Squeezebox, ripping and other stuff..

[treytexag]

Thanks for the response. After rereading my post, it didn't come across as nicely as I intended. Sorry, not enough coffee yet. :W

Anyway, here are a couple thoughts. Why not the best of both worlds? Get an equalizer to use on the recordings that are objectionable, roll it out when listening to good quality CD's. I see PE has several listed for under $150.

Another option is to convert to computer based music by by buying a Squeezebox. The ripping process cleans up poorly recorded CD's to the point that they sound much better. You can't make a good recording out of a crappy one but it can be improved substantially through the process. I rarely listen to SACD anymore since converting to Squeezebox. Regular CD's rival SACD for sound quality through the Squeezebox, IMHO.

Are you in the Midwest by any chance? The Iowa DIY event will have a number of the speaker projects here at HT Guide to be listened to. I'm also hosting a get together at my house the evening before the event to talk shop, listen a bit and have a good time. Free food!

Anyway, you're most certainly welcome to join us.

Jim

Jim, at the suggestion of a friend here in Houston, I bought a squeezebox about a month ago. I like it allot, although I have yet to rip all my cd's.

I'm curious, and sorry about the dumb question, but how does the ripping of the cd's clean up the sound? Do you have to use any certain ripping sw, or do they all do it?

Thanks and please advise sir.

Trey

Moderator's note .....

This was split from Javier's 2006 NatP thread

[Jim Holtz]

Jim, at the suggestion of a friend here in Houston, I bought a squeezebox about a month ago. I like it allot, although I have yet to rip all my cd's.

I'm curious, and sorry about the dumb question, but how does the ripping of the cd's clean up the sound? Do you have to use any certain ripping sw, or do they all do it?

Thanks and please advise sir.

Trey

Hi Trey,

I have used many different rippers and like DB Power Amp the best. It's $28 and worth every penny in my opinion. It is free if you just want to rip to WAV files which is what I'd recommend. Hard drive space is dirt cheap so why compress the music?

The comment about cleaning up CD's is because of the error correction employed during the ripping process. Your PC and ripping software are far more powerful than the chips in the typical CD player at correcting errors. I have some CD's with recording errors that were noticeable and objectionable when playing on a CD player. After ripping, the errors were corrected to the point that they were barely audible. I also think the ripped songs have better clarity and detail than the typical CD player.

Now, if you have a crappy recording with lots of compression etc., it sounds just as bad after ripping as it did before. I was referring only to recording errors on the CD. You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear as the old farm saying goes.

Jim

[stangbat]

I'm glad this thread was brought back up. One reason is I've encountered the same problems after building my ZDT3s. Some recordings just don't sound very good. And after a lot of listening, moving things, and tweaking, I've come to the conclusion that on the bad sounding stuff, the recording is the problem. I'm not claiming my room is perfect, but I think it is not the major factor on the stuff I find unpleasant. It is quite an eye-opener if it is your first time to hear your music on a system that is capable of revealing shortcomings of the mixing and mastering. Especially if you've been listening to the music on a mediocre system for 20+ years.

The other reason is I'm currently ripping my CD collection. I have a laptop set up which runs into the USB input on my receiver. I'm ripping everything over to FLAC. I haven't decided on what my final setup will be, and the Squeezebox looks nice. Not having to fire up a computer and turn on the TV would be a plus. But even with having to do that, it is nice having your collection a click or button push away.

Edit: Another funny thing is a friend came over last Saturday and brought that Norah Jones CD. He noticed the same thing about Track 1. Now I know we aren't imagining things.

[Raptor550]

On the Norah Jones bit. I have that CD and I know what you are talking about. but thats not the fult of the Nat P's. That album has her voice recorded "hot" my guess is so you can hear it in loud coffee shops or way below reference like most non-audiophile fans like to do. her voice is forward on most hi-fi speakers above $5k I have heard. I have a friend who was a producer for several years at some larger name studios. He agreed about how Norah was mixed in

[Operandi]

Cool thread to read, it predates my being so I missed it the first time round. I'm also glad it had a happy ending .

