Finally it seems squeezebox version 7.5 and 7.5.1 works perfectly with
squeezebox classic. There is certainly a big massive improvement on the
sound quality between other versions. 7.5 or 7.5.1 is the best i have
ever heard my squeezbox play music in wave format though. I havent
tried it in flac,
My Transporter is telling me I need to re-set Mac Address.
How do I go about this?
--
mashley
mashley's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=36549
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthr
To my amazement, I hear the difference quite well. I'm not sure how to
describe it (never was good at finding words for this). If I look at
it, maybe the Esoteric 'spin' about slow roll off describes it not that
bad.
Because I can set the filter only from my Windows machine while my
library is on
JJZolx;569124 Wrote:
> A lot of people aren't able to run 7.6.0 due to various scanning bugs.
> If the new firmware is installed with 7.6.0 and slow roll-off filtering
> is set, what will be the net result if the player is connected to a
> 7.5.x server? Will the DAC be reset (to the default sh
Wombat;569125 Wrote:
> I wonder if the Transporter even had better reviews if this feature was
> integrated from the beginning. These days different filters are
> mentioned often and must even be a selling point.
Exactly, Esoteric has same chip and not shy to publish this:
http://www.dagogo.co
firedog;569122 Wrote:
> Several other reviewers criticized it as not offering much over SB3 and
> Duet, but didn't understand that the Touch has (a) internal SBS, no PC
> required; (B)native hi-res playback; (c)better quality digital and
> analogue outs than the previous units.
These simply are
Phil,
I prefer as well - but on high-resolution albums.
Up-sampling, however, sometimes sounds a bit artificial to my ears..
--
michael123
michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745
View
This thing seems discussed controvesral all over and not one solution
fits it all.
We now have the chance to switch when mood changes.
I wonder if the Transporter even had better reviews if this feature was
integrated from the beginning. These days different filters are
mentioned often and must
A lot of people aren't able to run 7.6.0 due to various scanning bugs.
If the new firmware is installed with 7.6.0 and slow roll-off filtering
is set, what will be the net result if the player is connected to a
7.5.x server? Will the DAC be reset (to the default sharp roll-off
filter) by instru
I think you will find that the effect varies with the music (as JS
implied) and you will prefer one slope or the other on different
tracks/albums.
Neither is "correct" - they are just "different". You are effectively
adding a complex "tone control" to the sound in both cases, because the
effects o
callesoroe;569042 Wrote:
> You will never regret your Transporter when you listen to it. It is
> awsome!! And i looks beutifull too. Especially in silver :)
Ah, well. I ordered black.
Came yesterday, still in the box, will be set up shortly.
R.
--
RonM
---
I've read several reviews of the Touch from different countries. What's
amazing (annoying) is that many of the reviewers criticized the Touch
without understanding what it is.
One criticized it for not having video playback capabilities, as if for
$300 and having a touch screen, that was a requi
michael123;569115 Wrote:
> Indeed I feel that the music is more "lively" now
Me feels exactly the opposite. Most likely cause i am used to my system
the way it is or cause i even tweaked my speakers with the sharp rolloff
as source over time :)
At least i am not alone with hearing differences.
seanadams;569113 Wrote:
> There should also be a different _phase_ response, and that is not shown
> from the simple sweep of amplitude response. It makes sense to me that
> this could affect positioning and realism, even if a tonal change is
> not detectable. But I'm still not sure why it should
JohnSwenson;568984 Wrote:
> This is a controversial subject because I don't think anybody really
> understands whats going on. After building a lot of DACs with different
> digital and analog filters and a lot of listening my current theory is
> that it has nothing to do with the ultrasonic conte
Also seems to depend what logic the DAC uses. As we have a Delta-Sigma
here it may behave different. I never understood these different
approaches completely.
--
Wombat
Transporter -> RG142 -> Avantgarde based monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 ->
self-made speakers
--
RonM;568624 Wrote:
> This is on "Home Theater and High Fidelity". Originally posted in the
> general discussion area.
>
> http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/digital-analog-converters/879-logitech-squeezebox-touch.html?showall=1
>
> I have recently ordered a Transporter, from eBay. I was nuts to d
... and this is exactly why upsampling of 44.1/48 material prior to (or
within) the DAC is a very nice thing. It enables the filter (regardless
of its slope) to have its corner frequency moved well away from the
audible band.
Some modern DAC's internally upsample to 384kHz or higher for precisely
seanadams;568666 Wrote:
>
>
> Slow filter specifies -3dB at 18.2kHz whereas sharp is -6dB at 22kHz.
> So in either case it's bat country and a well mastered 44.1KHz track
> would have been rolled off properly in analog land before the ADC (to
> prevent aliasing) so there should be nothing there
Bummer... There only seems to be a windows version available :-X
when will there be a new beta of the linux (debian) version?
--
tingtong5
tingtong5's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9671
View thi
Can't wait to try. So thats exactly what I will do, going to try right
now ;-)
--
tingtong5
tingtong5's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9671
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthre
21 matches
Mail list logo
