Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
325xi;190301 Wrote: It worth noticing that here lays the major difference between tcp/ip audio data transfer SB implements, and isochronous USB used by USB DACs. TCP/IP is asynchronous, so the very word jitter isn't applicable to a path between a computer and SB, appears only in between SB and SPDIF receiver, and after that. Isochronous USB act in a manner very similar to SPDIF, so you could have jitter started on one stage earlier - already between PC and the DAC. Yes, altough USB CAN be properly used asyncronously, but almost never is.. However, I did read about an interesting USB clock recovery chip that brought down jitter to extremely low levels -better than existing SPDIF receivers. Seems that the harder the problem the better the solution. SPDIF looks simple, so hasn't been properly engineered (quick lock-on being top priority, it seems). -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
Since you guys brought it up, here is a little primer on USB audio. All modes in the official USB audio spec use isochronous transfer, this means the host is sending out packets to match a particular transfer rate (44.1 48 etc), this bandwidth is reserved on the bus. There is no handshake per packet, the host keeps on shoving them out no matter what. There are three audio modes: synchronous, adaptive and asynchronous. (remember these are ALL isochronous, so you cannot say isochronous or asynchronous, asynchronous IS isochronous!) Synchronous connects a PLL to the actual data stream on the USB bus. This is the simplest connection but is VERY susceptible to jitter on the bus since the PLL is directly tracking the bus. A number of cheap early USB audio devices used this mode, but its pretty rare today. Adaptive mode uses a frequency sysnthesizer of some sort to clock the data out of the chip. The frequency is changed slowly based on how full or empty the fifo is getting. The host is still in ultimate control, but the output clock is not directly slaved to the bus, this can have much lower jitter than synchronous mode. There are MANY different implementations of this mode, some almost entirely analog and some implemented in software on a processor. Some of these are actually pretty darned good. Almost all implementations today use this mode. Asynchronous mode, a completely separate clock is used to clock out the data (you CAN use a super low jitter clock for this). A separate channel is opened over the bus going from the receiver to the host which tells the host to occasionally slightly speed up or slow down the transmission. If the FIFO in the receiver is getting empty it tells the host to speed up etc. Note the asynchronous mode is not really the same as TCP/IP, there is no request or handshake per packet, there is NO error correction, if a bad packet is found, tough. (error detection bits are sent, but the only thing you can do with them is blink a front pannel light, there is no retransmission capability) The TI 1020 and 3200 are the only USB audio chips I'm aware of that even have the capability of asynchronous mode, BUT you have to program the chip to do this. This is not easy, I spent many months trying to do this and finally gave up. I only know of one person that has successfully implemented asynchronous mode on one of these chips. There HAVE been a couple of implementations using non-audio USB enabled microprocessors, but again this takes custom firmware and drivers on the computer. The companies that have done this are not high end companies and have not taken advantage of the asynchronous mode to produce very low jitter implementations. The high end companies can't afford the manpower and time it takes to implement one of these, and the companies that have implemented it are not sharing thier implementation with the rest of the world. I hope that clears the air a little on this subject. John S. -- JohnSwenson JohnSwenson's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5974 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
FLAC for quality better _ http://kudapoyti.com.ua -- Artem85 Artem85's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10922 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
jhm731;189831 Wrote: 325xi- The Mac Mini isn't a laptop. I haven't seen any published jitter specs for any Mac products other Stereophile's test of the $129. Airport Express, which measured 258ps using a Musical Fidelity X-DACV3 DAC verses their 321ps measurement for the SB3. I'll bet the digital outputs on the Mac Mini, Powerbook or iMac are as least as good as the AE. It uses cramped laptop parts. As a free human being you can bet for whatever you want, even that white is black - your right. Stereophile jitter numbers, measured on analog outs don't mean much, and Dan Lavry was among the first to state it. What I say is that... I prefer to consider any mass market sound card, including the one in your Mini, is bad, unless proven otherwise. Can you prove? P Floding;189936 Wrote: Yet again a total and utter misunderstanding of how things actually work. Don't worry though, prominent hifi reviewers are often equally confused. The wired or wireless TCP/IP (network) connection is TOTALLY transparent to the SB3. The SB3 _asks_ for data and buffers lots of it and plays it back AT ITS OWN CLOCK'S SPEED. I believe it is exactly this lack of understanding of the massive benefits of _pulling_ the data from a TCP/IP network that keep making reviwers have silly preconceptions. It worth noticing that here lays the major difference between tcp/ip audio data transfer SB implements, and isochronous USB used by USB DACs. TCP/IP is asynchronous, so the very word jitter isn't applicable to a path between a computer and SB, appears only in between SB and SPDIF receiver, and after that. Isochronous USB act in a manner very similar to SPDIF, so you could have jitter started on one stage earlier - already between PC and the DAC. -- 325xi 325xi's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5661 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
