Jump to content

NeroMetalliko

  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    Italy

Retained

  • Member Title
    Newbie
  1. I want to thank again all the friends here for the precious help and the friendly support offered. In particular I want to thank Synfreak for the suggestion regarding the use of previous builds and for providing me some of these: I have tried the R275 (v0.30) and it perfectly solved the above explained issue allowing me to successfully get the .iso of the Sarah Vaughan SACD, and then the .dsf files out of it. And thanks again to Ted for the guide and support. Have a nice time ripping an listening...! Ciao, Andrea
  2. Thanks for the answer and the kind support offer, I have sent you a PM. Ciao. Andrea
  3. Hello, thanks for the answer, do you mean that in the PS3 OS there is the possibility to open a command line shell? I'm noob regarding this aspect, can you please explain to me how to have access to a command prompt in the PS3? The command above does the full rip of a SACD disc inserted inside the PS3 player as iso file stored on the connected USB key? Thanks again, Andrea
  4. Hello, I have succesfully ripped a dozen of SACD of my collection without issues, but yesterday I have found for the first time a problematic disc. It is a Sarah Vaughan old recording (Verve - Universal Music 0602498607794). It is a SACD only disc (no hybrid with red book layer). It plays fine in my disc player and in the PS3 too, but the sacd ripper package does not recognize the disc ejecting it. Any advice or suggestion? Thanks a lot for all, ciao. Andrea
  5. Hello, many thanks for the advice, yes I have the original controller but I have not thought at this possibility... In the meantime I have just successfully finished to rip my Genesis '70-'75 SACD box set Thanks again. Ciao. Andrea
  6. Hello, after several months of continuous research I was finally able to find in my country a PAL PS3 CECH4 with 3.50 FW, unbroken original seal, no YLOD and fully working disc player. I have carefully vacuum cleaned the PS3 from outside and put it over a notebook support with bottom cooling fans. I want to thank you all very much, and Ted in special way, because following his guide I was able to setup the hack/ripper package in a breeze and I have already successfully ripped 3 SACD discs with no issues at all. I see that once started the sacd ripper app there is no way to come back: the only possibility is to shut down the PS3, right? I have some minor questions regarding the sacd ripper package and the ISO2DSD gui, but for the moment I want only to thank you and to share with you my feeling of complete happiness that the new status of being free from the SACD physical discs is giving me in these days. Still waiting mr. Wicked to complete his project (which I have signed some moths ago) because I'm not sure how long this old PS3 will last... Ciao. Andrea
  7. The fact that many manufacturer are selling (open to debate) products does not make them automatically a better choice for the final sound results. I strongly encourage a listening test, on same condition, using bi-wiring (differing for the bass and mid/treble) vs a decent single wiring solution of similar overall price. But let your ears be the final judge without prejudice... Have a nice listening time, ciao. Andrea
  8. Hello, being "old school" I still currently tend to prefer a well made analog fixed step double channel rotary knob with a bunch of good old resistors in it. You may be somewhat limited in the resolution but on the signal path you always get only two resistors. Quality and price depending on budget (it is not a cheap solution and it requires some work if DIY). For critical listening I rarely modify the volume once settled properly, so the lack of remote control is something I can live with. In some cases it should be possible to add a motor with remote on the rotary knob however, if mandatory. In my amp currently there is a common decent potentiometer, and not so well balanced between the channels in its first range, so definitely nothing esoteric. But let me expose myself a little more with something more like a simple concept idea. Imagine to stream only files in DSD, imagine to send the signal as analog square wave directly to a power amp, imagine the power amp capable to amplify the square signal between its two +Vcc, -Vcc rails performing a simple analog low pass filter at the end before the speakers, imagine to adjust the volume simply by modifying the Vcc in the power supply section of the amp... Something like a Power DAC in which the volume is the power supply voltage of the amp itself. Sounds good enough? Ok, don't shoot the dreamer, please... Ciao. Andrea
