Squeezebox vs. Softsqueeze

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 7544 times.

Ed Schilling

Squeezebox vs. Softsqueeze
« on: 19 Aug 2008, 02:52 pm »
I decided to start streaming music to the listening room instead of having a big box back there. So I set up the music computer in the TV room and was on the verge of getting a SB. Then I discovered "Softsqueeze". Since I already have a couple laptops and a couple DACs it seemed like a good thing to try. So I did. Wayne at Bolder sent me a Trends USB device to feed my Aragon (and replace Zitel Pro Hi fi Link).

Well, it all works and it even sounds really good. My question is.....what would be the advantages of a SB over a laptop running Softsqueeze with a really good DAC? I am interested in sound quality as opposed to size of the device. The laptop has that nice big screen and I would think the ability to "do a little more" but I realize that I don't know squat about this even though I have had a dedicated muzic computer for several years now.

I looked through the threads but did not see much about the Softsqueeze, thanks for any help or replies.

Ed

Bob in St. Louis

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 13259
  • "Introverted Basement Dwelling Troll"
Re: Squeezebox vs. Softsqueeze
« Reply #1 on: 19 Aug 2008, 05:05 pm »
what would be the advantages of a SB over a laptop
None that I can think of.
As long as the laptop is within easy reach of your listening chair, the functionality is the same (AFAIK). Regardless of whether the laptop is wired to the storage devise and two channel rig or is all wireless won't matter. There's a few fellows around here that do this very thing with great success.
If you're using SoftSqueeze (SS) and it's working properly, you've pretty well got it covered.
Using SS on a laptop (with it's larger screen) is generally preferred over having a SB (and it's smaller screen) many feet away.
The older fellas have a hard time seeing that far away.

Bob  :wink:

chadh

Re: Squeezebox vs. Softsqueeze
« Reply #2 on: 19 Aug 2008, 06:49 pm »

If you use softsqueeze on a windows machine, do you still have to worry with all of that "kernel streaming" stuff?  I know, for example, if you use foobar to send a digital stream to your USB device, you need to worry about setting things up so that the operating system doesn't wreck your signal.  (It resamples at 48kHz instead of 44.1kHz, or something silly like that).  This always annoyed me, because the ability to bypass that process required one to find an appropriate driver for your USB device (usually Asio of some sort).  It's probably a simple matter for someone who knows what he's doing.  But I've very rarely been accused of knowing what I was doing.

If you're on a Mac, I don't think these issues exist.  If you use Windows Vista, these problems may not exist.  But for me...well...maybe I'm just intimidated because ASIO isn't just a kernel streaming driver.  It's the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation: http://www.asio.gov.au/!

Chad

Gordy

Re: Squeezebox vs. Softsqueeze
« Reply #3 on: 19 Aug 2008, 07:26 pm »
The only issue I can think of is fan noise from the laptop.  Mine can be heard from across the room and is why I'm switching to a pc with a Sonata case. 

Chad, it took this computer clueless one about 3-5 mins. to download asio for free and drop it into my Foobar components, um, thing.

lcrim

Re: Squeezebox vs. Softsqueeze
« Reply #4 on: 19 Aug 2008, 07:41 pm »
A few points.  Before the SqueezeBox existed there was PC based audio.  The drawbacks were as mentioned, the necessity of going around KMixer by using kernel streaming or ASIO(4ALL) but also the PC even when dedicated to audio only. adds its own noises to the audio stream.  When another device on the buss gets processor time or a virus scan starts you can hear an audible pop or click.  You can adjust buss priorities w/ software (DoubleDawg) but that little pop or click could never quite be totally eliminated at some point in the listening session, it was annoying.  The beauty of SlimServer is that it uses ethernet and thus the data stream is not interrupted.  The noise of USB connected drives is also better off elsewhere.  There are many who have told me that their USB devices don't have any noise.  Twice I've gone to listen to these and the total denial of what was terribly obvious was amazing.

Bob-you can connect to SlimServer on your home network by putting that PC's address into a browser on another PC on that subnet(home LAN) and adding the port 9000 i.e. if the slimserver PC has an IP address of 192.168.1.100 on your home lan then open a browser on another PC and put the address http://192.168.1.100:9000 into the address line of the browser.  Give it a few moments to resolve and redraw.  I use a laptop to reach SlimServer and to create playlists etc.

dyohn

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 114
    • the12volt.com
Re: Squeezebox vs. Softsqueeze
« Reply #5 on: 19 Aug 2008, 07:42 pm »
Remote control?

woodsyi

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 6513
  • Always Look on the Bright Side of Life!
Re: Squeezebox vs. Softsqueeze
« Reply #6 on: 19 Aug 2008, 07:45 pm »
Ed,

PM or ask Steve (Empirical Audio) on his circle about this.  I think the K-mixer thing Chad is talking about does exist with non-vista windows.   I know he sells Off Ramp for converting USB signal to SPDIF or I2S for your DAC.  I think there were some issues with USB out of PC direct into USB DAC's.  I have used Foobar with ASIO to bypass the windows resampling which can be messy due to lousy PS's on PC's.  With Foobar or J-River, you can play 24/96 files as well.   

Bob in St. Louis

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 13259
  • "Introverted Basement Dwelling Troll"
Re: Squeezebox vs. Softsqueeze
« Reply #7 on: 19 Aug 2008, 08:11 pm »
Remote control?
If he's got the laptop sitting on the end table by the listening chair, or his knee, there won't be a need for a remote.

Bob-you can connect to SlimServer on your home network by.......<snip>.......
Mine is working now, so I'm "all good". It was fixed last week by a personal visit from Bryan ("bpape") and advise from a few others on my thread.

Bob

Ed Schilling

Re: Squeezebox vs. Softsqueeze
« Reply #8 on: 20 Aug 2008, 04:12 pm »
Thanks Guys. I have a lot to learn about streaming hardware and software...but I'm getting there with your help and suggestions. Thanks again for the replies.
Ed

bbaker6212

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 73
Re: Squeezebox vs. Softsqueeze
« Reply #9 on: 21 Aug 2008, 06:01 am »
Hey Ed, have a look at this blog post I made yesterday.  That cheap little device could be way cool if it actually works for remotely connecting USB DAC's...

cheers, -Brad-

Bob in St. Louis

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 13259
  • "Introverted Basement Dwelling Troll"
Re: Squeezebox vs. Softsqueeze
« Reply #10 on: 21 Aug 2008, 11:21 am »
That cheap little device could be way cool if it actually works for remotely connecting USB DAC's...
Yea, but....... http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=58648.0

 :(

Bob

bbaker6212

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 73
Re: Squeezebox vs. Softsqueeze
« Reply #11 on: 21 Aug 2008, 12:22 pm »
I'd say that guy's "review" of the Linksys product was at best incomplete and possibly highly biased from the language he used.  For example, he says it sounds worse than a bad CD player.  Does that mean he used the analog outputs?  If he used the digital outs, what DAC did he use?  Still it may very well sound bad, but I'd like a little more info, and maybe from someone else.  I have heard the setup of that particular device is a be-awch.

Sooo, now what of the USB server(s)? hmmmmm?

woodsyi

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 6513
  • Always Look on the Bright Side of Life!
Re: Squeezebox vs. Softsqueeze
« Reply #12 on: 21 Aug 2008, 12:31 pm »
What USB server do you mean?

bbaker6212

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 73
Re: Squeezebox vs. Softsqueeze
« Reply #13 on: 21 Aug 2008, 08:38 pm »