[Les Lammers]

In the confines of the price established by the original poster, I stand 100% by my statement that one MUST choose between convenience OR sound quality.  The statement was made in that particular context. 

Now, on the larger scale: I'd like to hear Wright's Squeezebox in my residence.  Regarding the silver disc players Srajan lists: The APL wasn't so hot in a direct A-B.  The people at Audio Aero are so stuck up I wouldn't own their stuff for any reason.  The Esoteric gear is nice.  The TRL was preferred by the person who brought over the $18k two-box Meitner.  Per TRL, an obviously biased source even though there's every reason to believe them, the owner of the $18k-ish Reimyo traded for the TRL.  I may be able to get the guy's name if that would help. 

Beyond that, there's the issue of wireless environments.  I'm an electrical dummy, admitted.  But I'm wondering how someone would come to the following conclusion regarding WiFi: an ultra-high-end WiFi digital source is no more likely to suffer performance changes by nearby wireless & hard-wired activity than any single-box silver disc system. 

In other words, someone living on the Greek island of Corsica or wherever, w/ what one might safely assume to have slightly more wireless & hard-wired activity than Antarctica, will always have the same exact absolute high-end digital WiFi audio performance compared to the same system setup in the middle of Manhattan.

Some might conclude such an assumption is innacurate at best.   

I'm not saying a hard-wired system is completely immune from nearby electrical activity, but am certainly saying a wireless system is more prone to variability in absolute performance in a high-end system.

I would personally discount a rave reveiw of WiFi that ignored this potential performance degrading subject.  YMMV.     

I agree 100%. A HD based system makes sense but the WiFi way is not in the cards for me.

[Double Ugly]

In the confines of the price established by the original poster, I stand 100% by my statement that one MUST choose between convenience OR sound quality.  The statement was made in that particular context. 

Though I and others might disagree with your statement, the remark I quoted was not made in reference to him or his stated price.  It was and is a sweeping generalization.

If you meant otherwise, I encourage you to make an effort to be more clear.

Now, on the larger scale: I'd like to hear Wright's Squeezebox in my residence.  Regarding the silver disc players Srajan lists: The APL wasn't so hot in a direct A-B.  The people at Audio Aero are so stuck up I wouldn't own their stuff for any reason.  The Esoteric gear is nice.  The TRL was preferred by the person who brought over the $18k two-box Meitner.  Per TRL, an obviously biased source even though there's every reason to believe them, the owner of the $18k-ish Reimyo traded for the TRL.  I may be able to get the guy's name if that would help. 

No, it wouldn't help.  I can't imagine why you'd think otherwise. 

Price doesn't guarantee quality any more than your or my endorsement.   

Beyond that, there's the issue of wireless environments.  I'm an electrical dummy, admitted.  But I'm wondering how someone would come to the following conclusion regarding WiFi: an ultra-high-end WiFi digital source is no more likely to suffer performance changes by nearby wireless & hard-wired activity than any single-box silver disc system. 

In other words, someone living on the Greek island of Corsica or wherever, w/ what one might safely assume to have slightly more wireless & hard-wired activity than Antarctica, will always have the same exact absolute high-end digital WiFi audio performance compared to the same system setup in the middle of Manhattan.

Some might conclude such an assumption is innacurate at best.   

Hundreds, if not thousands (tens of thousands?) of Slim Devices and similar products are in use around the globe, and yet WiFi performance doesn't seem to be a continuing problem for anyone on the forums I frequent.  There are probably at least a couple dozen users on this site alone, maybe more, but I've seen no complaints about interference.

Not even from those who live somewhere other than on Greek islands.

I'm not saying a hard-wired system is completely immune from nearby electrical activity, but am certainly saying a wireless system is more prone to variability in absolute performance in a high-end system.

Probably so, and yet you've produced nothing more than your own biases and preconceived notions in support of the implied inferiority.

I would personally discount a rave reveiw of WiFi that ignored this potential performance degrading subject.  YMMV.     

Indeed, to each his own. 

