This paper explains a lot, including why "SACD" material usually appears
as 24/88.2 PCM outside of an SACD player.
It also explains why Sony pushed DSD so hard.
Clearly HDTracks could save a bunch of money by using a modded Oppo
SACD player to extractthe 24/88.2, but the implication of this pape
mortslim;518450 Wrote:
> So HDtracks claims: In regards to the high resolution
> albums that we offer, all of our 96/24 albums are from the original
> studio masters. For some of the 88.2/24 albums, they are also from the
>
> original analogue tape masters.
>
> Whats glaring by its omissio
Yes ALAC is transcoded to FLAC on the fly by the server (maybe Touch
gets native playback).
So the server must be able to do it (tiny NAS no go :( ).
FLAC is native to most older and current squeezeboxes.
And it's the most common lossless format in sbs/squeezebox thus being
less likely to be bugg
Whether you can hear it or not is not the point. The fact that many
people believe THEY can hear it and are willing to pay for it is why it
has value. If you can advertise 24/192 and use that in the marketing
materials it has financial value and it is another item on the bullet
list of features.
I'm running all Mac these days, but using an older PC for ripping
purposes. I'm sticking with ALAC as I find doing any kind of metadata
editing on the Mac is a nightmare. Easier to do it all in iTunes.
There was some speculation that the Touch would not play ALAC natively
and would convert it o
So HDtracks claims: In regards to the high resolution
albums that we offer, all of our 96/24 albums are from the original
studio masters. For some of the 88.2/24 albums, they are also from the
original analogue tape masters.
Whats glaring by its omission is that Puget Sound says it is doing
atrocity;518429 Wrote:
> In my testing a year or so back, stereo Apple Lossless files were
> slightly larger than their FLAC level 8 counterparts and mono files were
> a *lot* larger.
Funny, when I compared the two several weeks ago I thought the M4a file
was slightly smaller, but damn, you're ri
iwannatouch;516797 Wrote:
> I'm in the process of archiving my music (both downloads and CDs) and I
> decided to convert everything that wasn't mp3 into m4a files. This
> includes all my wav, aiff, ape, and flac files. My goal is to reduce the
> amount of space needed to store my music
In my tes
mlsstl wrote:
> adamslim;518367 Wrote:
>> Begs the question as to why then have a subforum about it. One that
>> starts with a press release from early September announcing the product.
>
> I'd suspect that is a relic of the days before the master plan went
> south on them.
No, it was because
adamslim;518367 Wrote:
> Begs the question as to why then have a subforum about it. One that
> starts with a press release from early September announcing the product.
Maybe because the cat was out of the bag and -They- thought it would be
released in a few months. The press release was to stop
adamslim;518367 Wrote:
> Begs the question as to why then have a subforum about it. One that
> starts with a press release from early September announcing the product.
I'd suspect that is a relic of the days before the master plan went
south on them.
;-)
--
mlsstl
-
DaveWr;518277 Wrote:
> Because TinySC can't handle the transcoding issues for playback of non
> native streams, so major limitations on radio stations etc. I think
> however, the Touch in a new world, no old players, will find significant
> favour in new startup users, and if plug-ins migrate to
Begs the question as to why then have a subforum about it. One that
starts with a press release from early September announcing the product.
--
adamslim
You can't have too much music, but I do have too much hifi
Rock/Excalibur/Decca, Linn Akurate Skweezy DS, Audion Pre, 6B4G death
traps, Low
I believe that since it receives NEC signals and transmits NEC signals,
all should be well with my Yamaha receiver.
Anyone know if the headphone plug also receives signals sent from a
source, as in controlling the Touch from another room? If not, I may
have to add an emitter on the front of the
mortslim;518305 Wrote:
> The statement from HDtracks is internally inconsistent. Since it is a
> digital to digital conversion, which it admits by saying "from the DSD
> stream of the SACD", then, by definition, it is NOT a "native high
> resolution recording". It is not native, it is converted
Why is it that the title format in squeezeplay (and, I am assuming,
in Touch) not customizable? I would like to have the same customized
scrolling title formatted as I have in my current squeezebox classic.
Currently on squeezeplay this display appears to have the fixed format
of "TITLE" only (unl
The touch supports FAT32, ext2, ext3 and NTFS. There has been some
discussion about ext4 but I'm not sure about where that sits right now.
I have used all of the 4 mentioned above and they all work just fine.
John S.
--
JohnSwenson
---
firedog;518291 Wrote:
> direct from the DSD stream of the SACD.
> They are all native high resolution recordings and are not up sampled.
>
>
The statement from HDtracks is internally inconsistent. Since it is a
digital to digital conversion, which it admits by saying "from the DSD
stream of
Two posts on computeraudiophile.com:
Linn is transparent about the origin of their files. 2L also. But
HDTracks seems to sell resampled RR material at 24/96 and is not
transparent about the source.
Then next post:
DSD has a base freq of 44.1 and is clocked at 44.1 We do all the
SACD/DSD/DV
I wrote HD Tracks asking whether their "hi-res" 24/88 and 24/96 files
are true hi-res or not.
Here is the answer:
"Thank you for your email. Regarding our high resolution 96/24 and
88.2/24 files (these are indicated with red text either below or above
the album cover art that reads "Audiophile
aubuti;518268 Wrote:
> Why? Someone can buy one Touch and put slim players (SB3s, SBRs, Booms,
> or Radios) in other rooms. They can all run off TinySBS. I think your
> idea of continuing in the slim client direction with an OEM
> Sheevaplug-like server has a lot of merit, but I also suspect that
tomasito;518043 Wrote:
> what's the latest about the date of release... silence would mean it's
> not realeasing any soon, or logitech would have made a big buzz about it
Given Logitech's poor history of handling this situation, I would
strongly suspect they've instructed all employees to just k
DaveWr;518242 Wrote:
> Anybody wanting multi-room capability is repeatably paying for a
> simplified server capability.
