Logitech Touch now launched [Archive] - The Art of Sound Forum

Labarum

07-09-2009, 06:20

There has been a lot of chatter about this new Squeezebox. It has now been launched but is not expected in Europe till December.

The official forum has

http://forums.slimdevices.com/forumdisplay.php?f=34

This link is particularly informative

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/5/59877.html

The new device is a programmable Linux box running a server, a streamer and a controller.

As with the SB3 the Touch has Toslink and RCA S/PDIF outputs as well as it's own DAC and analogue outputs - line and headphone. The USB socket is set up for attaching an external hard drive of USB stick, but the Linux can be reconfigured to stream out of the USB to an external DAC.

The touch will stream natively up to 24/96, but some have offered the opinion the hardware will support up to 192.

It seems the internal DAC is a little better that that in the Classic and Duet, but not much. An external DAC will still be needed by those seeking the best sound.

NRG

07-09-2009, 08:34

Looks good, especially when the USB DAC output is sorted....would fit very nicely with one of Stans DAC's

Labarum

07-09-2009, 08:52

Peter Stockwell

07-09-2009, 09:01

I think this is a big advance, you can attach a USB drive, and when SC v8 is released you can use it as a stand alone solution, but you'll need a way to get the tunes on the USB drive.

But this is the future, think of it, You don't really need a CD player any more, you wouldn't even have to have a local wired or wireless local network, just stick your tunes on a drive, connect it to the touch.

Brilliant I think.

Where does that leave the transporter ?

Labarum

07-09-2009, 09:09

Where does that leave the transporter ?

Dated! At the price its should better 24/96 and should be able to manage hard drives - there is room in the case.

I am guessing that an SB3 + Caiman will match it sonically even if the SB3 receives 24/96 that has been downsampled by the server to 24/48.

Now whether Logitech is prepared to put money into its development . . .

Peter Stockwell

07-09-2009, 09:42

I am guessing that an SB3 + Caiman will match it sonically even if the SB3 receives 24/96 that has been downsampled by the server to 24/48.

I'm thinking of getting a Logitech touch, functionally it's a big step forward from the SB3, and at a "reasonable" price, currently at 300€. My experience of the SB3 with a lesser Beresford, has left me unconvinced of the benefits of an external dac, in the context of a squeezebox.

Labarum

07-09-2009, 09:55

My experience of the SB3 with a lesser Beresford, has left me unconvinced of the benefits of an external dac, in the context of a squeezebox.

That I find amazing. Even the 7510 I found made an unmistakeable improvement to the Squeezebox when streaming FLAC or even a 128Kb/s internet radio stream. A Caiman ups the game quite a bit.

Peter Stockwell

07-09-2009, 11:30

That I find amazing. Even the 7510 I found made an unmistakeable improvement to the Squeezebox when streaming FLAC or even a 128Kb/s internet radio stream. A Caiman ups the game quite a bit.

Yes, I know, against all standard logic, but that's what I found when I took the Beresford out of my system, no appreciable difference. The CD player and the TT are audibly better, and sometimes by a wide margin, particularly with respect to bass performance.

Labarum

07-09-2009, 11:35

Yes, I know, against all standard logic . . .

Assuming the integrity of the analogue replay chain, there must be an issue with interconnects or interfaces, or you have a rogue Standac. Have you asked Stan?

NRG

07-09-2009, 12:19

Ali Tait

07-09-2009, 12:32

Myself and others have found the same thing-no appeciable difference using an SB with an earlier Standac or via the SB's own outputs.The Caiman my be a different story however.

Labarum

07-09-2009, 12:39

Why is that Brian?

Because both the optical and coaxial S/PDIF connection between a Squeezebox and a 7520 or Caiman would be at least as good as a USB connection. S/PDIF would probably be better.

And because the use of S/PDIF does not require digging deep into the Linux of the Logitech Touch.

And because, as I said, the USB socket is best left free for other uses.

If there was a need to marry a Touch to a USB only external DAC, that would be a different case.

NRG

07-09-2009, 12:54

Attaching USB storage doesn't interest me (I'll continue to stream over a wired network) but streaming higher bitrate audio does and given the limitations of SPDIF even at 44.1/16 trying to use 24/96 is likely to make the problems worse. So streaming over a differential bus would seem to be a better choice and I'm reading good things about Stans 7520 in USB mode....

There is only one file to be changed as far as I could tell from the link you posted and the f/w may get fixed in the future anyhow...I think its worthy of investigation...

Peter Stockwell

07-09-2009, 12:55

Assuming the integrity of the analogue replay chain, there must be an issue with interconnects or interfaces, or you have a rogue Standac. Have you asked Stan?

No, I didn't ask Stan. I've already sold the Dac, so the point is moot. I found with an airport express that the Dac was essential and an enormous boost.

I used the same type of interconnects between the dac and amp, as I use now with the squeezebox, and the same configuration of interconnects are used with the phono stage. LP is clearly superior to the streaming, when I have the same material on LP as on the hard disk.

I find that I listen most to the squeezebox, nearly everything on the squeezebox I have on CD, I think I have one album on LP and hardisk only. I have to force myself to listen to LP, it sounds great but it doesn't have the music that I most listen too (The LP collection is mostly 70s/80s bought albums) CD represents what I like now, and so does the squeezebox.

nb2

07-09-2009, 14:16

Yes, I know, against all standard logic, but that's what I found when I took the Beresford out of my system, no appreciable difference. The CD player and the TT are audibly better, and sometimes by a wide margin, particularly with respect to bass performance.

