Kal Rubinson;619782 Wrote:
Almost as good as the SBT:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/logitech-squeezebox-touch-network-music-player-measurements
How about measuring the Touch with my Toolbox applied? ;)
--
soundcheck
'soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0'
Eriko;615923 Wrote:
So .. what's your actual suggestion? Which cheap products do you think
give high-end sound? Which is, using the SB internal DAC with Inguz
and using a Radio Shack Sound Level Meter to calibrate 20-200
frequencies and if needed, adjust higher freq. sounded much better than
darrenyeats;619592 Wrote:
If the SB3 isn't high end (I am silent on this point) then Inguz can't
help. The SB3 has a flat frequency response to begin with:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/slim-devices-squeezebox-wifi-da-processor-measurements
Almost as good as the SBT:
MichaelJ;617321 Wrote:
When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in
numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it,
when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre
and unsatisfactory kind:it may be the beginning of knowledge
Phil Leigh;617410 Wrote:
Can't comment on the V-DAC, but I have just received an MF M1... and it
sounds preferable to me to my modded X-DACv3.
Phil,just curious. If you don't think MF has good clock implementation
and your X-DACv3 required modding, why did you purchase an MF M1? Or is
it just
firedog;617428 Wrote:
Phil,just curious. If you don't think MF has good clock implementation
and your X-DACv3 required modding, why did you purchase an MF M1? Or is
it just for auditioning?
So the MF M1 is clearly superior to your modded X-DACv3 - good to know
as it is also less
magiccarpetride;617285 Wrote:
Do yourself a huge favor now that you have the Touch -- apply ALL
Soundcheck's mods (including ttvol100). You won't believe your ears!
It'll make the Touch sound five times better (at least:)
After doing that free and easy upgrade, if you have some extra cash,
stop-spinning;617432 Wrote:
I've already looked at the software mod ideas from Soundcheck - and even
suggested one of my own which he liked. He commented on finding the
right balance between streaming native PCM to the SBT in order to
minimise the processing overhead on the Touch - but if
...I have borrowed a Squeezebox Touch and the sound (as a transport at
least without any fancy tweaks) is top notch. Much more air, and
sweeter treble than the Duet. So sorry for doubting you chaps - my
plans have changed to have the SBT as my transport, so it's now looking
more like this:
SBT
stop-spinning;617156 Wrote:
...I have borrowed a Squeezebox Touch and the sound (as a transport at
least without any fancy tweaks) is top notch. Much more air, and
sweeter treble than the Duet. So sorry for doubting you chaps - my
plans have changed to have the SBT as my transport, so it's
On 11/03/11 17:59, magiccarpetride wrote:
stop-spinning;617156 Wrote:
...I have borrowed a Squeezebox Touch and the sound (as a transport at
least without any fancy tweaks) is top notch. Much more air, and
sweeter treble than the Duet. So sorry for doubting you chaps - my
plans have
Robin Bowes;617293 Wrote:
On 11/03/11 17:59, magiccarpetride wrote:
stop-spinning;617156 Wrote:
...I have borrowed a Squeezebox Touch and the sound (as a transport
at
least without any fancy tweaks) is top notch. Much more air, and
sweeter treble than the Duet. So sorry for
magiccarpetride;617308 Wrote:
sigh
Just a comment that there are those of us who tire of the endless
hyperbole that populates the vocabulary of some audio enthusiasts.
To me, a massive or stunning or whatever [insert exaggeration of
your choice] difference is comparing my pocket transistor
magiccarpetride;617308 Wrote:
sigh
When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in
numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it,
when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre
and unsatisfactory kind:it may be the beginning of
On 11/03/11 19:21, mlsstl wrote:
magiccarpetride;617308 Wrote:
sigh
Just a comment that there are those of us who tire of the endless
hyperbole that populates the vocabulary of some audio enthusiasts.
To me, a massive or stunning or whatever [insert exaggeration of
your choice]
mlsstl;617314 Wrote:
Just a comment that there are those of us who tire of the endless
hyperbole that populates the vocabulary of some audio enthusiasts.
To me, a massive or stunning or whatever [insert exaggeration of
your choice] difference is comparing my pocket transistor radio from
magiccarpetride;617365 Wrote:
This is not a pissing contest. Who cares about the validity of someone's
observations? We're here to have fun, share experiences, pull each
others' leg, etc.