We can all keep our collective noggins stuck in the sand if we want, but we should expect to be called out after making sweeping generalizations about things we know little to nothing about.

[James Romeyn]

Now, on the larger scale: I'd like to hear Wright's Squeezebox in my residence.  Regarding the silver disc players Srajan lists: The APL wasn't so hot in a direct A-B.  The people at Audio Aero are so stuck up I wouldn't own their stuff for any reason.  The Esoteric gear is nice.  The TRL was preferred by the person who brought over the $18k two-box Meitner.  Per TRL, an obviously biased source even though there's every reason to believe them, the owner of the $18k-ish Reimyo traded for the TRL... 

Price doesn't guarantee quality any more than your or my endorsement.

The Meitner & Reimyo have been employed as state of the art cost no object Red Book references by professionals, probably most of which live in areas far more populated than the Greek isles.  Have no idea if any have heard the Wright unit or other WiFi so-called references.  It would be far more convincing if/when it became a growing list of professionals who switched from state of the art silver disc players to WiFi, especially, again, if the issue of connection variabilty & potential intereference was addressed.

Apologies if unrelated, but I just noticed within the past few days that when my unused electric toothbrush is charging in the same AC outlet as a portable AM radio the buzzing is so bad it's unlistenable.  Read right here at this forum the list of caveats regarding noise pickup disclaimers for the NuForce digital amps.

To say this is all completely unrelated to WiFi performance variabilities in a high-end reference system seems unreasonable.  Anyone who chooses to completely ignore the potential problem is welcome to go on their merry way w/ my full blessings. 

It's pretty well established that hard wired connections are better than wireless.  We can all look to our own personal experience w/ phones & computers as empirical evidence.  It's reasonable to start w/ this assumption & wait for more than one pro reviewer in Corsica to proclaim the wireless model now equals or trumps the hard-wired. 

Beyond that, there's the issue of wireless environments.  I'm an electrical dummy, admitted.  But I'm wondering how someone would come to the following conclusion regarding WiFi: an ultra-high-end WiFi digital source is no more likely to suffer performance changes by nearby wireless & hard-wired activity than any single-box silver disc system. 

In other words, someone living on the Greek island of Corsica or wherever, w/ what one might safely assume to have slightly more wireless & hard-wired activity than Antarctica, will always have the same exact absolute high-end digital WiFi audio performance compared to the same system setup in the middle of Manhattan.

Some might conclude such an assumption is innacurate at best.   

Hundreds, if not thousands (tens of thousands?) of Slim Devices and similar products are in use around the globe, and yet WiFi performance doesn't seem to be a continuing problem for anyone on the forums I frequent.  There are probably at least a couple dozen users on this site alone, maybe more, but I've seen no complaints about interference.

Not even from those who live somewhere other than on Greek islands.

The issue is/was: reference high-end digital playback: silver disc vs. WiFi.  Not a generic statement or belief in a lack of complaints about interference, which would appear to be a far lower standard than the lofty performance goals of reference high-end audio.

I believe a cursory search here would produce hundreds of posts regarding connectivity & operations problems of generic WiFi.  Such problems might NOT be directly related to pure reference sound quality but surely no music playing at all is indirectly related (as in no music playing = no sound quality).  IMO it may be a considerable stretch to conclude that none of the problem posts are related to wireless interference.

I am reminded of the Bound For Sound editor, who upon reviewing a Sunfire amp, was the apparent first to discover the amp also functioned as a great (unintended) radio reciever, at least in his use.   



 

[lcrim]

There is no such thing as a better or worse connection using wireless ethernet (RFC 802.11 B or G).  You are either connected or not.  No in-between.  If an SB-3 has no drops running on wireless then it has no drops and is playing the music as well as a wired unit.  There is the possibility however remote that the power to the wireless card is adding some amount of noise to the signal but so would a wired NIC.
The above poster's continued criticism of WiFi  as a vehicle for the transmission of music has little factual basis.

[Double Ugly]

We can all look to our own personal experience w/ phones & computers as empirical evidence.  It's reasonable to start w/ this assumption & wait for more than one pro reviewer in Corsica to proclaim the wireless model now equals or trumps the hard-wired. 

