celo wrote:
> Let me ask this. Last night my wife and I did a blind test running the
> SBT via power bank and stock AC adapter.
Blind test, but not double blind?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art
pippin wrote:
> Mine were pretty early ones and Logitech was well aware of the problem
> (during the beta I sent another one back and the replacements were
> originally more silent and only later developed the noise).
> Im not sure whether i remember this correctly but the problem might
> also
Mine were pretty early ones and Logitech was well aware of the problem
(during the beta I sent another one back and the replacements were
originally more silent and only later developed the noise).
Im not sure whether i remember this correctly but the problem might
also have been specific to
pippin wrote:
> Hm... while I actually agree on the Sbooster and for the life of me I
> would not let that device near any of my power outlets (having once seen
> the interior of one, that device was seriously dangerous)... and no, I
> also dont believe linear power supplies improve anything ...
Hm... while I actually agree on the Sbooster and for the life of me I
would not let that device near any of my power outlets (having once seen
the interior of one, that device was seriously dangerous)... and no, I
also dont believe linear power supplies improve anything ...
But the power supply
garym wrote:
> You're asking the wrong person. I believe in science and engineering and
> facts. things like Sbooster are audiophool nonsense. the only thing
> they do better is separate you from your money. There's all kinds of
> technical reasons that a linear power supply won't improve the
celo wrote:
> Thanks Gary.
>
> Let me ask this. Last night my wife and I did a blind test running the
> SBT via power bank and stock AC adapter.
>
> Both times we liked the AC adapter better. Everything was more open and
> real sounding vs. the battery power. Then I thought, maybe an AC
garym wrote:
> short answer. no. Keep the SB Touch.
Thanks Gary.
Let me ask this. Last night my wife and I did a blind test running the
SBT via power bank and stock AC adapter.
Both times we liked the AC adapter better. Everything was more open and
real sounding vs. the battery power. Then I
celo wrote:
> I have been using SBT for few years and have no issues. I use it
> strictly as a streamer since I have an external DAC. LMS is running via
> RPi3.
>
> I just came across a used Aires Mini with Sbooster. I will pay double
> what I paid for the SBT and if I sell my SBT, my cost will
I have been using SBT for few years and have no issues. I use it
strictly as a streamer since I have an external DAC. LMS is running via
RPi3.
I just came across a used Aires Mini with Sbooster. I will pay double
what I paid for the SBT and if I sell my SBT, my cost will be around
$300 just
I do have the jumbo golden ears!
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ9bPdVR6YBRxuqV4n2aZMUk7DmSr_X3apNXwR11gb6uEKlOjf2
jimmypowder's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=61215
View
cliveb wrote:
Two possibilities: 1. Because you expect it to. 2. Because the DAC in
question has unacceptable sensitivity to different transports. (My
money is strongly on #1)
Lol ok take a listen for yourself then . Demo a Aries and let me know
what you find .
jimmypowder wrote:
Lol ok take a listen for yourself then . Demo a Aries and let me know
what you find .
By the way I have used multiple dacs and I hear differences
jimmypowder's Profile:
jimmypowder wrote:
Then why is it that the Transporter's digital out to the same dac sounds
clearer then the SB Touch fed into the same dac?
Two possibilities:
1. Because you expect it to.
2. Because the DAC in question has unacceptable sensitivity to different
transports.
(My money is
Heh, it's good to see the audiophile arguments lumbering on, and on,
and on... ;)
It's like I've never been away. :D
R.
Net-UDAP is free software - you do not have to pay for it.
However, if you found it useful, please consider donating:
robinbowes wrote:
Heh, it's good to see the audiophile arguments lumbering on, and on,
and on... ;)
It's like I've never been away. :D
R.
Some off us left the cult in the meantime :D
All these differences go away once you do proper tests like ABX .
Any reasonably good transport is
jimmypowder wrote:
LOL. Please. The Touch or Transporter using coax fed into the same dac
doesn't sound as good as the Auralic Aries.Not even close. Not
expectation bias .*I know grain when I hear it*.Maybe its the linear
power supply or something else
but the resolution of the same songs
I've never heard grain in sound. I can hear different levels of
compression pretty well. I think equipment has to be level matched
before you make any worthwhile comparisons. I also heard that
implementation of asynchronous usb and other digital outputs was crucial
to performance. Perhaps these
jfo wrote:
What is grain??
What I mean is resolution .
jimmypowder's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=61215
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103054
jfo wrote:
What is grain??
Good question, I thought of asking that myself. How can something sound
grainy :confused:
kidstypike
1 x SB3 - 1 x Boom - 1 x (Squeezebox) Radio - 2 x Touch - 2 x
piCorePlayer
kidstypike's
Mnyb wrote:
Some off us left the cult in the meantime :D
All these differences go away once you do proper tests like ABX .
