"SB2" and "Audiophile" go together?

[Aylwin]

I just received my SB2 last week. What a joy! Up and running in 2 mintues, no manual needed. Anyway, I figured I should join the forums too now that I'm an owner. I must admit though that I was surprised to see an Audiophiles forum. I bought my SB2 primarily to stream music anywhere in the house except the audio room. And after a quick look at some threads I said to myself, "people can't seriously think this is an audiophile device, can they?" So I decided to run a few tests of my own.

I ripped a few choice tracks to WAV using EAC and hooked up my SB2 to the audio system and then compared the playback of the WAVs against the CDs. The result, just as I thought. The SB2 can't compete. Then, I connected the SB2 to the same DAC my CD changer is connected to. This time I was pleasantly surprised. It was pretty close, with the CD changer + DAC probably just marginally better then SB2 + DAC. However, against a "proper" CD player the differences were more noticeable compared with the SB2 + DAC combination. Not a huge difference though.

In my opinion, the SB2 paired with a good DAC will produce very good sound. Of audiophile quality? Possibly close enough. Not enough to make me get rid of my CD player though. At least that's how it is on my system.

How is it on yours?

Regards,
Aylwin

By the way, my DAC is an old MSB LinkDAC III w/ 96KHz upsampling. Perhaps with a better DAC the combination would've given the CD player (Marantz SA-8400) a serious run for its money.

[Mitch Harding]

I'm curious -- did you do your comparisons blind?

On 4/26/05, Aylwin <Aylwin.1o46in (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
> I just received my SB2 last week. What a joy! Up and running in 2
> mintues, no manual needed. Anyway, I figured I should join the forums
> too now that I'm an owner. I must admit though that I was surprised to
> see an Audiophiles forum. I bought my SB2 primarily to stream music
> anywhere in the house -except- the audio room. And after a quick look
> at some threads I said to myself, "people can't seriously think this is
> an audiophile device, can they?" So I decided to run a few tests of my
> own.
>
> I ripped a few choice tracks to WAV using EAC and hooked up my SB2 to
> the audio system and then compared the playback of the WAVs against the
> CDs. The result, just as I thought. The SB2 can't compete. Then, I
> connected the SB2 to the same DAC my CD changer is connected to. This
> time I was pleasantly surprised. It was pretty close, with the CD
> changer + DAC probably just marginally better then SB2 + DAC. However,
> against a "proper" CD player the differences were more noticeable
> compared with the SB2 + DAC combination. Not a huge difference
> though.
>
> In my opinion, the SB2 paired with a good DAC will produce very good
> sound. Of audiophile quality? Possibly close enough. Not enough to
> make me get rid of my CD player though. At least that's how it is on
> my system.
>
> How is it on yours?
>
> Regards,
> Aylwin
>
> --
> Aylwin
>

[Christian Pernegger]

> I [...] compared the playback of the WAVs against the CDs.
> The result, just as I thought. The SB2 can't compete. Then, I
> connected the SB2 to the same DAC my CD changer is connected to.

Somehow I have problems imagining a CD changer as a high-end transport.

Maybe someone should open a SB2 ABX site with a guide for people to follow,
and then publish the results.

C.

[pfarrell]

On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 16:56 -0500, Mitch Harding wrote:
> I'm curious -- did you do your comparisons blind?

And nearly as important, with the gain matched to well under a dB?


--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimse...msoftware.html

[shermoid]

hi there,

i AM a professed audiophile, and actually purchased the SB2 as a replacement device for mega cd changers, which are far from audiophile quality. i was getting tired of hearing mediocre sound out of my high-end system, and needed a multi-cd audiophile solution. so, i chose the the SB2 and FLAC encoded discs.

however, there is a catch here: you must use FLAC as your encoding - not MP3!!!