Not sure why you think my comment was part of a contest. I don't
believe I suggested that anything I
Phil Leigh;616535 Wrote:
I see... My experience of Musical Fidelity gear is that their clocks
are not all they could be - they are built to a price. A really good
clock is NOT cheap and requires an equally expensive ultra-low noise
power supply. My own MF DAC has been completely rebuilt
earwaxer9;617385 Wrote:
I tried the V-DAC before I bought the transporter. Of course it the
bottom of the barrel for Musical Fidelity. Could not STAND it. Returned
it to Audio Adviser. I hate to return stuff. I almost never do it. It
means I f**ked up! Like I didnt do my homework. Of course
duke43j;616462 Wrote:
Thanks, John for explaining that. I found the section in the USB spec
that deals with async communications (not an easy section to
understand). Does the Wavelength DAC require you to install special USB
driver software in your computer?
My understanding is that for up
Phil Leigh;616367 Wrote:
OK - 79% of the speed of light then...
Just for the sake of correct physics - Not electrons travel that fast
in the circuit but the propagating ELMG field (signals) which moves
them. Electrons in a conductor are actually quite slow.
--
mhaas
mhaas;616393 Wrote:
Just for the sake of correct physics - Not electrons travel that fast in
the circuit but the propagating ELMG field (signals) which moves them.
Electrons in a conductor are actually quite slow.
Yes I know :-) I was simply using shorthand...
--
Phil Leigh
You want to
While we're at the nitpicking, also remember that the electrons travel
in the opposite direction than the electric current. :D
--
Soulkeeper
-that is not dead which can eternal lie. and with strange aeons even
death may die.-
touch + duet + boom + radio / wrt160n/dd-wrt / sbs 7.5.1 or
OK thanks for all your lovely help in this thread - my (so far)
preferred route for the ultimate transport solution (OK not ultimate
but best value by far perhaps), goes like this:
Dell Netbook 1018 USB 2.0 Isolater (to galvanically isolate the PC)
V-Link Black Cat Veloce modified DPA Little
JohnSwenson;616223 Wrote:
Async USB does NOT use handshaking...
Thanks, John for explaining that. I found the section in the USB spec
that deals with async communications (not an easy section to
understand). Does the Wavelength DAC require you to install special USB
driver software in your
stop-spinning;616457 Wrote:
OK thanks for all your lovely help in this thread - my (so far)
preferred route for the ultimate transport solution (OK not ultimate
but best value by far perhaps), goes like this:
Dell Netbook 1018 USB 2.0 Isolater (to galvanically isolate the PC)
V-Link
On 08/03/11 16:59, Phil Leigh wrote:
stop-spinning;616457 Wrote:
I can't think of anything better especially when the formula can also
be seen as:
£200 £40 £100 £60 £100 to upgrade my DPA = quite cost
effective for me and can scale well.
versus Touch+modded DPA = 180+100?
Strictly
Phil Leigh;616466 Wrote:
versus Touch+modded DPA = 180+100?
Phil, I figured that the clock in the Touch would not be as good as the
clock in the V-Link from a dedicated audio company - so pulling the
clock out to the V-Link (using async) seemed the best course of action.
The netbook should be
Robin Bowes;616491 Wrote:
On 08/03/11 16:59, Phil Leigh wrote:
stop-spinning;616457 Wrote:
I can't think of anything better especially when the formula can
also
be seen as:
£200 £40 £100 £60 £100 to upgrade my DPA = quite cost
effective for me and can scale well.
stop-spinning;616528 Wrote:
Phil, I figured that the clock in the Touch would not be as good as the
clock in the V-Link from a dedicated audio company - so pulling the
clock out to the V-Link (using async) seemed the best course of action.
The netbook should be far more versatile and costs
Robin Bowes;616491 Wrote:
...Still cheaper than stop-spinning's solution though (£200 + £180 +
£100 £200 + £40 + £100 + £60 + £100)
This is starting to sound like the routine at the end of the movie
Clue where they try to count the number of gunshots fired.
--
mlsstl
I would think that the best of worlds would be where the transport feeds
a DAC over a digital interface that supports flow control (e.g.
