SB Audiophile Wish List

[WSLam]

I am so happy with the SB2 (replacing slowly, my Linn CD12) that I really hope SD will build an 'audiophile' version of the SB.

Here are a list of features I could think of! Hope you guys can all pitch in:

- No Internal DAC. Save the cost, and spend it on elsewhere
- AES Digital Out (That would make my day!)
- No Volume control, the simpler the circuit, the better
- WBT or Neutrik connectors
- Make it heavier! =) audio nuts are all for heavy equipment! (otherwise, the AES cable is gonna make the SB2 'move')
- A even better, higher resolution display.
- more 'solid' feel remote control

Anyone else?

ws

[WSLam]

Oh one more...
Remote Display... maybe something like the Sonos controller. =)
Audiophiles will pay!

[pfarrell]

On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 21:48 -0700, WSLam wrote:

> - No Internal DAC. Save the cost, and spend it on elsewhere
> Anyone else?

I am not an IC engineer, but I can't imagine that
leaving out the internal DAC would save any money at all.
Instead, I would bet a beer that it would net out to
costing more.

In ancient postings, one of the Slim engineers said
that the display was the largest cost part of the SB1.

If they just left out the part, it would save at most
the price of the DAC chip. Since the whole
thing sells for under $300 and the wired version
for under $250, it is hard to imagine that the
DAC itself costs more than $20.

They would then have to have two products, two
sets of packaging, separate QA procedures, etc.
They would accidentally ship some normal products
to audiophile customers, and some audiophile
products to normal customers, and the labor to
straighten it out would destroy any savings.

It they designed a special model, without the DAC
support circuits, they would have two more radically
different products, with _all_ of the same problems
listed above.

Set the volume on wide open and ignore it.

AES connections over XLR would be cool,
but from a practical matter, the cable lengths
are way too short to care. It is hard
to imagine that an audiophile would have the
squeezebox more than a meter away from the
preamp/amp. At those distances, cables are
snakeoil.

Put a brick on top to keep it from moving.
Or better yet, I'll get a huge aluminum
heatsink and sell it as a critical cooler and
weight to keep it from moving.

A more serious remote would help the marketing
for audiophiles, but I'm not at all sure
that there are enough audiophiles that
are computer literate enough to be a market.
You can always just buy a Harmony remote.

BTW, my Classe integrated amp has a wonderful
remote. Feels machined out of a billet of metal.
Very cool. But, no one has the IR codes for
Classe stuff, so I have to get a learning remote
to be able to reduce my collection of remotes.
There probably is a market for taking the
Harmony remote and wrapping it in $20 worth
of metal and selling it for $500 :-)

Pat

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

[WSLam]

Pat, you made some very practical comments. perhaps audio nuts like me are not very practical to begin with! =)
It does a fine job as is now, but I cannot imagine this is now a 'done' deal. I am sure further improvements can be made. I would think that Slim Devices has a bigger 'ambition' then that.

[julian2002]

certainly a higher quality digital outputs aes/ebu, spdif coax and optical at/st glass optical.
better psu.
internal shielding between audio and support circuitry.
standard hi-fi sized case.
separate power lead.
audiophile internal components (black gates, oscons, holco, etc..)
cheers


julian

[Fabrice Rossi]

Hi.

What I would really need is a top quality _scientific_ analysis of the
possible jitter issue of the SB2 digital out, used with a standard
cable, something Sean was not able to do at high resolution because of
the cost of the analyzer. Then some optimization could be done by using
a higher end clock or something else. The transport part is nice because
this is something that can be tested on pure objective basis.

For the rest, I'm quite happy with the SB, but it would be nice if
slimdevices could come up with their own NAS, something like the kuro
box but with the slimdevices outstanding support quality. Nothing to do
with sound quality, however...

Fabrice

[Fabrice Rossi]

Pat Farrell a écrit :
> If they just left out the part, it would save at most
> the price of the DAC chip. Since the whole
> thing sells for under $300 and the wired version
> for under $250, it is hard to imagine that the
> DAC itself costs more than $20.

The DAC is a Burr-Brown PCM1748. According to TI web site
(http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folder.../pcm1748.html), the price is
1.3 US $ if you buy 1000 units. Your are therefore completely right.


Fabrice

[Steve Agnew]

Well, why not!

Regards, Steve.

[Andrew L. Weekes]

Steve,

That's hilarious - nice editing job.

Andy.

[Andrew L. Weekes]

What would people pay for a true 'audiophile' version of the Squeezebox?

Traditionally 'audiophile' products are expensive, for which there are several reasons, some reasonable, some simply marketing based. Some of it is related to perception (i.e. it can't be any good unless it's pricey - the Stereophile effect, if you will) but at least as much, in a truly well-engineered product, is related to the very significant design effort needed to produce something that sounds great and keeps you from your bed, or the TV, in pursuit of music.

Couple that to the ever-shrinking market for two-channel only audio systems and the development costs take on a whole new meaning; the simple commercial reality is that they have to be spread across the potential number of customers for that product. For a Linn CD12 that number runs to just thousands, worldwide, I suspect, hence the huge price tag.

The SB2 as it is is a wonderfully elegant, modestly sized, reasonably easy to use, immensely practical device, that gives great access to a wide range of media, which as a user I love.

I don't personally feel it can currently feed my main system though as a main source having tried it. I would actually love that it did it all, but interestingly there's not much talk about the *sound* above!

The point is that for me, as a consumer (rather than an engineer) what goes on inside the box should be irrelevant, it's what comes out that matters. What comes out is very much related to what goes on internally, but I'm curious as to whether the comments above are just becuase the SB2 is *perceived* as not being audiophile (because it doesn't tick the right boxes and looks like a radio alarm clock) or whether people identify, as I do personally, that there's something missing from the results it produces?

Lots of meaningless (in my view) talk about components, interfaces, design implementation, features (absent or not) but nothing about the most important thing of all - the music!

Surely the purpose of an audiophile version would be to sound as good, or better, than whatever your own personal quality reference is?

If, for example, you are comparing to a Linn CD12 at 12000GBP, it's going to be hard to expect that level of performance for significantly less than that.

I think the current SB2 is a marvellous piece of superb engineering, but am curious as to how much people are seriously prepared to pay for a product that competes with some of the other audiophile standards out there.

Curiously, my own absolute standard, in terms of musical enjoyment, is still the vinyl record, courtesy of a Linn LP12 turntable. No CD player, or any source (with the possible exception of a good FM tuner and broadcast) I've yet heard comes close to it!

Andy.