Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Using TP wireless and wired ethernet
Unfortunately that is not possible - Logitech devices connect via Wireless *or* Cable, not both simultaneously. Why not connect the NAS to the router (via cable) and the transporter to your wireless network? Allows you to have the transporter wherever you want, but your NAS needs to be close to the router -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91217 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
PasTim;632857 Wrote: > Great indeed. Thanks for confirming my conclusion. Quite a lot of time > used, but never wasted. > > I am a little concerned that I may not be the only one to have wandered > down this path, and that others may have given up, or spent money on > switches, cables, even PCs. > AS you yourself commented earlier - there are so many variables, and I would add so many varieties of equipment, that it is hard to always know what to suggest and debugging can become a daunting task. But - this is why the direct connection step was so important. You problem was clearly network related, but the direct connect ruled out a problem with your network equipment, and isolated it to be either your Touch or your PC. -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
soundcheck;632824 Wrote: > > I'm now running a Fritzbox router, which was today supplied by > my cable company and a Cisco Hub in front of the Touch. > > Guess what - No more 24/96 PCM hickups since 2 hours. > Pleased for you - but as you may appreciate, the important question we're really all dying to know the answer to is: Does the Cisco/Fritzbox equipment sound better than the D-Link? ;) -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
Maybe I missed it - but does this mean you can now stream PCM? -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
PasTim;632632 Wrote: > The puzzle to me is that flac is 100% reliable for all my files, but PCM > at 24/96 is guaranteed to rebuffer when I change tracks more than a few > times (if I leave the tracks playing it only occasionally rebuffers). PCM is uncompressed and so requires more bandwidth. The fact this happens occasionally means you are operating on some limit of your network and changing tracks will exacerbate the problem as you lose the benefit of the internal Touch buffer (only further confirming this is most likely a network and not a Touch issue) As an example: I converted a 96/24 compressed track (4m40s long) to 24 bit PCM. The original was ~90MBytes, so requiring an average bandwidth of 2.7Mbit/s to stream without error; the PCM version ~150MBytes requiring an average ~4.5Mbits/s. I am not suggesting your network is limited to ~4.5Mbit/s transfers. Other than the possibility of the problem being isolated to a portion of your network as @aubuti correctly states, in reality servers like SBS tend to "burst" data at a higher performance, leveraging the clients internal buffer and thereby achieving the average requirement. But even so - there should still be plenty of overhead on your 100Mbit/s network and while a simplistic case it gives you an idea or the requirements and why a 100Mbit/s network (or even wireless network) should be perfectly capable of supporting PCM streaming -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
soundcheck;632621 Wrote: > This proves it for your setup first of all... ;) > So you are implying that there may be physical differences between 2 Touch units running identical firmware? Do you have information that there are multiple hardware revisions of the Touch? -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
PasTim;632549 Wrote: > I did connect the Touch via just one switch and short cables. Nothing > changed at all So how do you know the problem is not related to that switch or those short cables? PasTim;632549 Wrote: > I can exchange gigabyte files between PCs on my home network with no > hiccups. Irrelevant. Example 1: if the fault is the port or cable connected to the Touch then you could see exactly the same symptoms. Example 2: you make no statement re. the performance of such transfers and so while you can exchange such files, that alone does not mean there is not a fault on your network. PasTim;632549 Wrote: > I did look at the network traffic, but I don't know enough to be sure I > understand what I'm seeing I looked briefly and you are getting many retransmits, both when streaming FLAC and PCM. That is a big indicator of a networking issue, and every symptom you have so far described also suggests you have a network problem. 100Mb/s is more than sufficient for streaming PCM - a single stream would not max out the connection (Do the math, it's not a complex calculation). Also the Touch is capable of receiving a PCM stream and playing it without issue as others have already confirmed. But if you are still 100% convinced the fault is not your network, then you only have 3 choices left: Change the server, change the touch or do nothing and enjoy the FLAC stream -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Is Steve Guttenberg stupid?
