Steve W;576914 Wrote:
My SB Touch feeds a DAC by digital coaxial and then onto my amp. I'm
keen to get the best sound quality possible. Should I expect there to
be any difference in sound quality between the wireless connection and
a physical ethernet connection? I don't really like the idea
stone;616633 Wrote:
My observations: On SB Touch, using ethernet, 24bit/96kHz material is
played lossless (no conversion on server). When using WIFI, the
material is down-converted to 16bit/44kHz on the server. So, yes for
high definition flac there is a difference
This is definitely not
Phil Leigh;616529 Wrote:
What's Kool-Aid?
A soft drink; but I am guessing that the comment was a reference to the
practice described in the book by Tom Woolfe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Electric_Kool-Aid_Acid_Test
--
adamdea
Phil Leigh;610266 Wrote:
FYI My tests were on the analogue outputs.
Am I right in thinking that you were going to have a go on the analog
outs.
--
adamdea
adamdea's Profile:
adamdea;616662 Wrote:
A soft drink; but I am guessing that the comment was a reference to the
practice described in the book by Tom Woolfe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Electric_Kool-Aid_Acid_Test
Excellent book, but I think the reference was to the mass suicide of
Jim Jones followers in
garym has it right (both the original post and the edit). For
disambiguation, also see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
--
aubuti
aubuti's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2074
adamdea;616664 Wrote:
Am I right in thinking that you were going to have a go on the digital
output? Just wondering if there was any progress?
not yet - maybe by the end of March
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call
aubuti;616689 Wrote:
garym has it right (both the original post and the edit). For
disambiguation, also see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
...thanks, I am always grateful to learn something new.
--
adamdea
adamdea;616713 Wrote:
...thanks, I am always grateful to learn something new.
And in case there are any fans of mid-1960s youth culture, San
Francisco Bay music scene (e.g., Grateful Dead), Ken Kesey, etc. this
book by Tom Wolfe is a MUST READ.
--
garym
garym;616715 Wrote:
And in case there are any fans of mid-1960s youth culture, San Francisco
Bay music scene (e.g., Grateful Dead), Ken Kesey, etc. this book by Tom
Wolfe is a MUST READ.
The whole Pranksters thing was part of my wife's Art History degree...
- so I had actually encountered
Phil Leigh;616716 Wrote:
The whole Pranksters thing was part of my wife's Art History degree... -
so I had actually encountered the book in question... ;o)
...and my first ever live rock concert was the Grateful Dead, December
26, 1969. ;-)
--
garym
garym;616718 Wrote:
...and my first ever live rock concert was the Grateful Dead, December
26, 1969. ;-)
edit: Not that I'm anal enough to keep track of the dates of every
concert I ever attended. But in recent history I discovered the trove
of GD material at archive.org and actually
ralphpnj;616820 Wrote:
So did you attend SMU or did you just live in Dallas in 1969?
But more importantly: Was it a good show and was Jerry on that night?
In other words, had he drank the Kool-Aid? Had you?
Lived in Dallas and saw about every rock show that came to town between
69 and late
garym;616821 Wrote:
Lived in Dallas and saw about every rock show that came to town between
69 and late 70s, just happened that the show was at SMU's McFarland
Auditorium (I saw lots of good shows at that venue over the
yearsseems like I saw Rick Wakeman perform his Six Wife's of Henry
ralphpnj;616827 Wrote:
A few quick notes:
Yep, I was fortunate to haunt to archive.org site a year or two before
the lossless downloading was stopped.
Up until a few years ago the of the Archive.org Dead shows were
available for download (in flac or shn) as well as streaming but then
Phil Leigh;577057 Wrote:
I agree the truth is in the listening. I defy anyone to prove - or
even claim! - that they can hear a difference between a properly
working ethernet or Wlan connection.
Curiously, if anything there is more of a chance of the ethernet
sounding worse due to some
Howard Turkster;616459 Wrote:
...
Hyptothetically, if they used shielded, and it ran to an ethernet
switch first before reaching my Touch, and the cable from the switch to
the Touch was unshielded, would that setup still be bad or would it
avoid problems?
No that would be OK. You don't
Phil Leigh;616471 Wrote:
Don't forget the linear supply for the switch.
Why does a network switch need a linear power supply? How does having a
linear power supply affect the sound of the Touch? I'm not doubting you,
I just don't understand the relationship between the power supply of a
ralphpnj;616475 Wrote:
Why does a network switch need a linear power supply? How does having a
linear power supply affect the sound of the Touch? I'm not doubting
you, I just don't understand the relationship between the power supply
of a network switch and the sound of the Touch.
An SMPS
ralphpnj;616475 Wrote:
I'm not doubting you, I just don't understand the relationship between
the power supply of a network switch and the sound of the Touch.