Ethernet). That way the DAC would be able to fill a local buffer
(memory) with digital data that is then clocked out to the converter
with an independent clock.
duke43j;616181 Wrote:
I would think that the best of worlds would be where the transport feeds
a DAC over a digital interface that supports flow control (e.g.
Ethernet). That way the DAC would be able to fill a local buffer
(memory) with digital data that is then clocked out to the converter
Phil Leigh;616200 Wrote:
It's similar, but the BEST way to connect transport to Dac is via i2s,
with a clock connection from dac to transport, so that the dac clock
drives the transport.
Yes, that may work just as well if the time delays across the interface
are accounted for. But I don't
duke43j;616181 Wrote:
I think that is the way the Wavelength DAC works using a USB interface.
From reading the literature, it sounds like it controls the flow of
data by sending NAKs (not acknowledge) back to the source which
effectively tells the source to retransmit the data (thereby
duke43j;616210 Wrote:
Yes, that may work just as well if the time delays across the interface
are accounted for. But I don't see how that would be better.
I suggest you read up on it - it's been established best practice for
about 20 years!
There are no time delays (electrons travel at speed
Phil Leigh;616239 Wrote:
There are no time delays (electrons travel at speed of light...
Not -quite- that fast:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_propagation_speed
but probably quick enough... :)
--
Peter314
Peter314;616283 Wrote:
Not -quite- that fast:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_propagation_speed
but probably quick enough... :)
OK - 79% of the speed of light then...
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
Phil Leigh;615791 Wrote:
It's no assumption, it is fact - the circuit is different and better.
The way the s/pdif is formed and sent is cleaner.
I'm not sure why you keep asking subtle variations on the same
question?
It's almost as if you'd prefer it if there was no difference...
I
stop-spinning - you can't get high-end sound from cheap products. end of
story. Look around for a Benchmark DAC1 USB second hand - should be able
to get one for medium hundreds. A definite high-end, studio quality
product. Proper async USB. Other s/pdif inputs and a volume control so
exceedingly
How large is your music collection? how many tracks?
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF
x-dacv3/x-10/x-psu(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1
On 06/03/11 12:23, JezA wrote:
stop-spinning - you can't get high-end sound from cheap products. end of
story.
Not true.
R.
--
Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes
http://www.theshackshakers.com/
___
audiophiles mailing
I'm generally not swayed by the the myth of constant progress ( I had
until a recent accident 18 year old speakers ).
Pile up 20 years of audimags single out a manufacturer eg yamaha or
luxman or something else look at the slightly different names the give
their key technology and watch how the
Robin Bowes;615833 Wrote:
On 06/03/11 12:23, JezA wrote:
stop-spinning - you can't get high-end sound from cheap products. end
of
story.
Not true.
R.
So .. what's your actual suggestion?
--
JezA
JezA's
JezA;615865 Wrote:
So .. what's your actual suggestion? Which cheap products do you think
give high-end sound?
I´m not Robin Bowes, but IMO, the SB3 internal dac with Inguz EQ
(free), beats any dac regardless of price. The subtle differences
between modern dacs and/or transports are
Eriko;615891 Wrote:
I´m not Robin Bowes, but IMO, the SB3 internal dac with Inguz EQ (free),
beats any dac regardless of price. The subtle differences between modern
dacs and/or transports are irrelevant in comparison to getting the
20-200 hz frequencies to only vary -+ 2db and cutting the
JezA;615909 Wrote:
Which DACs 'regardless of price' have you actually tried?
Could Inguz not 'improve' those equally?
The Naim DAC is probably the most expensive one I´ve hooked up to my
stereo. My point was to your question, So .. what's your actual
suggestion? Which cheap products do you
Eriko;615923 Wrote:
...BTW, going from the SB3 to Touch as a digital transport for my CA
840c DAC section did improve the sound, but it´s so subtle in
comparison to what Inguz does. Therefore, I have to smile when people
are trying to improve their sound with Soundcheck Toolbox 2.0, which
On 06/03/11 16:01, JezA wrote:
Robin Bowes;615833 Wrote:
On 06/03/11 12:23, JezA wrote:
stop-spinning - you can't get high-end sound from cheap products. end
of
story.
Not true.
R.
So .. what's your actual suggestion?
Others have already made suggestions.
