is Bluesound filling the vacuum left by squeezebox?

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 14772 times.

BobC

Re: is Bluesound filling the vacuum left by squeezebox?
« Reply #20 on: 1 Jul 2014, 08:32 pm »
Yes, thank you.  I've read the audiostream review and it's really the only datapoint I've found worth anything.

BobC

Re: is Bluesound filling the vacuum left by squeezebox?
« Reply #21 on: 29 Aug 2014, 06:23 pm »
Well I took the plunge and got a Bluesound Node from Spearit Sound (good people).  Attached are some picks of my system: Bluesound Node > Odyssey Candela Pre > Odyssey Stratos Extreme Monos > Martin Logan Ascent i's.

     


I'm no pro reviewer, but here are some of my comments / impressions:
1. Downloaded the free app from Google Play without issue.
2. I have an ethernet connection behind the cabinet, so thought it would connect to the network without issue, but no Library.  I later learned from the BS website that you have to run a "Bluesound Share Utility" on your PC first.  The Quick Set Up Guide did not say this.  Mild disappointment.
3. Once connected I was able to quickly link to my library on my PC.  Great!  More on the sound in a moment.
4. I next tried to use Spotify, which the Node is reported to support.  Only problem is that you must be a paying Premium Member, which I'm not.  Bummer.  Good news is that there are a number of other internet radio options...but I like Spotify.  Grrr
5. Then I listened to some tunes.  I took me a while to get use to the App.  Basically you don't just tap and it plays (like my old Logitech Touch).  Rather you tap and add the song or album to a playlist.  Then it plays.  I'm still getting the hang of the app but in general its way better than the old Squeezebox software, IMO.  Cool feature: if you have a question about a song, you can tap on an info button which gives you some interesting stats / details / trivia / artist comments from some online database.  It's fun.
6.  I have to admit, out of the box it sounded rough.  Low fi.  Image not centered.  No depth.  fuzzy.  No sparkle.  (I was use to my Touch > DAC Magic combo)  So....I put on an internet radio station and let it go for a few days....and began thinking about an external DAC.
7.  Wow, what a difference a few days of burn in will do!  A completely different sound.  Big, full, good image, nice width and depth.  It is not as "detailed" as the DAC Magic was.  But sounds pretty darn good (not shopping for DAC now).  With the Touch > DACMagic I would sit down and say "wow, listen to that!".....with the Node I'm saying "turn it up and pour me a drink!".  Musicality?!? (whatever that means)
8. BTW, through the above I sent a couple of questions to the BS Support Team via the App.  They answered in < a day and were helpful.  It's nice to get that kind of support straight from the app in your hand.  They have a nice library of "how to guides" on their website.

If you're in the market for a high rez streamer <$450, I reco the Node.  Sonos is a non-starter due to only 16/44.  I thought about the CA Streammagic 6v2, but the app has a really bad rep plus 2x the cost.  Moon Mind is out of the budget.  Didn't want to fool with a LT > DAC in the room, etc.  Node fills the void left by Touch IMO, plus a better interface.  I'm happy.

Hopefully this helps someone.

Bob
 
« Last Edit: 29 Aug 2014, 07:33 pm by BobC »

BobC

Re: is Bluesound filling the vacuum left by squeezebox?
« Reply #22 on: 20 Jan 2015, 05:41 pm »
Yeah, over time I'm finding favorite songs that now don't have the magic they use to.  I'm thinking the Node DAC is sub-par compared to my old DACMagic ...so I ordered a Schiit Gungnir which will be connected by a Wireworld Supernova 7 optical cable.  I should get it this week!

Anyone have experience with either of these?

Bob

BobC

Re: is Bluesound filling the vacuum left by squeezebox?
« Reply #23 on: 22 Jan 2015, 07:22 pm »
So I got my Gungnir hooked up.  Right away I hear a dramatic improvement over the Node DAC.  But, this thing is fresh and needs to burn in a bit to settle down.  Now the base is a bit too much and a little smeary, while the upper mids and highs are recessed.... so it's sometimes hard to hear the vocals over the music.  I've got it streaming some radio now and will give it another listen tonight.

