ralphpnj wrote:
Good post. One minor comment: why the focus on SACD players. Streaming
24bit/88.2 or 96 kHz high resolution files via either the Touch or
Transporter into a DAC of your choice should result in the same quality
as SACD playback plus you can stream these files to any room. For
jh901 wrote:
This would be terrific if the primary driver of digital sound quality
was the bitrate, etc. There are so many 16/44 PCM redbook CDs with
better sound quality that any hi-res available simply because the modern
day mastering engineer shoots for loudness and doesn't understand
I've taken the plunge and ordered a Beresford Bushmaster DAC
(TC-7530DC). I currently have an SB3, but have read opinions that the
best combination possible is a Touch feeding an external DAC. But why?
Given that the DAC circuitry in the Squeezebox device doesn't come into
it, how much of an
I have an SB3 and a Touch, and have had both hooked up to my Dacmagic on
occasions. I have not been able to distinguish between the two
Squeezeboxes. If you don't need the extra bells and whistles of the
Touch, save your money.
I agree that it is doubtful that you could hear a difference. Those
that can measure these things think that the S/PDIF coax path measures
better in the TOUCH. The power supply in the touch seems much less
noisy to me (interference with other things near by, like an FM tuner).
The Touch can
ralphpnj wrote:
Agreed. However that was not what I asked, which is when a high
resolution, good sounding and well produced master of a recording is
available why do you seem to prefer the SACD version over the 24bit/88.2
or 96kHz files version? In other words disc playback instead of
There was a fair bit of discussion after the Touch's release (and even
before release once the secret was out and beta testers could discuss it
on the forums) about the comparative quality of the SB3/Classic digital
outs and the Touch's. A lot of people, including some whose opinions I
respect a
I see it as a threshold phenomen once the signal is good enough for your
DAC to cope with it you can't tell the difference.
But modern DAC's are very good at coping with bad signals and even the
most humble modern source is good enough anyway .
I remember different times in the 90's where
Thanks guys, it's all about the sound for me. Personally I do like the
retro mono-colour look of the SB3 display. I don't need touch-screen
features, not if I can't take it to the sofa!
jezbo's Profile:
Can SB3 do 24/96 through SPDIF? I thought SPDIF didn't have bandwidth
enough.
gorman's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=56
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=96868
gorman wrote:
Can SB3 do 24/96 through SPDIF? I thought SPDIF didn't have bandwidth
enough.
No. But that's because of LMS talking with the SB3 not the S/PDIF
itself.
garym's Profile:
gorman wrote:
Can SB3 do 24/96 through SPDIF? I thought SPDIF didn't have bandwidth
enough.
Coaxial SPDIF can handle 24/192. The optical link maxes out at 24/96.
The SB3 maxes out at 24/48.
Stratmangler's Profile:
gorman wrote:
Can SB3 do 24/96 through SPDIF? I thought SPDIF didn't have bandwidth
enough.
Nope it's a hardware limit I don't think it can do it at all . The DAC
chip is probably ok with it but not the CPU and ram .
13 matches
Mail list logo
