• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

52 Excellent

About Solanum

  • Rank
    Junior Wammer

Wigwam Info

  • Turn Table
  • Tone Arm & Cartridge
    Akito, Adikt
  • Digital Source 1
  • DAC
  • Power Amp/s
    2x 2250/D
  • My Speakers
  • Trade Status
    I am not in the Hi-Fi trade

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Just used our old friend Google, unmanaged switches flood all ports with multicast traffic instead of using snooping to send only where it is wanted, so other than extra network traffic (no big deal in this day an age), they are fine. Apologies, everyone as they were!
  2. Is this definitely right? I have a sister product, the GS105, which I have no problem with, but these are unmanaged switches and my understanding is that unmanaged switches often don't treat multicast traffic kindly. UPnP uses multicast. I thought it was a good idea not to have an unmanaged switch between Linn DS and NAS?
  3. Yes, that was my first step. All analogue LP12 signal through the ADSM vs digital conversion with SO turned off (or set to zero, whatever was possible - I forget). I seem to recall the all analogue pathway is no longer available in the ADSM as well. The difference wasn't large, but it was there. and @formann seems to be corroborate that experience. When comparing the analogue pathway with Exakt (with SO turned off), it was clear Exakt was significantly better. Further, the difference between Exakt and analogue was much bigger than the difference between analogue and digital. With SO well set up there was another positive step again. In @Matteo's case, he will be going from passive to active as well, which would be another big step. Always amazes me what my old Ninkas can do with source improvements! The worry with Exakt is how locked in we are to Linn, but in the end the cost of the ADSM vs ASH (AEDSM as was) is so huge (assuming an Exaktbox in either case for me) and the likelihood of needing the analogue outputs from the DSM small enough that I took the plunge. The nice thing about the ASH+EB, is that it can be treated as a pre- + DAC and used with any amps and a wideish range of speakers (EB-I, just the speakers of course). So I just convinced myself that the two in combination were replacing my existing pre and I got a quality streamer thrown in! @Matteo have you looked at the option of ASH+AEB+ A4200 (w/ your existing A2200)? That would give you more flexibility (in that you can change power amps if you wish in the future), no redundant amps, and significantly better quality amps. A more expensive option than either you are considering and higher box count though.
  4. That was my big concern as well. In fact, as I mentioned, it was slightly worse, with the same equipment (ADSM). But. Like Øyvind, I found using Exakt more than made up for the difference. Don't confuse it with SO, they are two separate things (thus the lack of SOv2 for Exakt for more than a year). As I said previously, my listening was pre-Katalyst, so it may be there is no difference with analogue all the way vs A-D-A now. Also, SOv2 is much better than v1 IMO, so if you've only heard v1 then v2 might still impress. SO is all about getting the set-up right (thus the simpler interface for the more complex v2), if you get it wrong it will negatively impact the sound. From memory (someone can correct me), the internal movement of audio data in Exakt is 32 bit. I'm quite sure that is higher res than vinyl can manage. Anyway, enjoy the auditioning, although given the cost of it all, I was quite stressed when I was in your position!
  5. My dilemma was similar to yours, it is a brave jump to the ASH, as it commits you to Exakt. I think your M109 with Exakt would be much better than the S3 or 520s. It really does add a lot. You can use it with or without SO (if you don't like room correction) and it is still a big benefit. It acts like a speaker upgrade. My guess is the ASH + Exaktbox-i would be your best end result. The amps in the EB-i are not as good as the A2200, but the benefit of multi-amping, active speakers and Exakt is likely to make up for it. You'll really have to listen for yourself though I think. See if you can borrow an ADSM+EB-I and then you can try every combination at home and confirm the LP12 still sounds good
  6. When I bought my AEDSM and Exaktbox, I had an ADSM+Exaktbox on loan (not the 'i', I have two 2250/D amps) and I spent quite a bit of time doing various comparisons. I was most interested in the digital vs analogue path for my LP12. This was pre-Katalyst and I would assume the difference in the analogue path between the ADSM (four years ago) and the AK aren't massive (I had an Exotik at the time, which is pretty the same as an early AK as well). When I ran the LP12 through the ADSM via analogue passthrough vs the internal ADC and DAC there was a slight, but noticeable difference, with the analogue path winning out. It may well be that with Katalyst this would no longer be the case. However, when I ran it through the Exakt system, the improvement in all aspects of the sound was much more than the slight degradation by running the LP12 through the ADC of the ADSM. Plus you could also add SO into the mix then as well. So, my experience is that Exakt+SO would trounce the AK, despite the digitisation of the LP12 signal. With Katalyst, it may well be that an ADSM would beat the AK, even without Exakt+SO. I would recommend the ASH+Exaktbox, based on me experience, with the proviso, that I expect the A2200 is better per channel than the AExaktbox poweramps. That means that you are not really comparing exakt vs passive, but A2200 passive vs Exaktbox-i and this may complicate things. As sunbeamsgl says, you'll need to listen!
  7. Ermm... for my sins, statistics is an important part of my living..... You aren't trying to represent the entire population of a nation, you are trying to show whether it is possible to sense a difference. A small trained panel (e.g. 15) is adequate and a probability threshold of 0.05 is perfectly reasonable for this. Higher n is always better and would be needed if you wanted to have a much lower threshold though.
  8. As an aside, I wonder if any companies have looked at including an internal optical conection on the streamer side of the RJ45 connector? Powered by it's internal PSU it would remove any possibility of anything coming via the ethernet cables. Anyone know if any company does this?
