View Full Version : Bit-correct digital out on Squeezebox?

Ken Hokugo
2005-02-25, 22:31
I understand it, but were other factors the same, such as digital cables,
volume levels, etc.? The reason why I ask is because I have more favorable
result from the same comparison. I compared SB with my Burmester 001 CD
player as transport. I did not really sense the difference. Yes, it is
highly possible that I do not have a golden pair of ears, I admit.
There is a guy in France who is starting to offer mod for SB so that (1) SB
is clock syncable with external clock generator, (2) digital output upgrade,
and (3) usage of external power supply. Mine is now being moded by him and
I am waiting for it to complete. My DAC is already clock syncable and the
improvement is substantial to say the least (combination of SB and modded
$300 DAC board inside TacT RCS with external clock is better than Burmester
001, at least in some genre). So, when the SB becomes clock syncable with
the same clock generator, I expect the improvement to be enormous. To some
people, it may not worth investing the multiple of what SB costs, but not
for me because I see a great potential in SB as a transport.

From: "Julian Alden-Salter" <julian.alden-salter (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com>
Reply-To: Slim Devices Discussion <discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>
To: "'Slim Devices Discussion'" <discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>
Subject: [slim] Bit-correct digital out on Squeezebox?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:28:25 -0000

I use an audio synthesis dax decade with my squeezebox. I must first point
out that I'm extremely happy with the replay however a few weeks ago I
invited some friends round to have a listen to the squeezebox and compare it
to a couple of dedicated transports. The other transports were from dpa and
Arcam both of which were judged (subjectively) to be better than the
squeezebox by all present. Not a very scientific test I know but I agreed
with the consensus and to my ears it wasn't a small margin.
Now in the ultimate scheme of things a squeezebox / dac combo will blow a
lot cd players away even some seriously expensive ones however I believe
that it's jitter performance - especially with flac's is less than great.
I say this because my dac (the aforementioned dax decade) has 2 methods of
locking onto the digital signal - one which can lock onto low quality / high
jitter signals and one that will lock onto better quality / low jitter
signals. This is denoted by the display of lock or xlock in the dac's
Without fail if I play flacs I only get a lock however if I play mp3's
either native or transcoded from flacs I get the higher quality xlock.
What's going on, I'm not sure but it seems to me that there is more
performance within the squeezebox than is currently accessible.
I'm currently looking into the possibility of improving the clock within the
squeezebox which may help things.
Of course for 200 quid it's a fantastic bit of kit but I don't think it's
going to replace a true high end transport just yet. For me however the
convenience of having my entire music library on hand far outweigh what at
the end of the day is a 30%ish difference in quality.


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Peters [mailto:funkyres (AT) gmail (DOT) com]
Sent: 25 February 2005 19:14
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: [slim] Bit-correct digital out on Squeezebox?

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:34:03 +0100, Steinar Bjaerum
<steinar.bjaerum (AT) online (DOT) no>

> I am thinking about playing an uncompressed WAV, recording the signal at
> digital output and comparing the recording with the original WAV.

Be careful when you are doing so - a lot of sound cards will resample
digital input.
AC97 cards do, for example (or so I've been told)

I believe M-Audio Audiophile 2496 does not, I don't know about their
other models.
Again, that is what I've been told. I have not done any testing
myself, mp3 at 192VBR is good enough for me (though I do archive
lossless in flac).