[Carlman]

I've been reading a lot about the Squeezebox2 around here and now 2 companies are modifying them here on AC...
Can someone comment as to why streaming audio would be better or worse than a hard drive in a PC being used as a transport?  

Quite often people talk about getting a music server in another room... and then pulling the data off the network... and/or using a wireless router to send the music to the other room.  In this case, sending audio bits across long wires, through the air, or whatever... how would that affect the sound quality?  It's still in the digital domain through all that but don't you lose some of the SQ benefits like you would with jitter in a transport?

My goal is, as always... absolutely the best sound quality possible... in a simple package, for as little money as possible... mainly because a 'little' money in this hobby is still a lot.  

Right now I'm using an audio PC but I foresee needing more disk space down the road.  I don't like .FLAC files, and so far .wav files sound by far the best to me.

BTW, I posted this here because I think 'digital processing' could be expanded to mean 'wringing the most out of your digital rig for the best sound quality'...  If I'm wrong, move this to the Square Circle, please.

Thanks,
Carl

[zybar]

Carl,

I bought an SB2 (will have it tomorrow) to see if I could replace my transport  with a "pc" after reading testimonial after testimonial about how much better it can be if you rip to your hard drive.

I won't go the pure pc route since they are currently too loud and they don't have the best interfaces (without spending a lot of bucks).  So I won't be doing any type of comparison between pc vs. pc/SB2.  

I do not expect any performance issues based on either communication method used in  the pc -> SB2 chain.  The SB2 could of course maek things worse, but there is also the potential to eliminate that with some performance mods.

George

[Carlman]

George,
Thanks for sharing your experimenation... You're the only one I know that's investigating this route.  My PC is less than 20db.. how much less, I don't know... but I can't hear it at all 99% of the time and it cost about $700 total, including all mods... and has a very good soundcard in it... so it 'can' be done... but requires much effort.

(My biggest noise generator is the air conditioner... It just runs and runs and generates a sheet of noise.  When the AC is off, everything sounds great.)

Has anyone used an Apple airport express to transmit music?  How'd that work out?

I have limited access to these technologies... I'd have to buy them to compare them.  I'm really interested in the potential of sound degradation with these devices.... but also very intrigued by the convenience...

[jhenderson010759]

I've been reading a lot about the Squeezebox2 around here and now 2 companies are modifying them here on AC...
Can someone comment as to why streaming audio would be better or worse than a hard drive in a PC being used as a transport?  

Quite often people talk about getting a music server in another room... and then pulling the data off the network... and/or using a wireless router to send the music to the other room.  In this case, sending audio bits across long wires, through the air, or whatever...  ...

Using an SB has several advantages over a PC + soundcard, including:
1) The SB can be located far from the PC and any noise it generates.
2) The SlimServer software which serves audio files to the SB can be remote controlled.  I use TelCanto running on a wireless PDA, which allows me to browse and play files and playlists from my audio collection through well-organized lists shown on the PDA.  Unbelievably convenient and powerful.  
3) Multiple SBs can be located throughout the home, all driven independently or simultaneously by one PC running SlimServer.  
4) SBs are bit-perfect audio sources.  Sound quality of the SB2 D/As is excellent.  But SBs feature coax and SP/DIF digital outputs should you wish to use an external D/A or signal processor (as I do).  

Audio streamed to an SB via ethernet (wired or wireless) is bit perfect, since TCP/IP includes checksum validation.  Jitter is inapplicable in the network data transfer domain.  When the audio stream decoded by an SB2 and streamed to it's D/A, a dedicated stable XTAL is used as a timebase which provides excellent stability.  

However, an SB2 doesn't sound better than a top-notch PC sound card, such as an EMU0404.  Both have superb analog performance, as validated by Rightmark testing.  The real advantage of SB is convenience, as outline above.  If you use the SP/DIF or coax connectors on either an SB or a PC sound card, signal quality is theoretically perfect, except for esoteric jitter arguments.  Jitter significance in audio gear is massively over-hyped, by any reasonable scientific standard.  

With respect to using WAVs instead of FLACs, you're doing yourself an injustice.  FLACs are bit-identical to the data in the WAV files from which they are generated.  But, they consume 1/2 the disk space and provide embedded Vorbis tag information.  WAVs don't support tag information at all.  

Why would you want to waste disk space and not be able to conveniently and automatically index your audio?

[JohnnyLightOn]

The reason why I chose the Squeezebox is that it's just a little silver (or black) display that sits next to my amp.  The computer can be anywhere I want it to (in this case, the office).  Thus, the living room looks good, and the wife is happy.

It's also really easy to play any CD in my collection via the remote control.  No having to deal with a full-size keyboard and monitor.  (Although in all fairness, it's often easier to choose what to play when you have everything laid out in front of you on a big computer monitor).