  9. Error 'correction' in all these protocols is resending the data packet, not correction as such and done with both TCP/IP and USB. The 'unidirectional' stream is the isochronous data stream I mentioned in my PS, it is for live data (equates to shifting the data of a CD to a DAC in the old days I guess), you wouldn't use that to stream music from a server to a player (no idea if any company does, but it makes no sense to do so). Also, complete loss of data packets would be obvious in any testing of the eventual analogue output. I don't see why it should be expensive, in its simplest form; 15 people in a room, don't allow them to confer. They pick which of the three snippets of music they think is the odd one out, if 11 of them pick the same one, it is highly probably the difference is real (11/15 is off the top of my head as around 95% probability, I might be out by one - it's a simple lookup table if you can't find anyone who can use R). Doesn't tell you which is preferred, but is a solid test of a sensible (as in, can be sensed) difference. Agreed that not in their interest perhaps.... A standard CAT8 cable is a long way from some 'hi-fi' cables in claims and price. Plus, again, I'm not saying a cable can't make a difference. I am basically in full agreement with @DavidHB in my view on this particular aspect. Claims about the digital domain are a furphy and talking about things like jitter is tantamount to deceptive advertising, which makes me very concerned about the other products from the companies that engage in it. That said, again to repeat myself, the fact that it is physically possible for unwanted signals to pass through the cables makes it possible that noise moves between devices (albeit unlikely in quality equipment IMHO), so there is certainly space for cables to affect the sound output of a system.
  10. Not really..... That was in the old days of data transfer from CD direct to a DAC and/or within the DAC itself, nothing to do with data moving over ethernet. USB also uses a packet protocol, so again, timing shouldn't be relevant and jitter certainly wouldn't have any effect. All these packet protocols check the content of the packet for accuracy and it is resent if not bit perfect. Note that I didn't say a USB or ethernet cable couldn't affect the sound (though I personally think it unlikely in most circumstances), but that the transmission of the digital signal (the ups and downs or ones and noughts) couldn't affect the sound (excluding of course, a situation where the data rate was so poor you got dropouts!). Linn sell analogue cable, they don't sell digital cables, so I would suggest they don't see a difference. Finally, as others have said, A:B is a poor methodology that is extremely susceptible to bias, it should be duo-trio (ABA), statistically tested and, ideally, double blind - particularly when the host has a vested interest! PS There is actually a non-error checked USB data transfer mode, but it would be bizarre for any hifi streaming equipment to be using it.
  11. This thread feels like a recurrent nightmare, but I can't bring myself to just walk away The 'shape' of a digital signal cannot affect the 'quality' of the transferred bit/packet/computer file/etc. That '1' or '0' is transferred or it is not. Without this, none of our computer systems would work and digital audio would not exist. It is not subject to opinion, mine or otherwise, any more than is the non-spacesuit survival on the moon mentioned earlier. Personally, I am open to the possibility of electromagnetic noise being passed along these cables and eventually into a DAC, even though the designs are meant to prevent it. I've never definitively heard it and I doubt it happens in most situations, but as far as I know, it is, at least, plausible. I have no idea if Paul Miller actually believes what he says about digital signal shape and sound or not. I guess I hope he does, as it is better than the alternative.
  12. Like this:
  13. I don't disagree with any of that and I certainly wasn't supporting the way this guy jumped in or his tone, which was slightly bizarre, given this is a Linn sub-site. Mine was more of a don't throw the baby out with the bath water kind of point and I could argue it is relevant to the ethernet cable discussion (which admittedly has wandered a bit over 80+ pages!!!).
  14. That's a good article and does not suggest quite such a disaster. It also points out that there is an alternative, direct metal masters, which are sold in Europe as higher quality reproduction than the standard process already. I've got a couple of DMM albums and they certainly don't sound worse. Seems to me that DMM is an intrinsically safer process as well, no nitro-cellulose for a start!
  15. To be fair to Keith, until you are at the point where the brain interprets the nerve signals coming from your ears (where it becomes VERY subjective), everything about the music reproduction is a physical process and, therefore, can be represented with graphs and those graphs can be used to compare equipment. The problem is not using graphs per se, it is whether our graphs adequately represent the (physical) factors involved in our perception of sound quality. Using a single graphed parameter is not going to define perceived sound quality for a start and maybe looking at any number of graphs/measurements individually can't either as we don't perceive a single aspect of the sound, we perceive the whole thing at once. Even if we combine the data from our graphs in some way (a PCA plot maybe), do we have the right measurements? Do we even know what the right measurements are? Are those measurements made in the right way? For example, we are binaural, does that mean we should be using side facing binaural microphones? We could certainly design experiments to test the degree to which our choice of measured parameters (or combination of parameters) correlate with perceived sound quality of gear, even if we aren't sure of the importance of those individual parameters a priori. I'm going to stop now as I am sure that there are active scientific researchers (e.g. not hi-fi retailers or even speaker designers - no offence intended), with peer reviewed data that understand where things are at in this field and I am definitely not one of them.