I currently connect the Node to the Gungnir via a loaner no name optical cable.  (Wireworld Supernova 7 is on order)   
 
Just for fun I connected the coax out from my Oppo 83 into the Gungnir and played the same track from CD and also from the Node (flac)....and toggled between the sources using the Gungnir switch.

I expected the Oppo to hang, but wow...no contest....the Node is a far better transport.  I mean way better.  I thought maybe it was level matching?  But it all goes through the same DAC, so who knows....   

stereocilia

Re: is Bluesound filling the vacuum left by squeezebox?
« Reply #24 on: 23 Jan 2015, 01:56 am »
Interesting that the node is such a better transport. I wonder if the results would be different if they were both using an optical connection.

BobC

Re: is Bluesound filling the vacuum left by squeezebox?
« Reply #25 on: 23 Jan 2015, 05:00 pm »
Maybe I can play around some more when I have time, but it matters not to me right now.  (maybe put an optical cable on both and try again...when the supernova 7 comes in. The Node / Gungnir combo works well for me.....burn in is helping things settle down.

BobC

Re: is Bluesound filling the vacuum left by squeezebox?
« Reply #26 on: 27 Jan 2015, 04:12 pm »
I got the Supernova 7 in, and it is a noticeable improvement over the generic loaner cable I was using.  It really improved the top end, giving a lot more air and soundstage.  Have to admit though that at time there is a really high note that hurts my ears a bit...must be too loud :)   ....or the Martin Logans are ringing a bit.

So as of right now, I'm super pleased with the Node > WW SN7 > Gungnir > Groneberg TS > Odyssey Candela > Groneberg TS > Odyssey Mono Ex's > Groneberg TS> ML Ascent i's. 

Now to start thinking about room treatments.....   :roll:

stereocilia

Re: is Bluesound filling the vacuum left by squeezebox?
« Reply #27 on: 27 Jan 2015, 07:06 pm »
Nice. It's great when everything comes together.

Charles Xavier

Re: is Bluesound filling the vacuum left by squeezebox?
« Reply #28 on: 27 Jan 2015, 07:18 pm »
Can you play any 24/192 music through the optical ?

BobC

Re: is Bluesound filling the vacuum left by squeezebox?
« Reply #29 on: 27 Jan 2015, 09:21 pm »
I don't think I have any 24/192 files to try.  24/96 is no problem.

Charles Xavier

Re: is Bluesound filling the vacuum left by squeezebox?
« Reply #30 on: 27 Jan 2015, 09:44 pm »
24/96 is no problem but 24/192 seems to be cable dependent from what I have read. If you do try any 24/192 please post here and let me know.

BobC

Re: is Bluesound filling the vacuum left by squeezebox?
« Reply #31 on: 29 Jan 2015, 07:49 pm »
Thank you, Charles Xavier, for pointing me to a free sample download for 24/192.

I was able to run this track via Bluesound Node > Wireworld Supernova 7 Optical Cable > Schiit Gungnir without issue. 

I have no idea if this would vary by recording...or if intermittent issues could arise....but for this track it worked well.  (while it sounded great, I can't hear a difference from 24/96, but YMMV)

Hope this helps.

Bob

Charles Xavier

Re: is Bluesound filling the vacuum left by squeezebox?
« Reply #32 on: 29 Jan 2015, 08:18 pm »
Thanks Bob

Nick B

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 894
Re: is Bluesound filling the vacuum left by squeezebox?
« Reply #33 on: 19 Sep 2015, 05:40 am »
Hi Bob
I'm seriously considering the new Bluesound Node 2. The iOS app hasn't gotten very good reviews on Apple's app site
Can you give updated impressions regarding the app performance, ease of use, song library display etc?
Thanks,
Nick

jseipp

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 150
Re: is Bluesound filling the vacuum left by squeezebox?
« Reply #34 on: 19 Sep 2015, 07:56 am »
Not Bob, but I chose a Bluesound Vault that came my way as a one box way to get started streaming, optical into my dac.  I've found it to be foolproof and to sound really, really good. 