Hi Trey,

I have used many different rippers and like DB Power Amp the best. It's $28 and worth every penny in my opinion. It is free if you just want to rip to WAV files which is what I'd recommend. Hard drive space is dirt cheap so why compress the music?

The comment about cleaning up CD's is because of the error correction employed during the ripping process. Your PC and ripping software are far more powerful than the chips in the typical CD player at correcting errors. I have some CD's with recording errors that were noticeable and objectionable when playing on a CD player. After ripping, the errors were corrected to the point that they were barely audible. I also think the ripped songs have better clarity and detail than the typical CD player.

Now, if you have a crappy recording with lots of compression etc., it sounds just as bad after ripping as it did before. I was referring only to recording errors on the CD. You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear as the old farm saying goes.

Jim

On the CD ripping topic. EAC, is widely considered to be the best ripper out there, and is as far as I know still the only one capable of bit-perfect rips (it's also free). DB Power Amp is also a great program however.

Also the Sqeezebox has a pretty good built in DAC so if your using it's analog outs that may also play a factor.

[Jim Holtz]

On the CD ripping topic. EAC, is widely considered to be the best ripper out there, and is as far as I know still the only one capable of bit-perfect rips (it's also free). DB Power Amp is also a great program however.

Also the Sqeezebox has a pretty good built in DAC so if your using it's analog outs that may also play a factor.

Actually, DB Power Amp also uses Accurate Rip to verify plus offers various forms of secure ripping. I've used EAC and I just don't care for the interface and it's slow compared to DB Power Amp.

DB Power Amp is free if you just want to rip to wav but I wanted the flexibility to rip and convert to any format since my kids all have MP3 players. It is a master converter. EZCD DA Extractor is another program that was recently updated with Accurate Rip and Secure ripping that is very nice. DB Power Amp is still my favorite, however. It does everything extremely well and very quickly.

I've been a Squeezebox user for several years and love it. However, I'm not as thrilled with the built in DAC. I had mine modified by Red Wine Audio some time ago which was a real step up in smoothing out the midrange and top end but then the bass wasn't as good as I wanted so it's now doing duty as a transport connected to Zhaolu 2.5C DAC with a LC Audio Zap Filter discrete output stage installed. This combination rocks.

The modded Zhaolu compared very, very favorably to my friends high $$$ Cary CD Player which has killer sound quality.

Yep, audio is a bit of a bottomless pit.

Jim

[cjd]

Slow as you make it - faster rips tend to have more errors.

Love my squeezebox too. Getting another or two, I think.

A LOT of female vocalists are recorded hot - often the mic is also distorting. It's done so that you can understand them on all those "silky smooth" speakers that mush up the response so much you lose a ton of detail in the 800Hz-3kHz range. Cheap crap does this, but so do a lot of really fancy expensive brands that use floppy cones pushed really high response-wise. And Bose of course - I blame them most. Paradigm also suffers from this in my experience (plus other issues).

C

[Jim Holtz]

Slow as you make it - faster rips tend to have more errors.

Hi Chris,

Accurate Rip levels the playing field as does secure ripping that makes multiple passes and compares them if the results don't match the Accurate rip database for the CD you're ripping. In other words, slow doesn't make for a better rip unless there are issues with the CD and the results don't match the database.

I have all of my CD's ripped to the hard drive on my PC and backed up to an external drive for safety. Since buying the Squeezebox a few years ago, most of my CD's have never been played. I rip them, put them back in the jewel case and then into storage.

I wouldn't use a ripper with out Accurate Rip or secure ripping anymore. You know they're right when they get done.

BTW, everyone likes something different so YMMV.... These are just my preferences and the reasons I like them. Others may not agree.

Jim

[Mark K]

Actually, DB Power Amp also uses Accurate Rip to verify plus offers various forms of secure ripping. I've used EAC and I just don't care for the interface and it's slow compared to DB Power Amp.