My reading is either (a) Phil is having some fun, or (b) he finally
drank the Kool-Aid.
--
aubuti
Phil Leigh;616481 Wrote:
An SMPS (which is what all switches, routers etc come with) could
radiate bad RFI... just like the Touch supply...
A SMPS is not going to affect what is going through a network switch.
Apart from (decent) HiFi components, name me one thing that doesn't
have a SMPS of
Waldo Pepper;616515 Wrote:
A SMPS is not going to affect what is going through a network switch.
Apart from (decent) HiFi components, name me one thing that doesn't
have a SMPS of some sort. They are cheap and very efficient compared to
50Hz transformer designs.
Mobile chargers.
TVs.
aubuti;616490 Wrote:
My reading is either (a) Phil is having some fun, or (b) he finally
drank the Kool-Aid.
What's Kool-Aid?
--
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 -
So Phil, can I at least take your advice regarding the shielded cable
seriously?
--
Howard Turkster
Howard Turkster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=39563
View this thread:
Howard Turkster;616566 Wrote:
So Phil, can I at least take your advice regarding the shielded cable
seriously?
Yes. Shielded ethernet cable is not very common in the US in
residential installs (at least what I'm told) but seems to be more
common in Europe. The issue (I'm told) is that it is
Howard Turkster;616566 Wrote:
So Phil, can I at least take your advice regarding the shielded cable
seriously?
My advice WAS serious.
--
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
soundcheck;610262 Wrote:
Hi folks.
Just to mention it.
Phil did some measurements recently, to prove the relevance of my
toolbox.
'Phils soundcheck's-Touch-Toolbox-2.0 measurements'
(http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=610116postcount=329)
He figured that my WLAN OFF mod
soundcheck;610281 Wrote:
Yep. Even that made an obvious difference. ;)
But it is on the analog out it -has- a possibility to make a difference
?
A different signal is reaching your analog amp ? ok.
--
Mnyb
Main hifi:
Mnyb;610283 Wrote:
But it is on the analog out it -has- a possibility to make a difference
?
A different signal is reaching your analog amp ? ok.
From your cryptic response I could extract your hidden believe (correct
me if I wrong) that digital connections incl. endpoints don't suffer
Phil Leigh;577057 Wrote:
I agree the truth is in the listening. I defy anyone to prove - or
even claim! - that they can hear a difference between a properly
working ethernet or Wlan connection.
Curiously, if anything there is more of a chance of the ethernet
sounding worse due to some
Stephen;610061 Wrote:
Any suggestion for RFI problems? I unplug my Ethernet cable from Touch
to router and the noise out of my speakers stops. Of course, it's not a
constant issue.
Sorry - what noise? Are you using the analogue outputs of the Touch?
I would suggest ferrite clamps at the
Static-y sizzle.
Yes, analog outs.
Through research online, I've come to understand that wireless routers
can introduce noise issues with stereo systems, ham radio etc.
I also seemed to have an issue with Touch in wifi mode when it was next
to my amplifier, which is tube-based. (I moved it
Stephen;610061 Wrote:
Any suggestion for RFI problems? I unplug my Ethernet cable from Touch
to router and the noise out of my speakers stops. Of course, it's not a
constant issue.
You are probably getting some noise (switched power supply ?) from the
router throug the screen of the ethernet
Stephen;610188 Wrote:
Static-y sizzle.
Yes, analog outs.
Through research online, I've come to understand that wireless routers
can introduce noise issues with stereo systems, ham radio etc.
I also seemed to have an issue with Touch in wifi mode when it was next
to my amplifier,
peterw;577073 Wrote:
A design flaw (IMO it's a flaw) in the Squeezebox architecture is that
the buffer is only for the current track. At the start of a new track,
all the players start refilling their buffers from scratch, so the
system is more vulnerable to network trouble when a new song
Waldo Pepper;577826 Wrote:
Not convinced about this. Marillion tracks on Misplaced Childhood 1
2 seem together timewise perfectly on the Touch just as they do on the
CD.
Same with Roger Waters stuff.
All tracks play gaplessly because...as AndyG said
Not quite, the next track begins
Phil Leigh;577839 Wrote:
All tracks play gaplessly because...as AndyG said
Not quite, the next track begins buffering 10 seconds before the
current track ends.
And also this is how crossfade between tracks is possible.
--
JJZolx
My understanding of this is that when skipping, the full large buffer is
not filled up all the way right at the beginning, primarily to cut down
on the time the user has to wait before music starts playing.
Unfortunately this also means that its possible for that small buffer
to run out of data
JohnSwenson;577920 Wrote:
My understanding of this is that when skipping, the full large buffer is
not filled up all the way right at the beginning, primarily to cut down
on the time the user has to wait before music starts playing.
