Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
Yes I prefer TOSLINK now. Due to other changes my system is generally better sounding now (e.g.: speaker positioning; using physical attenuation within the Benchmark [not output attenuators but the internal calibration trimmers]) so I view this current preference as more meaningful than previous. After I changed my mind, I had a dig into the measurements again since swapping back and forth was a little annoying and I wanted to see what's what! Well, for both Touch and DAC1 the measurable difference is very slightly in favour of TOSLINK. The Touch's TOSLINK has been measured as very slightly better than the coax by Arch here: http://archimago.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/measurements-logitech-touch-as-transport.html The Benchmark DAC1 HDR's TOSLINK has been measured as very slightly better than the coax by Ken Rockwell here: http://kenrockwell.com/audio/benchmark/dac1-hdr.htm#meas The figure you want is captioned Narrowband FFT of 10 kHz output at 0 dBFS, CBS CD-1 track 9, played on a crappy old Sony DVP-NC85H DVD changer via a 12 foot TOSLINK cable. roll mouse over to compare to the same thing via coax - the general side bands are swings and roundabouts but notice how the central skirt lifts and widens slightly when you rollover for coax. Since this is the Logitech audio forum, I should reiterate the above measurements don't mean I am not imagining a difference, and there is no evidence that jitter at this level is actually audible, and my perceptions are just a nice story. I write what I hear, but don't take it seriously since the latest comparisons were sighted. Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
darrenyeats wrote: I did some blind listening last week coax versus TOSLINK out of the SBT into DAC1. Not perfect because I was alone - I ended up spinning my DAC1 remote with my eyes closed but I confused myself enough to have no idea what was what on the various attempts with various tracks, but I suppose subconsciously anything's possible. I was able to zone in on differences blind and preferred the coax every time. Update. After some time and many other tweaks, I tried this again. I perceive a difference but I'm no longer sure the coax is better than TOSLINK in my latest set up ... will run with TOSLINK for a while to get a handle on it and report back. Darren Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
Archimago wrote: Fantastic info. Thanks John. BTW: Are you running room correction software on these? Curious what plugin... I am not running room correction software, but I am running upsampling in Squeezelite using a filter spec that a friend and I developed for the DAC chip we are using in CSP. The room correction software I WANT to use is Dirac, but we have to figure out a way to get it into the flow on the wandboard. John S. JohnSwenson's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5974 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
Archimago wrote: John, which Wandboard are you guys basing the CSP design off of? Duo, quad? Thanks... The software is written for both the dual and the quad. Everything runs fine on the dual, I've had a dual running LMS, playing 192k files, filtering in software, outputting to USB and it is using less than 10% of the resources to do that. What the quad gives you is a working SATA port. The only thing I can think of that might need the extra processing power is if you are running some compute intensive room correction software as a plugin to LMS. Since an off the shelf version of CSP will not be coming with a SATA drive, there is no reason to be using it and these will most likely come with a dual. John S. JohnSwenson's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5974 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
Fantastic info. Thanks John. BTW: Are you running room correction software on these? Curious what plugin... Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
I have written a series of articles on AudioStream that go into technical details on how differences can get through reclocking. For use with a USB input you might want to try the Community Squeeze project. ( www.CommunitySqueeze.com ) runs on a Wandboard (small Arm computer) which does VERY well at USB. I think it is somewhat better than a Touch. The Wandboard DOES have a TOSLINK out, but it is not particularly good, the S/PDIF on the Touch is better. We are also coming out with our own hardware player which has an exceptionally good sounding DAC, USB out that is very good and an exceptionally good coax S/PDIF. We are not ready with it yet, it should be coming out later this year (note I am NOT saying exactly HOW much later!) It uses the core guts of the wandboard for its processor so if you buy a wandboard now you can use it with the CSP (community Squeeze Player) John S. JohnSwenson's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5974 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
John, which Wandboard are you guys basing the CSP design off of? Duo, quad? Thanks... Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
