My controversial post of the year...

VR3

Fair enough -

If I ever get the extreme 2 channel bug again I will put that to the test..

Until then just want to reassure everyone I actually like the Squeezebox - using it right now!

FTGV

heiney9 wrote: »

A ...dinosaur because the Sabre chip can be tapped to extract SACD.

Which for clarification sake isn't unique to it as the better DAC chips from Cirrus,Burr Brown and AKM will also handle DSD data.The issue is getting the DSD to an outboard DAC which at this point requires a modded transport until when or if downloads start to become available.

BlueFox

VR3 wrote: »

But when I go to a gathering where someone has a nice DAC I will bring it if they do not have it - I Just have a hard time believing this or any other digital format can even come close to a high end CD player...

Although this has been mentioned in the past in other threads, a "high end CD player" just plays digital files through its internal DAC. The files are stored on a CD. A CD is just a piece of plastic with pits that represent 1s and 0s. The exact same files can be stored on other devices and played via a $100 DAC or a $10,000 DAC. Other than looking cool, a CD player offers no advantage at all to playing digital files. On the other hand, an SACD player can play SACDs.

mdaudioguy

tonyb wrote: »

I'm still in the camp of a good cdp will smack downloaded music too, but it is getting closer, no cigar though. For casual listening, you can't beat it. Serious listening is still done on those little silver things....CD's I believe you call them.

inspiredsports wrote: »

Agreed. Downloaded file technology just isn't mature yet.

I'm confused as to what you guys mean by "downloaded." Terminology is important in this discussion. Downloading is just one means of obtaining digital content. A lot of what's being talked about here is related to extraction of the same exact digital information from the little silver things and storing it (losslessly) somewhere else.

pyrocyborg

steveinaz wrote: »

With DAC's you either get accuracy or coloration---take your pick. IMO, "warmth" should be done on the speaker end. I'm not understanding the "putting big money into SB" argument; for south of $500 I got the touch and CI Audio external power supply. I already had the DAC. There's not a CDP in existence at or under $1k I'd replace my SQB with; if there was, I would. With hindsight, and really having an understanding of just how subtle things get past the sweetspot (point of diminishing returns)--I wouldn't bother with any CDP under $2500.

I don't think anyone is calling the SQB a giant killer---but it can be a heck of a good value if implemented properly. It's high-res capabilities are just the cherry on top.

True, I totally agree with you: A SQB or an external DAC like my V-DAC + PS3 (which, honestly, does the same thing a SQB does but with a less convivial interface) will sound like most recent 1000$ish CDP. Will it sound better than a 3k CDP? Hell no, but it gets damn close to anything under 2000$ for a fraction of the price.

I am sure that properly implemented with an higher quality DAC, it can sound quite right and add a certain conveniance over swapping CDs. But I also understand that some people prefer to swap CDs as part of a ritual. If it's their way to really enjoy the music, they shouldn't let it go.

I've never been into swaping CDs or vinyl because I'm kinda young and I'm ripping my CDs since at least 15 years ago... so for me, something like a SQB or PS3+DAC or directly fro my PC isn't a great change. As, theorically, flac or wav files are identical to a CD, they might be of the same overall "quantitative" quality. However, a DAC may interpret your flac files differently, making them sound qualitativaly different. They aren't better or crappier, but they are different... and if it's different from what you're used to, it might not sound that great.

And OP, I don't find your post that controversial by the way. As Steve said, I don't think anyone called SQB a CDP killer that at 250 bucks, could crush any CDP under 5 grands. It add conveniance and sound quite decent by itself, but way better with an external quality DAC... so it's normal to think that it's not on par with a higher-end CDP.

tonyb

I just have one thing to add to this..........

TUBES RULE !!!!

runs away....

VR3

Tubes rule and cables dont make a difference and and and and I like 8 tracks!

SCompRacer

Lots of absolutes being spewed out. First off the Touch is just an interface, so using the cost of it and the price of what it is connected to is baseless to me. One thing about external DAC's is they must be connected. Some folks believe the SPDIF connection abounds with design faults and create many of the problems. I don't care for optical and always used coax in. Most DAC's have RCA connectors. RCA connectors are not really 75 Ohm. I recall Fred mentioning that more than once. I read that they have some that are very close, but not exactly 75 Ohms.

The DAC kit I just assembled mentions that using RCA connectors for coax can cause unwanted reflections and disturb the signal. So for the first time I added a BNC connector to a DAC. Funny cause Fred has mentioned this more than once and I just repeated that he did. I'm not saying that a BNC connector will cure everything, just saying we must identify all the problems and take steps to solve them. If you don't, you just have an arguable opinion and nothing more.

Now the Touch is challenging to get into and I haven?t found anyone with a part number for a drop in swap BNC connector. Some folks just attach a short coax dongle to the PCB with BNC connector hanging out of the back of it. I may try that but I would be gambling with the Touch.

Anyway, I am very close to selling my stand alone CD/SACD player. I am open mined and invite anyone to come over and show me what I am missing, point out the smearing, or tell me the sound can?t be engaging or moving.

heiney9

Yes Rich, but you have the attention span of a gnat All of us do if we are giving up our cdp and as a bonus get more convenience.