I didn't have anything
stop-spinning;615812 Wrote:
...One possible extremely good source is the Chevron Audio modified
QA550 - yes the UI is non-existent - but I bet the transport is as good
as it gets and for me, my priority is hi-end sound (even though I love
the great UI you get with the SB).
...QUOTE]
I
You still haven't made any concrete suggestions Robin.
--
JezA
JezA's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21219
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84903
On 06/03/11 20:15, JezA wrote:
You still haven't made any concrete suggestions Robin.
What part of ...I think a Touch with a good
amp/speaker combination, or a pair of good active speakers... is not
specific?
R.
--
Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes
Robin Bowes;615943 Wrote:
On 06/03/11 20:15, JezA wrote:
You still haven't made any concrete suggestions Robin.
What part of ...I think a Touch with a good
amp/speaker combination, or a pair of good active speakers... is not
specific?
R.
--
You think a Touch is high end!?
Yes I would have to admit that I would not have expected the Touch alone
to be hi-end; not without an external DAC and a little more help...
I believe however that the Touch with a Teddy Pardo power supply won't
hold back any DAC under £2000 (from my understanding).
Of course, as I mentioned
earwaxer9;615533 Wrote:
They know how to do spdif!
Nope. SPDIF stays SPDIF. A consumer interface with numerous flaws.
Even if you'd put up a 100k DAC - that wouldn't change the SPDIF
flaws.
Though I think that's not what you're talking about.
Some manufacturers might be able to decouple and
soundcheck;615647 Wrote:
Nope. SPDIF stays SPDIF. A consumer interface with numerous flaws.
Even if you'd put up a 100k DAC - that wouldn't change the SPDIF
flaws.
Though I think that's not what you're talking about.
Some manufacturers might be able to decouple and reclock the
Does anyone actually have evidence that the engineered design of the
spdif in the Touch is better than that of the Duet receiver? I know
your ears are perhaps assuming this is the case but, have the boxes
been opened and compared side by side showing the audience where the
engineered spdif
stop-spinning;615753 Wrote:
Does anyone actually have evidence that the engineered design of the
spdif in the Touch is better than that of the Duet receiver? I know
your ears are perhaps assuming this is the case but, have the boxes
been opened and compared side by side showing the audience
stop-spinning;615753 Wrote:
Does anyone actually have evidence that the engineered design of the
spdif in the Touch is better than that of the Duet receiver? I know
your ears are perhaps assuming this is the case but, have the boxes
been opened and compared side by side showing the audience
The defintion of transport (what is a transport btw?) and DAC is IMO
already confusing and misleading and IMO cannot be discussed as such.
What counts is the entire digital path with all its building blocks.
And there are many players in the game. That digital path you'll find
on the
commonly
soundcheck;615362 Wrote:
And alternative solution is shown here: 'I2S interfaced and clocked
slaved SB Touch'
(http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=83138page=2) . This
solution is even bettter than word clock synced solutions as they are
widely used in the pro-audio scene. That
Phil Leigh;614387 Wrote:
The Touch is a better s/pdif transport than the Duet or SB3 - that much
is a FACT. much better is hard to quantify :-)
It seems that spdif is coming back, or keeping up, with 21st century
audiophila. I have hope! I want to be able to depend on it, even though
I dont
Phil Leigh;614383 Wrote:
That article is twaddle - you really need to stop reading this stuff and
start listening instead. Honestly.
That's fair enough - I wanted to refer this article on this forum for
all your opinions about the influence of the Transport. After all - the
Squeezebox Touch
stop-spinning;614386 Wrote:
That's fair enough - I wanted to refer this article on this forum for
all your opinions about the influence of the Transport. After all - the
Squeezebox Touch is reported to be a much better transport than the SB
Duet according to many.
The Touch is a better
darrenyeats;614291 Wrote:
I don't know of any (apart from the Nautilus) that are fully active
though.
Oh, forgot the Zeppelin iPod dock is active (worth a listen if you're
an Apple user, which I am not).
--
darrenyeats
I've heard the BW CM9 now. What are my impressions?
I am still a fan of actives, and this is a passive speaker. However,
they sound very good. Although I would say they are more laid-back than
is strictly neutral the actual balance through the frequencies seems
quite smooth and without offensive
Stop-spinning, look at the words that article uses:
huge leap, staggering, elevated to a degree that proved
stupefying, sonic splendor, superior sonic realm
Using my best Mr. Roger's voice, can one say bullsh*t?