@ eduardoo What kit are you running and what acoustic treatments do you have in your listening space? digital groove | 'Vivere DAC MKI' (http://vivereaudio.com/post/2013/08/16/DAC-I-is-Born!.aspx) | 'ATC SCA2' (http://www.atcloudspeakers.co.uk/hi-fi/electronics/source-pre-amplifiers/sca2/) | 'ATC SCM100ASLT' (http://www.atcloudspeakers.co.uk/hi-fi/loudspeakers/tower-series/scm100aslt/) *'Linux finally gets a great audio tagger' (http://www.ubuntugeek.com/linux-finally-gets-a-great-audio-tagger.html): 'puddletag' (http://puddletag.sourceforge.net/)* - now packaged in most Linux distributions. audiomuze's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=33613 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
Yes it does . Any of them in practice . Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
eduardoo wrote: Subjective indeed, but it does not take very long for me to tell that I am in the wrong input if I listen carefully. (The arguments and merits of DBT would probably exist as long as this hobby does. I don't disagree if one buys either school of thought. It's a hobby for fun afterall) Thanks for the clarification - and definitely not looking to start another DBT debate, just checking. The galvanic isolation was my reason for trying the toslink. Strangely, it does not seem any less noisy and the coaxial actually has a better presentation of silence. I would say that that rules out electrical noise as the cause. To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
Julf wrote: Thanks for the clarification - and definitely not looking to start another DBT debate, just checking. I would say that that rules out electrical noise as the cause. The optical transmitters and receivers are half electrical by nature. So noise might still feature in the difference with coax - but admittedly not noise passing via the glass cable! Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
darrenyeats wrote: The optical transmitters and receivers are half electrical by nature. So noise might still feature in the difference with coax - but admittedly not noise passing via the glass cable! Guess I should have written I would say that that rules out electrical noise from the SBT as the cause. To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
eduardoo wrote: I think the SBT can probably do better with better parts quality, clocking circuitry, power regulation and isolation (although I am using a custom made linear supply already) and better isolating (RF and vibration) casework. I am not sure if the Esoteric reclocks incoming spdif (it most likely does). It can also do async USB, but only with drivers installed, so probably won't work with the SBT. And that was kind of my question - if the DAC reclocks, what difference would the better parts quality, clocking circuitry, power regulation and isolation and better isolating (RF and vibration) casework actually make? To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
Julf wrote: And that was kind of my question - if the DAC reclocks, what difference would the better parts quality, clocking circuitry, power regulation and isolation and better isolating (RF and vibration) casework actually make? Theoretically, I guess no, but it does seem that different streamers and digital transports do sound different, be that my old SB Duet, the SBT before and after EDO and TT3.0, my laptops, Toslink vs. coaxial, etc. Putting my SBT on a firm foundation and changing to a linear PS all seem to make a diff, too. Maybe electrical noise is the culprit? But coaxial generally sounds better than the glass toslink I have. So, I am tending to believe that there is indeed a difference that could be made by a better made machine. eduardoo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=25850 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
eduardoo wrote: it does seem that different streamers and digital transports do sound different Based on subjective, not objective experiments? (no, not starting a debate, just clarifying) Maybe electrical noise is the culprit? But coaxial generally sounds better than the glass toslink I have. Interesting, considering toslink provides total galvanic isolation from electrical noise. To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
I did some blind listening this week coax versus TOSLINK out of the SBT into DAC1. Not perfect because I was alone - I ended up twiddling my DAC1 remote with my eyes closed but I confused myself enough to call it blind. I was able to zone in on differences blind and picked the coax every time. Don't know why. Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
darrenyeats wrote: Note that Ken Rockwell has measured very small but real differences between the various DAC1 interfaces (the USB was an especial outlier for some reason) and there are tiny differences in performance with the SBT between the interfaces too. Sounds interesting - any links/pointers? To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