Unfortunately this also means that its possible for that
firedog;577361 Wrote:
Is it not true that the wireless module can produce noise that could
slightly degrade the SQ?
Case not proven, as they would say in Scotland. It's a fine theory with
no proof...
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't
I agree in theory there should be no difference.
When I was using a Duet and had only standard 16/44.1 files I used
wireless and was perfectly happy.
On the Touch I've switched to wired. Main reason is that there were
problems on my system with some skips and too much (re)buffering,
mainly with
firedog;577361 Wrote:
I agree in theory there should be no difference.
[snip]
On the Touch I've switched to wired. Main reason is that there were
problems on my system with some skips and too much (re)buffering,
mainly with hi-res files.
Since switching to wired about 99% of these
In a nutshell
1 there is no rational reason why wi fi cannot stream data as
accurately as a wired connection
2 some people think they can hear a difference in the music played by
the different routes through a Touch though.
3 the explanation posited seems to be that the wifi receiver (and
adamdea;577179 Wrote:
In a nutshell
1 there is no rational reason why wi fi cannot stream data as
accurately as a wired connection
2 some people think they can hear a difference in the music played by
the different routes through a Touch though.
3 the explanation posited seems to be that
soundcheck;577185 Wrote:
Number 2 should read:
Some systems do show improvements depending which route was chosen
others not. The more revealing your system the earlier you'll hear it.
Or: Some DACs are that great that source associated flaws won't make a
difference anymore..
But:
QUOTE=soundcheck;577185]...
But: It's not about thinking of hearing something!
ALL hearing is in fact thinking of hearing something :-)
Ears are NOT microphones. They are connected to a brain (usually). It is
the brain that decides what we do or don't hear.
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see
My SB Touch feeds a DAC by digital coaxial and then onto my amp. I'm
keen to get the best sound quality possible. Should I expect there to
be any difference in sound quality between the wireless connection and
a physical ethernet connection? I don't really like the idea of
wireless connection for
Steve W;576914 Wrote:
My SB Touch feeds a DAC by digital coaxial and then onto my amp. I'm
keen to get the best sound quality possible. Should I expect there to
be any difference in sound quality between the wireless connection and
a physical ethernet connection? I don't really like the idea
dcolak;576927 Wrote:
When you copy a Word file over your Wi-Fi, does it end up corrupt?
No it doesn't ;)
The same thing is with music, Wi-Fi or Ethernet it's the same.
If there is a problem, you will hear the music stop. ;)
I also think the same but I still worry about audio
Steve W;576941 Wrote:
I also think the same but I still worry about audio quality/integrity. I
worry about small, occasional data loss that could just contribute to
jitter, poor clock timing or stereo imaging and hence degrade the audio
quality subtly without actual drop out?
Remember that
Steve W;576941 Wrote:
I also think the same but I still worry about audio quality/integrity. I
worry about small, occasional data loss that could just contribute to
jitter, poor clock timing or stereo imaging and hence degrade the audio
quality subtly without actual drop out?
If that is
Steve W;576914 Wrote:
My SB Touch feeds a DAC by digital coaxial and then onto my amp. I'm
keen to get the best sound quality possible. Should I expect there to
be any difference in sound quality between the wireless connection and
a physical ethernet connection? I don't really like the idea
JJZolx;577028 Wrote:
That's an odd twist to the wireless vs. wired debate. It's usually the
other way around. If you have wire, I'd say use it. You should fix
whatever is wrong with the connection rather than falling back to
wireless. Try different patch cables, repunch the wall jacks,
I think the argument about the buffer is really good.
Now for sufferers of Audiophila Nervosa using wireless there are two
possibilties:
1) wireless is Evil because it causes the wireless receptor to be
active giving pollution in the system or:
2) wireless is Good, because now that horrible
Dura;577046 Wrote:
I think the argument about the buffer is really good.
As always, the truth should be in listening, but that is sometimes
easier said then done, and the A.N. Suffers are very tight.
using wireless it seems to me there are two possibilties, taking into
account the buffer
Steve W;576914 Wrote:
I don't really like the idea of wireless connection for HD music files
(up to 24bit, 96kHz) but I am having trouble with occasional drop outs
on the ethernet connection (looses sight of the ports momentarily)
whilst the wireless shows no such issue.
I suggest you fix
I have both a Touch and Transporter. The Transporter has a wireless
connection and the Touch has a wired connection. When playing 24/96
files both devices will sometimes rebuffer at the beginning of playback
but then they will play fine for very long periods. As far as i can tell
there is
ralphpnj;577070 Wrote:
I have both a Touch and Transporter. The Transporter has a wireless
connection and the Touch has a wired connection. When playing 24/96
files both devices will sometimes rebuffer at the beginning of playback
A design flaw (IMO it's a flaw) in the Squeezebox
58 matches
Mail list logo
