[Bingenito]

I have never heard the SB2 but based on the system you describe "washed over" is no surprise.

Not that the gear is not good but the combination could provide somewhat less detail then you may want.

[GHM]

The thing is Bingenito as soon as the dealer changed over to some vinyl on a pair of 2.4 Thiels and Mc monoblocks. The washed over sound was gone. Instruments sounded real again. The funny thing is I don't really care for Thiel speakers! When I say washed over ..I mean pale sounding with hyper detail.

[Bingenito]

Again not defending anything but to me speakers make the biggest difference in any system. Changing speakers can completely change the sound of the entire system.

That is no News Flash just stating the obvious.  

[GHM]

I agree with you up to a point. I've found since changing over to speakers that use no crossovers or  extremely simple ones.The source makes a HUGE difference. Some sound flat with no depth, some bleached ,some tizzy with grain on top and some fuller with warmth. I suppose it's a matter of taste like anything else in this crazy hobby.

[chadh]

This is probably a silly question...but...

A few months ago, if I'd been looking at a new digital source I would likely have been directed to a one box CD player.  

And then some of those "in the know" would have suggested an external DAC.  The idea would have been that, adding all sorts of extra solders and circuits and longer runs of wire might be detrimental to the sound, but superior DAC technology would potentially outweigh these concerns.

And then a bunch of people would start suggesting specific DAC technologies:  non-oversampling with no digital filter or upsampled and oversampled many times.  Maybe they would recommend piggybacking identical dac chips.  Maybe they would recommend battery power.  Maybe the dac should have a tubed output section.  While there were many different opinions about which DAC would sound best, there still seemed to be a large number of people who insisted that an external DAC made loads of sense, even if it added extra stuff into the signal path.

Now along comes the SB2.  It doesn't have a whirring, moving transport inside it.  It potentially isn't even physically linked to the computer from which it draws its source material.  But it still must do one of two things:  convert a digital signal to analogue, or send the digital signal on to an external DAC.

What confuses me is the fact that everybody says that using the SB2 analogue outs is superior to sending the digital signal to an external DAC.  And the reasoning given is that the external DAC adds all sorts of soldering spots, wires, extra circuitry etc into the signal path.  BUt this was also the case when adding an external DAC to a CD transport.  Why is it that all the extra complexity of an external DAC was such a good idea with a CD transport and not with the SB2?

Chad

[MttBsh]

Chad,

In many cases I think using an external DAC is a slam dunk. For example, using the digital out of my Sony S7700 to a Scott Nixon Tubedac Plus sounds far superior to using the Sony's internal DAC and analog outs.  But the SB2 could be a whole different animal. Vinnie's mods may render its internal DAC to analog output a better choice than using the SB2's digital out to my tubedac. If I get the sense that this is the better route (better sound is my only goal here) then "less is more" is the way to go and selling my DAC & digital cable could go a ways in paying for the SB2 & mods. I am definately going to jump on the SB2 wagon, one way or the other.

Matt

[Brad]

So just to make sure I understand, you could simultaneously control the volume level at the analgue outs (feeding your main amp-speakers) and the digital outputs, feeding say a Behringer DCX2496 digital crossover-eq and subwoofer amp(s).

 

Maybe I'm just getting caught up here, but this is pretty mind-boggling!

Insert stupid question:

How would you feed the Behringer?
Would you get a digital cable to go from the SB2's coax output to the Behringer's XLR input?
I really like the idea of doing the subwoofer control in the digital domain in parallel to the main speakers.

[konut]

chadh- I had a long talk with Vinnie the other day and touched upon this subjuct. The SB2 is merely a convenience device. It allows access to your music libraries via remote. The most recent iteration of this device upgrades the circuitry to the point of real potential quality wise. The most significant feature, and I hope I have this right, is the elimination of the SPDIF interface which has real problems jitter wise. To digress, if you use a transpot and DAC combo the most likely connection would be with either a coaxial or optical SPDIF interface. There is info sent concerning not only the bits of digtal data but clock rate as well. This is where the potential for jitter is introduced. Some DACs have buffers and reclocking circitry to address this, but that just adds more circuitry. With the SB2 the bit perfect file is sent directly to the DAC then converted to the analog domain. Vinnie's mods dispense with the AC side of things, power supply circuitry,  and bring the benifits of low resistance DC current to the DAC  allowing better transient behavior. Additionally Vinnie removes the opamp to further simplify the circuit. This results in less gain but still should be plenty to drive most amps. If any of this explination needs correcting please feel free to point out the flaws.

