Home of the Squeezebox™ & Transporter® network music players.
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 52
  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    116
    Hey there, is this IT...? No other testimonials? Is it the last word that the Touch is just "perfect" at the s/pdif output, end of the story?

    Come one, Girls and Boys, this can't be the end of the story !

    Let me resume: Even the well established and beyound doubt neutral german hifi-review-magazine "Stereo" noted, that different DACs they connected to the Touch did not deliver the same sound level, than other digital sources they have compared (in particular: The SACD-Player/DAC 820S of Lindemann performed in direct comparison far better with the SACDs than with the same tracks with the same resolution over the Touch's s/pdif). Even though, they confirmed, that the s/pdif - output was "bit perfect" when set to 100% volume. Which did not change the final verdict. The conclusion was clearly, that the s/pdif output did NOT sound perfectly.

    Also, there are lots of testimonials of people who had their Touch hardware modified. However, we all know, how to read those statements. Everybody has a tendency to justify her/his investment. And secondly, those people usually do not have any stock Touch left to compare with, when the Touch comes back from modding.

    However: There is much reason to trust the girls and guys from "Stereo". Which means: Whatever the reason is (maybe yet unknown), there IS room for improvement.

    So here I am back with THE question. The ball is back with you: Kick it!

    WHO has the secret for getting just the best sounding s/pdif output out of a squeezebox-protocol based streaming system?

    Hope to read from you!

    Cheers! Urs

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by diego View Post
    Hey there, is this IT...? No other testimonials? Is it the last word that the Touch is just "perfect" at the s/pdif output, end of the story?

    Come one, Girls and Boys, this can't be the end of the story !

    Let me resume: Even the well established and beyound doubt neutral german hifi-review-magazine "Stereo" noted, that different DACs they connected to the Touch did not deliver the same sound level, than other digital sources they have compared (in particular: The SACD-Player/DAC 820S of Lindemann performed in direct comparison far better with the SACDs than with the same tracks with the same resolution over the Touch's s/pdif). Even though, they confirmed, that the s/pdif - output was "bit perfect" when set to 100% volume. Which did not change the final verdict. The conclusion was clearly, that the s/pdif output did NOT sound perfectly.

    Also, there are lots of testimonials of people who had their Touch hardware modified. However, we all know, how to read those statements. Everybody has a tendency to justify her/his investment. And secondly, those people usually do not have any stock Touch left to compare with, when the Touch comes back from modding.

    However: There is much reason to trust the girls and guys from "Stereo". Which means: Whatever the reason is (maybe yet unknown), there IS room for improvement.

    So here I am back with THE question. The ball is back with you: Kick it!

    WHO has the secret for getting just the best sounding s/pdif output out of a squeezebox-protocol based streaming system?

    Hope to read from you!

    Cheers! Urs
    It's strange that there aren't more suggestions. There are usually loads of people dying to tell everyone about their frequent night and day changes. Perhaps there is a subjectivist convention out of town.
    I'm afraid i'm no use because I got the first ever fidelity audio touch upgrade and couldn't tell whether there was any difference. I'm so deaf i can't hear the difference between toslink and coax.

    IN the meantime you could amuse yourself perhaps by wondering whether "improved" spdif out would necessarily have any consistent effect on different DACs. Bearing in mind that dacs can read all the data in the spdif stream perfectly (ie with no information loss), the mysterious process whereby the transport still adversely affects the D/A conversion process needn't have any consistent effect on every dac.

    To read the testimonies on this forum it appears that changing the buffer size in the touch affects the sound of a dac connected by spdif to the touch, but some people prefer shorter buffers and some long. The cypto-engineering principles at work appear to be subtle. Based on these irreproachable premises it seems that eg lots of high frequency jitter might sound better on one dac than a small amount of low frequency jitter; but the reverse may be the case on another dac.

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    116
    Well, precisely, it does not seem that we have already reached this stage of happiness... There is evidence out there, that some aspects, that do have a noticeable influence on the accuracy of d/a conversion, are (still) overseen or unknown. I don't actually care, what these differences exactly are. I just want the sound in my living room to be as close as possible to how the instruments sounded when recorded.

    However, I will probably have to go on, experimenting for myself. I had a nice offer for a "Transporter". But as long as it is not sure, that this will make a real difference compared to my touch, when using an external dac of course, it represents still too much money for an uncertain result. So for the time being I stick to my touch. Eventually, I will try out hooking the touch to the DAC by usb, maybe there is room for improvement with such a DAC-clocked data connection.

    Maybe just to give you my point of comparison: I own a couple of vinyl disks that are recorded with a method they called "direct-to-disc". In today's standards, this would mean, hard disk recording. But these disks were recorded long before the digital age. Direct-to-disc meant at those times, that there was no magnetic tape involved. So actually, they recorded directly to the original, from where copies for the disk were made. By the way, recording this way was quite a bit of a challenge: The musicians had to play one side of the disk without interruption, and of course, no way of mastering and correcting after recording. It was just like live: The moment it was played, it was definitive.

