Squeezeboxes on major sale

[discocarp]

White squeezeboxes are on major sale right now. $249. Plus you can use the coupon code LIVE365 for another $20 off, making them a full $70 off retail. Great deal if anyone has been thinking about picking one up, as long as you can live with the white.

https://secure.slimdevices.com/order/index.cgi?

 

[discocarp]

Oh and the shipping is free on top of that!

 

[HopelessDFilms]

Intrigued

I've always been a bit confused about the squeezebox.... I know that a handful of members have the unit and swear by it, but I wonder what the quality sounds like out of it and what the necessity is for it.

From what I can tell, it allows you to connect a system to a network *hardwire or wireless* and then stream the music from sed network... It's connections are standard rca, spdif, and toslink. The rca has a thd or .002% i believe.

I guess I just don't understand what makes them so special.. If any of you squeezebox owners can give me some input I would appreciate it.

On a side note, I have been using balanced 1/4" cables from the computer for transferring audio, a good device to use for really cheap is this unit from M_Audio, its called the Firewire 410, pretty decent device for portable recording as well, but can be used simply for balanced outputs to an amp/pre, etc.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...194&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

 

[sleepysurf]

The Squeezebox (as well as the Transporter, Sonos, Roku Soundbridge and others), merely function as a conduit to get CD (or near CD) quality music from your computer, hard drive, or internet radio WITHOUT needing a computer in your listening room. Their popularity lies in their convenient ability to instantaneously select a track/album, playback custom playlists, stream myriad internet radio stations, and even synchronize multi-room audio. The Squeezebox was one of the first devices, and now has a high-end "big-brother"... the Transporter. The downside to server-based playback is the need to first "rip" the tracks to a hard-drive/computer, and "tag" them. This can be a time consuming process, and also creating a backup is advised. Some folks just rip with iTunes, and stream ALAC (Apple Lossless) for decent fidelity. Others use EAC (Exact Audio Copy) and stream FLAC files. The Squeezebox is arguably "near audiophile grade" in default form, and approaches the "best" CD players when modded or paired with an outboard DAC. Some feel the Transporter is the current "gold-standard" for streaming audio, others disagree. Much more can be found on the Slimdevices, and other Audio Forums (esp. audiocircle.com)

 

[IWalker]

It's just a very convenient and intuitive way to play music you have saved onto your hard drive, and the sound quality (especially from Digital through a DAC) is quite good. The advantages are that you can play playlists, random songs, certain artists, etc...instead of having to pick up a particular CD and play it. Very nice for background listening and entertaining and such. I don't have one, but have heard a friend's, and the sound quality is quite good, depending on the quality of the format being played. Maybe not QUITE cd quality, but indistinguishable for all but critical listening.

Once I get a pre-amp, I will get a squeezebox. It does take up a good amount of memory on your computer, though (slimserver)...so that can be an issue for older machines.

Edit: What sleepysurf said I was typing while he was, so didn't see his post.

 

[kcl]

White squeezeboxes are on major sale right now. $249. Plus you can use the coupon code LIVE365 for another $20 off, making them a full $70 off retail. Great deal if anyone has been thinking about picking one up, as long as you can live with the white.

Story of my life. I buy something and a month later it goes on sale.

 

[kcl]

... The downside to server-based playback is the need to first "rip" the tracks to a hard-drive/computer, and "tag" them. This can be a time consuming process, and also creating a backup is advised. Some folks just rip with iTunes, and stream ALAC (Apple Lossless) for decent fidelity. Others use EAC (Exact Audio Copy) and stream FLAC files. ...

I picked up the reference version of dBpowerAMP (see the link here for details), and it not only does the ripping and tagging automatically, it provides an excellent digital format conversion mechanism. I haven't had to manually enter a tag yet on the 50+ CDs that I've ripped over the last month or so. I highly recommend giving the 30-day free trial a go.

 

[HopelessDFilms]

I C

Thanks for the info guys! Thankfully I have all of my gear in the same room, my screen is my tv and comp monitor. My comp is also hooked up to my mains through balanced and my 14,xxx songs on my computer are all at a click away.

I suppose when I finally build the studio room apart from my viewing/listening room a device like the squeeze or transport could be quite a nice addition.

Thanks for the helpful info, I will have to keep this might giant in the back of the brain. :rocker:

 

[Audiophiliac]

Some argue that a hard drive is a superior way of delivering content than any optical transport. I think using a lossless compression format (or even just .WAV) and sending the digital signal through a high end DAC, you can likely exceed the sound of many CD transports out there. Its all relative to what you are comparing I suppose. Certain combinations may sound "better" than certain CD players. And vice versa. But the logic behind the hard drive vs. disc transport seems to me like a valid one without digging into it too much. The new solid state hard drives might even do one better....something about no moving parts has a nice ring to it.

I am leaning towards the SONOS simply for its interface, but I might just do a DAC with a USB input and a long enough cable to reach to my chair so I can just use a laptop.