I think this comment on the stereophile site summed it up perfectly: > But in order to see how feeble it [the article] is you only have to run > the opening sentence "It's one of those good news/bad news stories: > more people are listening to music than ever before" next to the > last "...I'm just not sure what it would take to get people listening > again" and miss out the drivel between. By a SB forum member too? -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=85280 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
Phil Leigh;630452 Wrote: > > Going back to your immediate issue; you have eliminated your network as > a problem, but not the server. > Nor the switch, or the cables... -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Will Logitech Revue Google TV wipe out Squeezebox?
ralphpnj;613580 Wrote: > Apparently there seems to be lots of confusion about what UPnP means and > I count myself among those who are confused. > > From what I can gather a UPnP device is either a client or a server. In > the case of the Squeezebox devices, the Squeezebox is a client and the > computer running SBS is the server. The main difference between the > Squeezebox devices and many other UPnP devices is that while the > Squeezebox device is a client because it's ability to communicate with > SBS one has the ability to control the device using a remote. I've > never seen a clear explanation of exactly how other UPnP are > controlled. Again my understanding is that many of these devices are > controlled via software on the server and in the case of music the most > common software used to control the device is iTunes and that must be > controlled at the server. > > If I have anything wrong please feel free to correct and educate me > since I'm often puzzled as to why these very "dumb" UPnP clients are > being so highly touted. > > For point of reference I have a WD Live Plus box connected to my HDTV > which I use to stream movies. While the device can play music files it > does not have a good way to find what music is on the server and > whatever method it uses is nowhere near as good or as useful as SBS. > And one does need the TV to be on to select music. UPnP is neither a client nor a server, but a technology. It is used to enable the discovery of services and devices without the need for user configuration. Unfortuately - a probably the cause of the confusion - the term UPnP seems to becoming heavily associated with media servers that employ the technology as the name of the product. DLNA employs UPnP to advertise services as does the Microsoft equivalent (forget the name cos they keep changing it - used to be Windows Media Connect). Those servers could provide similar functionality as SBS, but in practice tend to be quite dumb - simply advertising the media available and then relying on the client to do the "work" - kind of the opposite to SBS. Therein lies the biggest drawback with such servers as the clients are not always compatible with the media and/or server, despite any claimed certification. -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=85844 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
PasTim;630300 Wrote: > In my case, the Touch does not appear to be able to handle 24/96 PCM, > but happily handles FLAC. PCM will therefore be more demanding on the network link between the Touch and the server (more data being sent), but the Touch is perfectly capable of handling that data stream. While there could be a fault with the Touch or even the Server, the symptoms (ie dropouts) would strongly suggest a networking problem. The only way to rule out the network completely is to not use the network of course - ie establish a direct connection between Touch and server over a single ethernet cable. Tricky to setup, but possible. Or just enjoy the Touch decoding your FLAC library... (unless you're pedantic like me an refuse to live with things not working as they should) -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezebox Touch with two USB DACs
Actually no, the mute does not sync Note also that the Touch doesn't have a USB out for a DAC. You would have to continue to use SPDIF which presents another challenge to your idea of using 2 DACs simultaneously with the one Touch -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87592 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
Whenever there is a problem that may be network related, and in the absence of appropriate network testing tools, it is usually best to try to reduce the number of variables by simplifying the network setup - even to the point of setting up a direct connection between the client & server. In this case, temporarily plugging in the Touch into the same switch or router to which the SBS box is connected, even if that means using headphones to listen to the Touch while testing. Whether the problem is resolved or not, you will have gone a long way to narrowing the source of the issue down. -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Squeezebox Touch with two USB DACs
Just a thought - but wouldn't it be a lot less effort to just have 2 SB Touch? You could sync them if you are wanting to switch between speaker setups while your tracks are playing -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87592 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Cat5 or not ?
tank121;630077 Wrote: > Is there a special cat5 cable for external use e.g. out of the wall of > the lounge round the external walls and into the garage ? Not that I'm aware of - I've just used trunking to protect standard cable. -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87567 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Cat5 or not ?