  9. Quoting the quoted above: Based on my limited experience (nothing compared to a manufacturer, obviously) I humbly disagree with this statement. The effects of bi-wiring could be not subtle, cable length and overall physical geometry are playing a definitive role, but if a difference is present, I have always noticed that it was at detriment. Good sense should be master here, comparing vastly different kind (and price) of cables in single/bi wiring could not help to figure it out for several reasons (some are explained below). This is an absolute must, in my opinion mixing different cable types for different drivers in bi-wiring is a sure recipe to loose overall coherency. I definitely agree here, but I add that this is exactly the kind of disappointing results that could be present even using identical cables in bi-wiring, and for similar reasons to the ones already explained: due to the mutual interactions between the two branch loops carrying different signals (which are always different, not because the different cable but because the different crossover network part + driver involved). Again cable lengths and mutual loops geometry are the key here and they could produce more or less noticeable effects, which in any case I have found to be always detrimental, and of the same type already illustrated, from the listening point of view. The bottom line for me is that when a friend ask me regarding this topic I always suggest him to get the best good sense reasonably priced cables for the given budget connecting the speakers in single wire (or X-connection, as explained in one of my previous post, if possible) and stick to it happily. Have a nice listening time, ciao. Andrea
  10. I have difficulty to think to something like an "absolute speaker", the one who will be good for all combinations, especially because I consider it a very critical piece of technology (just look to my post above about "transducers", if you like). So it is not so insane to choose a new loudspeaker (which can give huge enhancements to the audio listening experience) keeping fixed the already owned audio chain (including the amplifier). I don't have tube amps, but from my point of view it could perfectly make sense to listen to a speaker pairs using tube amps (similar to, or the same as, the already owned), even knowing there will ne unavoidable interactions. I like to add (but I don't want to fire up the never ending measurements vs good sound issue) that you can keep the frequency response and whatever measurements you like very "ideal" if you want, by choosing different circuits topologies, components, feedback ratio and so on, even with tubes... I'm still not so sure that pursuing this pure electrical task will automatically means that the system will be better sounding (at least in my humble experience). Have a nice listening time, Ciao. Andrea
  11. Speakers are REALLY important in my opinion, but this aspect could be extended to a more general concept. I think that, even with the current technology, the weakest parts in a audio chain are the ones I can call, just to give the idea, "transducers", i.e. those components that are transforming a physical thing to another one. Some of these we cannot avoid at all and all the related effects are always inside the final recording we have, just think to the microphones for example: they transform the sound to an analog electrical signal to start with. Leaving all the editing/mastering thing outside, just to simplify a bit, in the old analog ages to get a recording in our hands we had to face to the tape recording (electrical to magnetic conversion) and vinyl print (to get the mechanical tracks). All of this was/is outside of our control, we cannot do nothing other than choose and buy the best sounding recordings available. But once at home, with our LP, for playback we had to start again with a MM/MC pickup transforming mechanical movements to analog electrical signal. Note that the pre/power amplifiers and crossovers are not a "transducer" as I'm intending here, because they does not really change the physical domain, they just process electrical to electrical (not saying they are not important btw). Finally the last transducers: the loudspeakers drivers, transforming electrical to physical sound again. Wow, there were a lot of conversions, only few of which we can try to optimize based on technological availability, our passion and obviously the budget. Today the things are a bit changed: in the out of control area there is an analog to digital conversion (which I still tend to consider a change in domain) to get the recording. Leaving outside, for further simplicity, the optical stuff (including CD print and spinners) which is not more mandatory, starting form music files in the modern home playback audio chain there is at least the need of a complimentary digital to analog (DAC) conversion. But after the amplification the last transducer is always the same: the loudspeaker (or headphone) driver, nothing changed here. In my opinion it always was (and is) that the transducers are adding problems more than the non-transducers components during the required audio path, because of a lot of additional non-linearity, distortions and inefficiency necessarily involved in the delicate task to change the physical domain. So the old gold rules to pay special attention (and budget) to speakers (and to turntables and pickups in the past) is not without sense. The technology is always evolving, but in my opinion one of the (if not the) most sensible/critical part of the audio chain is still the last unavoidable transducer: the loudspeaker driver (the "highlander" one, we can say...) Just to add some academicals talk... Ciao. Andrea
