode at around 80 hz or so (like +10 dB or so). We actually used a Synergistic Black Box which lowered it by about 6 dB, which was enough to accommodate music which had energy at that frequency-amazing little device really... We just used a single one, but more can be applied.
  13. That is just not true from a technical standpoint, or a subjective one, for that matter. The problem which you have experienced is that the source still matters: Not just any old computer will do, as not just any operating system will do, and not just any interface either. Any, and all of these things must be optimized to achieve best performance. When a computer based set up is optimized, it equals (or exceeds) the performance of any other source component-the current problem being that many, even very high end products, are not optimized (yet). The Convers Digital Ethernet approach used by Playback Designs (and many others) is just one example of a "less than perfect" interface design. From a factual standpoint, there is no "something" about files sourced from a NAS vs. the bits delivered from a spinning disc drive (in fact, many spinning disc drives actually produce data errors, which never happen with a reasonably well engineered computer based approach). There are peripheral problems with computer based playback (not any problem with the files though) which are engineering problems which are solved by the best interfaces.
  14. @matthias, The point being here, that just because someone found that a certain brand/model of SFP produced a subjectively perceived improvement in a totally different product, there is no reason to conclude that same SFP would produce a subjective improvement when used in an opticalRendu, opticalModule, or Signature Rendu SEoptical. This does not mean people might not find differences, it just means that the SFPs would need to be tested in the Sonore product to know. Just applying what someone else, in a a completely different product, reported on the Internet would be inadvisable.
  15. The fuse spec for the power supply is 315 mA, 250 V, type "T" (slow blow, AKA time delay). Do not use a fuse of any different specification (this specific is for US voltage units only). The sizes 5 x 20 mm.
×
×
  • Create New...