http://kenrockwell.com/audio/benchmark/dac1-hdr.htm#meas Note the DAC1 is pro DAC so the XLRs output about 12V RMS without output attenuators. With 20db attenuators in place it's about 1.2V RMS. So in a domestic setting, you need attenuation. The issue is, I don't like the sound of the output attenuators despite Benchmark's claims they are transparent. So I am using between 30-45db of digital attenuation. So what is 125db down in the jitter sidebands is 80-95db down for me. The natural response is don't use digital attenuation but the alternatives are less transparent to my ears! Is digital attenuation worse for noise and distortion than the alternative? See measurement captioned THD versus frequency at 0 dBFS, -60 dB gain, 2 mV RMS output, 22kHz bandwidth. here: http://kenrockwell.com/audio/cambridge/dacmagic-plus.htm#meas and a direct comparison to the DAC1 HDR's physical pot which at -60db gain using its ALPS pot has similar distortion! Despite the HDR starting off with lower distortion unattenuated. I realise that Ken was testing this with HDR set to 20db output attenuators, my point is from a better starting point the physical attenuation of the ALPS pot is worse for THD than digital attenuation. Sure, fixed attenuators will perform better in theory but Ken's test shows that physical attenuation is no free lunch. The mechanisms I'm not sure about - thermal noise and changed impedance are the only two I know about for sure, but at the end of the day an additional resistor network put in the signal path is not desirable per se. The best response of all is get a new DAC ... and I will! But despite the discussion above it's sounding the best it's ever sounded set up this way! Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
darrenyeats wrote: I did some blind listening last week coax versus TOSLINK out of the SBT into DAC1. Not perfect because I was alone - I ended up spinning my DAC1 remote with my eyes closed but I confused myself enough to have no idea what was what on the various attempts with various tracks, but I suppose subconsciously anything's possible. I was able to zone in on differences blind and preferred the coax every time. FWIW we are talking really subtle perceived changes but here is the character of them. I'm not trying to wind you up Julf! The coax seemed to have in effect a cleaner bass and treble, I suppose the overall effect was of a more prominent mid, but it might have been just an imaging difference with the some of the mid content being projected more forward (the image depth was still good when there was stuff going on behind) and a cleaner sound. The TOSLINK sounded -as if- it had a bit more bass/treble and a recessed mid, perhaps in image terms or otherwise, I don't know. It sounded a bit more glassy and echoey like a very soft bass and treble lift but subjectively in a slightly messy way. As I said, slightly! I AM NOT SAYING THE INTERFACE CHANGES FREQUENCY RESPONSE. These are differences in my perception, the mechanisms for what I perceived are probably complicated. My impressions should not be interpreted as technical statements, they are just mental constructs (and subtle). I'd be interested to hear Eduardoo's subjective impressions to see if they are wildly different, similar or the same! I wouldn't be surprised if end perceptions are quite system and person dependent. Don't know why it is that way. Note that Ken Rockwell has measured very small but real differences between the various DAC1 interfaces (the USB was an especial outlier for some reason) and there are tiny differences in performance with the SBT between the interfaces too. I find the coaxial to be better extended and cleaner, with a slightly bigger soundstage, and darker silence. The Toslink, sounds a little warmer and rounder, which I sometimes use for listening to old pop recordings. Not night and day differences, just very subtle but repeatable. eduardoo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=25850 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
Julf wrote: Based on subjective, not objective experiments? (no, not starting a debate, just clarifying) Interesting, considering toslink provides total galvanic isolation from electrical noise. Subjective indeed, but it does not take very long for me to tell that I am in the wrong input if I listen carefully. (The arguments and merits of DBT would probably exist as long as this hobby does. I don't disagree if one buys either school of thought. It's a hobby for fun afterall) The galvanic isolation was my reason for trying the toslink. Strangely, it does not seem any less noisy and the coaxial actually has a better presentation of silence. eduardoo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=25850 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
I have been using an SBT (with EDO and TT3.0) to feed digital via SPDIF (RCA) to my Esoteric K-03 SACD player (using it as DAC) for quite some while. While it sounds quite alright, there is always room for improvement. Better built devices out there are mostly DLNA based, which I find to be less functional and less stable than the LMS + SB setup. I am also quite fond of using the Squeezebox controller from my old Duet to control my SBT now. So, I would like to ask if there exists a thing that hopefully has the following attributes: 1) Runs on LMS and can be seen by Squeezebox controller/LMS 2) well built and sounds better (as a digital transport) than SBT 3) has digital out only (such that I don't waste money on the analog circuits I don't use) As said, most of the stuff out there don't do 1 and are DLNA based. Something like a Simaudio Mind180 and a Cyrus Stream X2 do 2 and 3, and the Cyrus has a dedicated N-remote which I do not know if it works as nicely as a Squeezebox controller. The SOTM SMS-100 seems interesting as it definitely does 1, seem to possibly satisfy 2 (comments from actual users welcomed), but