SqueezeCenter 7.3.2 official- handles high-res!

FYI... for those of you streaming with a Squeezebox, SqueezeCenter 7.3.2 firmware is now out, which amongst other improvements, now allows playback of 24bit/96kHz and 24bit/192kHz high-res FLAC files on a Squeezebox or Duet (by downsampling to 24bit/48kHz). Although not quite the equal of the 24/96 capable Transporter, it's now the best possible fidelity you can get out of a Squeezebox or Duet. I've read that even downsampled 24/48 playback is clearly an improvement over native 16/44.1 FLAC files. Can't wait to d/l some of the high-res stuff from HDTracks now!!

sleepysurf said:

FYI... for those of you streaming with a Squeezebox, SqueezeCenter 7.3.2 firmware is now out, which amongst other improvements, now allows playback of 24bit/96kHz and 24bit/192kHz high-res FLAC files on a Squeezebox or Duet (by downsampling to 24bit/48kHz). Although not quite the equal of the 24/96 capable Transporter, it's now the best possible fidelity you can get out of a Squeezebox or Duet. I've read that even downsampled 24/48 playback is clearly an improvement over native 16/44.1 FLAC files. Can't wait to d/l some of the high-res stuff from HDTracks now!!

Click to expand...

Hmm - anit-climax! I thought you were going to say it handles up to 24/192! (which it should).

Didn't it always handle up to 48k? That's not high-res in my book. DSD is high-res.

amey01 said:

Hmm - anit-climax! I thought you were going to say it handles up to 24/192! (which it should).

Didn't it always handle up to 48k? That's not high-res in my book. DSD is high-res.

Click to expand...

In the past a non-audiophile solution had been cobbled together. This is reportedly a more pristine fix.

Sooner or later, I expect Slimdevices/Logitech to offer a next-gen device (besides the Transporter) to natively play 24/96 (if not 24/192). That'll be my next upgrade!

Cool, at least now one can build a collection of 24/96 FLACs and use the entire product line with it.

As for the diff the between 24/96 and 24/192. I personally don't believe it's worth the extra space. Also, way too many pieces of gear in a studio max out at 24/96 in their processing to make 192 realistically achievable throughout the recording process. Might be OK as a mix-down target, but don't really see what it's buying you.

It would be interesting to hear what a recording engineer had to say about these various rates.

sleepysurf said:

In the past a non-audiophile solution had been cobbled together. This is reportedly a more pristine fix.

Sooner or later, I expect Slimdevices/Logitech to offer a next-gen device (besides the Transporter) to natively play 24/96 (if not 24/192). That'll be my next upgrade!

Click to expand...

Yes that will be my next upgrade first. But before I buy that I'll have to upgrade my connection to support that sort of downloading! I can't imagine trying to pull down an album of 24/192 over my present connection!

JonFo said:

It would be interesting to hear what a recording engineer had to say about these various rates.

Click to expand...

Needless to say, it's pretty controversial - even amongst recording engineers. From my experience, 24/192 is great - but it certainly gives less of a startling improvement over 96k than 96k gives over 44.1.

Have you heard any 32 bit recordings Jon? I haven't, but am intrigued. Personally I think all PCM is a dead loss when DSD trumps them all......

amey01 said:

Needless to say, it's pretty controversial - even amongst recording engineers. From my experience, 24/192 is great - but it certainly gives less of a startling improvement over 96k than 96k gives over 44.1.

Have you heard any 32 bit recordings Jon? I haven't, but am intrigued. Personally I think all PCM is a dead loss when DSD trumps them all......

Click to expand...

From what I've read, 24/192 is probably best reserved for the recording/mastering process, with the final product released as 24/96. Even then, it remains to be seen if there's really any significant market.

As for DSD/SACD, IMHO, lacking a d/l or rip option, I think it's a dead format, regardless of resolution.

sleepysurf said:

As for DSD/SACD, IMHO, lacking a d/l or rip option, I think it's a dead format, regardless of resolution.

Click to expand...

For me too, yes. It's just a crying shame you can't rip, stream and output DSD to a DAC.

Maybe one day........but not when they can sell us the hardware three times over - it'll be 24/192 first, then new hardware again for 32/384 or whatever, then new hardware again for DSD. Sorry - just being a cynic. But it is frustrating because I hear DSD every second day but I wish I could stream it!!

sleepysurf said:

This is reportedly a more pristine fix.

Click to expand...