As far as the sound signal traveling all that way, you'd think it would mess it up, but those with the SB2 (I use the previous version SB) have reported that the unit functions as an excellent transport.  I'm sure mods will make it even better.  Than again, there are great units available for USB transmission of audio direct from the computer.

By the way, if you find that WAV sounds better than FLAC, something may be  wrong in your setup.  Theoretically, they should sound exactly the same.  If your setup is right, and you hear a difference, then you may be ahead of the curve.  There could be a consensus down the road that decoding the FLAC file somehow degrades the signal, maybe it causes jitter or noise in the PC, etc.  But my guess is that others have done comparisons and have not noticed any difference, so definitely check your software settings.

Jitter significance in audio gear is massively over-hyped, by any reasonable scientific standard.

Can't say I agree with this.  Jitter is probably crucial.  Reducing jitter is to digital audio what a properly set up and adjusted turntable is to analog.  At least, that's my impression.  You can hear all the notes with lots of jitter, but the most delicate parts of the recording won't be reproduced right.  So many audiophiles have reported that the SB2 improved their sound compared to the previous generation SB when used as a transport to an outboard DAC.  The SB2 also has much lower jitter than the previous version.  I don't think this is a coincidence.  Note that I use a jitter-sensitive outboard DAC.

[Carlman]

Hey, if I could FLAC to sound as good as WAV, I would DEFINITELY be doing it.  I have verified results on 2 setups, mine and Hantra's... He thinks the FLAC's actually sound better and occasionally make somewhat rough recordings more tolerable.

The main difference I hear is a tiny 'flattening' of the soundstage, a little 'deader' sound overall and details are just a hair more lifeless... It's just not as 'real' sounding as the .wav.

Point me to where the proper flaccing methods are and I'll try them but I've been down that road and didn't get any farther than I am today.  If I can get FLAC to sound as good as wav... which is near-analog level in my rig, then hell yeah!  Preach it!

BTW, thanks for the responses... the data loss, checksums, etc. are the kind of info I was really curious about.  I'm still skeptical of that the SQ can be as good as what I've got but I'll probably get one anyway for another system... that slimserver idea sounds like a real gem.  Can you provide a link?

[Tirade]

Ill chime in here because Ive just spent the last 2 weeks ripping over 300 CD's to flac.

Most people are familiar with .ZIP files. When you take a large file and zip it up (compress it), it contains the same data as the uncompressed file and this is why youre able to unzip it when you need it and its IDENTICAL to how it was before you zipped it up. Not close, not similar, but digitally identical.

When you compress a wav file into a .flac format and then your audio software unflacs it in order to play it, you are hearing something that is IDENTICAL to the source it came from.

Maybe you hear a difference, maybe its placebo, but If you take 1001010101010101010 and compare it to 1001010101010101010 no matter what you may think you see or hear its always going to be 1001010101010101010 in the end.

Tim

[Carlman]

What was your method of flac'ing, Tim?  Have you done any side-by-side comparisons of FLAC to WAV?  I don't know why the audible difference exists but it does.  Even my tin-eared wife could hear the difference.  (sorry to use a cliche' but it's true)

-C

[gongos]

Check out one of www.empiricalaudio.com USB converters. I'm using one and find the sound quality unmatched.

[Carlman]

Check out one of www.empiricalaudio.com USB converters. I'm using one and find the sound quality unmatched.

What has it been matched to?  What's your setup, what have you tried and found to work best for you?  What specifically do you like about the sound you're getting now?

[jhenderson010759]

What was your method of flac'ing, Tim?  Have you done any side-by-side comparisons of FLAC to WAV?  I don't know why the audible difference exists but it does.  Even my tin-eared wife could hear the difference.  (sorry to use a cliche' but it's true)

-C

FLACs are by definition, lossless.  This means that the contents of a FLAC are bit-identical to that of the WAV file used to create the FLAC.  This is an indisputable reality and can easily be validated, by extracting the contents of the FLAC to a WAV and comparing the binary file contents.  

It is as absurd to argue that a FLAC sounds different than a WAV file as it is to contend that the earth is square.

[JohnnyLightOn]

There are lots of things in audiophilia that cannot be explained by our current understanding of how audio is reproduced.  Cables and power cords are two great examples.  You will find loads of engineers who will swear that they cannot make a difference (especially power cords).  Why?  Because they can't explain the difference using any kind of scientific measurements.

That doesn't mean the phenomenon doesn't exist!  We need to trust our ears.  If Carlman's ears tell him FLAC is not as good as WAV, and he could make the same distinction on someone else's properly set-up system as well, then there's a difference.  Why is it there?  Maybe science hasn't gotten there yet.  Computer audio is still pretty new.  Years from now its nuances may be much better understood.