ralphpnj;630039 Wrote: > Exactly my point! 60MBytes/sec is a little more than half of > 100MBytes/sec and nowhere near 1000MBytes/sec, which is supposed to be > the speed for Gigabit Ethernet. Ermm... It is Giga_bit_ Ethernet. 1000Mbit/sec. In practice Gigbit Ethernet can achieve around 110MByte/s reads due to overhead (writes slightly less but still >100MByte/s) with the right hardware - and it is not as uncommon as you seem to think. @michael123's performance seems quite typical for someone running with reasonably spec'ed consumer networking equipment and may actually be limited by his host performance rather than the network -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87567 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Shielded Mains Cables
earwaxer9;628041 Wrote: > I had a 20ft cat7 ethernet connection to my Transporter. Much better > shielding than the cat5e. To make a long story short - I didnt really > notice a difference when I switched out from the cat5e. When it broke > the cat7 I put the el-cheapo cat5e back in. Again - no difference. > > I'm not saying that shielding etc. makes no difference! What is > encouraging, is the ethernet or wifi path to transmitting data to the > DAC. More power to squeezebox! Must admit I've never thought to use CAT7 as a shielded mains cable... -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87319 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
soundcheck;625937 Wrote: > > It seems that somebody is following my DIY-Audio thread. ;) > Yup - came across it yesterday. And I see we have the first respondent now reporting -"my initial feeling is that there is an improvement"... - I also notice that you also appear to have a router between your Touch and server - according to your blog and the testing of Meicord ethernet cables: -"I plugged a 1m unshielded patch-cord in between the Touch and my D-link Hub. I immediately experienced a clearly audible improvement. The resolution increased. The overtone spectrum gained substance. You'll notice those changes pretty quick on brass instruments and orchestral music."- Somebody is going to have to define "audible improvement" to me, because it clearly can't mean what I think it means -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
There's also the small point that TCP has flow control built in to the protocol (else it wouldn't work across network equipment that differs in speed, like for instance, across the internet) and that irrespective of the physical interface - Gb or 100Mb - or how the connection is made (ie direct or via switches & routers) that same flow control will be used to ensure the destination device isn't flooded with data it cannot handle. -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
So what am I to conclude? This is how I interpret your claims - The Touch is limited in processing power, therefore SQ may be affected by SBS sending too much data too quickly - Therefore - in Linux, slow down the interface to 100Mb/s - Or run a Windows server, implying Windows sends data more slowly? -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
Hey - has anyone tried the latest Toolbox recommendation? -"Run your PC or NAS ethernet interfaces at 100MBit/s full duplex."- -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hearing the differences
Curt962;625738 Wrote: > It's not a "me-too" club many of us have joined, rather it is a group > that simply asks that you prove your claims Couldn't put it better - and it is irrespective of the subject matter The onus is on the person making a claim to provide proof (as similarly explained the 'last time MCR raised this issue' (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86483)), the lack of which gives others every right to strongly question any aspect of the claim. If then only assertions rather than proof continue to be made, then my experience is - particularly in the anonymous world of internet forums - this typically leads to the behaviour being questioned in the orginal post. So either prove your claims, or get a thicker skin -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87051 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Hearing the differences
Having just read 'the post(s) that seem to have inspired this thread' (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=625617), let's fix that statement to reflect the alternate point of view: > It would appear that in order to pass the rite of passage and be > decorated with the "you're now one of us, one of the in-crowd" gold > medal on this (and on many other audiophile forums), one need to put on > the most cynical, skeptical face and ridicule and deride anyone who > *does not claim* to be able to hear any differences *due to specific > modifications*. > > Still, many people *cannot* hear differences in the sound quality *due > to those modifications*. My question: if you *cannot* hear a > *spectacular* difference, does it, according to the First Audiophile > Asshole Law, always mean that something about that *person's hearing* > is broken? > > ... > > How can people afford to always act in such an asshole-ish knee-jerk > manner all the time? > -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87051 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