DB Power Amp is free if you just want to rip to wav but I wanted the flexibility to rip and convert to any format since my kids all have MP3 players. It is a master converter. EZCD DA Extractor is another program that was recently updated with Accurate Rip and Secure ripping that is very nice. DB Power Amp is still my favorite, however. It does everything extremely well and very quickly.

I've been a Squeezebox user for several years and love it. However, I'm not as thrilled with the built in DAC. I had mine modified by Red Wine Audio some time ago which was a real step up in smoothing out the midrange and top end but then the bass wasn't as good as I wanted so it's now doing duty as a transport connected to Zhaolu 2.5C DAC with a LC Audio Zap Filter discrete output stage installed. This combination rocks.

The modded Zhaolu compared very, very favorably to my friends high $$$ Cary CD Player which has killer sound quality.

Yep, audio is a bit of a bottomless pit.

Jim

Hey Jim,

Do you have the original squeezebox or the newer duet. IIRC, they have different DAC's. I think the current Duet has a Wolfson 8501 and the older version had a Burr Brown of some type.

[Jim Holtz]

Hey Jim,

Do you have the original squeezebox or the newer duet. IIRC, they have different DAC's. I think the current Duet has a Wolfson 8501 and the older version had a Burr Brown of some type.

Hi Mark,

I have a Squeezebox II with the PCM1748 DAC. It was changed to the premium K version during the mods however. The Duet does use a Wolfson DAC which I've not heard so I can't offer a comparison. The Wolfson doesn't "spec" as well if that means anything.

The mods by RWA bypassed all of the opamps (never heard one I liked) and output stage with an exotic cap. That really smoothed the sound and would have been the end of the line for me but the mod also reduced the impact of the bass to the point where I was not happy with it.

To put the DAC's in perspective, the PCM1748 DAC sells for less than $3 and I suspect the Wolfson is similar. In other words, they are economy DAC's designed to offer good sound for mass built consumer electronics. They do that. However, as the quality of your electronics and most importantly, the resolution capabilities of your speakers go up, you get to hear more of the music and it's not all pleasant or at the very least, audiophile quality.

The Zhaolu 2.5C uses a Cirus logic CS4398 DAC which is the flagship in their DAC line. The 2.5C design is modular and very, very easily modified. I compared it with my friends Cary that uses BB 1704 DAC's and discrete output stage and we really were pressed to hear a difference on a very high resolution system. I like the 2.5C a lot since I installed the Zap Filter. It rocks! :T It's also inexpensive too.

Oritek offers the 2.5A version of this DAC with his custom discrete output stage install that is alsao very highly regarded. It uses AD1855 DAC's I believe. It's a good alternative if you don't want to get your hands dirty.

BTW, the Duet looks very cool! I'd still use it as a transport though.

HTH

Jim

[Cataclysm]

In an ideal world, wouldn't you be best to connect straight off of the digital out port on your PC, and then straight into your receiver?

I mean, if it's good enough to encode that music, surely it should be the most applicable choice to decode it, and that should result in the ultimate way to preserve sound quality and avoid any audible degradation via outside components, no?

[Jim Holtz]

In an ideal world, wouldn't you be best to connect straight off of the digital out port on your PC, and then straight into your receiver?

I mean, that should be the ultimate way to preserve sound quality and avoid any audible degradation via outside components, no?

Well, it depends on how you look at it. Coming out the digital out means it's coming out of your sound card in the PC. Somewhere along the line, the signal was converted to PCM. Using a receiver as the DAC would be my last choice. Combining everything in one component never has been a very good solution for optimum sound quality.

The Squeezebox is using a pure digital signal via TCP/IP, either wired or wireless) sent by your PC and either converting it into an analog signal or passing the digital signal on to an external DAC. Free provided server software provide all the routing and functionality to the component.