H9

pearsall001

Man you guys can complicate any topic. Carry on! Go gnat's go...:razz:

SCompRacer

heiney9 wrote: »

Yes Rich, but you have the attention span of a gnat All of us do if we are giving up our cdp and as a bonus get more convenience.

H9

What? I missed that, can you repeat it? :cheesygrin:

steveinaz

One "myth" I would like to clear up; people speak of the SQB Touch in terms "compromise"---you know, the convenience of having your music library at the touch of a button. LET ME REPEAT, If the Touch was a sonic compromise to my transport (convenience be damned) it would have been sold weeks ago in the FM. As much I as I like convenience, it's not the driving factor with my audio-nirvana.

I LOVE Rich's statement above, and agree 100%-"the Touch is just an interface...". Precisely. It's a wireless receiver if you're using it with an external DAC, that just so happens to have an awesome music collection organizing interface. It's simply a tool used to help you select music, create playlists, organize by whatever category you like. Think of it as a software package, in a nifty touch screen box. It takes bits, and moves them to your DAC for decoding. Nothing more, nothing less.

There are FAR better things to obcess about, namely SPEAKERS.

Face

mantis wrote: »

I've only messed around with the Squeezebox once and it's really cool. We do Sonos with great success. THe Cambridge Audio Dac Magic and a Sonos ZP90 or Connect (new model ) sounds damn close to a high end CD player or as good. The gap is so close that the convenience outweigh's the last 1% better that a high end CD player can bring.

This makes me believe you haven't tried a high end CDP or DAC side by side with a DacMagic.

falconcry72 wrote: »

A 3-5k CDP had BETTER have better DACs in it than your Nova!... lol!:cheesygrin:

His Peachtree has a better DAC chip than his old CDP, but the power supply and analog sections are what's holding it back.

If you want the best of both worlds, pick up an external DAC in the $1,000+ price range, that's where things start to get really close. A friend of mine claims his W4S DAC-2 and McIntosh MCD-500(TOTL CDP) sound almost identical.

FTGV

SCompRacer wrote: »

I'm not saying that a BNC connector will cure everything, just saying we must identify all the problems and take steps to solve them.

Exactly while it won't fix all the flaws of the SPDIF optimizing the connection between transport and DAC removes one of the important variables.

SCompRacer

FTGV wrote: »

when or if downloads start to become available.

Hey Fred, while limited in selections, Cookie Marenco of Blue Coast Records has been offering DSD along with hi-res downloads for quite some time.

http://www.bluecoastrecords.com/dsd-info

Toolfan66

Turns on turntable, picks out one of my favorite vinyl pieces, kicks back and reads about this thing called a squeeze box..

Enjoy my fellow polkies..

SCompRacer

Face wrote: »

If you want the best of both worlds, pick up an external DAC in the $1,000+ price range, that's where things start to get really close. A friend of mine claims his W4S DAC-2 and McIntosh MCD-500(TOTL CDP) sound almost identical.

As I listen to my Twisted Pear Buffalo DAC, for the first time I am thinking of selling my ModWright Sony 9100ES. Talk about analog sounding. The modded Musc Hall with the Bursons got me close. Now I understand why so many are building dual mono ESS Sabre32 DAC's. Now there is some $Ka-ching$!

FTGV

SCompRacer wrote: »

Hey Fred, while limited in selections, Cookie Marenco of Blue Coast Records has been offering DSD along with hi-res downloads for quite some time.

http://www.bluecoastrecords.com/dsd-info

Interesting.IIRC the mostly classical 2L also have some downloadable DSD files.

SCompRacer wrote: »

..... building dual mono ESS Sabre32 DAC's....

:eek::eek:For your own good I thinks it's time someone confiscate your soldering iron.:cheesygrin:

Conradicles

Toolfan66 wrote: »

Turns on turntable, picks out one of my favorite vinyl pieces, kicks back and reads about this thing called a squeeze box..

Enjoy my fellow polkies..

Hehe now that's old school soo cool.

F1nut

heiney9 wrote: »

Yes Rich, but you have the attention span of a gnat All of us do if we are giving up our cdp and as a bonus get more convenience.

H9

What's more convenient about it? That one doesn't have to get off their fat, lazy **** to change a disc after spending weeks, possibly months ripping their library? Oh please :rolleyes:

The reality is that it takes less than 60 seconds more to get up and change a disc verses scrolling thru a menu.....big effing deal.

heiney9

Your nick name must be Flash, because it takes a whole lot more than 60 seconds where I come from, power down the cd, open the drawer, put the disc in the jewel case, replace it from where it came, pull another disc out of the cabinet, open the jewel case, place disc in tray, wait atleast 30-45 sec for it to spin up. Now you are ready, more like 2 minutes or more per disc.

I get it, you don't care for the convenience, that's cool, don't get one. But don't come back and say a stand alone cdp always sounds better, because that's just not entirely true.

