just rcvd my Squeezebox Touch!

Serendipity

Gotcha. Just shows how little I understand about this stuff.

A good amount of time I was just spinning a CD from the PC and not ripping it at all.

I didn't even know that the software player made a big difference. I do understand that when recording, to use a high quality format.

nspindel

So for this purpose, you have:

1) A dedicated PC
2) an "audiophile soundcard"
3) a harmony remote
4) a Xantech IR repeater

I have a Squeezebox Touch that I just paid $228 for, shipped. Are we really having this discussion?

FYI, Squeezebox Touch can play DVD audio, although it's a bit convoluted. You can rip the dvd, and then demux the audio track as true 24-bit. I've done this several times, and although it involves a few steps, sound quality is superb. I have done the same with BluRay audio.

steveinaz

I think that's why the SQB is so popular, not only is it simple to implement, it works very well too.

nspindel

Oh, and:

5) A projector!

Fair to note that the Squeezebox Touch probably costs less than a bulb for a projector. I realize that this is a multi-purpose home theater rig you have assembled here. But seriously, for two-channel audio there is little out there that can compare to the simplicity of a Squeezebox, not to mention with top-notch sound quality. Considering the cost, in my opinion it's just a no-brainer.

FTGV

heiney9 wrote: »

So you are saying no matter how good the receiving clock is for adaptive, async is always the best data transfer solution?

Yes theoretically thats my take since the data transfer timing in adadptive mode is controled by the computers variable clock.Ofcourse as you mention just being async does'nt guarentee good sound if other even more important parts of the design are sub par.

I would like a SQB because it's a slick little device but I don't really need one presently as results I'm currently getting using the SPDIF coaxial out from my PC's sound card with J River MC , WASAPI, choice of four different DAC's etc are IMO very good..While the SQB might give me greater convience and placement flexibility strictly from a sound quality POV I don't see it offering me anything extra.

heiney9

So if I understand what you are saying a better receiving clock in an adaptive environment means nothing when the data is being transfered? It doesn't fix data stream issues from the computer clock? In adaptive mode, what's the purpose of using a seperate receiving clock (outside the dac chip) if it doesn't do any good? So if I were to upgrade to a TENT XO 12mhz clock in the Keces which is adaptive I'd just be spinning my wheels because it would be better if it was an async dac.?

I guess I don't follow? My assumptions was of the two methods used if you are using the receiving clock on the dac chip asych is better vs. adaptive, but if you have a seperate clock handling the receiving duties it should (I assume) correct some of the issues of the computer clock in adaptive mode.

Am I not interpreting some of the stuff I've read correctly?

H9

FTGV

heiney9 wrote: »

So if I were to upgrade to a TENT XO 12mhz clock in the Keces which is adaptive I'd just be spinning my wheels because it would be better if it was an async dac.?

Thats the one using the PCM2702?That IC has the option of using a separate oscilator but I think thats for the master clock for the D/A section not data recovery.

Am I not interpreting some of the stuff I've read correctly?

H9

I don't know?Do you have any links to what you have been reading on the subject?

heiney9

FTGV wrote: »

Thats the ne using the PCM2702?That IC It has the option of using a separate oscilator but thats for the master clock for the D/A section not data recovery.

See there was my disconnect I thought the clock was for data recovery.

Thanks for clarifying.

It still sounds pretty darn good. I have another idea I want to run by you for the Keces, I'll PM. But it has to do with buying a pair of discrete Op-amp modules from Audio GD to replace the Op-amps. I wonder if they are plug-n-play or if they need more juice, etc. They are supposed to replace the Op-amps I already have, but after Rich;s build I was wondering if they would need more juice to run them.

H9

Serendipity

nspindel wrote: »

Oh, and:

5) A projector!

Fair to note that the Squeezebox Touch probably costs less than a bulb for a projector. I realize that this is a multi-purpose home theater rig you have assembled here. But seriously, for two-channel audio there is little out there that can compare to the simplicity of a Squeezebox, not to mention with top-notch sound quality. Considering the cost, in my opinion it's just a no-brainer.

I understand there's more than one way to accomplish something, there are many variables involved, such as the room itself, and where everything's located. Which is why for many, the cost of the squeezebox ($250) may be a no-brainer. And that's completely fine.

However, there are members here, myself included, who have done entire room renovations including running all lines back to a equipment rack and have a dedicated HTPC or music server rack. This is just an alternative with a finished look. Heck, I spent the good part of a summer drilling through concrete and making sure all cables were run properly, wall plates, dedicated circuits including subpanel, etc. Used up many drill bits and saw blades in the process, to make everything work according to plan. IMO, it's just another way of setting up a system for enjoyment. And that's what really matters.