Your reaction to the app will probably depend greatly on what you are used to -- I was spinning discs before, so this is my first.  That said, with my moderate-sized collection of rips and Tidal, I find the app to work simply and cleanly, and it was a cinch to get used to.  Again, your satisfaction there will almost certainly have to do with where you are coming from.

Hope that helped just a little :).

jarcher

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1940
  • It Just Sounds Right
Re: is Bluesound filling the vacuum left by squeezebox?
« Reply #35 on: 21 Sep 2015, 05:10 am »
Been messing around with blue sound v2 products lately. Initial impression is positive. Navigating about the GUI is not quite as intuitive as Sonos, but you get used to it (and if you've never used / owned Sonos, would be a non issue). Most software issues are resolved by restarting the app. Sonically I'd say it's a step up - and even low rez internet radio can be listenable  - which is not as much the case with Sonos and Heos from their built in dacs. I actually see quite a few people buying the Vault product just to easily rip their cd collection even if they end up eventually using a higher end server.

Nick B

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 894
Re: is Bluesound filling the vacuum left by squeezebox?
« Reply #36 on: 21 Sep 2015, 10:08 pm »
Thanks for the replies. Now that the 2nd generation has a coax out, I'm even more interested. My concerns were about the gui, also the ripping and tagging process. I have some unusual cd's and I'll likely need to do some stuff manually. I am wondering if it will be fairly easy to do that. I hired an A/C member to do the ripping and tagging for me 7-8 years ago. Also want to know what databases Bluesound will use. A program like EZCD? Would work,but that will cost me maybe another fifty bucks.

Another consideration regarding the drive is a couple of cd's that were blocked on my computer's optical drive. That type of stuff ticks me off as I paid for the content (no lectures pls if you disagree). JArcher, are you a dealer and is this product one you might carry? My brick and mortar place in the next state hasn't been timely getting back to me
Thanks,
Nick

jarcher

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1940
  • It Just Sounds Right
Re: is Bluesound filling the vacuum left by squeezebox?
« Reply #37 on: 22 Sep 2015, 01:11 am »
Thanks for the replies. Now that the 2nd generation has a coax out, I'm even more interested. My concerns were about the gui, also the ripping and tagging process. I have some unusual cd's and I'll likely need to do some stuff manually. I am wondering if it will be fairly easy to do that. I hired an A/C member to do the ripping and tagging for me 7-8 years ago. Also want to know what databases Bluesound will use. A program like EZCD? Would work,but that will cost me maybe another fifty bucks.

Another consideration regarding the drive is a couple of cd's that were blocked on my computer's optical drive. That type of stuff ticks me off as I paid for the content (no lectures pls if you disagree). JArcher, are you a dealer and is this product one you might carry? My brick and mortar place in the next state hasn't been timely getting back to me
Thanks,
Nick

GUI is not as intuitive as Sonos - more swiping left / right & up / down than seems necessary. Simple is remarkably hard to do - and I've certainly seen much worse than Bluesound. So if it sounds like I'm damning the GUI  with faint praise, that's just in relation to the best (Sonos) vs all the rest. You get used to it.

The Vault has worked so far pretty well for ripping. Sadly no ripping / tagging software is going to work all the time on any platform - particularly with unusual CDs. I don't know what database Bluesound uses - not publicly available info as far as I'm aware - but I don't think its substantially hamstring vs the competition.

Also be aware that neither Bluesound nor Sonos and their like are going to allow you to manually edit the metadata of a file. You really need to go to a PC (Mac, windows etc) for that level of editing.

Lastly, not aware of any issues with the Vault blocking CDRs or Music CDs with copy protection.

Not too surprised if your local dealer hasn't hurried back to respond to questions. For one, Bliuesound v2 just came out (we just got ours a week or so ago). Secondly, many dealers simply are not comfortable / familiar enough with PC audio, and even for those that are, it generates MANY questions and anxieties, which even if answered professionally, may still turn the customer off. And at the price points of Bluesound, it might not be financially worth it. I know answering those questions / concerns and troubleshooting the devices is often the most vexing part of the dealership work. Often you feel more like an IT support guy than a stereo guy.