I've looked through the Slim Devices website but am unable to find anything clear on what has been changed (other than - as you say - it has changed) .......I know it streamed 96k files previously by dropping every second sample, right?

Do you have any idea about how this works differently?

JonFo said:

Cool, at least now one can build a collection of 24/96 FLACs and use the entire product line with it.

As for the diff the between 24/96 and 24/192. I personally don't believe it's worth the extra space. Also, way too many pieces of gear in a studio max out at 24/96 in their processing to make 192 realistically achievable throughout the recording process. Might be OK as a mix-down target, but don't really see what it's buying you.

It would be interesting to hear what a recording engineer had to say about these various rates.

Click to expand...

This entire discussion has really piqued my curiosity about audible differences between various resolutions. Trying to learn more, I found this Hong Kong based recording engineer (Kent Poon) who has an interesting website and blog, and offers free sample downloads of his recording of Lush Life in Redbook CD, 24/96, 24/192, and even a DSD.dff format. Unfortunately, the first three are in lossless AIFF, but, if need be, can be converted to FLAC or WAV for playback. Sounds like a great way to compare an otherwise identical recording. I've also attached a pic of the file sizes, for comparison (I'm assuming they're all the same song duration).

You need to register (free) to get the downloads...
http://www.designwsound.com/dwsblog/

His main website is also quite interesting, and I suspect he comments somewhere about the pros/cons of each format...
http://www.designwsound.com

amey01 said:

I've looked through the Slim Devices website but am unable to find anything clear on what has been changed (other than - as you say - it has changed) .......I know it streamed 96k files previously by dropping every second sample, right?

Do you have any idea about how this works differently?

Click to expand...

Here's an explanation that was posted over on Audiocircle...

The means that (before 7.3.1) that a 24/96 file should sound worse than its 24/48 equivalent!​

In 7.3.2, a new on-the-fly transcoding method for FLAC was introduced, using SOX to correctly downsample to 48kHz.​

now 24/48 and 24/96 sound identical.​

I think that in 7.3.1, they took away the "drop alternate sample" method and transcoded 24/96 via lame to 320bps MP3! (this is probably why 24/96 files don't play - you need to install LAME.EXE).​

Click to expand...

sleepysurf said:

Here's an explanation that was posted over on Audiocircle...

Click to expand...

Cool - thanks - as clear as not so thick mud now......sounds like it is certainly worth the upgrade and download of a few 24/96 files to play with!

Just found out that running this new SqueezeCenter on my ReadyNAS NV+ does not have enough horsepower to handle downsampling from 24/96 (or 24/192). I kept getting error messages.

I inquired at the Slimdevices forum, and found out the only way I can process the higher-res files is to run SqueezeCenter on my laptop (which is what I was trying to get away from with the ReadyNAS). Bummer!

Guess my comparative listening session will need to wait for the weekend.

Voila! Found out I can actually run TWO instances of SqueezeCenter simultaneously... one on my NAS (for regular streaming), and another on my WinXP laptop, when streaming (downsampled) high-res tracks. Each of my three Squeezeboxes then gives me a choice of which SqueezeCenter version to connect to. Brilliant design!

Did some brief comparisons yesterday of the Lush Life recordings mentioned above, and there is a clear improvement going from Redbook CD (16/44.1) to even 24/48 (downsampled from 24/96 or 24/192), especially in the highs. No digital "glare" whatsoever with the higher-res version... much more natural and musical sounding. Next up will be buying some 24/96 material from HDTracks!

Chris Connaker over at Computer Audiophile has just posted a lengthy review and commentary about Kent Poon's Audiophile Jazz Prologue III high-res recording (from which the Lush Life and Freddie samples can be d/l)...
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/Kent-Poon-Audiophile-Jazz-Prologue-III-Review

Sounds like I need to get the whole album!

http://www.martinloganowners.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8046

Here's another way to clearly hear the difference between 24/96 and 16/44.1, as it is available in both formats.

Plainly, the 24/96 blows the 16/44.1 away by some margin. However, it involves work. And that means no one will/has bothered, I suspect!

I d/l Ana Caram's Rio After Dark in 24/96 FLAC from HDTracks.com, and compared it to the 16/44.1 FLAC version that I already have. Even when downsampled to 24/48 by my Squeezebox, the higher-res version was clearly more musical/analog sounding. I can't wait to get hardware that handles playback at full 24/96 (maybe even 24/192) resolution!

For those wondering about d/l time, it took under 25 mins to d/l the entire album (using Verizon Fios). Not bad at all!