What words are left that describe the difference between a clock radio
and a
stop-spinning;614014 Wrote:
Hello again chaps - interesting read between all of you about Linn, Naim
etc. I've never owned any of these brands yet, anyway moving on...
Perhaps again somewhat relevant to the title of my thread - I've been
prancing around the Internet reading things with
johann;613762 Wrote:
I think the same can be said about Linn, at least to some extent.
Yes, I suppose so. But Naim (as a company, not their equipment) always
struck me as being more suspect in this sense.
Remember how when Linn started making amplifiers, Naim absolutely
chucked their toys out
Naim made speakers from the very earliest days though - years before
Linn made amps. IIRC they were a Spendor sized ported box using
modified Goodmans drive units.
--
JezA
JezA's Profile:
What is most supicius with naim in my opinion.
Whe know the box and powersypply is the most expensive things in any
product costing more than the circiut boards, in hi end hifi it would
be the box for line level products.
Yet naim seems to perversly by design maximise the box count ? It comes
JezA;613882 Wrote:
Naim made speakers from the very earliest days though - years before
Linn made amps. IIRC they were a Spendor sized ported box using
modified Goodmans drive units.
The first proper Naim speaker was the SBL in 1986. There was a much
earlier one that was actually made by
Phil Leigh;613764 Wrote:
As a long-term Linn user (since early 80's) I can agree with that... to
some extent. They have now moved on. Actually to be fair. it is no
longer Linn that have this attitude, but some of their customers!
You can imagine the fun I have with my mongrel system and a
Mnyb;613884 Wrote:
Hifi has become so niche that no real engineers are involved, and the
client side have people buing cable supports ? And powercords instead
of well enginered products ?
To be fair there are quite a few resonably engineered prodcuts out
there.
But with clients that
Phil Leigh;613886 Wrote:
The first proper Naim speaker was the SBL in 1986. There was a much
earlier one that was actually made by Mordaunt-Short which must have
sold all of 10 pairs...
Naim's behvaiour when Linn brought out the LK-270 was laughable - very
childish.
The Mordaunt Short
JezA;613895 Wrote:
The Mordaunt Short one - iirc the NA 602 - was in the same cabinet to
the earlier one I mentioned with modified Goodmans drive units. These
failed regularly, hence the move to MS. Many more than 10 pairs were
sold. It was certainly a proper speaker.
IIRC the model before
johann;613894 Wrote:
To be fair there are quite a few resonably engineered prodcuts out
there.
But with clients that believe in and willing to buy expensive cable
supporters, exotic power cables that does not even have any filters,
expensive USB and TP cables, mouse shaped sand bags to
Phil Leigh;613900 Wrote:
IIRC the model before the NA 602 (the MS one) was never retailed - it
was primarily for studio use. The NA 602 itself is rare as hens teeth -
they were only made for about 12 months.
I personally sold several pairs of the ones with Goodmans drive units,
including a
JezA;613902 Wrote:
I personally sold several pairs of the ones with Goodmans drive units,
including a pair to my best pal. Definitely retail. None of them to
studios. Julian told me he had met a speaker designer who had worked
for Goodmans, (can you guess who?) who told him of a drive unit
I can't remember Woodman's name being mentioned, but I doubt it was
anyone else, given that Naim went on to use ATC drive units and make
active crossovers for Linn.
--
JezA
JezA's Profile:
Hello again chaps - interesting read between all of you about Linn, Naim
etc. I've never owned any of these brands yet, anyway moving on...
Perhaps again somewhat relevant to the title of my thread - I've been
prancing around the Internet reading things with interest. One
particular article I
stop-spinning;614014 Wrote:
So chaps, according to hi-endaudio.com - watch out for the Transport -
and our transport in this case is our SB. The DAC is far less
significant.
Which is already bit perfect
--
johann
Yes the dac produce the actual audio
Take advice from the internet with cation even more soo if it's a
typical audio cultist forum..
They are on thier usual graal quest never quite finding the end off the
rainbow..
