pfarrell;571580 Wrote:
>
> I'm amazed that the Transporter ever got reviewed.
> http://www.pfarrell.com/
It costs enough to deserve review. Add zero to Touch's price and its
review would be breathtaking.
Mnyb;571587 Wrote:
>
> The future of audio is in streamed PC audio and Networked music
>
Phil Leigh;571441 Wrote:
> It's the "Other Players" plugin...
D'oh! I've already looked at that then!
--
Harmoniousdistortion
Harmoniousdistortion's Profile:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40015
View th
mdm;571628 Wrote:
> It costs enough to deserve review. Add zero to Touch's price and its
> review would be breathtaking.
>
> Mike.
It must be "improved" by some modder and thrown it into an aluminum box
with handles first ;) don't forget the quantum purifiers..
--
Mnyb
-
It is just for finding the problem regarding your sync issue. It is not
meant to be forever. If all is connected via LAN you avoid WLAN
problems
--
Konzales
Konzales's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?user
Mnyb;571421 Wrote:
> Well exactly ! different persons do things differently , in my case both
> the Touch and the classic are faster than me, my music picking process
> is slower messier and more confused, and I often hesitate etc,so the
> device catches up with me anyway .
>
> And "never" get a
mdm;571622 Wrote:
> What the use to wire Touch if it has USB HDD as a source?
I forgot that it is about usb, so you're right.
--
lrossouw
Louis
'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/lrossouw)
lrossouw's Profile: http://foru
pfarrell Wrote:
>
> Every serious magazine and newspaper separate the editorial side from
> the advertising/business site. If the two sides cross, that is a
> serious
> breach of ethics. And accusing a magazine or newspaper of crossing
> that
> is a serious charge.
>
You should read the UK pub
Konzales;571640 Wrote:
> It is just for finding the problem regarding your sync issue. It is not
> meant to be forever. If all is connected via LAN you avoid WLAN
> problems
Yes, I understood, but even if with wired setup everything will be fine
I won't use it. So now I'm looking for my Sheevapl
mdm;571672 Wrote:
> Yes, I understood, but even if with wired setup everything will be fine
> I won't use it. So now I'm looking for my Sheevaplug comming from eBay
> following by the move to full SBS.
>
> Mike.
Temporarily wiring players and/or server is only to see if WiFi is
causing the issu
Many thanks again John.
Phil Leigh;570300 Wrote:
> The DC connector is soldered and you should not use shielded cable -
> ordinary unshield twin-core will suffice. Anything that can take 5 amps
> would be fine. The mains should be hardwired with 5 amp 3-core flexible
> mains cable also.
> Alt
toby10;571696 Wrote:
> Temporarily wiring players and/or server is only to see if WiFi is
> causing the issue so you don't end up chasing the wrong problem.
>
> Ex: if you were having problems with your home phone the problem could
> be
> - phone itself
> - wiring inside the home
> - wiring
Phil Leigh;570422 Wrote:
> Look, any DAC that ONLY does 16/44 or 16/48 IS a museum piece. The world
> has moved on!
98% of my music library is 16/44.1. It sounds best to these ears played
through a "museum piece" multi-bit dac. Each to his own..
--
JackOfAll
--
Harmoniousdistortion;571629 Wrote:
> D'oh! I've already looked at that then!
Did it not do what you want?
--
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) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF
Tri
@mherger: Don't misunderstand me, I like my Squeezeboxes. Are you going
to do something about this issue or do you have a solution already?
--
Konzales
Konzales's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=31
JackOfAll;571732 Wrote:
> 98% of my music library is 16/44.1. It sounds best to these ears played
> through a "museum piece" multi-bit dac. Each to his own..
I didn't say they couldn't sound OK - the key word was "only"... 15% of
my collection is > 24/48...
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see
woodnut;571705 Wrote:
> Many thanks again John.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Is there a reason why the cable on the DC side should not be shielded?
> Would there be any benefit in using a shield which is connected to
> earth via the earth wire in the cable on the AC side?
>
>
> Many thanks.
I do not be
But should not proper DAC's ignore the bits they can't handle .
Is not the spdif standard made that way ?
IF you keep volume at 100% all the would not the 8 bottom bits be zeros
and they could safely be discarded by 16bit dac's .
Or is this a never update to spdif ?