Cheers!

tonyb

Why not Burson op amps ? I thought Rich had the Burson's in his.

heiney9

tonyb wrote: »

Why not Burson op amps ? I thought Rich had the Burson's in his.

$12-30 vs. $90-115 EACH. I know for sure the Burson's will need some power supply mods. Just not ready or capable or willing to spend a lot of money if I have to rebuild part of it. The Audio GD look pretty straight forward and are economical and I would assume sound a little less analytical than the LME 49710 op-amps.

http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/diy/OPA/OPAEN.htm

http://www.partsconnexion.com/BURSON-74455.html

tonyb

Gotcha....ask for a raise ??:cheesygrin:

heiney9

tonyb wrote: »

Gotcha....ask for a raise ??:cheesygrin:

It's not the money, just not worth it to invest it in the Keces since (2) Burson's cost more than I paid for the dac. I thought if I could spend a little on the Audio GD discrete op-amps and swap them along with better coupling caps for less than $50, I could make it sound just a tad less analytical. I'm not even worried if the Audio GD's don't work, I just don't want to blow anything up or do damage by mating the wrong parts. Then I'd be pissed. The OPA Earth single at $12/ea x 2 would suffice. I just want to make sure they will work without further mods. They can sub for my model op-amp.

H9

P.s. the capable I was referring to in the first post was my ability to mod a power supply w/o paint by number instructions. Not capable of spending $$$. I can spend the money . In fact I spend far too much money on this hobby.....lmao

heiney9

The question becomes about the original Op-amp drawing about 8MA and the discrete drawing about 28MA each.

polrbehr

nspindel wrote: »

FYI, Squeezebox Touch can play DVD audio, although it's a bit convoluted. You can rip the dvd, and then demux the audio track as true 24-bit. I've done this several times, and although it involves a few steps, sound quality is superb. I have done the same with BluRay audio.

If I may ask, what do you use for this purpose?

Also, will this work with an (older) SQB Duet? Thanks.

Sorry for the derail, BTW.

heiney9

polrbehr wrote: »

Sorry for the derail, BTW.

LOL...........I forgot what this thread was.............I derailed it long before you did.

Sorry to the OP.

Carry on

H9

sda2mike

ha! no problem...i'm sure there's something in here i can use...most is waaay over my head, tho;)

nspindel

Serendipity wrote: »

I understand there's more than one way to accomplish something, there are many variables involved, such as the room itself, and where everything's located. Which is why for many, the cost of the squeezebox ($250) may be a no-brainer. And that's completely fine.

However, there are members here, myself included, who have done entire room renovations including running all lines back to a equipment rack and have a dedicated HTPC or music server rack. This is just an alternative with a finished look. Heck, I spent the good part of a summer drilling through concrete and making sure all cables were run properly, wall plates, dedicated circuits including subpanel, etc. Used up many drill bits and saw blades in the process, to make everything work according to plan. IMO, it's just another way of setting up a system for enjoyment. And that's what really matters.

Cheers!

See, I agree with Brock. I think you ask I highly baited question, that you already pretty much have your answer to, and then you've completely turned around and diverted to something far different. You started out with this:

Serendipity wrote: »

For those squeezebox users, what's the difference between using a squeezebox vs. having a audiophile sound card in your PC (with optical/coax out) and feeding it to an external DAC? Seems like the squeezebox is more complicated because you have to stream from the PC and then hook the squeezebox to your rig.

Here's the back of my PC:

Attachment not found.

Wouldn't it be easier to just go optical out --> DAC and then hook that up to your rig?

You start with the premise that a Squeezebox is "more complicated". This "complicated" device is one where you install some software on your computer, then unpack a device from a box, plug it into your system, and use a remote control.

And now you're talking about room renovations, rack mounted gear, dedicated circuits, even worn out drill bits and saw blades. Seriously? To me, that sounds a bit more complicated. So why do you start out from the premise that a Squeezebox is a more complicated solution?

I'm really happy for you that you've got a first class dedicated home theater setup. But to get on a thread where someone is talking about receiving their Squeezebox Touch, and then you start offering up that it's "complicated", but then you steer the discussion to projectors and subpanels and drilling through concrete, is simply asinine. All you're looking for is an opportunity to brag about your wonderful custom home theater setup, and are handing out misguided information in the process.

If you have a custom home theater setup with an htpc putting out 725.1 surround sound, sure it's simple to listen to 2-channel audio through it. But I just can't believe you would call a Squeezebox "more complicated".

SCompRacer

Congrats on the Touch!

heiney9 wrote: »

.......Op-amp modules from Audio GD to replace the Op-amps. I wonder if they are plug-n-play or if they need more juice, etc.