Obviously, the bits are the same.  But perhaps the act of decoding the FLAC in real time as you're listening to the song is what's causing a sound quality degredation.  Something is going on in the computer when it's being decoded.  Can you say for sure that this can have no effect whatsoever on how the computer (or the Squeezebox transport) transmits the signal?

[Carlman]

FLACs are by definition, lossless.  This means that the contents of a FLAC are bit-identical to that of the WAV file used to create the FLAC.  The is an indisputable reality.  This can easily be validated, by extracting the contents of the FLAC to a WAV and comparing the binary file contents.  

It is as absurd to argue that a FLAC sounds different than a WAV file as it is to contend that the earth is square.

(edited because I realized the 2nd post was from someone else)
I understand what you're saying... However, I wasn't trying to be argumentative when I asked for better methods to produce flac files or whether anyone had compared flac vs. wav.... I'm genuinely interested in trying again... and maybe using a better method/software to produce the flac.  I do not claim to be an expert in this field, in fact, I'm trying to learn something...

Have you tried it?  What are your methods?  Anyone else want to share what software or method they used to convert the wav to flac?

Thanks,
Carl

[gongos]

Check out one of www.empiricalaudio.com USB converters. I'm using one and find the sound quality unmatched.

What has it been matched to?  What's your setup, what have you tried and found to work best for you?  What specifically do you like about the sound you're getting now?

Here's a link to my previous posts on the matter:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=20003&highlight=

[jhenderson010759]

Sure, it is feasible that the act of decoding the by the processor performing the decoding could induce additional noise into the system.  However, I design DSP boards with analog I/O front-ends for a living, and I would say that the likelyhood is vanishingly small.  

On any well-engineered platform, such as an SB2, specifications such as THD, S/N and ENOB do not vary substantially as a function of computational load or firmware application code.  

And, if you happen to be using the SP/DIF or coax output of the soundboard or SB2 to drive an external D/A or processor (as many do), the consequences of any added circuitry crosstalk is irrelevant, since it will not corrupt the digitial bit stream to these interfaces.  This can be validated using a simple loopback, as has been done countless times.  

This line of discussion is as old as the hills, and it can't be settled by the likes of me.  I could argue the objective viewpoint all day long to no avail.  I am guided by scientific principles.  Others view the scientific method as another form of nebulus, imperfect voodoo.  

Enough of this - I need a Baroque-fix.

[jhenderson010759]

(edited because I realized the 2nd post was from someone else)
I understand what you're saying... However, I wasn't trying to be argumentative when I asked for better methods to produce flac files or whether anyone had compared flac vs. wav.... I'm genuinely interested in trying again... and maybe using a better method/software to produce the flac.  I do not claim to be an expert in this field, in fact, I'm trying to learn something...

Have you tried it?  What are your methods?  Anyone e ...

Here are my recommendations:

Use EAC (http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/) to rip your CDs, using the secure mode settings described at Ubernet (http://www.ubernet.org/).  You will be virtually guaranteed of generating bit-perfect copies of your CDs to your PC hard disk.

I recommend encoding to FLACs, to save space, allow detailed tagging and to allow archiving of exact copies of the original CD contents. Even though compressed formats, such as MP3s can sound quite excellent, when using the right encoder (LAME) and settings (-aps), FLACs are perfect. Why settle for less?  This link (http://www.saunalahti.fi/cse/EAC/index.html) describes the configuration of FLAC within EAC.

[maxwalrath]

When you guys figure it all out, please let me know. You'll probably see my CD player on A-gon the next day. Until then, I'll sit patiently on the sidelines...

[dogberry]

I rip using EAC.  I use FLAC Frontend (http://members.home.nl/w.speek/) to convert and this has built-in TAG.  I also have the TAG frontend which is great.  NO muss, no fuss.

Beaming the FLAC files to my SB2 (paired with a Channel Islands DAC and Bolder Cables coax and RS Cables silver IC) to my Anthem (analog direct bypass mode) sounds great.

I'm in the process of ripping all my CDs and then they'll go into storage.

I'm waiting for Wayne from Bolder Cables to finalize his mods and I'll probably go for digital mods only.  A friend of mine is doing much the same as I am, except his SB2 is paired with the Benchmark DAC.

I'll never go back.

[Paul_Bui]

Here are my recommendations:

Use EAC (http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/) to rip your CDs, using the secure mode settings described at Ubernet (http://www.ubernet.org/).  You will be virtually guaranteed of generating bit-perfect copies of your CDs to your PC hard disk.

I recommend encoding to FLACs, to save space, allow detailed tagging and to allow archiving of exact copies of the original CD contents. Even though compressed formats, such as MP3s can sound quite excellent, when using the right encoder ( ...

Thanks Jim again for the FLAC tutor link.

[JoshK]

From the hardware side, if I didn't already buy and build a linux file server I would go the NSLU2 route. Linksys NSLU2 using uNSLUg to work as a slimserver NAS.   Cheap, quiet & simple file server.