[Paul_Bui]

I like the explanation.  Thank you konut.

[chadh]

chadh- I had a long talk with Vinnie the other day and touched upon this subjuct. The SB2 is merely a convenience device. It allows access to your music libraries via remote. The most recent iteration of this device upgrades the circuitry to the point of real potential quality wise. The most significant feature, and I hope I have this right, is the elimination of the SPDIF interface which has real problems jitter wise. To digress, if you use a transpot and DAC combo the most likely connection would be with  ...

Thanks for this explanation.  But I think I'm still missing part of the puzzle - and maybe it's simple.

I'm prepared to believe that the SB2 sounds better than a transport and DAC.  But I'm not sure why the disadvantages of an external DAC when connected by SPDIF to the digital output of the SB2 are not also disadvantages of using an external DAC connected by SPDIF to the digital output from your one box CDP.  A big advantage that the SB2 analogue output has over the transport/DAC option may well be the elimination of the SPDIF interface.  But isn't that interface also eliminated when using a single box CD player?  

Maybe the answer to this is "no", and single box CD players still use an SPDIF interface to transmit information from the internal transport to the internal DAC.  This would clear everything up.  But basically, I don't really know what SPDIF means.

If the SB2 wants no extraneous stuff in the signal path (like digital cables, a DAC, SPDIF jacks) shouldn't I be avoiding those things as well when using standard CD transport?

Chad

[dwk]

Insert stupid question:

How would you feed the Behringer?
Would you get a digital cable to go from the SB2's coax output to the Behringer's XLR input?
 ...

Yes - this is how many/most folks use the Behringer now. You 'can' use a normal rca->xlr cable, but you 'should' get a real 75->110 xformer from a pro gear shop.

In the case of the SB2, both the analog and digital sections are active, so you'd hook the analog output to your main rig, and the digital in parallel to the behringer. Now, there WILL be some degree of delay going through the behringer, but I don't know what it is - it would probably take some experimentation.

I'm having real difficulty finding time to finish my 'real' speaker project, and I have to admit the idea of this type of setup is appealing. Maybe the Exodus kit 41's as mains and the Seas L26's that I have as bass drivers. Tricky to match the rolloffs, but if you run sealed 'mains' that roll off around 100Hz or so, probably feasible.

[konut]

chadh- You ask excellent questions, and I would have hoped that Vinnie would haved chimed in by now with the definitive answers, as I'm not really qualified to. I know that being a 'one man shop' he's very busy. I also look forward to his replies to your questions.

[Vinnie R.]

A big advantage that the SB2 analogue output has over the transport/DAC option may well be the elimination of the SPDIF interface. But isn't that interface also eliminated when using a single box CD player?
..

Hi Chadh,

Yes, a single box CD player does not use spdif to feed its internal dac...

Regards,

[miklorsmith]

This is out of the blue:  I have a crappy, old computer and need to upgrade it before long.  I have a ton of music stored as .wav files on hard drives and will be trying an SB-2 unit in the next few months.

The room where the computer will be is a far flung corner of the dungeon -  (ahem) - basement, and I'll need the wireless signal to be pretty strong to get around the house.  Are there different types of wireless cards?  Different ratings for power or signal purity or anything?  Better brands?

Obviously, I'll be decking it out with a ton of HD storage (3 or 4 500 gig drives?)  Is there any other aspect I should make sure to get included when building the box?

I'm in the lucky spot that I can set my computer up from the start to optimize this function.  Thanks in advance, smart compu-dudes.

