New SB ?

[Corelli45]

Sorry...I did misunderstand your first question.

During the initial listening, though I knew the resolutions my listening partner did not. He did identify differences between the 16/44 and the 24/192. He discerned a deeper and wider soundstage and more separation between the instruments. This confirmed my own initial thoughts. Having listened again today, there is a slightly more constricted quality to the lower resolution sample than the higher. The higher resolution sample appears to relax into the soundstage opening out a little more and creating a less bright presentation.

I will investigate your second question more closely being aware that some companies do upsample the original 16/44 rates.

Thanks
Corelli

[kmr]

Sorry...I did misunderstand your first question.

During the initial listening, though I knew the resolutions my listening partner did not.

That's enough to cause bias; your listening partner could have picked up on your reactions (whether voluntary or involuntary). All it takes is tiny clues to invalidate a blind test.

[Corelli45]

Yes, that's very true so I intend to down sample and compare again.

Thanks

[aubuti]

Agreed, and in this instance it's really pretty easy to do a double-blind test, or do away with the partner entirely and have a valid single-blind test.

1) use the same original source (24/192), and downsample to get the 24/96 and 16/44.1. That way you know that any difference isn't down to different masterings.

2) tag the three tracks the same way, so that the SB player display and web ui do not give any indication of which is which.

3) generate a playlist with the three tracks in random order. Better yet, allow for a playlist of up to 6 or 10 tracks, so that each version has a chance of being played more than once. This will permit the listener to identify tracks as "different" when in fact they are exactly the same. There are a couple different ways you could do this.

a) put the three tracks in a playlist multiple times and activate shuffle mode

b) use the Random playlist plugin. To make sure you only get those three tracks you could either (i) tag them with a unique genre, and limit the random play to that genre, or (ii) temporarily tell LMS that the folder(s) with the three tracks is your entire music library.

4) start listening. Listen to each version of the track in its entirety, or jump back and forth between the tracks as much as you like. When listening, only pay attention to what # on the playlist you are listening to. Keep notes if you like.

5) after you've listened enough, write down which tracks on the playlist sounded better / deeper / wider / more relaxed / more constricted / brighter / etc. If you like, rank them, or identify which of the three versions you think each playlist item is.

6) go to the LMS web ui and drill down for each track to see whether it was 24/192, 24/96, or 16/44.1. Compare to your list in #5. Voilà.

No doubt this protocol can be improved upon, so feel free to suggest any. I've used it several times and have been struck by how seldom I hear a difference. Could be my aging ears, could be my unrevealig mid-fi system, could be my room acoustics, could be the recordings themselves, could be there really is no audible difference. But at least I can rule out expectation bias and the power of suggestion.

[Corelli45]

Thanks for that. What's the best way to downsample?

[garym]

Thanks for that. What's the best way to downsample?

I know you can do this easily in dbpoweramp. Maybe in foobar2000 as well.

[aubuti]

I think most people use SoX or foobar2000.

[Gingernut63]

No we don't 24/96 is already overkill for human listeners ? We need better recordings , the delivery format has very litle influence compared to the sound of the master/recording . ( actually the sq of the majority of existing recordings is such that not even 16/44.1 is a technical limit )

I agree with Mynb that you would not be able to hear any difference using the higher resolution for music delivery so it would be a waste of time and money. This also raises another issue, who is Squeezebox aimed at; the audiophile with the high spec music system and possibly a little money to throw around or people who want the music delivery but don't have lots of money to waste. Can it do both and have two tiers. Simpler cheaper hardware for most people and a range of higher end gear?

The Touch can be used by Audiophiles, and it probably needs an upgrade. We don't have the Radio in Australia so I can't really comment but mono output is a bit lame. A new version of the Boom would be handy but the price needs to be lower. With the plethora of remote apps around Logitech can use this to their advantage and concentrate on making the hardware simpler, produce a Duet with better diagnostics perhaps.

On top of all this Logitech really needs to then get behind the product and sell, sell, sell.

By the way, what is their business plan for Squeezebox?

[garym]

On top of all this Logitech really needs to then get behind the product and sell, sell, sell.

yes, marketing seems not to know what to do. Folks come to my house and are amazed with how my music system works so automatically and how I can pass around the ipad on the deck and allow folks to simply find stuff to play, etc. I explain how I have a server and that feeds all my SB players and how I can control in many ways and the squeezebox "system" and it is amazing how many say, "oh, like a SONOS...." As soon as I start explaining why a squeezebox does stuff that would be impossible with a SONOS, their eyes glaze over......

(and it is true that most of them just want something they turn on and play pandora or some service....I'm a dinosaur with my server with thousands of digitized albums, even among my same aged friends).

[aubuti]

By the way, what is their business plan for Squeezebox?

I doubt anyone knows that, but you may find this speculation thread of interest: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showth...-kit-next-year