With all that said, for what is the hear and now, Bluesound V2 ain't perfect, but it represents the best sound quality and features at their price point - particularly for a stand alone ripping device like the Vault (though of course it does more than that). And often "perfect" is the enemy of "good enough", which is what  I try to convey to customers when they get too hung up on some technicalities with the hope that some magic future device (or promised update) is going to resolve all issues and sound great. Not likely has been my experience. Considering how far things have come with commercial computer audio devices in a relatively short period of time - eg Tidal & Roon - for such little money, we have a lot to happy about!

PM or email if you like!




Nick B

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 894
Re: is Bluesound filling the vacuum left by squeezebox?
« Reply #38 on: 24 Sep 2015, 03:00 am »
The local dealer did call, but really couldn't answer any of my questions. He promised to research and call me back. I'm primarily going to use my own dac, but may try the analog outs for fun on stuff other than 16/44. I don't mind doing editing on a pc,  but will be switching at some point to a Mac as I'd like an all apple system.
I'd like some thoughts on the necessity of a good power supply if I'll primarily be using the digital out. In that circumstance, wouldn't the quality of the power supply and digital out jack really not be important?
Nick

PM coming to JArcher

jarcher

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1940
  • It Just Sounds Right
Re: is Bluesound filling the vacuum left by squeezebox?
« Reply #39 on: 24 Sep 2015, 05:01 pm »
The local dealer did call, but really couldn't answer any of my questions. He promised to research and call me back. I'm primarily going to use my own dac, but may try the analog outs for fun on stuff other than 16/44. I don't mind doing editing on a pc,  but will be switching at some point to a Mac as I'd like an all apple system.
I'd like some thoughts on the necessity of a good power supply if I'll primarily be using the digital out. In that circumstance, wouldn't the quality of the power supply and digital out jack really not be important?
Nick

PM coming to JArcher

Pm received & answered!

A good power supply is really important, even for music streamers.  For example, in my experience the Auralic Aries  sounds a lot better than the Auralic Aries LE  because of the linear power supply.  For that unit I think it makes an even greater difference than the clock upgrade (ie dual Femto in the Aries vs LE).   Switching power supplies are really evil noisy things and digital audio products are especially sensitive to them. With the linear power supply the background noise level is lower meaning a blacker background and greater resolution,  not to speak about the improvements in the naturalness of sound. I guess that's why so many squeezeboxes are modified with linear power supplies. I own two squeezebox duets -  one modified with a linear power supply and the Wi-Fi board deactivated, the other stock,  and the sound quality differences are dramatic.

 The quality of the digital output is also important. It's one of the reasons that toslink optical outputs  never really sounded very good even though in theory transmission via light should be superior (ie  not susceptible to RFI and EMI ).  The problem is that the transmitter and receiver units are not very good, so when the information is converted from current to light, it does the conversion poorly and degrades the sound quality.  Optical digital data transmission has been done p well, but using things such as ST optical which only a few high-end manufacturers have attempted at substantial cost, which is then passed on  to the customer at higher product cost.

So the  humble coaxial and USB digital outputs have received the most attention from the audiophile manufacturers  as the easiest and lowest cost devices to improve on.  Kind of outside of the ability and cost-effectiveness of small boutique audiophile manufacturers  to improve on the toslink optical output.  And the big boys who would be able to (eg Sony etc.)  are not interested.  So toslink remains a more convenience digital input method vs  an audiophile quality one.

Anyway, I didn't mean this to be a tirade about the  evils of the toslink connection.

I think the short answer is that in digital audio everything matters to some degree!  I'm still surprised sometimes though that whereas people in the past would not dream of mating a $100 CD transport to a multi thousand dollar DAC,  somehow the perception is that a $500 laptop is as good as anything else as a digital file player.  Oh if that was only so I'd have spared myself of a lot of hassles and hair pulling in the pursuit of audio nirvana!