325xi;190301 Wrote: Isochronous USB act in a manner very similar to SPDIF, so you could have jitter started on one stage earlier - already between PC and the DAC. Hang on a minute USB also has an asynchronous mode, where the receiver pulls the data from the sender. I had always assumed that USB DACs would use asynchronous mode, because it's the mode that makes sense. You seem to be suggesting that they don't - can you confirm this for sure? -- cliveb Performers - dozens of mixers and effects - clipped/hypercompressed mastering - you think a few extra ps of jitter matters? cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
cliveb;190304 Wrote: Hang on a minute USB also has an asynchronous mode, where the receiver pulls the data from the sender. I had always assumed that USB DACs would use asynchronous mode, because it's the mode that makes sense. You seem to be suggesting that they don't - can you confirm this for sure? Yes, I can, but I'd suggest you to look even in this very forum to confirm that. There's no audio chipset supporing asynchronous USB. There are few custom solutions, such as Empirical Audio, but all the USB DACs use what they have off the shelf - isochronous USB. -- 325xi 325xi's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5661 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
325xi;190307 Wrote: Yes, I can, but I'd suggest you to look even in this very forum to confirm that. There's no audio chipset supporing asynchronous USB. There are few custom solutions, such as Empirical Audio, but all the USB DACs use what they have off the shelf - isochronous USB. If the right parts aren't available to build a device properly, then why build it at all? (OK, I realise that if you can sell the damn things, then that's a reason to make them, but from an engineering perspective it's crazy). What am I missing here? -- cliveb Performers - dozens of mixers and effects - clipped/hypercompressed mastering - you think a few extra ps of jitter matters? cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
cliveb;190323 Wrote: If the right parts aren't available to build a device properly, then why build it at all? (OK, I realise that if you can sell the damn things, then that's a reason to make them, but from an engineering perspective it's crazy). What am I missing here? Exactly... -- 325xi 325xi's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5661 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
Thanks all. I just ordered my Squeezebox and I'll be starting this adventure later this week. I realize that while I'm late to this party it still isn't mainstream just yet. The number of choices and options is tough to sort through. So I think it's just best to start spending money and give things a go. I appreciate your help. Oh, in the end, I choose the Squeezebox for three reasons: 1. It is a good starting place -- a self-contained solution 2. It seems to be well supported and generally capable 3. This forum community seems dedicated to improvements Thanks -- creativepart creativepart's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10822 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
jhm731 wrote: Robin Bowes;189863 Wrote: My expectations are that you cannot say that one digital source should be as good as another. I'm not in a position to say whether one is better than the other or vice versa, but I certainly wouldn't expect them to be the same. I believe that is a more valid expectation than yours. R. You're right, I shouldn't expect the Mac Mini's and SB3's digital outputs to sound exactly the same, so I'd like to revise the expectation of my original suggestion to creativepart Option one: Mac Mini's built in optical digital output to an external DAC Option two: a Mac Mini wirelessly connected to a SB3, and then digital out to the same external DAC. Revised expectation: Option one should sound better. Why? R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
jhm731 wrote: I've never said all digital sources are the same, and they all work just the same with all external dacs and every possible cable, both coax and optical. I said the Mac Mini's digital output should be atleast as good as the SB3's digital out using a DAC like the Lavry, which others on this forum have reported works well with a SB3. Why should it? Until you perform a Mac Mini/SB3 comparison/measurements,your expectations are no more valid than mine. My expectations are that you cannot say that one digital source should be as good as another. I'm not in a position to say whether one is better than the other or vice versa, but I certainly wouldn't expect them to be the same. I believe that is a more valid expectation than yours. R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