Assuming one is prepared to discount the hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of users as too ignorant and/or too inexperienced with high-end audio to know better, I agree.

Personally, I couldn't care less about what professional reviewers have to say, be they in Manhattan or the Greek Isles.  Their respective takes may be interesting, but ultimately their opinions carry far less weight than my own where my system is concerned.

I believe a cursory search here would produce hundreds of posts regarding connectivity & operations problems of generic WiFi.  Such problems might NOT be directly related to pure reference sound quality but surely no music playing at all is indirectly related (as in no music playing = no sound quality).  IMO it may be a considerable stretch to conclude that none of the problem posts are related to wireless interference.

Getting a wireless network established is sometimes a difficult proposition, especially for those not terribly comfortable with computers and network devices.  Nevertheless, while it is conceivable interference is a contributing factor, I submit it is far more likely the difficulties encountered while setting up a wireless network are associated with incorrect settings.

Thankfully, I've had no problem establishing a wireless network of more than sufficient signal strength, but then I have a computer science degree and my wife is a network administrator.  Those help. 

There is no such thing as a better or worse connection using wireless ethernet (RFC 802.11 B or G).  You are either connected or not.  No in-between.  If an SB-3 has no drops running on wireless then it has no drops and is playing the music as well as a wired unit.  There is the possibility however remote that the power to the wireless card is adding some amount of noise to the signal but so would a wired NIC.
The above poster's continued criticism of WiFi  as a vehicle for the transmission of music has little factual basis.  (emphasis added - DU)

Thank you, Larry.  My point exactly. 

[JLM]

While trying to get my modded SB3 to work I tried wired and wireless connections.  I seemed to me that it might have sounded better with direct wired connection, but couldn't A/B to be sure.  A couple of others around here agreed.  But alas the setup problems persisted.

Overall I'm not convinced that a music server is more convenient in a single audio system household.  The server requires a computer, monitor (unless you make it dedicated with adaptions), keyboard, backup HD (hopefully remote) plus the ripping and organizing and then you still can't just drop a new CD in withour ripping.  If you want to move your source the computer, keyboard, monitor, and server must all go together.

I see the handwriting, but am still waiting for the affordable, simply, bullet proof, high fidelity music server.

[Bemopti123]

I see the handwriting, but am still waiting for the affordable, simply, bullet proof, high fidelity music server.

I simply did not find the sound of the SB appealing, as well as the operating software being a POS.  I find that an outboard USB DAC does the trick, the only inconvenience being that is needs to be hardwired, not quite as convenient for some. 

If we lived in a world where convenience dictates what we use everyday, then my turntable and other inconvenient goodies would not exist anymore. 

How did the thread changed from CDP suggestions to wireless music server devices?   

[Freo-1]

My Ah Njoe with upsampler is dying The Display has dimmed and one channel is playing louder than the other. I  have changed the tubes and  cables but the problem persists Has anybody upgraded from the Ah! player with success?  New or used suggestions would be appreciated. Budget of $1500 to $2000  aa

Let's try to get to the question at hand:

I bought a Denon 5910 DVD player in this price range, and I'd put it up against all comers in this price range. If you check out the reviews and specs, you will see that it is an excellent CD/SACD/DVD Audio, and DVD Video unit. It provides two channel, five channel analog, along with all the other normal outputs. The IEE 1394 output is outstanding if you have an amplifier setup  that takes advantage of it.

So, this is the cool part. Not only does it sound as good as most of the garage made overpriced "gear' for ALL CD/DVD types, you can also use it for Home Theater.  Less boxes to worry about

[Double Ugly]

How did the thread changed from CDP suggestions to wireless music server devices?   

The same way virtually every thread here with more than 2 responses weaves on and off topic.

The IEE 1394 output is outstanding if you have an amplifier setup  that takes advantage of it.

I'd love to try hear it sometime.  What type amplifier takes advantage of it?