Any reasonably good transport is completely transparent to a human
listener . And in most cases the output from the dac is electrically
identical so there teally is
cliveb wrote:
So what you are saying is that you have a DAC which sounds markedly
different when fed from different transports.
Given that the issue of DAC vulnerability to transport variance was
solved at least a decade ago, the only sensible conclusion is that your
DAC is broken in this
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/02/measurements-logitech-squeezebox-touch.html?m=1
Why not just keep that trusty SB 3 then ? Or the cheapest transport you
could find ?
jimmypowder's Profile:
jimmypowder wrote:
All I can tell you is the Auralic is far superior in audio quality
feeding the same dac then either a Transporter or Touch . You can say
Bits are bits but the difference is significant . The Touch is very
grainy compared to the Aries .
So what you are saying is that you
As I said, I've never heard a Transporter but I certainly prefer the
Vortexbox over the Touch. Interesting to hear your opinions and all the
more frustrating that Logitech pulled the plug.
Corelli45's Profile:
jimmypowder wrote:
Anyone wanna buy a Silver Slim Devices Transporter ,I have one in
excellent condition .
Let me know .
I'll bite... How much?
Jason
doctor_big's Profile:
That's the thing about the Squeezebox structure.Its way ahead of others
in terms of active support, plug ins, continuous development and
reliability. It's also dependent on what your Squeezebox is attached to.
With EDO and a quality usb Dac it can challnge even an Aries. I have
listened to a
Grumpy Bob wrote:
After this week's BBC Radio stream debacle (see the BBC iPlayer plugin
thread in Third Party Software) - does the Auralic Ares still play
decent resolution BBC radio streams? I'm impressed how the SB community
has come together to resolve this in LMS, despite the BBC's
Zoltan wrote:
In your earlier post you said the sound quality is terrific. Unless I
am missing something, I would have thought that the only relevant part
SQ-wise of a streamed digital source is the DAC.
I think it depends on how much the transport costs :)
kidstypike
1 x SB3 - 1 x Boom
jimmypowder wrote:
The Aries is not a Dac, just a streamer so you have to connect it to a
dac . USB sounds best on the Aries IMO .
In your earlier post you said the sound quality is terrific. Unless I
am missing something, I would have thought that the only relevant part
SQ-wise of a
Zoltan wrote:
In your earlier post you said the sound quality is terrific. Unless
I am missing something, I would have thought that the only relevant part
SQ-wise of a streamed digital source is the DAC.
All I can tell you is the Auralic is far superior in audio quality
feeding the same
kidstypike wrote:
I think it depends on how much the transport costs :)
Anyone wanna buy a Silver Slim Devices Transporter ,I have one in
excellent condition .
Let me know .
jimmypowder's Profile:
jimmypowder wrote:
I prefer the Transporter to the touch for Audio quality fed into the
same dac . I prefer the Transporter over the Touch using both's internal
dac. Neither is modded .
+1. Exactly my opinion as well.
Since listening to the Aurender, I've become very cynical about
expensive streamers. They are invariably overpriced and software is
often underdeveloped. I've not listened to a Transporter but quite a few
owners appear to prefer the Touch over the Transporter. I prefer the
Vortexbox usb
Corelli45 wrote:
Since listening to the Aurender, I've become very cynical about
expensive streamers. They are invariably overpriced and software is
often underdeveloped. I've not listened to a Transporter but quite a few
owners appear to prefer the Touch over the Transporter. I prefer the
jimmypowder wrote:
I bought an Auralic Aries (femto clock version) and it blows away the
Transporter and Squeezebox Touch .
The software needs work but the audio quality is terrific .
Tidal integration , Internet radio , usb external drive support ,
AirPlay , Songcast ( better then
I bought an Auralic Aries (femto clock version) and it blows away the
Transporter and Squeezebox Touch .
The software needs work but the audio quality is terrific .
Tidal integration , Internet radio , usb external drive support ,
AirPlay , Songcast ( better then AirPlay imo .
jimmypowder wrote:
I bought an Auralic Aries (femto clock version) and it blows away the
Transporter and Squeezebox Touch .
The software needs work but the audio quality is terrific .
Tidal integration , Internet radio , usb external drive support ,
AirPlay , Songcast ( better then
cathcam wrote:
In the open source software arena, just because you can get Linux,
Apache, Angular JS and a dozen other components which you can build into
an application stack, doesn't then mean you can just call it open source
and resell it with no consequences.
The dozen other
Whilst it does sound all very intriguing, it is what it is and people
will need to move on from this. These kind of things do invariably
happen.