 

[JonFo]

Some argue that a hard drive is a superior way of delivering content than any optical transport. I think using a lossless compression format (or even just .WAV) and sending the digital signal through a high end DAC, you can likely exceed the sound of many CD transports out there. Its all relative to what you are comparing I suppose. Certain combinations may sound "better" than certain CD players. And vice versa. But the logic behind the hard drive vs. disc transport seems to me like a valid one without digging into it too much. The new solid state hard drives might even do one better....something about no moving parts has a nice ring to it.

I am leaning towards the SONOS simply for its interface, but I might just do a DAC with a USB input and a long enough cable to reach to my chair so I can just use a laptop.

I can vouch for the fact that a well ripped .WAV played back on a bit accurate digital interface is substantially better than any transport.

Using a PC and software playback tools like FooBar 2000, one can upsample .WAV's to 16/88.2 and feed to most modern processors for an increase in quality over regular transports.

Even though I love my Denon DVD2900 as a DVD-A and SACD player, I still push all my RedBook CD's though the rip and playback process. It's funny, most of the new CD's in the last year have never been spun except for the rip to the media server.


The Squeezebox is a slick device. Once you get a device (or two) like it, it really changes how you use your music collection.

I've been using network playback devices (3x AudioTrons and 4x PC's) for this for over 6 years and would never go back.

Nice price too...

 

[MiTT]

I can vouch for the fact that a well ripped .WAV played back on a bit accurate digital interface is substantially better than any transport....

Not trying to start a huge debate here BUT...

Here's what I just don't get about the logic in this statement. The file that is ripped really can't get any "better" than the quality that was presented off of the transport when it was originally ripped, right? I mean the transports on most computers really aren't as good at delivering audio information as the dedicated transports used in most audio gear, and certainly not as good as the transports used in higher end audio gear where it's all about preserving the integrity of the data. That is to say that

A.) most computer drives that you would be ripping from are actually commodity items built to a price point, not fully executed "statement" type products dedicated to extracting musical information (granted, only "data" for this discussion).

B.) How can the process of transferring this data from the CD to the hard drive actually improve on the original? It doesn't upconvert the data, it only transfers it. Upconversion is accomplished in the digital to analog domain isn't it?

I've posted here before about comparissons between music played back on my dedicated player, to music streamed from my computer through a friends Squeezebox, both through my outboard DAC and direct from the Squeezebox and in all cases there was a noticible degradation in sound quality ON MY SYSTEM (just wanted to qualify that).

I can understand all the groovy things that a Squeezebox or comparable device does from a convenience standpoint, but again ON MY SYSTEM, it does not offer equivalent (and certainly not improved) fidelity.

Thoughts?

 

[discocarp]

I mean the transports on most computers really aren't as good at delivering audio information as the dedicated transports used in most audio gear, and certainly not as good as the transports used in higher end audio gear where it's all about preserving the integrity of the data.

This is solved by accuraterip. What it does is calculate a CRC for the data ripped from the harddrive. It then compares this CRC with the CRCs of everyone else who has ripped that CD (and uses accuraterip). You know instantly if you got a bit perfect copy as long as the CD isn't too obscure. Ah the beauty of digital data.

IMO, a transporter or squeezebox/dac or even a transporter/dac could rival any CD player as long as the dac is good enough. Obviously for the insanely good CD players, you'd need to transporter and a great dac to put up a fight.

 

[MiTT]

This is solved by accuraterip. What it does is calculate a CRC for the data ripped from the harddrive. It then compares this CRC with the CRCs of everyone else who has ripped that CD (and uses accuraterip). You know instantly if you got a bit perfect copy as long as the CD isn't too obscure. Ah the beauty of digital data.

IMO, a transporter or squeezebox/dac or even a transporter/dac could rival any CD player as long as the dac is good enough. Obviously for the insanely good CD players, you'd need to transporter and a great dac to put up a fight.

OK, so I can understand that it may be bit for bit "as good as" the original data file, but that still doesn't help me understand JonFo's statement that it will be "better than" the original?

Or am I just not getting it? Help me understand JonFo...

And...ON MY SYSTEM, these files still don't sound as good as music played back on my Esoteric DV-50S, although they do sound MUCH improved when routing them through my Dodson DAC vs. straight out of the Squeezebox - so I will conceed that a really good DAC does make a noticible improvement.

 

[Audiophiliac]

MiTT, you bring up a good point. However, its not the extraction at issue. You can get perfect bit-for-bit audio extraction with the proper software. Plextools, EAC just to name a few....The issue in arguement is with the playback of the extracted audio files. If you can play a bit perfect copy of a CD off of a hard drive in a computer through a high end DAC, the arguement is that you can exceed the performance of a physical CD transport. Like I said, I havent dove into the issue enough to be able to say one way over the other definitely, but it seems to me like a transport, with all its moving parts, lasers, precision adjustments, electronics, software, etc etc....could possibly introduce some kind of anomaly that is otherwise unwanted. This isnt a general statement however. It definitely depends on the transport, the DAC, and the software you are using to do a comparison.

