New 24bit/192kHz Squeezebox Product

[bh2007]

I have done litte research for DAC on

Transporter - DAC-AK4396 has full capability on 24/192 decoding (but not implemented on transporter)
htp://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/akm/en/product/ak4396/ak4396_f00e.pdf

Also

SB Touch - DAC-AK4420 has full capability on 24/192 decoding (but not implemented on SB Touch)htp://www.akm.com/prodfolder-dac.asp?p=AK4420

I guess the Design Team has costing balance for squeezebox product by limiting up-to 24/96 decoding. It seems more CPU power, thus more cost when adopting 24/192 decoding. (that why all current products are limited to 24/96)

However, it is technical possible for squeezebox Design Team to allow 24/192 raw signal sending to the digitial out socket in some of his existing products (by firmware update) and future products.

For people buying 24/196 studio master track, they have thier own DAC anyway. Otherwise, not need to adopt 24/196 source. A good quality 16/44 DAC device could easily out-perform the 24/96 SB Touch (in term of sound quaility only).

If the design team accept the above little modification (24/192 ditigal out put and 24/96 decoding). More Hi-Fi community will happy to use squeezebox as cost-effective 24/196 reader, but not DAC decoder.

Thus, it benefit squeezebox sales too (acutally I am not sure how big is the Hi-Fi market compared to non-hi-fi market). Anyway wish the design team will consider the above suggestion.

Regards,
BH2007
2011-05-31

[Phil Leigh]

Yeah - I reckon that will sell maybe 100 more units...

You do realise they won't play 176.4 (which is MORE COMMON on commercial releases than 192) without hardware modifications?

Globally, the major source of 192 files is illegally-distributed vinyl rips... which is hilarious, because if one thing won't benefit from 24/192...it's vinyl!!! :-)

[JohnSwenson]

The hardware in the transporter can do 192 but not 176 (its an issue of crystal frequencies). The Touch can do both 176 and 192.

The Touch would be a better candidate due to the faster processor. Even then I would only even attemp it in wired mode.

The driver code3 for the Touch is publically available, I've taken a look at what it would take to add 176 and 192. Its a moderate amount of work. Its not just adding another number to a list of frequencies, every sample rate has to configure the DAC chip and clock muxes etc, and setup the appropriate parameters for buffers etc. Its not really hard but its not trivial either.

The design team has not shown ANY interest in doing this, and I don't blame them, there is LOT more important stuff for them to be focusing on.

Since the source IS publically available you can edit it yourself if you are into writing ALSA drivers. I could do it but I don't have anywhere enough time at this point. Then there is no guarantee that logitech would accept it and include it in the firmware.

John S.

[ralphpnj]

Globally, the major source of 192 files is illegally-distributed vinyl rips... which is hilarious, because if one thing won't benefit from 24/192...it's vinyl!!! :-)

Phil,

Many of the high resolution vinyl rips that you are speaking of are done for various different reasons such as:

1) The LP has not been released on CD

2) The vinyl is often some type of audiophile release, e.g. 180 gram, virgin vinyl, half speed mastered, etc.

3) In the case of case of a recording that is available on CD many times the ripper feels that due to the loudness war the vinyl often sounds better, with better dynamic range and much less compression.

High resolution vinyl rips should be taken on case by case basis and merely dismissed out of hand since a well done rip of a high quality LP can often sound very, very good and better than the officially released digital version, particularly in the case of reason #3 above.

[Phil Leigh]

Phil,

Many of the high resolution vinyl rips that you are speaking of are done for various different reasons such as:

1) The LP has not been released on CD

2) The vinyl is often some type of audiophile release, e.g. 180 gram, virgin vinyl, half speed mastered, etc.

3) In the case of case of a recording that is available on CD many times the ripper feels that due to the loudness war the vinyl often sounds better, with better dynamic range and much less compression.

High resolution vinyl rips should be taken on case by case basis and merely dismissed out of hand since a well done rip of a high quality LP can often sound very, very good and better than the officially released digital version, particularly in the case of reason #3 above.

I don't disagree (but would point out that for cases 1-3 they are still illegal)... my point was that even the the most wonderful slab of vinyl does not need 24/192 to capture its information - 24/96 is more than adequate...

[ralphpnj]

I don't disagree (but would point out that for cases 1-3 they are still illegal)... my point was that even the the most wonderful slab of vinyl does not need 24/192 to capture its information - 24/96 is more than adequate...

Let's avoid the topic of legality since that's a completely different, though related, subject. The real question is whether or not any recording, be it analog or digital, will benefit from sample rates higher than 88.2 or 96 kHz. Case in point, during a recent discussion on the Stereophile forum regarding the new Bryston BDP-1 "digital music player", a $2000 brick with less functionality than the $300 SB Touch, the BDP-1 was praised for it's ability to natively play 176.4 and 192 kHz files, something the Touch can do natively.

By the way, I do agree that anything above 88.2 or 96 kHz is simply overkill and more of a "because it can" rather an issue of sound quality.

[adamdea]

Let's avoid the topic of legality since that's a completely different, though related, subject. The real question is whether or not any recording, be it analog or digital, will benefit from sample rates higher than 88.2 or 96 kHz. Case in point, during a recent discussion on the Stereophile forum regarding the new Bryston BDP-1 "digital music player", a $2000 brick with less functionality than the $300 SB Touch, the BDP-1 was praised for it's ability to natively play 176.4 and 192 kHz files, something the Touch can do natively.

By the way, I do agree that anything above 88.2 or 96 kHz is simply overkill and more of a "because it can" rather an issue of sound quality.

There are people out there who say that the improvement from 96 to 192
exceeds that from 44 to 96: It's the final step where veils are lifted, music takes on an analogue-like ease and flow etc.
I am not really sure that there is any need to go over 44 kHz (take a look over on hydrogen audio if you dare). I'm not even sure that there exists any program material which has information recorded in the frequency range 96-192. There seem to be frequent exposees of the shortage of over 44kHz program material
Why stop at 192kHz- why not 384 (which some DACs can handle).

[pippin]

There are also people out there who say that expensive power cables can improve sound quality.

[Phil Leigh]

There are people out there who say that the improvement from 96 to 192
exceeds that from 44 to 96: It's the final step where veils are lifted, music takes on an analogue-like ease and flow etc.
I am not really sure that there is any need to go over 44 kHz (take a look over on hydrogen audio if you dare). I'm not even sure that there exists any program material which has information recorded in the frequency range 96-192. There seem to be frequent exposees of the shortage of over 44kHz program material
Why stop at 192kHz- why not 384 (which some DACs can handle).

There are people out there who think that Elvis is alive. They aren't correct...

NONE of those claimants will take a blind test because they would simply fail.

[adamdea]

There are also people out there who say that expensive power cables can improve sound quality.

So I've heard.