All we can do is hope that the fall-out for those involved is kept to a
minimum.
For those wondering about others entering the market, do note that
erland wrote:
I'm reasonably sure that Logitech isn't involved in any legal action
related to the old dead project, so don't consider Logitech to be the
bad guy regarding all this.
Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk
Absent any actual information, one can only speculate. But if
Pascal Hibon wrote:
Common man, just let it go.
The people involved who have asked to drop this discussion will have a
very good reason. To continue nagging about it will not help and for
sure you want get any further answers due to the reasons already
mentioned several times by those
JJZolx wrote:
More assumptions and speculation, just like those voiced by the previous
poster.
How can you know the important lesson unless you know the issues that
were (or weren't) dealt with? If you don't think Logitech was involved,
then why would you think the name was an issue? That
guidof wrote:
Absent any actual information, one can only speculate. But if Logitech
was not involved, then it would seem to be good PR for them to say so on
this forum.
You are assuming that anyone from Logitech other than Michael has even
looked at this forum over the last two years. I
pippin wrote:
You are assuming that anyone from Logitech other than Michael has even
looked at this forum over the last two years. I believe that assumption
is wrong. To the contrary, I'd be willing to bet that nobody who matters
in issues like this at Logitech is even aware of this whole
JJZolx wrote:
I'd just like to think that the idea of a community Squeezebox player is
still possible. And if not, I'd like to know why not. Speculative or
not.
A community based Squeezebox player is possible but it needs to be
organized under a company or some individual needs to be
guidof wrote:
Absent any actual information, one can only speculate. But if Logitech
was not involved, then it would seem to be good PR for them to say so on
this forum.
This is a community forum, there have never been much official posts
from Logitech here, the most official posts you
castalla wrote:
Are you wearing a 'disgruntled costume' in your avatar??!!!
Ha ha. (Ask the SNL's father).
Guido F. , not S.
MUSIC ROOM:
Marantz TT 15S1, Virtuoso Wood CartridgeART ADCVinyl Studio
Vortexbox ApplianceDLink BridgeEthernetSqueezebox Touch/EDOBenchmark
DAC2 D
DSPeaker Antimode
pippin wrote:
You are assuming that anyone from Logitech other than Michael has even
looked at this forum over the last two years. I believe that assumption
is wrong. To the contrary, I'd be willing to bet that nobody who matters
in issues like this at Logitech is even aware of this whole
Michael is not in PR
---
learn more about iPeng, the iPhone and iPad remote for the Squeezebox
and
Logitech UE Smart Radio as well as iPeng Party, the free Party-App,
at penguinlovesmusic.com
*New: iPeng 8, the Universal App for iOS 7 and iOS 8*
guidof wrote:
Even if Michael is the only Logitech employee that has ever looked at
this forum, that makes it at least one Logitech person who is aware of
this discussion. It's not a discussion that looks particularly like good
PR for Logitech, no matter how large the company and how small
Those of you not involved in product design and delivery won't
understand how complex a world it is these days. At almost every turn
there is some form of consideration that you need legal and licensing
agreement with,
Just because you can build something from already available components,
The people/person who were initially involved in discussing this project
here have asked that the discussion stop. Many of us would like to know
about the status of the project and why the request for the cessation of
discussion. There is nothing wrong with being curious, but after a bit
it
Mark Miksis wrote:
To me, the sad thing is that I wonder how many other potential third
party projects or contributors are deterred by the mystery and
uncertainty of all this. I suspect that the truth about all of this is
much more mundane and narrowly defined than most people suspect.
erland wrote:
I think the important lesson for anyone that want to release a hardware
product/DIY-kit in the future is to make sure to do it through a company
instead of an unofficial community group or individual. Also, make sure
to use a name and thread that isn't closely related to the
Mark Miksis wrote:
To me, the sad thing is that I wonder how many other potential third
party projects or contributors are deterred by the mystery and
uncertainty of all this. I suspect that the truth about all of this is
much more mundane and narrowly defined than most people suspect.
I'd imagine the maker of mice and small computer speakers (who else
could it be?)
That's 100% speculation. While I'm not informed about everything
happening in the company, I very much doubt your claim. I would have
heard about this either internally or from one of the persons involved
in
To me, the sad thing is that I wonder how many other potential third
party projects or contributors are deterred by the mystery and
uncertainty of all this. I suspect that the truth about all of this is
much more mundane and narrowly defined than most people suspect.
Without knowing that for
JJZolx wrote:
The point you can't seem to get through your head is that people are
past caring about you.
