Squeezebox 2 in the House!

dogberry · « **on:** 27 Jul 2005, 01:21 pm »

I've been slowly ripping all my CDs to FLAC in anticipation of receiving my Squeezebox. It arrived yesterday and I hooked it up immediately. Damn, it is nice.

It was so easy to set up, everything being automatic. I fist tried the built-in DAC and thought the FLAC files sounded a little thin. Then I hooked it up to my CI DAC and BAM!, Eva Cassidy sounded like she was in the room. Okay, at least it sounded like a CD again.

There's no buffering problems or any network related artifacts. Signal strength of the wireless network was 92%, so that's pretty damn good.

I just listen to an XRCD rip of Gene Ammons and that sounded almost as good as the disc itself. FLAC is the bomb!

It's such an amazing convenience to be able to have my entire collection of around 1000 CDs at my fingertips.

Oh, and the best part? The analog VU meters screensaver! Effing COOL!

JoshK · « **Reply #1 on:** 27 Jul 2005, 02:32 pm »

Congrats! I have the SB2, have the linux file server built, but I can't get the file server to currently recognize my ethernet card. I have another card on the way, and then hopefully I will start ripping and tinkering.

Do you have any mod plans for the SB2 or just gonna use as is?

I currently have two regulated 5volt supplies (not a wallwart) to try out plus I thought of doing SLA. Should be fun.

dogberry · « **Reply #2 on:** 27 Jul 2005, 05:44 pm »

I'm not a modder myself, and wasn't aware of anyone doing mods for it. Since I have it going into an external DAC, would mods make much sense for it?

JoshK · « **Reply #3 on:** 27 Jul 2005, 05:46 pm »

#1 PSU
#2 PSU
#3 PSU
#4 maybe a clock upgrade like the tentlabs XO3 that also has its own digital output.

lcrim · « **Reply #4 on:** 27 Jul 2005, 08:56 pm »

Dogberry:
Was just wondering if the SB2, apart from the gain in convenience, offers any better sound than your previous CD transport digital output to your DAC or perhaps it is still too soon to tell?

dogberry · « **Reply #5 on:** 27 Jul 2005, 11:59 pm »

Better, no. But I listen to a lot more music now than I have been for the past year or so. I just want to listen to everything again.

It sounds as good as CD, but not better. I doubt you could have that. I mean, FLAC files are lossless, but I don't see how you'd get more out of the system than what you put into it.

JohnnyLightOn · « **Reply #6 on:** 28 Jul 2005, 12:26 am »

It can sound better. The reason is that a CD player reads the pits in real time, and when it can't read one right, it fills the sound in with error-correction information. When you use EAC or a similar program to rip your CDs into computer files, it takes its time, repeating every troublesome section until it gets things right. There is no time pressure like there is for a CD when you stream files from your computer. It gives you the perfect data every time.

That doesn't mean it will sound better (or even as good) out of the box as the best CD players. There might be some component matching and even some tweaking needed. But theoretically, it should be able to sound better from the computer than a CD.

Loftprojection · « **Reply #7 on:** 28 Jul 2005, 01:31 am »

That's a very interesting point. I never thought about that but it makes a lot of sense. My problem is I have a relatively good cd player (Arcam CD23T) and I haven't heard a PC/transport/DAC that equals it's performance yet so I still haven't converted to PC music even if I would really like to for convenience (I have about 500 CDs!).

I heard that Cambridge Audio is coming up with a music server, the 640H that will be the equal to their 640C but has a 160gig harddisk inside. That could be the start of conversion if other audio companies follow their path... I can't wait for the day we go to an audio shop and can get a Rotel, Arcam, Creek, etc. audio file server equivalent or better to their current offering in cd players...

Quote from: JohnnyLightOn

It can sound better. The reason is that a CD player reads the pits in real time, and when it can't read one right, it fills the sound in with error-correction information. When you use EAC or a similar program to rip your CDs into computer files, it takes its time, repeating every troublesome section until it gets things right. There is no time pressure like there is for a CD when you stream files from your computer. It gives you the perfect data every time.

That doesn't mean it will sound better (or ...

dogberry · « **Reply #8 on:** 28 Jul 2005, 01:46 am »

What you're describing is jitter and can be defeated with a very good transport. I think an external CD ROM drive is exceptional at this. Especially one that uses a caddy because only a slim apature is open to the laser, cutting down on scatter.