aubuti;625527 Wrote: > Start around post #329 in this thread. Note that those are Phil's > measurements on the analog outputs. Urghh... Thanks (I think). I got as far as the new claim that "A Windows based server sounds better then a Linux based server on the same HW" (ie about 10 pages) and felt the will to live slowly draining from my body... Anyway, based on those results I revise my position: - Definitive measurements? Yes! - Definitive evidence of the modifications improving SQ? Hardly... And given that is for the analogue out which would have most potential to see improvement, it doesn't bode well for anyone who claims to hear an improvement via the digital out. -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
firedog;625489 Wrote: > They've at least taken measurements that show that the mods do have some > measurable effect on the output of the Touch. Really? I haven't seen any such definitive measurements, though as a new guy around here I could quite easily have missed something. I did recently see some info that showed the buffer modification changed the noise induced on the processor power supply (maybe even earlier in this thread), but nothing that showed the change in noise profile made any difference to the analogue output. That said, I'm 100% convinced there are modifications that could improve SQ as yes - the unit will always be a compromise when designed to a budget - but I've yet to see any supporting evidence that these particular sofware modifications make any difference or even credible theories that could explain the claimed improvements, and so ridicule is an entirely natural and, IMO, appropriate response So in all seriousness, please point me to any such measurements - I'd be very interested to see them and the conclusions drawn. -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
magiccarpetride;625393 Wrote: > Urban myth has it that engineers can produce an unassailable proof that > bumblebees cannot possibly fly. And yet they somehow do... That'll be why it's an urban myth then. -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
Phil Leigh;625383 Wrote: > yes - you have missed 55 pages so far! :-) Shhh - don't tell anyone, but I think I skipped pages 2 to 54... -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
Phil Leigh;625380 Wrote: > ... and it won't be the last. Ummm... Obviously late to the party on this one -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
This all makes the assumption that the processor is handling low level WLAN communication such as encryption/decryption. It doesn't... Which is why such an explanation only demonstrates a lack of engineering understanding on whoever suggested idea in the first place. -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
JezA;625323 Wrote: > Does WEP wireless encryption sound better or worse than WPA2? What is > the best sounding encryption key you have tried? I like WEP with an > encryption key of bbcc33221c the most, but I haven't tried all > possibilities yet. Sometimes there is more space between the silences > with bbcc33222d but at the expense of soundstage widthness. Encryption? But doesn't that rob you of valuable network bandwidth? I run encryption free so I can dedicate all my bandwidth to delivering the fullest audio spectrum -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Thinking of buying Squeezbox
JohnSwenson;624374 Wrote: > Yes vortexbox can do raid. Just setup linux software raid, it works very > well. Many thanks for that - sounds very customizable. Might have to give it a go Btw: I think most of the consumer NAS are now software RAID. -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86896 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Thinking of buying Squeezbox
garym;624177 Wrote: > You have the same disk protection with a NAS as you do with Vortexbox: > NONE unless you backup your data to a different disk and remove it to a > different location. A RAID setup (NAS) is NOT a backup. It can possibly > make data available again instantly when that is important (e.g., > banking data if you're the bank). But bad things can happen that kill > all the disks in your NAS at the same time (power spike, fire, theft, > etc.). > > A frequent refrain on the ReadyNas forums from the ReadyNAS Jedi > (experts) is "RAID is NOT a backup...backup your data!" > > And you can expand the data storage with vortexbox too. I have 6TB of > storage on my vortexbox. I think either can work, but if you're > interested in saving some bucks, almost any low powered, netbook can > run SbS just fine, have as much or more power than a NAS, and you can > connect all the USB drives with data that you want. And you can do all > this cheaper than a vortebox appliance or readynas. For example, check > out a fitPC2i. A powerful computer, no fan, and the size of a paperback > book. Maybe it's me, but I'm pretty sure when I read my own post it says "protection against disk failure" - completely different to data back up which protects against a multitude of issues, not just a common hardware failure. Maybe your post is meant to convey that a vortex box is also RAID based - in which case thanks for the correction. Maybe you can also confirm that online expansion is supported? And indeed RAID is not a backup which is why I have 2 NAS, one a backup mirror of the other, and rotated offsite USB drives in addition. -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86896 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Thinking of buying Squeezbox