Why? Someone can buy one Touch and put slim players (SB3s, SBRs, Booms,
or Radios) in other rooms. They can all run off TinySBS. I think your
idea of continuing in the slim clie
mortslim;518038 Wrote:
> I have confirmed from another phone call that indeed HDtracks does NOT
> get the higher resolution masters from the Chicago Symphony Orchestra.
>
> I spoke to the owner of the recording studio that does work for
> HDtracks. This studio claims to have the professional e
The answer is maybe with an emitter. It depends on what your HT
receiver uses as IR codes. See this post, and related bugs, from the
creator of the IRBlaster plugin.
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=514451&postcount=4
By the way he now works for Logitech Squeezebox software team
Can someone explain to me how the Touch will handle IR?
If I send IR to the Touch with my HT-receiver's remote, will it blast
the signal if I use an emitter, or directly connect to my receiver's
IR-in plug?
--
crazyj
craz
crazyj;518236 Wrote:
> But the Touch uses only FAT32, no? Have NTFS, EXT3, etc. been tested
> and work?
Yes to Linux and I believe NTFS is now supported in the latest
software/firmware IIRC.
--
iPhone
*iPhone*
Media Room:
Transporter, VTL TL-6.5 Signature Pre-Amp, Ayre MX-R Mono's, VeraS
DaveWr;518242 Wrote:
> I think with the limitations TinySC has, then total system cost
> reduction will only apply for a few. Anybody wanting multi-room
> capability is repeatably paying for a simplified server capability.
> IMHO it would have made more sense to minimize player cost (it is only
aubuti;518195 Wrote:
> That's true, although even Logitech wouldn't have been dumb enough to
> slap an LCD on the ageing IP3K platform, so a 'revamping' of the SB3
> would not be trivial. But the product direction is clearly away from
> slim clients and toward 'fat' clients. That does involve hig
svtdoug;517678 Wrote:
> First off, Logitech has discontinued the SB Receiver and will be
> discontinuing the Duet soon - see
> http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=75201&page=2 - where they
> discuss the fate of the Duet. It becomes clear that Logitech is
> planning to replace the Duet
jimbo45;518131 Wrote:
>
> In the case of Windows with NTFS it's around 16 EXABYTES -- thats 2 to
> the power of 60 for the theoretical disk size maximum.
>
But the Touch uses only FAT32, no? Have NTFS, EXT3, etc. been tested
and work?
--
crazyj
yerma;518082 Wrote:
> No, that's not what I meant. I was referring to the "Duet2",
Okay, I see what you mean, and that makes sense to me. Until the
"Duet2" appears, you could always get a Touch, remove the leg that holds
it upright, and lay it face down on top of your audio rack. The cable
angle
DaveWr;518086 Wrote:
> The implication from these comments is that the Touch (and associated
> architectural changes) are adding significantly to the new Squeeze
> playback devices. The SB3 revamped with LCD would have been
> significantly less expensive product direction.
That's true, although
wimpf;518123 Wrote:
> Will there be a feature available for the Touch to generate playlists
> automatically
Officially supported by Logitech - no.
This is one of the areas of functionality that is most frequently
requested (it is one of the first enhancement requests in bugzilla), but
over the y
jimbo45;518131 Wrote:
> The Windows OS currently can handle a maximum size of 256 Terabytes --
> way way short of the theoretical maximum of 16 EXABYTES.
that's ok, I think it will be enough for my library :)
--
Rikk
Hi there
I think the theoretical maximum disk size (assuming you can build the
hardware) is the limit that the file system and the OS can handle.
In the case of Windows with NTFS it's around 16 EXABYTES -- thats 2 to
the power of 60 for the theoretical disk size maximum.
All the USB does is sup
yerma;517866 Wrote:
> That is, unless they're planning a Duet2, something like a Touch
> (including USB-drive support and TinySC), but without a display, plus
> the Controller.
>
> That would be some helluva device, as it would give beginners an easy
> entry into the world of Squeezebox, and not
Hi
Will there be a feature available for the Touch to generate playlists
automatically after I put more music on the USB drive?
E.g.
Playlist for all Songs from the 80s.
Playlist of the Top 50 heared songs.
...
Thanxs,
Wimpf
--
wimpf
andynormancx;518097 Wrote:
> Maybe, but only because of the initial investment in the new product
> line. When the SB3 launched it was a very similar price to what the
> Touch will be at launch, it has come down in price over time.
>
> Besides, "revamp" kind of underplays the amount of effort/co
DaveWr;518086 Wrote:
> The implication from these comments is that the Touch (and associated
> architectural changes) are adding significantly to the new Squeeze
> playback devices. The SB3 revamped with LCD would have been
> significantly less expensive product direction.
>
Maybe, but only bec
aubuti;517877 Wrote:
>
>
> You should also note that a Touch without a display would cost almost
> as much as the Touch with the display. The SBR cost a lot less than the
> Classic because the VFD was the most expensive single component in the
> Classic. The Touch's LCD screen is a very small f
aubuti;517877 Wrote:
> I don't see how a Touch is "useless for users with an existing SB
> infrastructure".
No, that's not what I meant. I was referring to the "Duet2", that a new
receiver with TinySC would still be as useful as the current receiver
for people like me who put their Squeezebox dee
42 matches
Mail list logo