  12. The bi-wiring thing is one of the most puzzling to me... I'm far to say that I have made so extensive test to give a final judgment, but looking back I have to admit that every time in my life I have the opportunity to compare bi-wiring vs single wiring I have always noticed no to little difference, and the difference, if any, was always for the worst (i.e. single wired seemed better). So why the bi-wiring myth is still so alive is a real mystery for me... I keep my opinion on hold regarding bi-amping, due to lack of proper test. I have to admit that I'm inclined to remain skeptical, at least in regard to the more common analog bi-amping using the loudspeaker crossover, specially if the distance between the amps and the speakers is not short. In the past I have even tried to DIY a DRC (Dynamic Room Correction) thing, and after all the hassle to setup it properly I noticed some big differences indeed, but overall it was not for the good... Never tried the DEQx stuff in any case, so cannot tell. However, I think that in the modern era of digital source files the maximum potential advantage it could be to make the crossover filtering directly in the digital domain (which could include even a linearization of the drivers and ambience correction, if desired) by putting all the stuff (including DACs/amps) directly connected to the drivers (bypassing the analog crossover obviously) with very short cables/wires (as short as possible, possibly all the stuff in the loudspeaker cabinet case itself). This is not easy to achieve, and is not well matching my ideal simplistic-minimal approach (too much added manipulation of the signal always leaves me something afraid...). It could require some heavy modding on common products and/or special designed components for this exact purpose, but nonetheless it could be interesting to try. Have a nice listening time, ciao, Andrea
  13. From a conceptual point of view there is still a little difference: the circuit topology is not exactly the same ("star" vs "bus" we can say to simplify the things) with the collateral effect that the signal loop is slightly different for each driver connected by their own branch. So in abstract terms there is a subtle difference, if (or how much) this will produce audible benefit or detriment it is another story obviously... As indicated in my post above my personal preference is to avoid differences in the signal path/topology as much as possible, but it is difficult to generalize the things... Ciao, Andrea
  14. Hello, I don't want to add unnecessary snake oil arguments to the ever disputed cables/connection topic (about the bi-wiring in this case). However, over the years I have made a lot of experiments alone in the humble darkness of my little room, playing with different cables and/or topologies, just in order to discover if and/or how much a different arrangement it could make an audible difference (for me). The final conclusion I found is that, based strictly on my listening personal tests, the best approach for me is to avoid to split the signal path as much as possible. This means that I always preferred solutions in which all the audio signal flows for the maximum possible length in the same physical channel/configuration, being split only at the extreme end of their path (usually the loudspeaker connectors). There are some points I can bring to support my (limited and partial) experimental findings but at the moment I will avoid to do it, trying to keep this post short. So, what I noticed is that the more the signal get manipulated/divided earlier, the more the final results is less coherent/pleasant to my ears (after the final "re-joining" in the air). This concept has several aspects and applications obviously, but focusing only on the single/bi wiring topic, I found that I always slightly preferred the single wire connection to the bi-wiring one. The funny thing is that I have even found another little improvement to the single wire connection, adopting what I have called a "single wire X-connection" (Uh? ). This is possible only for loudspeaker that are provided of bi-wiring connection options, and it is very simple, just look at the picture attached below: So it is very simple (just switch one input of the single wire connection, leaving the bridges there) and it has no cost. Please note that it could easily be that the potential difference is negligible or non existent at all (or existent only in my mind...), but this is what I have finally adopted for my loudspeakers connections after a lot of tests, and never looked back since then. I suggest you to give it a try and maybe let me know if you found something better/worst adopting it, or nothing at all... I will be happy to discuss the more general concept above (regarding my preferred approach of a maximally uniform signal path) if someone likes it. Have a nice listening time, ciao. Andrea
  15. Hello, thanks for the suggestion, I will definitely pay more attention in the future to all the various DAC implementation, including tube output stages. I'm really interested in the pure DSD conversion using a simple low pass filter for example, just to say. Regarding my previous post above: I have noticed that I have wrongly used the word "sibling" but the right one I should have used was something like "hissing", sorry for that (English is not my first language, obviously). In addition I realized that maybe my post above is too long and even OT here, because it's more related to a listening comparison between two players (Oppo 105D and Cambridge CXU) than to the strict topic of this thread (Wolfson/Sabre). If the forum administrator think that it could make more sense to move the post in another section, please, let me know if I can do something for this purpose. Have a nice listening time, thanks to all, ciao. Andrea
×
×
  • Create New...