    However, some of these disks are really revealing. I have never heard any other recording sound so realistic. The illusion of having the musicians in the living room comes indeed incredibly close.

    That is for me the reference point for home hifi... and no digital reproduction I had the chance to hear, has come close to that, until now. Even though, sometimes it sounds very pleasing, its still not as realistic.

  4. #34
    Senior Member chill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by diego View Post
    I have never heard any other recording sound so realistic. The illusion of having the musicians in the living room comes indeed incredibly close.

    That is for me the reference point for home hifi... and no digital reproduction I had the chance to hear, has come close to that, until now. Even though, sometimes it sounds very pleasing, its still not as realistic.
    That example, surely, is a testament to the mastering process, rather than the playback chain. If you were to make a digital recording of that vinyl record and play it back through your Touch, you would discover whether your existing playback chain is capable of matching your reference point.

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by chill View Post
    That example, surely, is a testament to the mastering process, rather than the playback chain. If you were to make a digital recording of that vinyl record and play it back through your Touch, you would discover whether your existing playback chain is capable of matching your reference point.
    That's been my experience. I have virtually all of the original Sheffield Direct-to-Disk recordings as well as a some of the other D2D LPs released in the 1970s. I find they sound the same after conversion to digital. I spent many years converting my LP and open reel collection to digital. About one-third of my 50,000-plus collection of songs was converted from analog. If the LP or open reel sounded good, so does the digital copy I made.

    I know some people disagree, but that's their problem. Typically one finds they are comparing the original LP against a commercial CD that has been reprocessed to give a more modern sound. Very few record companies that re-release old analog material on CD can resist the temptation to "improve" things. If one hasn't done the analog-digital conversion themselves, most people have no idea just how accurate digital can be when one resists the temptation to engage in all the current fads & fashions prevalent in the recording industry.

    Of course, there have always been fads & fashions in recording. During the 1960s, pop material was processed to stand out on AM radio, for example. It is just those trends do change over time.
    Last edited by mlsstl; 2012-05-04 at 11:59.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Pneumonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by mlsstl View Post
    That's been my experience. I have virtually all of the original Sheffield Direct-to-Disk recordings as well as a some of the other D2D LPs released in the 1970s. I find they sound the same after conversion to digital. I spent many years converting my LP and open reel collection to digital. About one-third of my 50,000-plus collection of songs was converted from analog. If the LP or open reel sounded good, so does the digital copy I made.

    I know some people disagree, but that's their problem. Typically one finds they are comparing the original LP against a commercial CD that has been reprocessed to give a more modern sound. Very few record companies that re-release old analog material on CD can resist the temptation to "improve" things. If one hasn't done the analog-digital conversion themselves, most people have no idea just how accurate digital can be when one resists the temptation to engage in all the current fads & fashions prevalent in the recording industry.

    Of course, there have always been fads & fashions in recording. During the 1960s, pop material was processed to stand out on AM radio, for example. It is just those trends do change over time.
    This has been my experience as well. I have dropped just over 1,000 of my best sounding and/or prized vinyl recordings using top notch A/D convertors (either Aardvark, UA 2192, Metric Halo ULN8 and ULN2) and they are true archival copies of the original vinyl complete with all clicks and pops, wow and flutter, groove distortion, tracking distortions, RIAA equalization artifacts and whatever other colourations and distortions such a mechanical process adds, in all of its glory.

    As an aside, I have a very simple but highly effective test for those who say they can hear digital sound. I needledrop their vinyl with my recording gear. We then play it back, level matched, via my digital source. And we listen. Typically, 20 times I run ABX testing playing back the actual vinyl and my needledrop of the vinyl. After each play the question is asked .... is it vinyl or digital? Not once, testing upwards of 30 people now (from novice listeners to seasoned audiophiles within my network), has anyone ever been able to determine the correct playback medium with any amount of success. I think the best was 8 our of 18, and this was by my cousin and she's never listened to anything but MP3 based audio through IPod headphones at that.

    In fact, my recent offer, to those in my audiophile circles, is for me to put up $500 cash to be matched by anyone who wishes to be tested. The deal is I will bring my portable recording gear to their place and use their setup, minus digital source of course. We do the drop as per my process. We then ABX my drop versus the actual vinyl playback. If they can't determine the correct medium 15 times out of 20 then their $500 is donated to the charity of my choice. If they hit 15 corrects, then I donate my $500 to the charity of their choice.