is odd in that it just has USB out. My Esoteric has USB input, too, but there are 2 issues. One is that its 192 compatibility needs drivers which cannot be installed on the SOTM and I don't know how far the generic drivers would go. Secondly, there is an operation logistics issue in that practically my USB DAC cannot be always on as I have to use it as a CD player, too, which switches off the USB input. As it cycles back in, the SB service in the SOTM (like a computer) would need to be turned back on via web interface, which is way too much trouble. One way to go around that would be to use a USB to SPDIF converter in between, but it would seem strange and I don't know if it would defeat my original purpose of improving sound. Your comments would be much welcomed. Thanks. eduardoo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=25850 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
eduardoo wrote: 2) well built and sounds better (as a digital transport) than SBT What aspects of the SBT do you think should/could be changed that would result in improved sound quality from a digital output? The only real variable is the clock stability, and that only matters if your DAC uses the incoming data clock as a source for the audio clock. Sounds like the answer to your needs is a SBT with an asynch USB DAC that has an independent audio clock. To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
Whilst most modern sources should deal with jitter in the S/PDIF stream, I don't know if all do. So it might be that reducing jitter will help the Esoteric. There might be gains in reduction of noise (getting rid of the Touch's SMPS, or noise transmitted over coax for example). I perceived an improvement when I placed the SBT _only_ behind a mains filter (actually I use two phases of filter, a Tacima CS929 and a Marmitek FM10U). I believe it's important that the mains filtering sits between the transport using the SMPS and the DAC using a linear supply. Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
Julf wrote: What aspects of the SBT do you think should/could be changed that would result in improved sound quality from a digital output? The only real variable is the clock stability, and that only matters if your DAC uses the incoming data clock as a source for the audio clock. Sounds like the answer to your needs is a SBT with an asynch USB DAC that has an independent audio clock. I think the SBT can probably do better with better parts quality, clocking circuitry, power regulation and isolation (although I am using a custom made linear supply already) and better isolating (RF and vibration) casework. I am not sure if the Esoteric reclocks incoming spdif (it most likely does). It can also do async USB, but only with drivers installed, so probably won't work with the SBT. Thanks. eduardoo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=25850 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
darrenyeats wrote: Whilst most modern sources should deal with jitter in the S/PDIF stream, I don't know if all do. So it might be that reducing jitter will help the Esoteric. There might be gains in reduction of PS or other noise (getting rid of the Touch's SMPS, or noise transmitted over coax?) I perceived an improvement when I placed the SBT _by_itself_ behind a mains filter (actually I use two phases of filter, a Tacima CS929 and a Marmitek FM10U). I believe putting mains filtering between the transport using the SMPS (or any other SMPSs on the mains ring) and audio equipment using linear supplies, e.g. the K-03, could be very beneficial in some cases. PS: Esoteric K-03 eh ... I heard a demo with active ATCs on the end of similar and it sounded stunning! My SBT has quite an army of supporting casts now: a custom made linear PS (connected with a very nice power cable that I have idle) plugged into an Isotek Orion power conditioner, an ethernet isolator at its LAN input, an Acrolink digital cable, and it is sitting on a little bronze platform with spikes that I made for it! Yes, the Esoteric is quite nice sounding, not to mention super reassuring in build and reliability. I'll check if the Esoteric reclocks incoming SPDIF signal. If it does, then do you see other transport alternatives that might do better? eduardoo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=25850 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does an audiophile Squeezebox (digital out only) exist now?
eduardoo wrote: I think the SBT can probably do better with better parts quality, clocking circuitry, power regulation and isolation (although I am using a custom made linear supply already) and better isolating (RF and vibration) casework. I am not sure if the Esoteric reclocks incoming spdif (it most likely does). It can also do async USB, but only with drivers installed, so probably won't work with the SBT. Why don't you give it a try. I believe the drivers are needed for the computer to be able to streaming through USB, not for the benefit of the ASYNC DAC. Also try the EDO plugin (see link below), especially if you want to stream 192k hi-rez. http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?94512-Announce-Enhanced-Digital-Output-app-USB-Dac-and-192k-Digital-Ouput JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100850 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