While ripped files read from a HD are immune to jitter, it's VERY subjective as to whether you're going to get better sound than CD. I cannot hear it and I'm an advocate of using CDROMs, black media, etc.

I would offer that 160 GB is NOT enough storage for a large collection if you're going to be ripping lossless. Go for 300 GB so you don't find yourself out of space.

bundee1 · « **Reply #9 on:** 28 Jul 2005, 02:22 am »

Right now I have an external 400GB Seagate HD. I have almost 800 cds ripped in Apple Lossless and that fills 260GB. Go for the biggest HD you can afford or you'll regret it later.

JohnnyLightOn · « **Reply #10 on:** 28 Jul 2005, 06:22 am »

What I'm describing is not jitter. Jitter is about timing as well, but I'm talking about the data itself. CD players may not be decoding all the data that's on the disk, because they read it in real time. Hard disks with properly ripped files transmit more accurate data to the DAC because they are not initially reading that data in real time.

Either could better the other in jitter. Typically, the best one box CD players have the lowest jitter because the transport part and the DAC are designed to work together. That's where the component matching and tweaking that I mentioned comes in. By using the right cables, and possibly the right power supply or an upgraded word clock (and other technical components of the Squeezebox that I don't understand), you can make the timing communication better between the transport (Squeezebox) and your outboard DAC, thus equalling the best one box CD players and theoretically even besting them because you're decoding more accurate data as well.

mcgsxr · « **Reply #11 on:** 28 Jul 2005, 11:05 am »

That one box mantra is often associated with Naim, who make that claim.

I would bet that using a Monarchy DIP between the Squeezebox and the external DAC would be advantageous.

I believe the transport in my system is the weak point, and I also believe that at some point I will get into using a PC as the transport - this looks like a good way to get it going.

lcrim also shared a link with me from AA where a couple of guys found a Linksys piece and HD as a stand alone "PC" as the source for the 'Box.

It is on my list of things to do... but that list never seems to get any shorter!

lcrim · « **Reply #12 on:** 28 Jul 2005, 03:52 pm »

What Mark mentioned I also posted and deleted in the PC Circle.
Slim Server, which is the software part of Squeeze Box2 , can run on a Linux OS. Linksys makes a device, the NSLU2, that has an ethernet connector and a couple of USB2 ports. It is possible to hack the Linux operating system on this device and get it to run Slim Server, add a large USB hard drive on which you have your music files and you have a cheap, fairly quiet music server- if you are any good w/ Linux.

WK446 · « **Reply #13 on:** 30 Jul 2005, 12:12 am »

Hi there. This is my first post on AudioCircle, but I recently purchased the Monarchy Audio DIP Classic for use with my SB2 and Audio Mirror NOS DAC.

I found that the jitter performance of the SB2 was quite exceptional compared to my Redbook transport (Sony DVP-S7000), an older unit but known for it's low level of jitter.

The DIP Classic works extremely well - I noticed soundstage information that I didn't have to strain to identify, i.e., increased depth, height, width, and a smoothing of the high end without losing detail. In my opinion, the DIP Classic was quite worthwhile.

The Audio Mirror DAC does not have jitter correcting circuitry so I actually purchased the DIP Classic as a test. I considered the Apogee Big Ben, but it was a touch out of my price range.

Cheers,
Dennis

Quote from: mcgsxr

That one box mantra is often associated with Naim, who make that claim.

I would bet that using a Monarchy DIP between the Squeezebox and the external DAC would be advantageous.

I believe the transport in my system is the weak point, and I also believe that at some point I will get into using a PC as the transport - this looks like a good way to get it going.

lcrim also shared a link with me from AA where a couple of guys found a Linksys piece and HD as a stand alone "PC" as the source for the 'Box.

It is on my list of things to do... but that list never seems to get any shorter!

Brad · « **Reply #14 on:** 30 Jul 2005, 04:47 am »

Dennis,

Thanks for posting about the SB2. I think using it with a NOS DAC is the direction I'm headed in - unless Vinnie's analog mods render the separate DAC unnecessary.

Need to make time to go visit AudioMirror here in Houston.

cheers and welcome to AC