Question re: Converting FLAC to WAV, PC to Squeezebox Touch

dragon1952

I've got a Squeezebox Touch hard wired to my router and the PC with the Logitech Media Server is also hard wired. I have done the soundcheck mods, as well as installing the toolbox, and currently have the server side decoding the FLAC. However, since I've started decoding at the server I get an error msg on some of my hi-res files saying "unsupported sample rate". These files decode fine when the decoding is done on the Touch. So my dumb question is, what exactly is doing the decoding on the PC? Is it the Logitech Media Server? And, if so, why wouldn't it be able to decode the same as the Touch itself?

dragon1952

Never mind.....I've got my answer.

vcwatkins

I'd probably crosscheck the limiting and conversion settings for something overlooked and then just post to Klaus's forum - they seem to be pretty responsive. Sorry I'm no help. I did some of 3.0 SW without issues, but am not hard wired and, since I have no idea what I'm doing <snicker>, wanted to take a few small steps at a time.

vcwatkins

What was it?

mdaudioguy

dragon1952 wrote: »

Never mind.....I've got my answer.

Don't leave us hanging!

dragon1952

The Logitech Media Server launches a program named flac.exe that does the server side FLAC to PCM conversion. The Touch can't accept the PCM stream if the sample rate is above 24/96 (it's maximum). The reason it works if you send FLAC to the Touch is that the server down-converts the sample rate first. I believe this is what is happening based on my Googling research and limited knowledge of such things.
I'm going to do some more experimenting tonight with the hi-res files. I know I do have a couple that are above 96kHz.

steveinaz

I have no problems doing server-side flac to PCM conversion, but I haven't done any other mods except the Channel islands power supply. I decided to stream PCM just to check it out. I also don't have anything over 24/96. FWIW, I'm running wireless to the touch.

heiney9

Steve,

Impressions of a linear power supply?

H9

steveinaz

Brock,
My ears a little messed up right now due to allergies--So I can't comment with much confidence yet. Having said that, initial impressions are that it does appear to be a very subtle improvement (the PS). As far as streaming PCM---I can't really tell if it improves things at this point, but I haven't had much opportunity to do serious listening with relatives at the house. This week I'll get my listen on, as they are leaving today.

heiney9

I hear ya Steve, I just got over a head cold that lasted 3 weeks and I've little to no rig time because frankly, it sucks when your head and sinus's are all messed up.

H9

nspindel

dragon1952, you're absolutely correct in your diagnosis. If you're trying to stream anything higher that 2496 as PCM to the Squeezebox Touch you will get an error. That's the same error I got with my Squeezebox Classic when I tried to stream 2496 as PCM. That's what led me to realize I needed a Touch. But if you let the Touch do the decoding, it will downsample. The only Squeezebox that can handle higher than 2496 without downsampling is the Transporter.

Everyone else, I hope you get over your ailments and get your ears back!

PrazVT

Not sure why you guys are doing server side decoding. Both FLAC and WAV are lossless (bit-perfect). Looks like you're unnecessarily adding an extra link to the chain here - unless you're having some stuttering or other issue with your SB.

nspindel

Actually it's considered best practice to do it this way. If you read up on the Soundcheck Toolkit mods, you'll see that server side decoding is one of his changes. The idea being that the Touch is not a very powerful compute environment, and having the decoding take place within the Touch occupies compute resources that can otherwise be dedicated to jitter reduction. In a hardwired setup such as the OP has (and I have mine hardwired as well) there is more than enough network bandwidth to handle the decompression happening server side, even with 2496 material.

heiney9

It doesn't need to be a very powerful computing environment, just to convert flac to pcm.

You guys are going a little overboard, I'm all for tweaks and perceived best practices, in reality it makes no difference soundwise whether you decode at the PC or the Touch or have it hardwired or wireless, unless there is a fundamental issue with your hardware like you are physcially to far away to go wireless, etc. In fact I've had instances where decoding at the PC level was actually detrimental because of all the other background functions I was running on the computer and I actually can get it to hiccup. It's one of the reasons I have a dedicated music computer which is networked to my main computer so I can multi-task one the main computer without having an issue of the SQB software robbing resources or being bogged down.

Yes, my main computer is a latest generation computer.

H9

nspindel

What??? Brock you can't hear a difference between wired and wifi??? And you can't hear a difference between server side decoding versus decoding on the Touch??? What do you have, tin can ears???

Honestly, my whole house is wired for gigabit, I ran two drops of cat5e to every room 10 years ago, before wifi was any good. So wired is cake for me. As for the server side decoding, it was a simple enough switch to throw, so why not...

heiney9

Neil, I hear no difference between either, but I understand your convenience with wired. Makes sense if it's right there ready to use. I just didn't want people to get the idea it was necessary to go wired and or server side decoding as an absolute to getting the best performance. If you can do it and want to do it, great, but neither is a necessity to get the best performance from the SQB. Again some people based on where they live or where they have to put their gear might have problems with wireless, but that's a physical limitation or computer hardware issue not a SQB issue.

I know DKG 999 moved into an older house with very thick plaster walls and he is having wireless issues with many of his wireless devices because the walls and floors are too dense. So in that case wired is the only way to make it work, etc or some other wireless configuration, etc.

H9

nspindel

As with so much in this hobby of ours, everyone's application will vary. Without trying to tell anyone one way or the other is going to better, all I will say is that this fella Klaus (aka Soundcheck) is definitely the wizard of the Squeezebox, and his advice is to it this way. Read all about it here:

http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com/2011/11/touch-toolbox-30.html

Then decide for yourself and do whatever you feel like....

steveinaz

I have gone back to sending flac to the player. I couldn't detect any difference sending PCM, and it just increases Wireless traffic.

nspindel

Agree with that. I'd imagine that think server side decoding would be painful over wifi.

steveinaz

It worked without error, my system is very close to my cable router/modem (Motorola Surfboard)--but I wasn't hearing any benefit.

mdaudioguy

nspindel wrote: »

As with so much in this hobby of ours, everyone's application will vary. Without trying to tell anyone one way or the other is going to better, all I will say is that this fella Klaus (aka Soundcheck) is definitely the wizard of the Squeezebox, and his advice is to it this way. Read all about it here:

http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com/2011/11/touch-toolbox-30.html

Then decide for yourself and do whatever you feel like....

Yep, and on that page he addresses the issue that the OP brings up:

There might be a downside in case of Hires audio material. Decoding the flacs on the server causes much higher network load (more data to send) thus higher load on the Touch ethernet receiver. That's even worse if you go the WLAN route, since you're facing much more wpa decryption load etc. . This high load might have a bigger impact than the local flac decoding. (Remember: We always need to find the best compromise!)
I strongly recommend to compare above recommendations with the default settings, if playback of HiRes material is of very high importance to you.

thsmith

nspindel wrote: »

As with so much in this hobby of ours, everyone's application will vary. Without trying to tell anyone one way or the other is going to better, all I will say is that this fella Klaus (aka Soundcheck) is definitely the wizard of the Squeezebox, and his advice is to it this way. Read all about it here:

http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com/2011/11/touch-toolbox-30.html


Then decide for yourself and do whatever you feel like....

I don't have a SB but I did enjoy parts of the blog. I like his take on USB cables.

Will the SB play AIFF files? Seems most SB users play FLAC.

dragon1952

AIFF is listed in the file types.