EARBLASTER;624168 Wrote: > The difference I'm finding between the NAS route and the Vortexbox is > that if you don't need a disk reader, the NAS route offers more storage > at a lower price. I expect the disc reader on my Macbook would be > sufficient unless forum members have found out otherwise. The > Vortexbox looks like it offers more ease of setup and use vs. a NAS > until I get used to it. I'm not sure I am computer savvy enough to > setup a NAS if there is much beyond plug and play. I think the key difference with a NAS is that you get the option to easily expand the capacity, and there is protection against disk failure - something vortexbox doesn't appear to offer. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong) That said, certainly the ReadyNAS products do have a learning curve - the configuration interface isn't as intuitive as it should/could be, and I'm an engineer highly familiar with this type of system. But once setup you pretty much leave it alone - there are commonly posts from users on the Netgear forum of users who haven't touched their NAS in years and are now looking for help to upgrade, or change something. Tough call - I don't know enough about vortexbox to really advise you, but the netgear forum is extremely active & helpful (actually the best feature - Netgear has some tough competition in this space now from the likes of QNAP and Synology), so I'm sure if you went that route you would get alot of help. But have a look at those other companies too - there's lots to choose from now. -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86896 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Thinking of buying Squeezbox
If you do decide to consider the NAS route, I can heartily recommend the Netgear ReadyNAS products. I've been using them for a few years now and while there were some issues with the older 'lesser powered' models, the newer x86 models work very well with Squeezebox Server (comes pre-installed) including transcoding if ever needed. I'm currently using a ReadyNAS Ultra with 5 squeezebox clients - hasn't missed a beat. Like you I'm also mac based. -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86896 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] squeezebox setup for audiophiles
Sox is installed and supported on ReadyNAS devices which the OP mentions. All the x86 based ReadyNAS are capable of transcoding. -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86419 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Better resampling for SB Classic and Touch (probably all)
pippin;622630 Wrote: > Why on earth souls I want to UPSAMPLE??? > I mean: why do I store material in a lossless format if I then add a > lossy process to it (although minor, there will be arithmetic losses > when up sampling 44.1kHz material to 96kHz). While up sampling doesn't add any additional "information" to the audio datastream, it can greatly impact the D-to-A process, and as there are different ways to upsample that can result in a different experience As to whether one method of up sampling is better than another however I would suggest is extremely subjective -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84462 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Better resampling for SB Classic and Touch (probably all)
It's an "enable the hardware to support all input media" thing SOX is only used when the source material is not directly supported by the player hardware, (eg playing 24/96 on a SB3 or 24/192 on the Touch, as stated by the OP) which means only Hi Res audio material is potentially affected. If you are playing FLAC rips of standard CDs, there will be no resampling -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84462 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter lost something when I hooked up Duet on same network
Phil Leigh;622431 Wrote: > The logic in the Xilinx handles the TCP to i2S conversion - ie the core > audio logic - just prior to the DAC(s). This is inside all ip3k devices > (ie not Touch or Radio). Therefore, odd AUDIO behaviour can sometimes be > traced to a glitch in the Xilinx which is resolved by reflashing it. Ah! Many thanks for that - understood, though you've got my mind racing as to root cause. Have always considered Xilinx CPLD technology far less impressive (compared to their FPGA technology) and programming issues have abounded in the past, though haven't ever encountered a *repeatable* issue that could be solved by reprogramming one. Umm... Thanks again -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86682 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter lost something when I hooked up Duet on same network
tcutting;622392 Wrote: > I don't think the Xilinx devices used in the Squeezeboxes are FPGAs, but > rather CPLDs which have "flash" configuration therefore making them > non-volatile, yet still re-programmable (also much simpler than FPGAs). You may very well be correct - however I have never known such a device to require reprogramming as part of a complete firmware reset as I get the impression is being suggested to resolve the OPs post. While a relative newcomer to the forum (long time lurker) I see this "xilinx reset" suggestion made quite often to cure a variety of ills but there doesn't appear to be any consensus on what the device actually does and so what a reset would potentially cure. I would be very interested to know. Perhaps there are different devices doing different functions in different SqueezeBox products - highly possible given the flexibility of the devices. -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86682 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter lost something when I hooked up Duet on same network