No, I get that. I can't not get it. You and others, (by their words and
actions), have made crystal clear!
mherger wrote:
I think your best bet to let this topic pass away is to no
Thank you Michael. Good advice, although I suspect it's far from the
last we'll hear on the subject from the guy who doesn't want to talk
about it.
John Swenson:
I hope you haven't gone back into hibernation. Just a couple of days ago
you seemed very excited about moving on with the hardware
JJZolx wrote:
That's up to him. He could have just let it go, but he insisted that
nobody talk about it. I've never heard of such a thing and cannot fathom
how it could possibly affect his legal situation one way or the other.
The real mistake was in shutting down the thread.
Because you
You keep making this about you. The point you can't seem to get through
your head is that people are past caring about you or your problems.
They care about what happened to the community Squeezebox project, and
what issues are keeping it from happening.
If you're under a non-disclosure
Please guys, let it go, for now. You want answers. I hear that! You want
an explanation. I hear that!
JackOfAll - I think your best bet to let this topic pass away is to no
longer post about it. It's like telling a troll to stop trolling. He'll
always have the last word. Only when you ignore
I'd imagine the maker of mice and small computer speakers (who else
could it be?) has deep pockets and razor-sharp rat-like lawyers. If they
were swarming up my trouser leg, I'd likely say whatever they told me to
say in order to stop them suing me into oblivion.
Give these guys a break.
doctor_big wrote:
I'd imagine the maker of mice and small computer speakers (who else
could it be?) has deep pockets and razor-sharp rat-like lawyers. If they
were swarming up my trouser leg, I'd likely say whatever they told me to
say in order to stop them suing me into oblivion.
Mr.
Was it perhaps the name that shall not be mentioned but sounded a bit
like Disunity Quease, that was the problem?
I'm truly sorry for the bad fortunes that may have fell upon involved
parties, but the way it has been communicated in these forums is bound
to draw ridicule.
JackOfAll wrote:
Was it? The reason I asked for the thread to be closed was that the
subject being discussed has already been subject to legal action last
year. And as of today, it is in the hands of lawyers again. If that
makes me a microcephalic pillock, in your no doubt, humble opinion,
P Nelson wrote:
JackofAll, I can only imagine the pain you are suffering from the legal
action, that you clearly did not anticipate and most likely did not
deserve. I saw in another closed post your request for I respectfully
ask people not to discuss this in any way, shape or form. The
dasmueller wrote:
Some of the posts over the last several days have made many of us
curious without a doubt. It appears that no further information of
substance will be forthcoming in the near future.
I suggest we let it drop and perhaps at some point in the future we will
learn more. For
Some of the posts over the last several days have made many of us
curious without a doubt. It appears that no further information of
substance will be forthcoming in the near future.
I suggest we let it drop and perhaps at some point in the future we will
learn more. For the present I think we
Mnyb wrote:
What is mysterius to me is why resurrecting the hardware part a wand
board compatible DAC is such a problem .
it locks just like any of the other solutions around this forum , with
diverse hardware conected to PI boards or odroids and similar .
Software to make it a
JackOfAll wrote:
Was it? The reason I asked for the thread to be closed was that the
subject being discussed has already been subject to legal action last
year. And as of today, it is in the hands of lawyers again. If that
makes me a microcephalic pillock, in your no doubt, humble opinion,
What is mysterius to me is why resurrecting the hardware part a wand
board compatible DAC is such a problem .
it locks just like any of the other solutions around this forum , with
diverse hardware conected to PI boards or odroids and similar .
Software to make it a squeezebox emulator is
Dogberry2 wrote:
Suppose some microcephalic pillock(s) arranged for a popular discussion
thread to be shut down? Isn't there enough interest out there to create
a replacement thread, with contributions from the community to keep it
going? I think there is. The raw material is all there; all
Moribund is a strange adjective to apply to a thread with more than
twenty new posts in just the last four days. Obviously people were
interested in continuing the discussion; that's the reason the thread
was closed. If it were moribund, it wouldn't have had to be shut down.
Nobody demands the
Dogberry2 wrote:
Isn't there enough interest out there to create a replacement thread,
with contributions from the community to keep it going?
That's exactly what my high-end hardware player thread was intended to
foster.
-mark
Suppose some microcephalic pillock(s) arranged for a popular discussion
thread to be shut down? Isn't there enough interest out there to create
a replacement thread, with contributions from the community to keep it
going? I think there is. The raw material is all there; all that's
needed is to
Dogberry2 wrote:
Obviously people were interested in continuing the discussion; that's
the reason the thread was closed.
Was it? The reason I asked for the thread to be closed was that the
subject being discussed has already been subject to legal action last
year. And as of today, it is in
78 matches
Mail list logo