--
Mnyb
JezA;613617 Wrote:
John - thanks. You mention that if a 'one-box' solution is done right,
the results are spectacular. Mind me asking who in your opinion has
done it right? Or the least wrong?
John will know more about this than me, but I recall that back in the
early/mid 90's several
There have been plenty of one-box no-compromise (whatever that might
mean) cd players. The Linn CD12 for exampe and the top end Naim range.
Indeed Naim refused, until recently, to even countenance putting an
s/pdif output on their cd players because they argued that it
compromised the performance
JezA;613722 Wrote:
There have been plenty of one-box no-compromise (whatever that might
mean) cd players. The Linn CD12 for exampe and the top end Naim range.
Indeed Naim refused, until recently, to even countenance putting an
s/pdif output on their cd players because they argued that it
JezA;613722 Wrote:
There have been plenty of one-box no-compromise (whatever that might
mean) cd players. The Linn CD12 for exampe and the top end Naim range.
Yes, sorry I forgot about those. And the Arcam CD9 with the dCS ringDAC
is another example.
However, while I agree that Linn and Arcam
cliveb;613756 Wrote:
As an ex-Naim devotee who thankfully escaped about 20 years ago, I have
to say that Naim seem to demand an almost religious acceptance from
their customers while the smoke mirrors are waved around. A bit like
Apple, I suppose.
I think the same can be said about Linn,
johann;613762 Wrote:
I think the same can be said about Linn, at least to some extent.
As a long-term Linn user (since early 80's) I can agree with that...
to some extent. They have now moved on. Actually to be fair. it is no
longer Linn that have this attitude, but some of their customers!
Interesting stuff John.
A key question to me is: Which system architecture offers the best
prospects - a renderer feeding an external DAC via USB or s/pdif, or a
'one-box' network player. With a network player the processor and
network stuff must have an influence on the ground plane which will
JezA;613229 Wrote:
... you could put Squeezeplay on it and turn it into a Touch
replacement.
While you are awaiting an answer to your question - I sorta like the
idea of running Squeezeplay from a Computer - what would be nice to
know about Squeezeplay however, is if you can still use Squeeze
stop-spinning;613558 Wrote:
While you are awaiting an answer to your question - I sorta like the
idea of running Squeezeplay from a Computer - what would be nice to
know about Squeezeplay however, is if you can still use Squeeze
Commander on Android phones as your remote control - because I
JezA;613469 Wrote:
Interesting stuff John.
A key question to me is: Which system architecture offers the best
prospects - a renderer feeding an external DAC via USB or s/pdif, or a
'one-box' network player. With a network player the processor and
network stuff must have an influence on
Interesting reading,
cheers John :-)
--
Deaf Cat
Deaf Cat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=515
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84903
John - thanks. You mention that if a 'one-box' solution is done right,
the results are spectacular. Mind me asking who in your opinion has
done it right? Or the least wrong?
--
JezA
JezA's Profile:
Mnyb;613207 Wrote:
...the Touch's spdif is one of the better you can get on the market
regardless off price, the next day you need extensive mods ( that do
nothing)...
...My Meridian DVD-A player, My SB3 and my Touch sound completely
identical using digital outputs and thats the expected
A cheap netbook and a v-link might be be a very acceptable solution for
many people. You could use a player on the netbook to play directly;
you could put a UPnP renderer on it and stream to it from a UPnP
server; you could put Squeezeplay on it and turn it into a Touch
replacement. Very
JezA;613229 Wrote:
Stop-spinning - a cheap netbook and a v-link might be be a very
acceptable solution for many people. You could use a player on the
netbook to play directly; you could put a UPnP renderer on it and
stream to it from a UPnP server; you could put Squeezeplay on it and
turn
Phil Leigh;613231 Wrote:
What if it transpired that the Touch+v-link+DAC sounded better than
Touch+DAC?
You can't assume it won't until its been tried...
Ok, who are you and what have you done with the real Phil Leigh? :)
Given that the v-link and the Touch both get their bits IN
chill;613245 Wrote:
Ok, who are you and what have you done with the real Phil Leigh? :)
Given that the v-link and the Touch both get their bits IN without
jitter (the Touch via TCPIP and the v-link via asynch USB), it all
boils down to which one ADDS the least jitter to the output SPDIF
1 - 100 of 262 matches
Mail list logo