I prefer components that are optimized and designed for specific tasks. I've had separates for years and would never go back to a receiver for any system except for background music. Separates simply have better sound quality. I'll probably get beat up for that comment but it's not hard to back up on a high resolution system.

My $.02 worth...

Jim

[Cataclysm]

Receiver was a poor choice of words on my part.

What I meant was, excluding whatever specific stereo components you utilize (other than the squeezebox), why bother going PC --> Squeezebox --> stereo components?

Cut the Squeezebox out all together.



Just trying to glean some info on an unknown area here. :T
(the Logitech Transporter also looks interesting)

[Jim Holtz]

Receiver was a poor choice of words on my part.

What I meant was, excluding whatever specific stereo components you utilize (other than the squeezebox), why bother going PC --> Squeezebox --> stereo components?

Cut the Squeezebox out all together.



Just trying to glean some info on an unknown area here. :T
(the Logitech Transporter also looks interesting)

Flexibility and convenience for anywhere in the house listening is what a Squeezebox or comparable system offers. Somewhere in the chain the digital to analog conversion has to take happen. If you're coming straight out of the PC, it's the sound card. I know there are some very good sound cards. Whether they equal a dedicated component would be debatable however. You would also have to have the PC close enough to your system or part of your system for it too work. That'll not happen in most peoples homes.

Squeezebox/Duet allows the system to be far away from the PC and receive a pristine bit for bit signal that can then be converted by a dedicated component that is optimized for the job. I also like the remote and the organizational capabilities the Squeezebox offers. It's very addictive.

It makes sense to me anyway.

Jim

[Mark K]

Well, it depends on how you look at it. Coming out the digital out means it's coming out of your sound card in the PC. Somewhere along the line, the signal was converted to PCM. Using a receiver as the DAC would be my last choice. Combining everything in one component never has been a very good solution for optimum sound quality.

The Squeezebox is using a pure digital signal via TCP/IP, either wired or wireless) sent by your PC and either converting it into an analog signal or passing the digital signal on to an external DAC. Free provided server software provide all the routing and functionality to the component.

I prefer components that are optimized and designed for specific tasks. I've had separates for years and would never go back to a receiver for any system except for background music. Separates simply have better sound quality. I'll probably get beat up for that comment but it's not hard to back up on a high resolution system.

My $.02 worth...

Jim

Hi Jim,

I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that the default encoding scheme for a wav file is pcm. So a pcm out stream, assuming no errors in the digital domain sould be fine from a decent soundcard. (There's a bit of an assumption here-but assuming the pcm stream doesn't have errors, it should be fine.)

I agree that ideally you're better off using a higher quality outboard DAC. Take your pick I guess. Little bit of vodoo if you want the crystal audio, a wolfson 8741, etc etc. No reason you can't hook up a good DAC to your PC and just play all your wav or flac files in foobar. I doubt anyone could geniunely tell.

It's more the convenience of the squeezebox software/remote combo. And if you really want the "high end sound," whatever that exactly is, then you can use the digital out to your outboard benchmark, twisted pair opus, Zhaolu (didn't they get wiped out by the replicators :lol: ) and you've got a fairly high end setup.

Still, sometimes the DAC thing is a bit overkill. SL uses a DV563 to power the orions at his beach house, so the generic 192k/24bit DAC has got to be fairly good. And op amps can't be all that bad. 20+per channel in an orion setup and it still sounds pretty good :W To each his own.

Elegance and simplicity is important. The squeezebox is a pretty elegant package. What we need is for a midlevel audiophile player, like a Cambridge Audio 540c or similar to meld with a squeezebox into an elegant combined audiopile solution at a reasonable price.

[Saurav]

The main thing the SB gives you is wireless delivery of the digital data from your PC to anywhere else in the house. Other than that, barring small clocking differences (with debatable audibility), a PCM stream is a PCM stream, like you said. But with a wireless connection, you don't need to have a PC in the same room as (or within cabling distance of) your stereo.

Having access to your entire digital music library without having to leave your seat is also a bonus.