Phil Leigh;622378 Wrote: > The Xilinx FPGA doesn't "lose its program" when power is removed. that's not correct - a Xilinx FPGA is an SRAM device which by it's very nature requires programming on application of power -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86682 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter lost something when I hooked up Duet on same network
Phil Leigh;622371 Wrote: > No. So the term "Xilinx reset" doesn't refer to resetting a Xilinx device? -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86682 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter lost something when I hooked up Duet on same network
Wouldn't a Xilinx device be reprogrammed at each power on/system reset anyway? Nature of the beast... -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86682 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter lost something when I hooked up Duet on same network
aubuti;622056 Wrote: > One definition for the verb "to sync", two different applications of > that verb. :-) Touché aubuti;622056 Wrote: > One is sync'ing settings, the other is sync'ing audio playback. They are > completely independent of one another. Sync'ing mysb/SBS settings does > not sync playback, and sync'ing playback does not sync mysb/SBS. As I would hope - but does sync'ing players with mysb impact the quality of streaming when playback is not sync'ed? I would not expect so and that this lowest common denominator stream only happens on sync'ed playback - but not 100% clear from Phil's last post -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86682 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Transporter lost something when I hooked up Duet on same network
Are there 2 definitions for "sync" being used here? Sync'ing audio streams vs sync'ing settings? Or does sync'ing settings also result in all squeezeboxes getting the lowest common denominator stream quality? -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86682 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
soundcheck;621959 Wrote: > No. It's not the ethernet buffer. It's the Alsa (Linux soundlayer) > buffer. Never said otherwise -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
soundcheck;621934 Wrote: > And that's what's finally causing less jitter. Less jitter by reducing the depth of memory buffer supplied via a high speed ethernet connection? I think I understand now... -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0
firedog;621914 Wrote: > I've reinstalled the toolbox and run the ttbuffer command 3 times, and > each time I got a message that "buffer set to 4000". However, when the > Touch reboots and I run "ttstat" the buffer mod is listed as disabled > and buffer size is still "2" Why would decreasing the buffer size have any positive impact on sound quality? In fact, wouldn't setting it too low have an adverse effect due to possible under-running and there then being insufficient data to feed to the DAC? -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Awesome news -- got my S-Booster
Mnyb;620696 Wrote: > > As measured with ADM by member iPhone the output of the Touch or SB3 > does not change with another ps , there no difference. Would appreciate it if you could point me to that post/thread -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86542 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Pissing contest
You state this: magiccarpetride;619963 Wrote: > I think a good debate can be had without falling into the antagonistic > black-and-white, 'my dick is bigger than your dick' pissing contest. But let me refer you to your very first post: > What's wrong with these people? (wait, I think I know what's wrong with > them: they have no life, they are bitter for still living in their > parents' basement, or their spouses are probably cheating on them > behind their backs; that's the only plausible explanation) Ummm... An apt demonstration of a claim that does not appear to be backed up by the evidence? Off to the cellar to polish my swatch - the wife has a visitor -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86483 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Pissing contest
darrenyeats;619731 Wrote: > I think it's reasonable to provide opinions and challenge points of view > you don't agree with. All part of being neighbourly... 100% agree - and all part of contributing to forums like this. magiccarpetride;619728 Wrote: > Don't get upset if someone is gullible and falls for the snake oil. It's > not your money at the end of the day. Hope you can show the same stoicism should you ever fall victim to fraudulent claims -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86483 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Pissing contest
This issue is one of veracity of the claims - not some personal vendetta against audiophiles As your post states, that $20,000 watch may be no more accurate than a Swatch but is there a claim that it is? More importantly, is the choice to buy such an item based heavily on such claimed better technical specifications? Contrast that with some audio equipment manufacturer claims regarding their (very expensive) products that may have little to no supporting evidence/measurements to back them up (eg Denon AK-DL1?) but upon which buying decisions *are* heavily based. -- snottmonster snottmonster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45063 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86483 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