Is there a reason most audio-related devices use USB instead of FireWire?  Cost?  Complexity?  Sound quality? 

Since it's usually the faster medium (the speed war continues), FireWire seems the more logical choice at first glance.

[Freo-1]

How did the thread changed from CDP suggestions to wireless music server devices?   

The same way virtually every thread here with more than 2 responses weaves on and off topic.

The IEE 1394 output is outstanding if you have an amplifier setup  that takes advantage of it.

I'd love to try hear it sometime.  What type amplifier takes advantage of it?

Is there a reason most audio-related devices use USB instead of FireWire?  Cost?  Complexity?  Sound quality? 

Since it's usually the faster medium (the speed war continues), FireWire seems the more logical choice at first glance.

The only equipment that I know takes advantage of fire wire input are the flagship receivers from Pioneer, Denon, and Sony.

The Sony DA 9000ES receiver has a unique topology, in that it accepts fire wire input for all channels, goes through the HATS anti-jitter circuit, converts non SACD sources to SACD, and runs it straight to the output (D/A to naked MOS-FETs). If the source is SACD, that runs straight to the output. The sound is VERY clean and neutral.  Although I love my tube gear, I have to admit that this may be more technically accurate.

I'd almost bet money Sony lost money making those units.  For a mainstream home theater unit, its sound is definitely high end  aa

The Denon flagship uses a more conventional setup, but also sounds most excellent (especially for a receiver!)

If anyone is interested, I can send them the white papers from Sony on the design.

[doug s.]

buy any $200 new or used cdp of your choice.  buy two small isolation transformers, one for the cdp, the second for your dac.  this should cost <$100.  then buy my dac.     total cost <$600.  spend ten times as much, & the sound might be a bit better.  or not.  in any ewent, the sound of the two will be so close, it won't really matter.  regardless of what you buy for your $6k; regardless of whether you buy new or used.  imo of course!   

my dac f/s:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=49382.0

ymmv,

doug s.

[Charles Calkins]

Bought an oppo 980. I have it hooked up to a Behringer SRC2496 DAC. Okay out of the box but after I got into the oppo audio setup menu and did some adjustments to it the results are GREAT!!!. Best CD and DAC combo. I have had in my house. You gotta hear it!!! Not as good as my modded by Bolder SB3 and APLHIFI DAC. But not much is as good or better than that combo.

                                          Cheers
                                          Charlie

[Pirate]

 aa The feedback has been great! 

I have been going all over the internet reading up on all of the suggestions made here. My conclusion at this point is 
There seems to be some awesome units available in my price range. However, the fact is that there really has not been a "one unit replacement" that stands out here and thats OK

This hobby is so subjective . I realize now there are so many different systems we have put together that it's  probably impossible to squeeze one unit to the top. Speaking of Squeeze, I have decided to start down this path. I will be putting my order in for a SB3 shortly.

I will still replace my CDP by using a lot of the recommendations made here and after properly getting out and doing some A/B comparing.

Thanks to all 
Dave

[doug s.]

aa The feedback has been great! 

I have been going all over the internet reading up on all of the suggestions made here. My conclusion at this point is 
There seems to be some awesome units available in my price range. However, the fact is that there really has not been a "one unit replacement" that stands out here and thats OK

This hobby is so subjective . I realize now there are so many different systems we have put together that it's  probably impossible to squeeze one unit to the top. Speaking of Squeeze, I have decided to start down this path. I will be putting my order in for a SB3 shortly.

I will still replace my CDP by using a lot of the recommendations made here and after properly getting out and doing some A/B comparing.