And this is a small detail - I use a lossless encoded format, but that's mostly just to save on wireless bandwidth (and reduce the chance of dropouts etc.). It's still PCM when it leaves the digital output of my ROKU.

[Dennis H]

One nice thing about FLAC over WAV is you can embed tags with artist, title, etc. And you can always convert your FLACs to bit-perfect WAVs if you need to.

[Mark K]

One nice thing about FLAC over WAV is you can embed tags with artist, title, etc. And you can always convert your FLACs to bit-perfect WAVs if you need to.

I agree. I've been plodding away converting my CD's to flac lately. I started with wav but switched because of the tag issues. Plus they are quite a bit smaller.

[Jim Holtz]

There are so many different ways to go depending what each individual feels is right for them.

I've not transitioned into PC audio to the point that I'd use a PC as part of my audio system, at least yet. The Squeezebox or comparable solutions are the most elegant to my way of thinking.

Ya, I know SL thinks opamps are "da bomb" but I'll stick by my comments until I find components with opamps that sound as good as discrete circuitry. I've rolled some of the best opamps and each colored the sound in a different way. Discrete circuitry is very nuetral assuming it's designed correctly. The LC Audio Zapfilter is a very nice piece of electronics. Very well done.

Anyway, I offered my opinions and they're worth just what you paid for them.

Jim

[Mark K]

There are so many different ways to go depending what each individual feels is right for them.

I've not transitioned into PC audio to the point that I'd use a PC as part of my audio system..
Jim

yea, neither have I. But I suspect if I bought, say a CA840c as an audiophile player, and hooked the digital input from a Squeezebox into it (the 740c and 840 can be used as outboard DAC's), 99% of the time I'd be playing streamed music through the 840's DAC and the CD's would be gathering dust.

Only to be played when my audiophile friends are around. But, ssssh, don't tell anyone... :takecover:

PS time to hop on the bike before it hits 95 degrees! Later

[Jim Holtz]

yea, neither have I. But I suspect if I bought, say a CA840c as an audiophile player, and hooked the digital input from a Squeezebox into it (the 740c and 840 can be used as outboard DAC's), 99% of the time I'd be playing streamed music through the 840's DAC and the CD's would be gathering dust.

Only to be played when my audiophile friends are around. But, ssssh, don't tell anyone... :takecover:

PS time to hop on the bike before it hits 95 degrees! Later

Hi Mark,

I don't know what the DAC's are in those two players but I do know they're well spoken of, I think you'd be demoing the Squeezebox rather than the player and sound quality goes up not down. A Squeezebox changes the way you listen to music.

I've ripped all my CD's to WAV rather than FLAC. Yes, people think I'm crazy but I think I can hear subtle differences in the playback. Small but differences. For the same reason, I use firmware 84 in my Squeezebox. Again, subtle differences.

Ahh the curse of revealing speakers and electronics. :B

Jim

[impala454]

What do you guys think of WMA Lossless? I have ripped a few that way but haven't done my entire library yet. I mainly went with it just for ease of sharing to my 360, but that's not a dealbreaker if FLAC or WAV is the better choice.

[Dennis H]

Any lossless format should be fine (sorry Jim ). They all unpack to bit-perfect wav/pcm before they play and I can't think of any logical reason why one could sound different from another unless you maybe had some mucked up settings somewhere. It just gets down to convenience with your particular hardware and software.

[Saurav]

In my case I picked lossless AAC (Apple), because the ROKU can decode that in hardware, but it can't decode lossless WMA. So behind the scenes, the server application on my PC was converting WMA to PCM and streaming that out - a double hit, since I had higher bandwidth usage on the network, and my PC was doing more work. I'd ripped a few CDs to WMA before I discovered this, and then had to convert.

So, like Dennis said - other than issues like that, any lossless format should result in the same WAV-equivalent output.

Some people feel that the added workload of converting from the lossless format to straight PCM in real-time (which the SB/ROKU will be doing) can introduce audible artifacts.