IIRC the Audio GD discrete op amps pull ~ 26mA which is higher than the Burson HD's at 19mA. Lots of folks seem to get by without upgrading the power supply regs. Could be I had a pair of the low tolerance to high temps regulators, although the better regs and cooling made it sound more nuanced. My Twisted Pear build manual says no worries up to 80C. I hit 70C+ with the OEM regs in the Music Hall DAC and experienced some SQ problems after 10 hours or so.

Sherardp

Congrats on the purchase. I purchased mine after reading up on here about them. Loving it since I had it, with zero issues. Very easy to set up as well. I have mine installed in the living room, and use it as a Zone 2 source with a pair of Polk Atrium 60's outdoors. I did purchase a new Tera Dak power supply as of late from Ebay, and it seems to have made some difference in sound. Not sure if that is solely due to the power supply or a combination of adding a Pioneer Elite in the mix.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Logitech-Squeezebox-Touch-Upgraded-Power-Supply-5Vdc-3A-/300626285290?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item45feb912ea

Serendipity

nspindel wrote: »

You start with the premise that a Squeezebox is "more complicated". This "complicated" device is one where you install some software on your computer, then unpack a device from a box, plug it into your system, and use a remote control.

I personally think it is more complicated. Yes, you have to install some software on your computer, then unpack the device from the box, but the actual music needs to be loaded on the computer right? You have to rip the files from your CDs onto the computer first... or am I mistaken here? And do you need to leave the computer on, or does a Networked Attached Storage hard drive suffice? Is there a "direct stream" mode where you purchase a CD and can just play it from the CD-ROM drive in the computer? If so, then I was mistaken. "A good amount of time I was just spinning a CD from the PC and not ripping it at all."

To the OP, congrats on your new Touch. Sorry for getting the thread off topic.

heiney9

Ummmmm....if you don't rip your music to a HD, then your HTPC you have is nothing more than a glorified and sub par single cdp. Doing it that way causes all sorts of issues which compromises the audio, YUK!

The SQB is so simple, you should buy one and try it before arguing with those of us who own and use one. I've owned one for a long time and there is no comparison to ease and convenience, period.

H9

nspindel

You must rip the cd's, yes. There are nas installations, where the firmware of the nas itself can run the squeezebox software without a pc on.

heiney9

NAS is not neccesary, but again ease of use as well as reduancy for your files should you have a HD issue. All very typical in the computer world. Yes, if you have absolutely no computer experience it might be a stretch. If that;s the case (no computer experience) you probably aren't considering one of these devices or have a full audio set-up for critical listening.

H9

Serendipity

nspindel wrote: »

You must rip the cd's, yes. There are nas installations, where the firmware of the nas itself can run the squeezebox software without a pc on.

Thank you. I didn't know that about the squeezebox. I was just thinking "hey this thing must be more complicated" because you have to turn the CDs into files before they can be played on the squeezebox. As for using the PC as a CDP, I didn't know that you shouldn't do that either because it has worked well for me in the past. Didn't intend for this to turn into a debate, notice I question the post not attack the poster...

heiney9

It's really the worst way to do it the way you are doing it as far as getting the best possible audio stream. How are you using the optical output if you are playing CD's in the disc drive? It's not possible, because it converts the music at the soundcard which means you are using the computer internals for the analog signal. Worst way possible. Now I'm beginning to understand why you were complaining about your rig sounding so bad.

H9

Serendipity

And then it converts the analog back to optical? Maybe I wasn't understanding how this works, as I have "USB Audio Device" located in my Device Manager and a lot of other audio devices (including Realtek 7.1 audio out) and HDMI audio in the list.

Serendipity

^^ I have optical, coax, and analog connected. They all sound very different from each other.

I think the coax is the "USB Audio device", analog is the 7.1, and the optical is derived from where? HDMI? Not sure here.

heiney9

Serendipity wrote: »

And then it converts the analog back to optical? Maybe I wasn't understanding how this works, as I have "USB Audio Device" located in my Device Manager and a lot of other audio devices (including Realtek 7.1 audio out) and HDMI audio in the list.

I misspoke, a computer will output both a digital and analog signal when it spins up in the cd drive, you just need to tap the one you want. I just haven't played a cd in my computer for so long I was a little foggy. Still, not the best way to do it.

Serendipity

heiney9 wrote: »

I misspoke, a computer will output both a digital and analog signal when it spins up in the cd drive, you just need to tap the one you want. I just haven't played a cd in my computer for so long I was a little foggy. Still, not the best way to do it.

Ok. Thanks for making this clear. I didn't know what really was going on inside the computer so I had multiple connections hooked up. Really didn't intend for this to be an argument, as I question something I may be unsure of, but don't attack the individual making the post. If anything, if you see a post that is asking a question and know the answer, you help out and give some valuable insight. Thanks.