--
Mnyb
-
Mnyb;571755 Wrote:
> But should not proper DAC's ignore the bits they can't handle .
> Is not the spdif standard made that way ?
>
> IF you keep volume at 100% all the would not the 8 bottom bits be zeros
> and they could safely be discarded by 16bit dac's .
>
> Or is this a never update to spd
Phil Leigh;571746 Wrote:
> I didn't say they couldn't sound OK - the key word was "only"... 15% of
> my collection is > 24/48...
It's probably best not to drag this thread off-topic into a
oversampling, NOS, upsampling, ASRC, DNR, multi-bit, sigma, blah, blah
blah, debate.
My point was that
Konzales;571744 Wrote:
> @mherger: Don't misunderstand me, I like my Squeezeboxes. Are you going
> to do something about this issue or do you have a solution already?
You've unfortunately encountered 3 basic issues with our character
handling. Here's our plan for them. We'll not be able to addre
JackOfAll;571766 Wrote:
> It's probably best not to drag this thread off-topic into a
> oversampling, NOS, upsampling, ASRC, DNR, multi-bit, sigma, blah, blah
> blah, debate.
>
> My point was that most of my collection is 16/44.1 and for the most
> part I choose to listen to "museum piece" N
Phil Leigh;571774 Wrote:
> Well OK - lets say "obsolete" then :-) You'll struggle to buy one new
> these days. There won't be a widespread 16-bit DAC revival anytime
> soon..
Well, not so much struggle to find one, as need to have to have deep
pockets.
Phil Leigh;571774 Wrote:
> NOS Dac's are
Thanks for the info, at least I know were I am :-)
One more question: Do you have a rough time schedule for the next major
release? It is 7.6, isn't it?
--
Konzales
Konzales's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.
Phil Leigh;571763 Wrote:
> You are correct. @100% the bottom 8 LSB's are zero and not relevant /
> handled identically by a 16 or 24-bit DAC.
>
>
> As for multi-bit...I happen to prefer upsampling + oversampling
> delta-sigma DAC's for the beneficial (to my ears) changes to the
> filtering arch
MickeyG;571769 Wrote:
> You've unfortunately encountered 3 basic issues with our character
> handling. Here's our plan for them. We'll not be able to address them
> immediately, however:
>
> > >
- *Bugs in handling mixed Latin and non-Latin characters*. Mixing
> German and Korean doesn't
Mnyb;571793 Wrote:
> Ok the that would imply that 24/96 or 24/196 downsampled to 24/48 would
> work perfectly on an 16bit DAC that's supports 48kHz sampling frequency
> provided you keep the volume at 100%
> If the DAC only supports 44.1kHz It would still go with 24/88.2 and
> 14/172.4kHz downsam
Mnyb;571795 Wrote:
> What about all bug's with nordic languages inside sbs ? Björk anyone .
> Tags scanning BMF etc ?
That's included too. Most of this work would be in Squeezebox Server.
Mickey
--
MickeyG
Transporter > Classé Audio DR6 > Mark Levinson 23 > Wilson Watt 3/Puppy
1/Martin Loga
JackOfAll;571799 Wrote:
> Regardless of the sampling rate, if a 16 bit word is padded with zeros
> to make a 24 bit word then truncated back to a 16 bit word at the DAC
> then you're not losing resolution. If the starting point was a 24 bit
> word where the LSB's contained real data then you're g
MickeyG;571804 Wrote:
> That's included too. Most of this work would be in Squeezebox Server.
>
> Mickey
You will be soo happy (me too) , I spamm bugzilla now and then with bug
reports about this :) this is my pet peeve .
--
Mnyb
-
Mnyb;571809 Wrote:
> Yes that is understood.
>
> But fellow forum member fairfax wanted *"Downsample 24/96 > 16/44
> FLAC"*
>
> 24/44 or 48 would work but be truncated as you say .But they would
> "work".
> You get rounding errors, but would they be noticed in the context of
> NOS dac's ?
>
>
Mnyb;571809 Wrote:
>
> But fellow forum member fairfax wanted *"Downsample 24/96 > 16/44
> FLAC"*
>
> 24/44 or 48 would work but be truncated as you say .But they would
> "work".