[Jim Holtz]

Any lossless format should be fine (sorry Jim ). They all unpack to bit-perfect wav/pcm before they play and I can't think of any logical reason why one could sound different from another unless you maybe had some mucked up settings somewhere. It just gets down to convenience with your particular hardware and software.

Ya, ya ya.... Bits are bits, right? I told you most folks think I'm nuts, but it makes me happy. :rofl:

Jim

[cjd]

So, the average computer is quite a bit louder than it needs to be for a sound system, so no way do I want it in my main rig. Straight out the digital sound output from the computer or through the network to a Squeeze is going to be the same.

You can sync squeezeboxen and get multi-room audio. Or un-sync and have each room separate. All from one PC.

The problem(s) with WMA and Apple lossless formats is they support DRM, which can be a pain. For example, my wife purchased a CD (soundtrack to "Once") from the iTunes store. It has the DRM. I couldn't get it onto our music server without burning to CD (allowed per the iTunes T's&C's) and then ripping the CD on my music server. Whaaa?! Of course, part of that is that I don't use iTunes as my music server - it's clunky and offers worse performance compared to the SqueezeServer. It can be done.

360 is evil anyhow, so there. :P Only other way I've seen is to transcode (TVersity I think?) to MP3 from FLAC so yeah, in this case, WMA may be the way to go. But you can't put it on an ipod I think (not that you can with FLAC either, since Apple sucks that way as much as MS does).


I have to finish my Opus. I broke a switch (micro DPDT) trying to install it, and I wanted to be able to switch source inputs on the DAC. And I have to dig up what voltages the power supply has to run. Once I do that It'll run to the balanced inputs on my pre, so I can finally get the CD player and Squeezebox off the two SE inputs and actually attach a phono pre...

By the way, the Squeezebox should be noticeably better than a good CD player if there's anything at all to the jitter argument, since it doesn't exist with the Squeeze.

There's rumor the new (and I sooo want one) remote with the Duet will get a firmware update allowing it to be a portable player. That supports FLAC. AND supports removable flash... now there's a great concept!

C

[Mark K]

There's rumor the new (and I sooo want one) remote with the Duet will get a firmware update allowing it to be a portable player. That supports FLAC. AND supports removable flash... now there's a great concept!

C

CJ,

are you saying the remote selling with the current duet can have the firmware update(possibly) or are you saying a newer version is coming out?

[Saurav]

By the way, the Squeezebox should be noticeably better than a good CD player if there's anything at all to the jitter argument, since it doesn't exist with the Squeeze.

I think the ROKU sounds better than my CD player. There's the jitter thing, but the ROKU also upsamples, which I then send into a NOS DAC, so... who knows what's going on with my bits It sounds pretty good, that's all I really care about. Some day I'll sit down and do an A/B between the ROKU vs. the CD player feeding the same DAC... but for now I'm convinced that the money I spent on the ROKU was worth it, so that's good.

[JoshK]

Couple of comments from this SB user....

1) I got over 1500 CDs ripped in flac format...I had to start over after a couple hundred twice because of computer issues, so I now have a RAID 5 array and then back this up onto another large outboard HD. I still have the disks but ripping this many disks is a PITA and not much fun.

2) the convenience is very nice and most of the disks are slowly getting stored away. My wife uses the SB more exclusively then even I do. She built her playlists. We have music playing almost always.

3) I have two SB's at the moment. One in the living room and one in the bedroom. This is pretty easy way to get whole house audio of one sort. I plan to get one for my shop when its finished being set back up. I also like some of the internet radio "stations" for content, not nec'ly quality. Good way to find more stuff I like.

4) agree that flac is the way to go (over wav) because of tagging, etc.

5) ethernet is galvanically isolated, meaning ground hash in the computer isn't becoming ground hash in your system. This is not true for USB.

We ran Cat 5E throughout the house, so we don't have the computers in the living room. Wireless can be a PITA to setup and also can be susceptible to drop outs. In my house, my wireless router doesn't like to always connect to my laptop downstairs so I didn't want to mess with this with the SBs. I know some who have constant drop outs and that would drive me crazy.