Robin Bowes;189863 Wrote: My expectations are that you cannot say that one digital source should be as good as another. I'm not in a position to say whether one is better than the other or vice versa, but I certainly wouldn't expect them to be the same. I believe that is a more valid expectation than yours. R. You're right, I shouldn't expect the Mac Mini's and SB3's digital outputs to sound exactly the same, so I'd like to revise the expectation of my original suggestion to creativepart Option one: Mac Mini's built in optical digital output to an external DAC. Option two: a Mac Mini wirelessly connected to a SB3, and then digital out to the same external DAC. Revised expectation: Option one should sound better. -- jhm731 jhm731's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7685 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
jhm731;189931 Wrote: You're right, I shouldn't expect the Mac Mini's and SB3's digital outputs to sound exactly the same, so I'd like to revise the expectation of my original suggestion to creativepart Option one: Mac Mini's built in optical digital output to an external DAC. Option two: a Mac Mini wirelessly connected to a SB3, and then digital out to the same external DAC. Revised expectation: Option one should sound better. Yet again a total and utter misunderstanding of how things actually work. Don't worry though, prominent hifi reviewers are often equally confused. The wired or wireless TCPIP (network) connection is TOTALLY transparent to the SB3. The SB3 _asks_ for data and buffers lots of it and plays it back AT ITS OWN CLOCK'S SPEED. I believe it is exactly this lack of understanding of the massive benefits of _pulling_ the data from a TCPIP network that keep making reviwers have silly preconceptions. -- P Floding No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if you ask me.) P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
FLAC for quality, tagging and trouble-free streaming. Best thing since sliced bread. -- bernt http://www.last.fm/user/ottovonkopp/ bernt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1342 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
I would say given the level of your system you should be considering a Transporter or SB/External DAC equivalent. -- The Smokester The Smokester's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9198 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
Thank you for your detailed help. I had not really considered all that a Squeezebox could do. However, the only things that are important to me at this time -- however that may change -- is the ability to use the files on my Mac Mini with my stereo system AND to be able to access my playlists, etc. Also, of course, it is manditory to be able to quickly and easily grow into a better stand alone DAC system. Both of my mentioned options do both of these things. There is one plus for the SQ and one negative for the SQ as well. The plus is seeing the song display. I think that's pretty big. The negative is not being able to play iTunes purchased music. Now, I've never purchased anything on iTunes because I don't like 128K MP3 files. But someday that could change and iTunes will offer Lossless files. Then, maybe I would purchase some music from iTunes. I'm leeeaning toward the Squeezebox as my starting point. Thanks again for all the help. I really appreciate it. -- creativepart creativepart's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10822 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
The other player to consider is the Sonos system.. it does somethings better than SB somethings not as well. -- ErikM ErikM's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7576 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
Apple DRM can be circumvented by burnig a CD and reimporting to Itunes. If Itunes offers lossless in the future there would be no degradation in SQ. There are some software programs that will do this automatically. You might want to listen to a Transporter before going with the SB, it is one of the best DACs out there, IMO. -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
azinck3;189647 Wrote: 6. Do you care about anytime access to a central database of music that you can access over the internet via slimserver? Azinck3, could you please expand that line a bit more? I am still exploring SB... -- smarjan smarjan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9592 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
smarjan;189754 Wrote: Azinck3, could you please expand that line a bit more? I am still exploring SB... Slimserver is a server application that runs on your computer and does 2 things, primarily: 1) serve music/data to hardware players like the SB or transporter and software players like softsqueeze or media player (via mp3 stream) 2) Gives you centralized control/browsing/search for all your music and all your players via a web interface. While slimserver has many other capabilities, those are the two things its primarily designed to accomplish. This is nice because all of your music is in one place, in one database, and control of all playback devices is unified. From any computer in the world with a web browser and internet connectivity I can browse and listen to all of my music and control any of my squeezeboxes (I have 4). Another cool thing: I have a couple of friends with squeezeboxes and when I'm at their houses sometimes we want to listen to my collection and all it takes is pointing their SB's at my server. Slimserver and softsqueeze are a free download--I'd recommend you give them a try to get familiar with the paradigm. -- azinck3 azinck3's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3967 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
