PDA

View Full Version : Digital Playback - SqueezeBox vs CMP Cplay vs Sonos ZP90



agillis
2013-04-17, 10:33
I just read a great article buy DIY audio blogger Stephen Sokolowski. He tested VortexBox vs a modified Sonos vs a high end Windows based audio player and VortexBox came out on top! But we always knew Squeezebox based systems are the best! :)

http://2channelaudio.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/source-control-to-major-tom.html

I'm sure the Windows vs SqueezeBox vs Sonos debate will continue but there is a lot of great stuff in this article.

Stephen used a USB to SPDIF converter connected directly to his VortexBox but I'm fairly sure that a VortexBox/VAMP or VortexBox/Community Squeeze Player would be equal or better to the results he got.

cliveb
2013-04-17, 11:12
I just read a great article buy DIY audio blogger Stephen Sokolowski.
[snip]
http://2channelaudio.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/source-control-to-major-tom.html
Much as we are happy to see Squeezebox-based systems come out on top in comparisons, reading this article started ringing alarm bells.

His comparisons were using the various players as transports, all driving the same DAC. The differences he heard will therefore be due to one of two things:

1. Expectation bias.
2. His DAC is broken wrt. jitter rejection and/or vulnerability to noise.

Under normal circumstances my money would be firmly on #1, but in this case since he describes the DAC as a "highly customised Phillips TDA1541 (NOS) tube DAC", option #2 may very well be the case.

Mnyb
2013-04-17, 11:39
Much as we are happy to see Squeezebox-based systems come out on top in comparisons, reading this article started ringing alarm bells.

His comparisons were using the various players as transports, all driving the same DAC. The differences he heard will therefore be due to one of two things:

1. Expectation bias.
2. His DAC is broken wrt. jitter rejection and/or vulnerability to noise.

Under normal circumstances my money would be firmly on #1, but in this case since he describes the DAC as a "highly customised Phillips TDA1541 (NOS) tube DAC", option #2 may very well be the case.

1+2 . Actually the NOS + Tubes probably masked the jitter and noise problems :)

Add.

3. Experimental error , he did something wrong when doing the comparison or setting up the products . In that case LMS vortexbox would be ( if agilllis done his thing ) bitperfect out off the box even for the most casual user .

A "normal" reviewer would have gotten suspicious if bitperfect digital transports with reasonable jitter and noise levels started to sound different and investigated further .

Pity , if correctly investigated we could have learned something about the other transports. Who knows if they are actually bitperfect and other technical issues ?

No problem with Agillis fine product Vortexbox it's a very good thing and an excellent LMS distro and more .
But this kind of review is no help , if I had not knew of vortexbox before hand I would been anymore interested after this review .
So if anyone with a more objective mindset find the review the vortexbox is great it's the review that's is questionable .

jimbobvfr400
2013-04-18, 01:45
Ignoring the many other glaring flaws with the review I lost interest when I saw he can't even sort out his tagging properly, Nick Cave and the bad seeds appeared 3 times. What a muppet ;-)

Sent from my HTC Vision using Tapatalk 2