I use my SBII in my main system into a Lite Audio DAC60. Stock, I didn't think the SBII sounded all that hot via analog out. It does have 'lytic coupling caps and the wallwart power supply sucks. However, it does seem to respond well to some moddings according to some reports I've read. I have only built a linear power supply for mine otherwise it is stock...for now.

[---k---]

Shhhhh, don't tell anyone. I have my CDs ripped to mp3 w/ bitrates between 256 - 320. I do this because my cheap Creative MP3 player only does MP3. I've been thinking about redoing everything to Flac and getting an on-the-fly encoding of flac to mp3 synchronization program, like the full version of MediaMonkey. But, re-ripping is tooooo much work. I must have spent 2 8 hour days as it was.

Besides, I have a hard time telling the difference. In fact, I had a guy over a couple of months ago to demo my speakers. He made me chuckle. He said he couldn't stand mp3, had never heard a good one, said he could hear them no problem. Well, I put on a mp3 through my Squeeze. He couldn't tell, and admitted his surprise at the ruse. Though, we didn't do any AvB and I was still using the Behringer amp at the time and a lowely pioneer receiver as a pre.

Still, mp3 wins for convenience and it is good enough. If Jim comes over, I'll get out the CDs.

To each his own. There is no perfect solution, they all have drawbacks (and I fear the drawbacks will never be solved).

[JoshK]

I for most music it is hard to tell the difference because the music is already so compressed to begin with. This isn't always the case. It is easier to tell the difference with some types of classical, especially masses strings.

I, being somewhat of a metal-head, like to play AC/DC Hell's Bells at loud volume. Years ago (probably 8) I ripped this track to mp3 and when I played it back I thought my computer speakers were broken because the intro guitar riff was so faint it was almost inaudible in the background.

I transferred it to my portable mp3 player, same deal. I tried various bit rates, still nothing. Tried ripping it to CD from the mp3 and still it was gone. The orig CD played back, whether on my computer or through hi-fi obviously didn't have this problem.

It became my reference track to show why mp3's can sometimes really goof up a song. I have a few other similar tracks, like Korn's Blind (first alb). Can't remember any others off hand.

I haven't tried ripping any of these tracks to mp3 in many years and I don't know if the codecs have gotten any better but this was the some-german-hauer codec through audiograbber (reference back then). I had also tried a couple other competing codecs and it didn't matter. I think I even had some other guys online rip the track and send it to me to see if it was just my setup.

I'm almost curious enough to try it again.

[cjd]

192k mp3 i can usually hear. depends on the song i suppose.

Not sure about higher bitrates, i don't usually mess with them

And, the rumor was that the current remote will be update-able to make it a portable. No idea if there's any validity, but it *does* have a stereo headphone jack..

C

[jimluu]

I have the sonos system and love it. I tried the logitech and the sonos, and in terms of design, the sonos is way better. One of the best thing about the sonos system, not to get off topic, is that you don't have to have your computer on all the time. It runs off any nas. Sounds pretty good too. I use apple lossless since I see apple products in my future. There is a slight degradation of sound quality compared to my cd player.

That said, I have a logitech transporter on order.

[Bastek]

I think the SB stock power supply is fine. I feed the optical output to a late 80's top integrated amplifier with build in 8x oversampling DAC and it sounds great.
We have to get used to it, high end from now on is cheap, black and plastic.

[dlr]

I think the ROKU sounds better than my CD player. There's the jitter thing, but the ROKU also upsamples, which I then send into a NOS DAC, so... who knows what's going on with my bits It sounds pretty good, that's all I really care about. Some day I'll sit down and do an A/B between the ROKU vs. the CD player feeding the same DAC... but for now I'm convinced that the money I spent on the ROKU was worth it, so that's good.