FLAC, as you all probably know, stands for "free lossless audio CODEC". i chose the SB2 specifically because it decodes FLAC encoded music streams. not only by definition, but also by ear, the decoded music stream has exactly the same audio quality as the original cd. i did make the SB2 use a fixed output level, allowing the SB2's internal d-to-a converter to deliver the highest quality audio it can.

later, as finances allow, i'll get a mcintosh mda1000 d-to-a converter, and run the digital output of the SB2 into that for even better audio quality.

i did an A/B test this past weekend, when i received my SB2. i FLAC-encoded a cd, and then had the original cd playing in a mcintosh cd player, while the same music was coming through the squeezebox. i literally could not tell the difference between the two! and, that has everything to do with FLAC. i have done the same test with an MP3 encoded cd - even at 320k bits. the MP3 sounds like "recorded" music. the original cd sounds like the musicians are right in my living room. but with FLAC, there were no differences my ear could detect. of course, FLAC files are much, much larger than MP3 files. my average compression ratio right now (after about 30 ripped cds) is about 66%. FLAC files only are 33% smaller than the original cd.

so, i am truly impressed with the d-to-a converter in the SB2 as well as the SB2 itself. i've ordered a 1.2 terabyte network attached storage device, and am about to rip all 1,000+ cds in my collection, and commit them to FLAC files on disc. i'm keeping the originals, just in case of a big disc crash! :-) maybe a tape backup unit would come in handy here ...

best,
-sherman

[sleepysurf]

I'm doing precisely the same thing. Ripping all my CD's (with EAC) to flac stored on a 300 GB Buffalo Linkstation. So far, I hear little (if any) difference comparing the original CD (albeit played on older Sony ES series CD changer, or Toshiba SD-3750 DVD player) vs. SB2 with optical out, all into a Yamaha RX-V1000 (with admittedly ?? DAC). I intend to eventually replace the Yamaha with a higher-end pre/pro. I've already pulled the Sony changer out of my system. I have Digital Coax cables on order, and will next compare the SB2 Analog RCA vs. Optical vs. Digital Coax. I'm also patiently waiting for somebody to conduct a REAL ABX listening session.

[Aylwin]

Admittedly, my testing wasn't very scientific. So the comparisons weren't blind and very subjective. No proper level matching either as I didn't have an SPL meter on hand. The audio format used for testing the SB2 was WAV as it is native PCM.

My CD changer, Pioneer PD-F1007, is far from being a high end transport. But SB2 vs. Pioneer + DAC, even without accurate level matching, the Pioneer + DAC beats the SB2. I tried playing with volume controls and it made no difference whether one was louder than the other.

As for SB2 + DAC vs. Pioneer + DAC, I believe the output levels were close enough (if not the same). This was a much closer fight. Very subjective on my part so I probably can't guarantee I'd pick my CD changer over the SB2 if the test was blind.

With the Marantz SA-8400 vs SB2 + DAC, again, the problem is accurate level matching. Nevertheless, I believe I can tell the difference.

In my opinion, the SB2 is a very valid alternative to a mega CD changer. Via the analog outputs, I believe the SB2 will easily beat the CD changer. With a DAC, it's probably difficult to tell the difference in sound quality but the SB2 definitely has the huge advantage in features. With a very good DAC, it probably has the potential to rival many entry to mid level audiophile cd players.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that "SB2" and "Audiophile" don't go together. It was just my initial assumption and now I'm not so sure anymore. I believe the SB2 definitely has potential and I'm very happy with it. I was just trying to describe how I believe it performs in my system. And I'm also interested in hearing how it is in other people's systems as well.

Aylwin

[Patrick Dixon]

As for SB2 + DAC vs. Pioneer + DAC, I believe the output levels were close enough (if not the same).

I'd be suprised if they weren't identical, since it's the DAC that determines the gain in both cases - and it's the same.

[ackcheng]

Theoretically, SB2 should be able to produce bit accurate information as it has no mechanical part. So, it should be able to replace the best transport.

[Aylwin]

I'd be suprised if they weren't identical, since it's the DAC that determines the gain in both cases - and it's the same.

I agree. I just wasn't able to check with any measuring device. At least the levels shouldn't have changed during WAV conversion.

Theoretically, SB2 should be able to produce bit accurate information as it has no mechanical part. So, it should be able to replace the best transport.

Perhaps theoretically. But digital audio has 2 components: bits and clocking. Even if the 1's and 0's are read accurately, synchronisation may still be an issue. High end transports use the best oscillators and other components related to clocking to make sure the bits are transmitted with the most accurate timing possible.

I'm actually very intrigued and interested in how the data is transferred to the SB2. Considering that the quality is very good, I'm sure a lot of thought and effort has gone into clock recovery at the receiving end. Or maybe the solution is actually very simple. Does anyone know?