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)
It was just reported that the guy who reported slight problems with
7.5.4. made it to 4000 again after upgrading to 7.6..
Obviously he couldn't live with that 7.5.4. situation. ;)
--
soundcheck
'soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0'
brjoon1021;624087 Wrote:
My belief is that there is too much (information - to be recorded)
there for current digital parameters to capture as well as analog
can.
I did say analog, not vinyl here as some of you started talking about
digitally ripping copies of your records. I wasn't
brjoon1021;624087 Wrote:
My belief is that there is too much (information - to be recorded)
there for current digital parameters to capture as well as analog
can.
I did say analog, not vinyl here as some of you started talking about
digitally ripping copies of your records. I wasn't
Are you decoding flac at the server and not at the device (file settings
in SBS)? If so, the files won't play on the duet, as the decoding is
done at the native level, which is too high for the Duet.
If you have a Duet and a Touch on your network and want the files to
play on both, you need to
callesoroe;624001 Wrote:
I had problems with exactly that track earlier. Convert the file to waw
and the back to FLAC with max compression level 5. Then it work without
popping noises.
actually, I think you can go from FLAC to FLAC (compression 5) in
either foobar2000 or dbpa and it will do
Note that the current 7.6 TP firmware (85) does not have the fix for
this bug, please try 7.5. New 7.6 firmware will be available soon.
--
andyg
andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292
View
Hello,
I must say that in my system, going down from a buffer size of 4000 to
3600 is a huge positive quality leap, and I would hate to run my SBT
with anything over 3600 again. My firmware version is 7.5.3 at the
moment... should I hold off from upgrading to anything higher, or is
there anyone
Sooner than you might think, I've just checked in updated 7.6 firmware
(v86) that should fix this problem. :)
--
andyg
andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292
View this thread:
Tom186;624153 Wrote:
My firmware version is 7.5.3 at the moment... should I hold off from
upgrading to anything higher, or is there anyone who runs 7.5.4 or 7.6
with a lower buffer size than 4000?
I don't think that there is need to upgrade.
Though, there is a slight risk that you get
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
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.
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.
snottmonster;624176 Wrote:
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)
You have the same disk protection
I just upgraded to Squeezebox Server version 7.6, build 32248. After
restarting my server and Transporter, I still get firmware version 85.
The manual upgrade of the firmware (press-and-hold the brightness
button) also just re-installs version 85.
How do I get version 86 on my Transporter?
--
I think you´ll have to wait for 32258
--
Wombat
Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers
Wombat's Profile:
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
From what I've gathered through reading many posts on this forum what
type of device one uses to run SBS really depends on the size of one's
music library. Devices like NAS boxes and Vortexboxes are very good
unless one has a very large music library (I'm guessing somewhere
around 100,000 songs
snottmonster;624227 Wrote:
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
ralphpnj;624232 Wrote:
From what I've gathered through reading many posts on this forum what
type of device one uses to run SBS really depends on the size of one's
music library. Devices like NAS boxes and Vortexboxes are very good
unless one has a very large music library (I'm guessing
Are you referring to the audio expander plugin from astound sound? The
owner was on home theater geek podcast. It looks interesting but mildly
--
MediaCenter
Source Device: Transporter
Amplifiers: Tri-Amped NAD C272 x 3
Speakers: x-Statik Passive Crossover Removed
Crossover: Active MiniDSP x
garym;624239 Wrote:
+1 on your points. To clarify on the Vortexbox. It is simply a linux
based custom system. So it can run on as powerful a computer as one can
run windows on for sure. It can be installed on a low power computer,
but it can also be installed on a very high powered computer.
ralphpnj;624255 Wrote:
Thank you for the very clear description of exactly what a Vortexbox
is.
So depending the power of the computer or cpu (in the case of lower
processing power device, I'm assuming that by power you are referring
to processing, as opposed to electrical, power - and in
EARBLASTER;623999 Wrote:
I was at a friend's stereo store and he had high resolution 24bit/192khz
audio playing through a Squeezebox into a high end rig and controlled by
an IPAD with a Logitech app.
One simple question that makes me wonder is what unit you listened
there?
--
Wombat
aspendl828;623643 Wrote:
Just bringing this slightly back on topic :-)
Has anyone had the cahnce to compare a Touch digital output with the
digital out from a Patrick Dixon SB+? Currently feeding my SB+ into a
Naim DAC with fantastic results but obviously wonder about the Touch
and
earwaxer9;624269 Wrote:
Wow! What a strange trip its been! - Given that the Touch was deemed
bit perfect by Kal at Stereophile. I would say that it cant get much
better than perfect. I think its a bit nuts to split hairs on this. The
yeoman's work rests with the DAC. Taking the SPDIF and
mervin_b;624272 Wrote:
There seems to be a never-end source of replies claiming bit-perfect =
bit-perfect = no possible audio differences possible.
If the bit-perfect stream is captured back to audio data, then yes,
bit-perfect would mean the data captured will be identical to the
27 matches
Mail list logo