I have a ROKU, didn't realize it upsamples. I use the digital output (that's still 44.1 I believe) to an outboard DAC, an MSB Link III that upsamples to 132K with good jitter control internally. They can be had at a reasonable price on ebay, but you do want the version that upsamples. It makes all talk of transport/PC jitter, cables, etc. moot. The ROKU is set up wireless and the PC is an old P3-900 in another room that has ethernet to the modem. It is sometimes slow to respond to commands, though. I don't know if it's the network or internal to the ROKU.

I'll always ripped to WAV simply because disk space is cheap and I occasionally make compilation CDs. I'll have to check out AAC.

Dave

[Saurav]

I have a ROKU, didn't realize it upsamples.

I don't remember the details, but I think my model does, and it's an M1000 or M1001. If you have the older model (M500?) that doesn't upsample. Or oversamples, or something like that. I can never keep this straight.

And I have a non-oversampling DAC specifically because I like its sound (and I know how poorly they measure on the usual metrics, but I'd run some transient-response type measurements on my scope once, and you can see the improvements there), so for me, it's kinda ironic to be feeding that DAC with an upsampling source.

[impala454]

Assume I have my computer close enough to my setup that I can just run optical straight from the sound card. Is there any advantage to me having the squeezebox (other than the remote)?

edit: second question: is there a limit to how many files the SB can "sort" through? i.e. i have like 35,000 music files.

[cjd]

Performance of the SB is one of its strengths, and particularly their server software (and significantly so if it's running on Linux) - you can download and mess with this + softsqueeze to get the "full" squeezebox experience without purchasing one. It works through your digital out. I've run softsqueeze on my HTPC to get music from the server and playback while I work in the HT.

[Dennis H]

That Squeezebox Duet looks pretty sweet, being able to control the whole works from the remote's screen. You used to have to buy a Palm or a Pocket PC to do that and now they've integrated it all into a nice turnkey package.

[Bastek]

Yes, but what if you use an expensive universal remote control like i do? Can you program the Duet codes into them? My URC MX-850 controls 10 components, but i don't think the Duet is an ordinary component.

[Dennis H]

I doubt a universal remote would work. There's 2-way communication between the Duet's remote and the server over a wireless LAN connection. You don't have to program the remote with a list of your songs, album art, etc., it just pulls them off the server. In my mind, that convenience far outweighs the clutter of having an extra remote on the coffee table. Programming a universal remote with thousands of songs would be..... well it would just never get done.

[sokoban]

An appleTV or an Airport Express + iPod Touch is a pretty swell package, IMO. The Airport Express streams songs from iTunes (with a 1/8 inch optical/headphone jack), and the iPod touch can be used as a remote control for iTunes now.

[Mark K]

An appleTV or an Airport Express + iPod Touch is a pretty swell package, IMO. The Airport Express streams songs from iTunes (with a 1/8 inch optical/headphone jack), and the iPod touch can be used as a remote control for iTunes now.

Do any of the iPods have digital out?

In fact, do any of the ipods (ipods=mp3 players, like creative, iriver, etc. You know, the way xerox became synonymous with copy)

[Dennis H]

I doubt a universal remote would work. There's 2-way communication between the Duet's remote and the server over a wireless LAN connection. You don't have to program the remote with a list of your songs, album art, etc., it just pulls them off the server. In my mind, that convenience far outweighs the clutter of having an extra remote on the coffee table. Programming a universal remote with thousands of songs would be..... well it would just never get done.

That said, Logitech now owns both the Squeezebox and the Harmony remote brands. I could see a Harmony remote coming out in the future that would include full Squeezebox control. That would be pretty cool.

[sokoban]

Do any of the iPods have digital out?

In fact, do any of the ipods (ipods=mp3 players, like creative, iriver, etc. You know, the way xerox became synonymous with copy)

I think the new iPods do, but I haven't seen an inexpensive way to get digital out from one. The Krell iPod dock is the only device I've seen to get digital out from an iPod.

http://www.krellonline.com/krell_component.php?id=108&page=KID