>
I might be stating the obvious here, but surely the best thing for this
chap is to add a FLAC->FLAC rule to down
Following this discussion caused me to go back to look at the specs of
my old DAC. It is a Sonic Frontiers SFD-2 MkII. What makes this DAC a
little different is its tubed output stages. The unit can play HDCD
using PMD100 output decoder and has 20 bit UltraAnalog DAC's. The
PMD100 filter is used
danull;571554 Wrote:
> The SB Touch is advertised as having SBS built in. I have never seen it
> advertised as having a gimped SBS built in that performs 5-10 times
> slower than SBS running on an aging desktop. You have already formed
> what I consider to be a "lowered expectation" and can use
I thought I was done. Started enjoying the new squeezebox after loading
loads of music into iTunes. I figured out how to play several albums in
a row. Sit back to listen for a few hours...
About 40 minutes into the music, the squeezebox stops playing. No
error messages or anything, just no m
danull;571554 Wrote:
> The SB Touch is advertised as having SBS built in. I have never seen it
> advertised as having a gimped SBS built in that performs 5-10 times
> slower than SBS running on an aging desktop. You have already formed
> what I consider to be a "lowered expectation" and can use
Good question, but I don't think there's any way to bypass the 'renew
database' scan whenever you first start TinySbS or when you attach a
USB drive.
As for the long first-time scan for a new drive, I suppose that for a
large drive it's one of those things best done as you're going to bed,
in the
pfarrell;571580 Wrote:
> On 08/23/2010 10:11 PM, JJZolx wrote:
> >> Which is yet another statement that reflects a complete lack of
> >> understanding of the business.
> > What I'm saying is
> > that getting reviewed in the first place has always been the key and
> > the biggest question mark s
fairfax;571859 Wrote:
> Would resampling all touch output to 24/48 cause a problem with the
> sound of 16/44.1 playback?
I personally wouldn't go that way with sox upsampling your 16/44.1
files (which is probably the bulk of your collection) to 24/48. SQ will
be affected negatively based on my e
808htfan;570462 Wrote:
> I don't remember where, but I think I read that TinySBS is just SBS
> running in a limited mode or something to that effect. So is it
> possible to add the capability for SBS running on a PC to scan a USB HD
> as TinySBS would, write the database info, and have TinySBS u
I just bought a Touch and I'm loving it so far. I'm using FLAC files and
I have mostly 16/44.1 files ripped from my CD collection. I have a few
24/48, 24/88.2, and 24/96 files from DVD-Audio discs and downloads.
The standard resolution files and the hi-resolution files are mixed in
with each othe
Hi Scott, first some questions about your setup:
1. are you running Squeezebox Server (SBS) on a computer or have you
plugged a USB drive into the Touch?
2. if SBS is on a computer what type of computer and what OS is running
on it?
3. what file types are you playing (WAV, FLAC, MP3 etc)?
4.
It should be possibly I think. You'd probably need to customise the
query (sql) manually. I can try to this up for you.
--
lrossouw
Louis
'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/lrossouw)
lrossouw's Profile: http://forums.sl
Hi
I read somewhere that for Touch to encode FLAC, this have to be setup
in some settings?
I plan to hook up the Touch to mynhome network (ethernet) this weekend
to test. I've already installed SSOTS/server on my QNAP NAS.
Rgds
Pat
--
souwalker
---
No it decodes them rigth of the bat, no problem.
It's actually the other way around , manipulating the file types
settings or fiddling with the convert.conf files can get you this very
problem :)
Install squeezebox server 7.5.2 or run the Touch as a standalone player
with a recent firmware 7.5.1
Thanks Mnyb
That's good to know.
Yes QNAP must install the SSOTS for QNAP and the 7.5.1 separately. All
is installed on QNAP an working from what I can see.
All that's left for me to do is hook up the Touch via ethernet, get IP
address, point to the playlist folder in my QNAP and analogue L/R to
souwalker;571931 Wrote:
> Thanks Mnyb
> That's good to know.
> Yes QNAP must install the SSOTS for QNAP and the 7.5.1 separately. All
> is installed on QNAP an working from what I can see.
>
> All that's left for me to do is hook up the Touch via ethernet, get IP
> address, point to the playlist
Mnyb;571934 Wrote:
> it has only one volume, it's the same but different interfaces, volume
> works both the analog out and the digital out. in upcoming release
> there will be a setting to lock the volume at 100% (it's in the 7.6
> beta now)
Thank you.
Rgds
--
souwalker
-
47 matches
Mail list logo