The thing I don't get is why anyone would want to buy DRM files (lossless or not) from anywhere...It's certainly not something I will ever do. I don't want music to be licensed to me - I want to own it...and do anything with it that is legal / fair use. -- Phil Leigh Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
creativepart;189638 Wrote: I like the SQ concept, but with the Mac Mini I get a remote control and iTunes and built in WiFi so I'm pretty set. With the AEX I could be up and running off of iTunes in an hour or less using the AEX's internal DAC. With the Mac Mini you also get an optical digital output which you can plug directly into a external DAC. Buy a DAC, optical cable and a small display for your Mac Mini and you're done. -- jhm731 jhm731's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7685 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
jhm731;189768 Wrote: With the Mac Mini you also get an optical digital output which you can plug directly into a external DAC. Buy a DAC, optical cable and a small display for your Mac Mini and you're done. Why do you think mere having optical out guarantees quality of that mini sound card feeding that out? -- 325xi 325xi's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5661 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
When you get your Mac Mini, be sure to disable (under pref. in iTunes) the sound candy such as eq, soundcheck and enhancer. Under applications-utilities-find midi and see that 44.1kHz is checked. Also, be sure that iTunes and the main Mini volume are set at max, and use you pre-amp/receiver to adjust volume. I have a Mini in my listening room and used iTunes/ALAC for all two channel listening. The mini was connected via a glass toslink to my pre-amp. It sounds very good. After a year or so, I decided I wanted an external DAC, researched a lot, but decided on a Transporter because of the positive feedback concerning its DAC. I have converted all my ALAC files to FLAC, and only use Slimserver. The one feature I really miss from iTunes is the ease of navagating through the georgeos Album art view. With the recent iTunes update, it is now full screen. That said, overall, I prefer Slimserver to iTunes. As another poster mentioned, burn DRM files to a cd, then importing the files will solve your concern. Mark -- yooper yooper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
A mate bought an airport express, only had it working for 1/2 hour or so, and then put it back in the box. Apparently he could not live with the sound it was producing. I did not listen and don't know exactly how he set it up, so I'm afraid I can't comment on set up etc. After further research he has decided to go for a SB once he has more cash. So it may be an idea to get a listen to all in the equation, if at all possible. -- Deaf Cat Deaf Cat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=515 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
jhm731 wrote: 325xi;189770 Wrote: Why do you think merely having optical out guarantees quality of that mini sound card feeding that out? Why do you think the SB's digital output would sound any better than the Mac Mini's digital output? Have you compared them? There are several reasons why I would expect the SB's digital output to be better than a Mac Mini digital out. I've not done a comparison as I don't have a Mac Mini. If you use an external DAC like the Lavry, the Mac Mini's digital output should perform just as well as the SB's digital ouput. Sure, because all digital sources are the same, and they all work just the same with all external dacs and every possible cable, both coax and optical. Yeah, right. R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
jhm731;189791 Wrote: Why do you think the SB's digital output would sound any better than the Mac Mini's digital output? Have you compared them? I don't state one is better then the other, but when someone tells me he's going to use generic laptop soundcard I would be concerned, unless I know that that particular generic laptop soundcard is very good. jhm731;189791 Wrote: If you use an external DAC like the Lavry, the Mac Mini's digital output should perform just as well as the SB's digital ouput. Visit Lavry's own forums, you'll find many interesting things to consider. For example that even Lavry, while being among the best in handling jitter, doesn't get any close to filtering out all of it. And tiny card jammed in tiny case - you'll never know what's going on with EMI/RF over there... -- 325xi 325xi's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5661 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