H9

P.s. Hey Jess, you should probably give up your remotes and that electric garage door opener too. Don't want you to become fat and lazy like the rest of us. I mean really how hard is it to get up to change songs or adjust the volume or change the channel. And an electric garage door opener, who would want that when you can get out of your car and just pull the door up and down.

Erik Tracy

I'm old, I'm lazy, I'm old fashioned - and the last thing I want to do is spend time futzin' with 'puters after working with them all day.

Just the thought of setting up a music server turns me off: optimizing kernels and the latest updated drivers, setting up backup routines, defragging the HD, scouring forums for tips on setup configs, feeding my CDs into the server to rip and fretting that I've got the best results and confirming them with EAC comparisons and graphs for bit rates, updating my cover art, making playlists, killer playlists, ultimate party play lists.....blech.....don't have time for that.

But - that's me....

tonyb

pearsall001 wrote: »

Man you guys can complicate any topic.:

Yep....ain't it cool ??:cheesygrin:


Trey,

I get where your comming from. I'm as old school as anyone around here, but to be fair, I have to give it a shot as best I can. The convenience factor is off the charts and SQ is getting close enough to kick the cdp to the curb.

Now, like you, as I get older, chasing my tail over the coarse of a year or two to find synergy isn't becomming any more appealing to me than I'm sure it isn't to you. I just want stuff that I can come home turn it on and it sounds good without having to monkey around with settings, a whole rack worth of gear to turn on, just to hear a song. Sure, you can say just go buy a Bose system.....then I might have a certain finger dedicated for you.

Seems like everytime over the years I spend time to finally get that synergy, technology changes and your again chasing your tail to achieve that what you once had. A never ending cycle for sure, but technology isn't going to slow down anytime soon, so I guess we all just deal with it as best we can. Too many things tug at the wallet these days to fret over the latest and greatest all the time. If a 3 g cdp floats your boat, knock your socks off, it's all about enjoying the music anyway, regardless of the manner we use to get it to our ears.

heiney9

Erik Tracy wrote: »

I'm old, I'm lazy, I'm old fashioned - and the last thing I want to do is spend time futzin' with 'puters after working with them all day.

Just the thought of setting up a music server turns me off: optimizing kernels and the latest updated drivers, setting up backup routines, defragging the HD, scouring forums for tips on setup configs, feeding my CDs into the server to rip and fretting that I've got the best results and confirming them with EAC comparisons and graphs for bit rates, updating my cover art, making playlists, killer playlists, ultimate party play lists.....blech.....don't have time for that.

But - that's me....

It's not difficult and you are blowing the entire process way out of proportion. I have always admitted the initial ripping if already have a large collection is the only downside. People should be backing their computers up regardless, updates are automatic, defragging is another maintainance issue that you have regardless. Scouring the internet is more common now looking for set-up advice for a lot of audio related stuff, so that's a cop-out for sure. Cover art doesn't need to be updated since it's done at the ripping stage.

Pretty weak arguements outside of the initial ripping taking time.

H9

Erik Tracy

heiney9 wrote: »

It's not difficult and you are blowing the entire process way out of proportion. I have always admitted the initial ripping if already have a large collection is the only downside. People should be backing their computers up regardless, updates are automatic, defragging is another maintainance issue that you have regardless. Scouring the internet is more common now looking for set-up advice for a lot of audio related stuff, so that's a cop-out for sure. Cover art doesn't need to be updated since it's done at the ripping stage.

Pretty weak arguements outside of the initial ripping taking time.

H9

You can keep the 'puter server thang - ain't for me and too much time - better things to do.

Enjoy the music.

tonyb

I find that to be total nonsense. Took me longer, alot longer, to set up my HT receiver than my Sonos.

LuSh

I can understand the skepticism of making 'streaming work' and the complications that could arise. What surprises me is the skepticism in performance. If you watch any show reports in any audio rags you'll see dozens of speaker vendors using a MacBook + PureMusic and a DAC at shows. If there was any chance of a performance hit they'd use CD's. This is done entirely for performance reasons, the convenience is an added bonus.

Face

Zero wrote: »

This thread is funny.

polkatese

And Trey, who started it, has long gone enjoying his Squeezebox...how ironic is that?

BlueFox

Regarding the convenience factor of a music server versus a CD player, that is an irrelevant item. While a music server does provide convenience in terms of not having to change a disc, I seriously doubt anybody abandons a CD player for that reason alone.

The fact is convenience is simply a side-effect of using a music server. It is the same side-effect that a CD player has over a record player. With a CD player, you no longer have to turn over an album, plus you get instant access to any track, and you can put it on random, repeat play. If convenience is so bad then get rid of your CD players, and go back to the "good old days" of turntables.

To me, a major factor of a music server is you can create playlists of CDs, and of individual tracks. This gives the user more power and control over their music, and that is a good thing. Why some think that is bad is baffling.

In regard to the sound quality of a music server file, some reviewers comment that hard drive access of a file and then played through the digital input of a high-end CDP sounds better than the optical/mechanical access from the CD drive. Others, say there is no difference. I have yet to read a single review that says it sounds worse.

As a side-note, in the current issue of Rolling Stone, there is yet one more article on the death of CDs. A record company executive is giving the CD three more years.