Hi there.
I'm wondering if to try the wandboard with community squeeze.
Has anybody compared SQ of the Wandboard Toslink to Touch Toslink?
Wandboard perhaps with quality USB-SPDIF interface - Touch?
If wandboard, then solo/dual/quad ??
THX
Cheers
::: ' Touch Toolbox and more'
I can't talk to the quality but just to say Toslink on the Wandboard was
broken on the initial carrier cards. It is fixed on the carrier card
that ships with the Quad board. Hopefully they have now swapped out the
carrier card that ships with the dual board but it's worth check on
their forums.
Julf wrote:
Any specific reasons to prefer WAV? I think the general view is that
with lower-end processors (such as those in the squeezeboxes) that don't
have dedicated I/O processors the additional network load caused by the
wasted bits in WAV files causes more CPU load (and thus
Guys. Don't highjack this thread.
My main question still is:
What's your preferred least intrusive and highest quality Sox SRC
setting?
It seems that not anybody is able or willing to come up with a
recommendation!?!?
::: ' Touch Toolbox and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com)
First of all: WAV means: transport twice the number of bits over the
network which causes twice the load in all your network interfaces (NIC,
buffers,...). If you use WiFi it also means: decrypt twice the number of
bits, a process that needs much more CPU cycles than the simple FLAC
decoding.
I
This thread is about resampling qualities resp. differences between
filter settings.
And NOT about file formats.
::: ' Touch Toolbox and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) :::
by soundcheck
soundcheck's
yep. And one effect of server-side upsampling is a dramatic increase of
bandwidth requirements. Going from 44.1/16 to 192/24 means you increase
the bandwidth required by a factor of 8!
---
learn more about iPeng, the iPhone and iPad remote for the Squeezebox
and
*New: Logitech UE Smart Radio*
SBGK wrote:
what are these wasted bits?
The ones that need to be unnecessarily transmitted and received (and
possibly encrypted and decrypted) on the network. FLAC usually achieves
a compression factor close to 2:1.
handling those data packets require CPU power.
I've always found WAVs sound
pippin wrote:
yep. And one effect of server-side upsampling is a dramatic increase of
bandwidth requirements. Going from 44.1/16 to 192/24 means you increase
the bandwidth required by almost a factor of 7!
OK fair enough.
For uncompressed PCM:
16/44.1 = 1,411 Kbps
24/192 = 9,216 Kbps
Your
Don't want to distract this even more, but you are correct, I caught an
additional factor of two for PCM but your video streams are MPEG rates,
I was talking about H.264 which runs at around half the rate.
So it's about the same as a 1080p stream, the ones I looked at here were
all in the 10
I started this because I was using the upsampling built into
Squeezelite(libsoxr), not using SoX in LMS so I can't offer any clues as
to how to get that to work properly. The Squeezelite resampling option
is not the same as in SoX the program arguments, although the underlying
code is the same.
JohnSwenson wrote:
BTW the load on the Wandboard processor is about 8% when using this
setting. When using the default 20 bit setting it is about 4% and when
not doing any upsampling its about 2%.
Cool. Thanks for the info. Do those percentages include FLAC decoding,
or are you feeding
soundcheck wrote:
Comment:
What you measure is your measurement DAC (e.g. WM8805 ) receivers
capability to cope with the incoming signal.
The better the audio DACs digital interface, with all its error
corrections implemented, the better the source issues will be
suppressed.
It
Archimago wrote:
Where are you saying is the WM8805 SPDIF receiver in this post? That was
the SPDIF receiver in the old AUNE X1, not the ASUS Essence One... I
assume therefore you are the one mistaken.
Toslink can exhibit several 100ns of jitter - do you mean ps? I'm
pretty sure I show
edwardian wrote:
Cool. Thanks for the info. Do those percentages include FLAC decoding,
or are you feeding it PCM?
I'm usually sending flac over the network these days since I don't have
a new enough server to handle 176 and 192 pcm. The above numbers were
for sending flac at 44.1 over
SBGK wrote:
based on your measurements, you seem happy for Mynb to draw the
conclusion that
..and thats why I think the unmodded Touch is a sufficiently good
transport for any and all systems and listeners , It's limitation to
only 24/96 is of no particular concern either .
which is
16 matches
Mail list logo