325xi- The Mac Mini isn't a laptop. I haven't seen any published jitter specs for any Mac products other Stereophile's test of the $129. Airport Express, which measured 258ps using a Musical Fidelity X-DACV3 DAC verses their 321ps measurement for the SB3. I'll bet the digital outputs on the Mac Mini, Powerbook or iMac are as least as good as the AE. Mr.Bowes- I've never said all digital sources are the same, and they all work just the same with all external dacs and every possible cable, both coax and optical. I said the Mac Mini's digital output should be atleast as good as the SB3's digital out using a DAC like the Lavry, which others on this forum have reported works well with a SB3. Until you perform a Mac Mini/SB3 comparison/measurements,your expectations are no more valid than mine. -- jhm731 jhm731's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7685 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
325xi;189770 Wrote: Why do you think merely having optical out guarantees quality of that mini sound card feeding that out? Or the Airport Express, for that matter. This serious review of the AEX digital out -- http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcomponents/505apple/ -- sounds upbeat, but sections like the following seem a little disconcerting: One operational glitch that didn't affect my system to any significant extent but did do so for some readers was the fact that, as the AE doesn't have a local clock circuit, when the incoming data is interrupted, as it is when you change songs in iTunes, there is no longer a digital output to feed the DAC, which loses lock as a result. Both the Levinson and the Benchmark DACs that I use deal gracefully with the lost lock ... I therefore missed the fact that with some other DACs, the first seconds of a song might be cut off. AE ... is limited to ... 16-bit data only. ... It is also important to note that the AE functions only at a 44.1kHz sample rate. When you play 32kHz or 48kHz data, iTunes sample-rate-converts the data in real time before sending it to the AE. (The SB handles 44.1 and 48; the Transporter can also handle 96k. Both can handle 24-bit recordings, according to http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32951) Since Apple doesn't prominently post the sort of technical detail that you can get on Slim's hardware (http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?HardwareComparison), I think you should seek out such reviews. I get the feeling that Apple included the digital output because of the prevalence of digital inputs in mid-fi AV receivers -- not for high-end gear. Certainly Apple's marketing this as hi-fi doesn't help their hi-fi credibility: http://www.apple.com/ipodhifi/ ...but the widespread praise of the cheap T-amps makes it clear that you shouldn't rule Apple's hardware out just because their gear is not expensive enough! Sonos: a quick search in these forums will turn up hours' worth of reading. Here's one place you might start: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=23490 -Peter -- peterw http://www.tux.org/~peterw/ free plugins: http://www.tux.org/~peterw/#slim BlankSaver BottleRocket FuzzyTime SaverSwitcher SleepFade StatusFirst VolumeLock peterw's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2107 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What's better?
creativepart;189638 Wrote: So, with all the knowledge that you guys have about these choices, which way would you go? Would you say the SQ is really a good way to go at this time -- or is it more of an even draw with the AEX knowing that I'm using a Mac Mini I appreciate your responses and will carfully consider all advice given. Thanks Some of the big questions to answer (not being super-familiar with apple products these questions are more squeezebox-biased): 1. How much do you care about the Squeezebox's display? For me, having to turn on a tv or a sit at a computer to control my audio is a deal-breaker. 2. Do you want to easily expand the system and add units for multi-room audio? the SB excels at this, allowing centralized control of all audio, synchronization, and great overall flexibility. 3. Do you need to be able to play Itunes protected content? Only apple products can do that. 4. Do you care about always-on access to pandora and rhapsody via squeezenetwork? 5. The SB and slimserver are amazingly customizable with community plugins available to do virtually anything you can imagine, from checking voicemail, weather, sports, integration into home-control systems like xpl and others, and so much more. Are these things that matter to you? 6. Do you care about anytime access to a central database of music that you can access over the internet via slimserver? 7. Do you want to be able to use unique control devices like a pda, nokia770, any computer, an IR remote, crestron system, or any of the other myriad devices that can interface to control a SS/SB system? All of this hits on one major thing: A big selling point of the squeezebox is the overall architecture. It's not simply about how good it sounds or how pretty the web interface is. It's a unique architecture, providing a centralized repository for music that can be flexibly streamed to different playback devices and simultaneously controlled by different control devices. It's very open, very extensible. This is quite different from the Apple model and I think having a good understanding of this difference will ultimately inform your decision. -- azinck3 azinck3's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3967 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33836 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