Thanks to all 
Dave

interesting, your comments here.  why?  because i yust got back from woodsyi's house, partaking of his hospitality, & listening to a few digital playback systems w/a few members of the mid-atlantic audio circle.  we listened to am unmodded transporter, a way-modded squeezebox thing, done up by bolder cables, including a spendy upgrade power supply, & a basically stock squeezebox fed into an empirical mods pace-car, feeding a northstar 24/192 dac.  preamp was a highly modded modwright unit, you will have to ask rim specifics, i don't know them.  i've heard it before, & it's excellent, imo.  rim was nice enough to humour me by allowing me to bring one of my lowly modded art di/o's along, so i could compare it to the much spendier spreads.  well, bottom line is that the di/o was absolutely no worse than any of the other combo's we listened to this evening.  why do i say "no worse", instead of something more complementary?  well, tho the di/o sounded as good as any other digital we listened to, (all were so close as to be pretty-much impossible to reliably distinguish between them), rim has a really sweet analog set-up, (two in fact!), & the winyl being spun was so much better sounding than the digital, it was no contest!   

doug s.

[Pirate]

Hi Doug,

Are you asking "Why"?

Are you asking, Why would I choose with The SB3 ?  I feel this is the entry point into this format which gives the most flexibility. The available options via DAC , PS or Bolder upgrades can be added at anytime.  My significant other likes the idea of being able to stream internet radio . This makes it a shoe in for another piece of gear 

If your suggesting that no matter what route I take vinyl is better?  I would not argue this point. Personally, I prefer the conveniences that the CD format offers at this time. My system is operated by all 5 members of the family and is played on a daily basis. Vinyl is way too temperamental for this .

[ecramer]

I have to agree with the vinyl thing as its just to much work for as much as i listen to my system. Occasionally it nice but not as a steady diet.

\
Hi Doug,

Are you asking "Why"?

Are you asking, Why would I choose with The SB3 ?  I feel this is the entry point into this format which gives the most flexibility. The available options via DAC , PS or Bolder upgrades can be added at anytime.  My significant other likes the idea of being able to stream internet radio . This makes it a shoe in for another piece of gear 

If your suggesting that no matter what route I take vinyl is better?  I would not argue this point. Personally, I prefer the conveniences that the CD format offers at this time. My system is operated by all 5 members of the family and is played on a daily basis. Vinyl is way too temperamental for this .

[doug s.]

Hi Doug,

Are you asking "Why"?

Are you asking, Why would I choose with The SB3 ?  I feel this is the entry point into this format which gives the most flexibility. The available options via DAC , PS or Bolder upgrades can be added at anytime.  My significant other likes the idea of being able to stream internet radio . This makes it a shoe in for another piece of gear 

If your suggesting that no matter what route I take vinyl is better?  I would not argue this point. Personally, I prefer the conveniences that the CD format offers at this time. My system is operated by all 5 members of the family and is played on a daily basis. Vinyl is way too temperamental for this .

no, i am not asking why.  i am saying, that if you want to go w/a computer-based system for digital playback, don't bother w/spending big bucks on p/s, bolder mods, etc.  yust get the squeezebox & add a modded di/o dac (or something equivalent) for cheap.  if you want a cdp-based dystem, the same applies - cheap decent transport & a quality inexpensive dac.  (zhaolu, musiland & march are three that come to mind if you don't want a modded di/o.)  you will have about as good as it gets, sonically, out of the digital medium, imo.

no argument about the conwenience of digital vs analog.

doug s.

[Pirate]

no, i am not asking why.  i am saying, that if you want to go w/a computer-based system for digital playback, don't bother w/spending big bucks on p/s, bolder mods, etc.  yust get the squeezebox & add a modded di/o dac (or something equivalent) for cheap.  if you want a cdp-based dystem, the same applies - cheap decent transport & a quality inexpensive dac.  (zhaolu, musiland & march are three that come to mind if you don't want a modded di/o.)  you will have about as good as it gets, sonically, out of the digital medium, imo.

no argument about the conwenience of digital vs analog.

doug s.

Got it!

