Computer Audio Asylum

RE: cics, which is your favorite version of #26?

41.183.0.21

In Reply to: RE: cics, which is your favorite version of #26? posted by rickmcinnis@dogwoodfabrics.com on May 28, 2009 at 11:13:28

For starters, I would remove the preamp altogether (maybe give that cartridge a well deserved rest).

I've settled with B26 SSE4 B9 with large buffer setting (E7xx processors have 3MB L2 cache - think of this as a free resource so exploit it). I use a single Kingston 256MB ValueRAM set at 3-3-3-5.

SoX is very good and certainly has the upper hand with transient performance. On some recordings / genres it may be preferred. SRC offers better tonal decay and does a marvelous job of preserving those delicate harmonics. Overall SRC (@145db SNR) is no slouch on transients but its harmonic purity makes it a perfect choice for long term listening. It's like tubes without the haze.

Follow Ups:

I hope this is possible - rickmcinnis@dogwoodfabrics.com 12:28:02 05/29/09 (1)
- RE: I hope this is possible - cics 10:53:20 06/01/09 (0)
RE: cics, which is your favorite version of #26? - theob 10:37:21 05/29/09 (26)
- Forever destined to listen to 96khz or less - theob 13:58:43 05/29/09 (25)
  - Lets try these tests - cics 11:20:40 05/30/09 (9)
    - 3rd update on tests - theob 11:39:29 06/10/09 (0)
    - 2nd update on tests - theob 06:21:38 06/04/09 (0)
    - update on tests - theob 05:14:58 06/02/09 (0)
    - RE: Lets try these tests - theob 05:10:23 05/31/09 (0)
    - RE: Lets try these tests - Bertel 03:07:23 05/31/09 (3)
      - RE: Lets try these tests - theob 04:35:57 05/31/09 (2)
        
        RE: Lets try these tests - Bertel 05:19:14 05/31/09 (1)
        
        RE: Lets try these tests - theob 05:29:19 05/31/09 (0)
    - RE: Lets try these tests - theob 12:02:05 05/30/09 (0)
  - RE: Forever destined to listen to 96khz or less - Bertel 14:39:22 05/29/09 (14)
    - RE: Forever destined to listen to 96khz or less - theob 15:24:47 05/29/09 (13)
      - RE: Forever destined to listen to 96khz or less - Bertel 15:42:58 05/29/09 (12)
        
        But does the BUFFALO chip upsample as well? - rickmcinnis@dogwoodfabrics.com 19:53:32 05/29/09 (10)
        
        RE: But does the BUFFALO chip upsample as well? - theob 08:40:51 05/30/09 (3)
        
        I know it sounds absurd, BUT ... - rickmcinnis@dogwoodfabrics.com 09:14:12 05/30/09 (2)
        
        RE: I know it sounds absurd, BUT ... - theob 12:07:43 05/30/09 (1)
        
        Only twice ... - rickmcinnis@dogwoodfabrics.com 09:39:27 05/31/09 (0)
        
        RE: But does the BUFFALO chip upsample as well? - Bertel 20:27:48 05/29/09 (5)
        
        RE: But does the BUFFALO chip upsample as well? - bidule 03:19:53 05/31/09 (3)
        
        RE: But does the BUFFALO chip upsample as well? - Bertel 03:41:45 05/31/09 (2)
        
        RE: But does the BUFFALO chip upsample as well? - bidule 04:34:05 05/31/09 (1)
        
        RE: But does the BUFFALO chip upsample as well? - Bertel 05:56:46 05/31/09 (0)
        
        Very good! You are quite enterprising! - rickmcinnis@dogwoodfabrics.com 09:03:42 05/30/09 (0)
        
        RE: Forever destined to listen to 96khz or less - theob 17:15:13 05/29/09 (0)

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.