It wouldn't be fair to say that music played from a hard drive sounds better than music played from a CD player. Or vice versa. Its simply too vague and unsupported to say such a thing. Its all relative and subjective in terms of sound quality.

So my opinion as of now leads me to lean towards using a hard drive based delivery system...whether or not its streamed through a SONOS, a Squeezebox, a Laptop, or any other means, is irrelevant. Its more convenient, more flexible, and its the way I prefer to store and listen to my music collection.

I would like to own a Wadia 4 piece transport/processor/DAC CD rig though. I would listen to CDs at least sometimes if I had one of them bad boys.

 

[discocarp]

OK, so I can understand that it may be bit for bit "as good as" the original data file, but that still doesn't help me understand JonFo's statement that it will be "better than" the original?

I don't get that either. Even though upconverted, you are just interpolating data points, not adding real data. IMO its all about the dac.

The only reason IMO it would be better is that the data through a normal cd player is being "ripped" (read) everytime you play. In the squeezebox, you do it once. With accurate rip you usually find out immediately if you've gotten it 100%. So the squeezebox should, in theory, "read" perfect every time while a CD player may not. In reality, with a decent player and good condition disc, I don't really think this is much of an issue. This is a very, very minor advantage especially given the equipment most on this forum have for cd playback.

 

[discocarp]

It wouldn't be fair to say that music played from a hard drive sounds better than music played from a CD player. Or vice versa. Its simply too vague and unsupported to say such a thing. Its all relative and subjective in terms of sound quality.

Quoted for truth. This is exactly the side I come down on with this. There is no reason a squeezebox should be better or worse than a good quality cd player with an equivilant dac.

 

[Charliemike]

If I have a Zune and a XBox 360, do I really need this?

I ain't know

 

[kcl]

... There is no reason a squeezebox should be better or worse than a good quality cd player with an equivalent DAC.

You're absolutely correct in that you will not get any better than your original source. Doing any bit depth or frequency conversion when you create the digital files is just another form of DSP, which IMO is not a good thing. What you want is a perfect copy on disk of the CD's contents. If you want better source, buy a better CD. They're out there, just a bit more expensive.

Also, I think the key phrase in your statement was the "with an equivalent DAC." This is why a number of us use an external DAC with the Squeezebox. Its the old separates concept; let each of the components focus on doing its job the best it can. The SB3 is excellent at managing the access and processing from digital librarys, but its internal DAC isn't audiophile quality IMO.

 

[Audiophiliac]

Again, the issue, to me, seems to be the delivery method of the signal between the transport or hard drive and the DAC. Whether the optical pickup assembly, the laser focussing, the tracking mechanism, the spindle motor, and whatever opto-electronic sensor is sending the signal to the DAC is a more or less accurate method than streaming it off of a hard drive through a USB port or SPDIF out on a sound card and into the DAC is the real question here. This requires the signal extracted from the disc onto the hard drive is an exact copy of the signal on the disc itself. And we can do this...so thats not an issue.

Am I wrong to think that to test this, one could simply use the digital output of both a computer or streaming device and a CD transport and measure the signal output of each using the same song? Something sounds too simple about that....but it might just be that simple.

 

[JonFo]

I don't get that either. Even though upconverted, you are just interpolating data points, not adding real data. IMO its all about the dac.

The only reason IMO it would be better is that the data through a normal cd player is being "ripped" (read) everytime you play. In the squeezebox, you do it once. With accurate rip you usually find out immediately if you've gotten it 100%. So the squeezebox should, in theory, "read" perfect every time while a CD player may not. In reality, with a decent player and good condition disc, I don't really think this is much of an issue. This is a very, very minor advantage especially given the equipment most on this forum have for cd playback.

What I meant by ‘better’ is that due to the removal of media reading issues from the chain, you are guaranteed an accurate bit-stream (with no corrections or temporal issues), which will translate into a more accurate playback chain than a transport.

Granted, its uncommon to have a transport skip or mess up a bitstream, but I have enough CD’s that take repeated reads of sectors to get accurate data (some rip for hours) that I know my PC based playback is much more accurate than my transport. And the few times I have tested that theory, I could audibly hear an improvement (albeit slight).

So even without re-sampling, a PC can deliver the bits more accurately (in terms of being exactly what was on the disc) than a player can. Also, if using the right software and hardware (good pro cards), then the bitstream clocking can also improve.

Although, in all fairness, I have to point out that one needs to be careful here, a PC that has too many interrupts and / or the audio card is on a low-priority IRQ, etc. etc. will actually sound worse than a transport. Caveat emptor…

Now, upsampling does not add information per-se, but it does give the processor algorithms more information (interpolated points) to work with and just plain sounds better IMHO. The DAC getting more points to work with is another benefit (at least on my Meridians).

This is like video upsampling, no information is added, it’s just perceived that way.