[Geardaddy]

interesting, your comments here.  why?  because i yust got back from woodsyi's house, partaking of his hospitality, & listening to a few digital playback systems w/a few members of the mid-atlantic audio circle.  we listened to am unmodded transporter, a way-modded squeezebox thing, done up by bolder cables, including a spendy upgrade power supply, & a basically stock squeezebox fed into an empirical mods pace-car, feeding a northstar 24/192 dac.  preamp was a highly modded modwright unit, you will have to ask rim specifics, i don't know them.  i've heard it before, & it's excellent, imo.  rim was nice enough to humour me by allowing me to bring one of my lowly modded art di/o's along, so i could compare it to the much spendier spreads.  well, bottom line is that the di/o was absolutely no worse than any of the other combo's we listened to this evening.  why do i say "no worse", instead of something more complementary?  well, tho the di/o sounded as good as any other digital we listened to, (all were so close as to be pretty-much impossible to reliably distinguish between them), rim has a really sweet analog set-up, (two in fact!), & the winyl being spun was so much better sounding than the digital, it was no contest!   

doug s.

Doug, can you elaborate more on what you guys heard?  I will be doing a similar A+B test in the not too near future.  What, may I ask, is the "lowly modded art di/o" exactly....?  And BTW, I agree with your final analysis:  as much as people huff and puff about digital, it still does not cut it.  Digital cannot transcend its inherent flaw in sound processing.  We need a new recording or data technology that can take the analogue signal that is music and spit it onto a smaller, more portable medium other than vinyl.  Anyway, here is a quote from a WIRED magazine article documenting the recent renaissance in vinyl:

Another reason for vinyl's sonic superiority is that no matter how high a sampling rate is, it can never contain all of the data present in an analog groove, Nyquist's theorem to the contrary.

"The digital world will never get there," said Chris Ashworth, owner of United Record Pressing, the country's largest record pressing plant.

(http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/commentary/listeningpost/2007/10/listeningpost_1029)

[Freo-1]

interesting, your comments here.  why?  because i yust got back from woodsyi's house, partaking of his hospitality, & listening to a few digital playback systems w/a few members of the mid-atlantic audio circle.  we listened to am unmodded transporter, a way-modded squeezebox thing, done up by bolder cables, including a spendy upgrade power supply, & a basically stock squeezebox fed into an empirical mods pace-car, feeding a northstar 24/192 dac.  preamp was a highly modded modwright unit, you will have to ask rim specifics, i don't know them.  i've heard it before, & it's excellent, imo.  rim was nice enough to humour me by allowing me to bring one of my lowly modded art di/o's along, so i could compare it to the much spendier spreads.  well, bottom line is that the di/o was absolutely no worse than any of the other combo's we listened to this evening.  why do i say "no worse", instead of something more complementary?  well, tho the di/o sounded as good as any other digital we listened to, (all were so close as to be pretty-much impossible to reliably distinguish between them), rim has a really sweet analog set-up, (two in fact!), & the winyl being spun was so much better sounding than the digital, it was no contest!   

doug s.

Doug, can you elaborate more on what you guys heard?  I will be doing a similar A+B test in the not too near future.  What, may I ask, is the "lowly modded art di/o" exactly....?  And BTW, I agree with your final analysis:  as much as people huff and puff about digital, it still does not get there.  Here is a quote from a recent WIRED article documenting the renaissance in vinyl:

Another reason for vinyl's sonic superiority is that no matter how high a sampling rate is, it can never contain all of the data present in an analog groove, Nyquist's theorem to the contrary.

"The digital world will never get there," said Chris Ashworth, owner of United Record Pressing, the country's largest record pressing plant.

(http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/commentary/listeningpost/2007/10/listeningpost_1029)

You can't be serious. 

A record is made from a master tape (mostly analog, but some digital). The record playback system has LOADS of design sonic limitations (there are too many to mention, but I'm sure we all know what they are).  The master tape source will ALWAYS kick butt over records.

The current digital storage/playback available (I am referrring to 24 bit, not 16 bit) does indeed get very close to the master tape source, and will easily outperform vinyl. (Noise floor, wow and flutter, mechanical mis-alignment of the stylus in the groove, on and on).

Now do not get me wrong, I like the sound of a good vinyl playback system, but honestly! 

The above quotes have more to do with marketing, and less to do with reality.

We have not even touched the lack of convenience issue.

In order to get a better perspective, I suggest reviewing past papers from the AES about these subjects.

Cheers