    The silence has been deafening!
    Main: Acer Aspire One netbook --> Squeezebox Transporter (slave mode) --> Lessloss 2004 mkII Pre/DAC (master mode) --> Sanders Magtech stereo/Innersound ESL800 mono power amps --> Sanders 10c active speakers

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by adamdea View Post
    It's strange that there aren't more suggestions. There are usually loads of people dying to tell everyone about their frequent night and day changes. Perhaps there is a subjectivist convention out of town.
    I'm afraid i'm no use because I got the first ever fidelity audio touch upgrade and couldn't tell whether there was any difference. I'm so deaf i can't hear the difference between toslink and coax.

    IN the meantime you could amuse yourself perhaps by wondering whether "improved" spdif out would necessarily have any consistent effect on different DACs. Bearing in mind that dacs can read all the data in the spdif stream perfectly (ie with no information loss), the mysterious process whereby the transport still adversely affects the D/A conversion process needn't have any consistent effect on every dac.

    To read the testimonies on this forum it appears that changing the buffer size in the touch affects the sound of a dac connected by spdif to the touch, but some people prefer shorter buffers and some long. The cypto-engineering principles at work appear to be subtle. Based on these irreproachable premises it seems that eg lots of high frequency jitter might sound better on one dac than a small amount of low frequency jitter; but the reverse may be the case on another dac.
    The bits don't magically move from the ouside the Touch, into the Touch and then out of the Touch. At it's heart is a little computer that has to make millions of decisions a second about what task it is going to do next and what resource to allocate to that task. Out of the box the Touch is trying to do lots of multimedia type things eg checking the screen brightness 500 times a second, with TT3.0 and other optimisations the Touch is made to focus more on allocating those resources to the movement of bits from input to output buffers. So, in reality it is just tuning a computer, the same as non Touch users have to tune their servers to get the best sound out. It's not crypto engineering, it's just most people don't understand what the Touch is doing.

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by SBGK View Post
    The bits don't magically move from the ouside the Touch, into the Touch and then out of the Touch. At it's heart is a little computer that has to make millions of decisions a second about what task it is going to do next and what resource to allocate to that task. Out of the box the Touch is trying to do lots of multimedia type things eg checking the screen brightness 500 times a second, with TT3.0 and other optimisations the Touch is made to focus more on allocating those resources to the movement of bits from input to output buffers. So, in reality it is just tuning a computer, the same as non Touch users have to tune their servers to get the best sound out. It's not crypto engineering, it's just most people don't understand what the Touch is doing.
    No no. The problem is what are you tuning and why, even assuming you can tune it.
    If the dac correctly decodes sample values from S/PDIF which it can provided jitter is less than several nanoseconds, then the crypto engineering question is how the S/pDIf transmitting device can affect the D/a conversion in the DAC. Assuming that the Dac uses its own clock to time the d/a conversion
    And even then assuming you can identify that process it will not necessarily affect all Dacs the same way or at all.
    Some people claim that short buffers may make more frequent but less intense power surges- however the theory is far from unimpeachable, and even the subjective reports (Imagining they were to be taken seriously) are inconsistent. Assuming that transports do affect the Dac, there is AFAIK no generally accepted way of measuring what would be a better transport.

  9. #39
    Senior Member Jeff Flowerday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by SBGK View Post
    The bits don't magically move from the ouside the Touch, into the Touch and then out of the Touch. At it's heart is a little computer that has to make millions of decisions a second about what task it is going to do next and what resource to allocate to that task. Out of the box the Touch is trying to do lots of multimedia type things eg checking the screen brightness 500 times a second, with TT3.0 and other optimisations the Touch is made to focus more on allocating those resources to the movement of bits from input to output buffers. So, in reality it is just tuning a computer, the same as non Touch users have to tune their servers to get the best sound out. It's not crypto engineering, it's just most people don't understand what the Touch is doing.
    SBGK why don't you do the following:

    Introduce a quality Asynchronous USB to SPDIF converter that is compatible with the EDO applet to your system. You'll basically be taking all these supposed issues with your server and touch completely out of the picture.

    Asynchronous means it won't matter what the touch is doing, the data will get delivered via USB as needed and the device will completely reclock the data prior to sending it to your DAC. If there are any issues with USB data delivery to the device, the audio will kick out, no second guessing. If there is audio it's been perfectly reclocked.

    Galvanized isolation at the USB port leaves the ground plane noise that might be created by the touch at the touch.

    They come in true 75 ohm BNC and RCA format.

    There are many options, some even have lower stock jitter numbers than the touch. Just have to make sure they are standard Class 2 USB Audio devices and work with linux natively.


    You could then take your Touch and unwrap it from it's tinfoil, remove it from the sandwich container, turn the screen back on, put it back togethor. Can you imagine? You could un-castrate your server and let it do other things.

    Best of all you can just listen to the music and not be willy nilly changing random parameters all day long.



    Just a suggestion, for your sanity and maybe just a little bit of ours.
    Last edited by Jeff Flowerday; 2012-05-04 at 20:34.

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    116
    Come on. We are again getting off topic into theoretical arguments here!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •