LarsHP wrote:
> As I said - I am no computer engineer, but my statement was regarding
> timing in the digital domain in general, not certain parts of the
> digital domain.
Then I really don't understand why you specified a certain part of the
digital domain, i.e., -"From my point of view a differ
I've done a comparison of LMS on the following
1) ReadyNas Duo - LMS 7.7.x, RAM 1GB
2) Dell Latitude E6420, Win7, 8GB (network drive to ReadyNas Duo)
Squeezebox touch with TT3.0 installed all running on wired network
I find the Squeezebox sounds better with LMS running on Duo. Sounds
clean an
Triode wrote:
> Can you confirm the same is true between the two jive_alsa's files I
> attached (which are the same as in the two downloads)
>
>
> Please restart the squeezeplay application with:
>
> /etc/init.d/squeezeplay restart
>
> Can you confirm the actual buffer sizes this is using (se
darrell wrote:
> If I were starting from scratch, I'd get the mini-pc and a large USB
> disk, and forget about the NAS.
I agree completely. You can get a lot more processing power per dollar
(or pound or euro) with a small form factor pc than with a NAS. The pc
also tends to be more flexible when
^ I thought it *was* galvanically isolated. Maybe not though, just the
usual transformers. I do not have any quality glass Toslink cables
anymore, so can't really test that option fairly (it sounds "dead" with
the "best" Toslink I still do have).
However, we are only comparing different versions
I don't know that I have a high-end system, more "mid-end" by some
people's standards - Cambridge Audio 840C CD/DAC, Naim Nait XS and
Dynaudio Contour 1.3mk2. There is no difference in sound quality between
using a ReadyNAS Sparc-based NAS, an atom-based mini-pc or an Intel
Core-i5 laptop. As othe
cfraser wrote:
>
> My BDA-1 DAC buffers and reclocks inputs (no upsampling) so you'd think
> that theoretically that particular interface shouldn't have an effect
> with EDO versions...but I don't know positively.
Galvanized isolation? Differences in noise created and passed on by the
touch?
guidof wrote:
> I have done extensive comparisons of EDO 0.6 and 0.7 and for the most
> part agree with your impressions.
I have not done extensive listening with 0.6, mostly with 0.5 and then
0.7 when it arrived; 0.6 "came and went" so fast that I never even got
to install it before 0.7 was the
JohnSwenson wrote:
> When changing files the changes go into a RAM buffer rather than
> immediately onto the disk (flash in this case). When the buffer gets
> full it gets written to the disk. Thus if you make changes to files and
> just unplug the Touch those changes do not get written to the di
guidof wrote:
> I have done extensive comparisons of EDO 0.6 and 0.7 and for the most
> part agree with your impressions.
>
Can you confirm the same is true between the two jive_alsa's files I
attached (which are the same as in the two downloads)
>
> For me and with my system, EDO 0.6 + TT3.0
lake_eleven wrote:
> I deleted the existing jive_alsa. Copied 0.6 version, changed the file
> access, then rebooted. Am I missing the "sync", Not sure what is this
> "sync" step.
When changing files the changes go into a RAM buffer rather than
immediately onto the disk (flash in this case). When
Can I add AVI ADM40s to the list.
I've just bought a pair and they're extraordinary (I had the ADM9Ts
already).
Phileas's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=20367
View this thread: http://forums.slimd
Jacky wrote:
> I have also made exactly this before, however, has failed to me there
> because I had forgotten the "sync" order after replacing jive_alsa
> file.
>
>
I deleted the existing jive_alsa. Copied 0.6 version, changed the file
access, then rebooted. Am I missing the "sync", Not sure w
rgro wrote:
> I've had this problem a few times and have always solved it by deleting
> the jive_alsa file first and then dragging and dropping the new one in.
> Don't know why this seems to happen with the jive_alsa file and not with
> the other ones, but it does.
I have also made exactly this
cfraser wrote:
> I still gotta say that 0.6 as heard here has something "special" to it.
> I don't know how to describe it, but if the sound was an object I might
> say "sophisticated/luxury". It feels very pleasant and personal. I have
> some doubt about the accuracy of this sound, but I do like
I'm happy with my Heed CanAmp so will go for the new DacMagic 100 I
think - though I can't find the same level of enthusiasm in the reviews
as in the previous version.
jezbo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.p
Jacky wrote:
> How is it if I want to re-instal the first version 0.1?
>
> Apparently it does not go like with version EDO 0.6, in any case, I
> tried with no success: jive_alsa will not substituted automatically!
> And if I try to substitute jive_alsa manually via SSH by drag & drop at
> user
If you get a has then get a fast one. Reason is that they are such great
devices that you will start using them for other things as well.
I got a synology 1511+ which is based on a 1,8 Ghz atom processor and I
used it (as a test) to simultaneously stream different songs to 3
Squeezebox Boom's 1 S
Mnyb wrote:
> The ultra seems a popular choice .
>
> Competitors would be vortexbox, HP proliant microserver .
>
> A shuttle or other barebones small PC, some higher end Synology modell
> .
>
> There are a bunch of plug computers and ARM based devices that are
> popular , if one will sacrifice
LarsHP wrote:
> As I said - I am no computer engineer, but my statement was regarding
> timing in the digital domain in general, not certain parts of the
> digital domain.
>
> Thanks to both of you guys for your quick replies.
>
> Do you think a ReadyNAS Ultra 2 RNDU2000 will do a good job?
>
and regarding readynas (or almost any NAS), as has been pointed out,
even when marketed as "very quiet", they are not at all the sort of
thing you want to have in the listening room with you (i.e., they are
quieter than your lawn mower, but NOT silent). But of course that's the
beauty of the SB ap
LarsHP wrote:
> Do you think a ReadyNAS Ultra 2 RNDU2000 will do a good job?
> As I understand, the NAS should preferably be x86 compatible ...
There are users here that use the readynas ultra and report excellent
results. My understanding is that the readynas ultra is an x86 machine
(which is i
garym wrote:
> As aubuti correctly points out, there is no aspect of a datastream being
> "precise" when it comes to TCP/IP getting the data from the computer/NAS
> to the TOUCH via eithernet or WIFI. It either arrives or doesn't. If it
> doesn't, there won't be subtle sound quality differences;
aubuti wrote:
> Well it definitely does not play a role in the transmission of the data
> via ethernet (or wifi) between the pc/NAS and the SB. TCP/IP has no
> "timing" beyond making sure that enough data gets to the SB on time to
> avoid dropouts (and keeping in mind the Touch's reasonably large
aubuti wrote:
> Well it definitely does not play a role in the transmission of the data
> via ethernet (or wifi) between the pc/NAS and the SB. TCP/IP has no
> "timing" beyond making sure that enough data gets to the SB on time to
> avoid dropouts (and keeping in mind the Touch's reasonably large
Do a forum search this has been debated to no end :) the forum is full
of them .
But the gist of it is as long as the network can fill the players buffer
it does not matter it is totally asynchronous .
That is in fact one of the main points with having a squeezebox it's
sound quality is totally d
LarsHP wrote:
> NAS versus PC - any sound quality difference?
Short answer: No.
A little longer answer: Everything written about jitter having any
effect in this context is bullshit. Squeezeboxes are asynchroneous wrt
to Ethernet. In fact, Ethernet is asynchroneous in its nature. So don't
beli
LarsHP wrote:
> Let's assume, that jitter does play a role in digital audio.
Well it definitely does not play a role in the transmission of the data
via ethernet (or wifi) between the pc/NAS and the SB. TCP/IP has no
"timing" beyond making sure that enough data gets to the SB on time to
avoid d
There is no difference.
Understand that the entire point of the TOUCH is that there is NOTHING
about the audio/sound card aspects of the computer or NAS that has
anything to do with the audio reproduction of the TOUCH. Much of the
discussion about sound quality and computers has been in the con
There are no relevant technical differences when it comes to delivering
data to the SB between PC/Mac and NAS, some varieties of NAS are
architecturally nearly identical to your average desktop PC. As long as
it is powerful enough to deliver data at a fast enough rate there will
be no difference.
I am considering a NAS instead of using my PC since I would like to be
able to play music without having my laptop/PC turned on.
At one forum I read someone saying that the sound from a PC/Mac based
system was better (less jitter, I expect) than when running from a NAS
or USB HDD to the SB Touch
How is it if I want to re-instal the first version 0.1?
Apparently it does not go like with version EDO 0.6, in any case, I
tried with no success: jive_alsa will not substituted automatically!
And if I try to substitute jive_alsa manually via SSH by drag & drop at
user/bin, the following te
32 matches
Mail list logo