[Tirade]

For starters make sure you go for Wireless G at the very least. Wireless A has a smaller range and B has slower transfer speeds.

                        802.11a                          802.11b                  802.11g
Spectrum          5GHz                              2.4GHz                   2.4GHz
Data-capacity    54Mbps (72Mbps)            11Mbps                   54Mbps
Throughput        25-27Mbps                      5-6Mbps                 25-27Mbps
Signal range      50-70m                           100m                    100m
Capacity           8-12 channels                  3 channels              3 channels
 
As for wav vs FLAC files, FLAC seems to be the way to go. A FLAC file is like a ZIP file, once you uncompress it, its the same thing as the original. If you really think you can hear a difference between FLAC and WAV regardless of the fact that they are digitally identical, you can always choose to have the PC uncompress the FLAC files as you play them. Either way the space savings is tremendous plus with FLAC you have the ability to tag your files with artist/track/cd/genre information. As fpr 500GB HD;s unless your looking to spend a few thousand dollars on storage alone, youre better off with a few 250-300GB HD's. The LOW price on a 500GB HD is $375 shipped. The low price on a 250GB HD is $100 shipped.

Tim

[JoshK]

I've done a little digging on price of HDs.  The "sweet spot" in terms of storage per $ is 300-320GB right now it seems, atleast for reputable companies.  I personally won't touch a Maxtor.

[zybar]

I've done a little digging on price of HDs.  The "sweet spot" in terms of storage per $ is 300-320GB right now it seems, atleast for reputable companies.  I personally won't touch a Maxtor.

Josh,

Why not maxtor?

They have had many favorable reviews lately and from talking to some friends their failure rate doesn't seem any higher/lower.  

George

[Tirade]

Im an IT guy for a rather large defense contractor and Maxtor has been our least problematic drives. We have had just as many problems with Maxtors as we have had with WD or Seagate.

The reason I personally prefer Maxtor is because if you ever have a problem with your HD, you can call them up and give them your credit card # and they will overnight you a brand new HD and give you 30days to return the defective drive and they wont charge your card. With western digital the RMA process takes about 2 weeks.

Tim

[JoshK]

I guess it all goes in cycles but long ago my college roommate worked for a software development firm in the IT department and 40% of the Maxtors were DOA.  This was for something like 5,000 drive order.  I then heard similar stories a few years later.  

People swear by WD but I personally have had 3 WDs fail on me, typically after a lot of years of use though.  Then it was IBM that was king for a while, had 2 of those die on me.   I am usually happy to get 4 years on a drive.

[Eli]

This is out of the blue:  I have a crappy, old computer and need to upgrade it before long.  I have a ton of music stored as .wav files on hard drives and will be trying an SB-2 unit in the next few months.

The room where the computer will be is a far flung corner of the dungeon -  (ahem) - basement, and I'll need the wireless signal to be pretty strong to get around the house.  Are there different types of wireless cards?  Different ratings for power or signal purity or anything?  Better brands?

You'll want a wireless access point (aka WAP or wireless router) with an integrated 4 or 5 port switch, rather than a wireless card in the PC.  Or maybe both.  If you can locate the access point relative near the PC then your arrangement would be from the PC to the switch in the WAP via wired ethernet and then reach your Squeezebox(es) from there.  On the other hand, you might need to locate the WAP somewhere else, in which case you might want a wireless connection from the PC to the WAP.

Like others have said, there's always a sweet spot in terms of hard drive capacity per dollar.  Right now thats either 250GB or 300/320GB drives at about $115 and $145 respectively, or about $0.50 per GB.  You'll pay a steep premium for larger drives.  Unless you really need the space _now_ or don't have room for additional drives, go with the smaller, more cost effective drives.  You'll be able to buy those larger drives in a year or two at half the price.

My experience in some twelve years of building PCs and servers has been that motherboards with Intel chipsets are generally the most trouble-free.  I'll be building a dedicated server for SlimServer in the near future, so I may challenge that bias and go with an AMD based system and some odd chipset.  For a first timer, though, it may be worth sticking with Intel even if better value can be had from an AMD based system.