Hi, did you try higher end dacs with the squeezebox ?
I have a Squeezebox Classic with a Beresford TC-7520 upgraded with LM4562NA

I also find very little difference between the TC-7520 and the internal Squeezebox dac.

I ketp the Beresford because of the USB input which is sometimes useful for me.

I'm still looking for a better dac to improve the Squeezebox.
(Which, unlike common advice, I actually find very good ...)

Peter Stockwell

07-09-2009, 14:44

Hi, did you try higher end dacs with the squeezebox ?

I'm still looking for a better dac to improve the Squeezebox.
(Which, unlike common advice, I actually find very good ...)

No, but I'm thinking about. I was thinking of getting a transporter, but I've been exploring the "Touch" forum over on the slimdevices fora (Squeezebox forum).

This is what I like: You can attach a local usb drive to the touch, which will then be accessible over your wired, or wireless, network. You'll be able to update your music files from your main computer. You then have a choice to use a squeezecenter on your main computer or what they are calling TinySC on the Touch (The touch contains a 500MHz ARM processor running Linux). So now no need for a NAS, your Touch will do that for you!

And I note one more who's not convinced of the external dac route with a Squeezebox classic (SB3) :)

nb2

07-09-2009, 14:57

No, but I'm thinking about. I was thinking of getting a transporter, but I've been exploring the "Touch" forum over on the slimdevices fora (Squeezebox forum).

This is what I like: You can attach a local usb drive to the touch, which will then be accessible over your wired, or wireless, network. You'll be able to update your music files from your main computer. You then have a choice to use a squeezecenter on your main computer or what they are calling TinySC on the Touch (The touch contains a 500MHz ARM processor running Linux). So now no need for a NAS, your Touch will do that for you!

And I note one more who's not convinced of the external dac route with a Squeezebox classic (SB3) :)

I'm also very interested in the Touch.
For me, the major drawback from the Squeezebox Classic is the necessity of running Squeezecenter on some other device (PC, NAS etc ...)
If I can plug an external usb disk on the touch, and have most of the Squeezecenter functions, this will be more than great !!!
(Is it possible to power an external USB disk through the touch USB ?)
24/96 support is also a big step up.

I am not sure an external dac is useless with a Squeezebox, but which one ?

I think the Beresford TC-7520 is great to improve a PC soundcard.
But with a Squeezebox, I don't think so.
I think difference is too small if you are tight on money.
And I think you want more improvement if you can afford more.

A lot of dacs are about to be released between 500 and 1500 euros, I'll wait a little and will test them.

Ali Tait

07-09-2009, 15:03

I didn't notice any difference with the Standac but there was with my Audionote Dac Zero.

Peter Stockwell

07-09-2009, 15:06

but there was with my Audionote Dac Zero.

where dat ?

Peter Stockwell

07-09-2009, 15:08

(Is it possible to power an external USB disk through the touch USB ?)
24/96 support is also a big step up.

Dunno, the touch will have it's own power supply. I was assuming I could use one of them portable hard drives, but your question is valid. Someone will have to go fishing on the SB forum.

Labarum

07-09-2009, 15:57

I also find very little difference between the TC-7520 and the internal Squeezebox dac.

I thought I had better listen again, and connected the line out form the Squeezbox directly to the Quad 405-2 relying on a few dB digital attenuation in the Squeezebox.

I have now adjusted to Caiman standards. The Squeezebox line out is rough in comparison.

I still think the 7510 is better that the SBs internal DAC, but I am relying on memory, and when last I tried that line out of the 7510 I would have had a Quad 77 Pre-amp in the chain. I cannot comment on the 7520 - I have not heard it.

Spur07

07-09-2009, 16:44

I thought I had better listen again, and connected the line out form the Squeezbox directly to the Quad 405-2 relying on a few dB digital attenuation in the Squeezebox.

I have now adjusted to Caiman standards. The Squeezebox line out is rough in comparison.

I still think the 7510 is better that the SBs internal DAC, but I am relying on memory, and when last I tried that line out of the 7510 I would have had a Quad 77 Pre-amp in the chain. I cannot comment on the 7520 - I have not heard it.

There must be something about the SB / beresford combination that is just incompatible - I've never had a SB, but I can't believe some people cannot hear a difference between the two.

My first foray into computer Audio was to buy a Trends UD-10 because the common consensus seemed to be that the internal dac was quite a way superior to a basic SB. Despite this it didn't take me long to realize it was still pretty lousy really, so I introduced the 7510 into the chain and the difference was night and day. So I'm struggling ot understand why a basic SB could compare to any beresford :scratch:

nb2

07-09-2009, 16:44

I thought I had better listen again, and connected the line out form the Squeezbox directly to the Quad 405-2 relying on a few dB digital attenuation in the Squeezebox.

I have now adjusted to Caiman standards. The Squeezebox line out is rough in comparison.

I still think the 7510 is better that the SBs internal DAC, but I am relying on memory, and when last I tried that line out of the 7510 I would have had a Quad 77 Pre-amp in the chain. I cannot comment on the 7520 - I have not heard it.

If you want a fair comparison, you have to disable any attenuation and volume control on the Squeezebox.

I have had my current setup for about 6 monthes now.
The Beresford TC-7520 LM4562NA is connected on one input of my amplifier.
The analog output of the Squeezebox Classic to another one.

I just have to switch between those 2 inputs to switch between the Squeezebox and the TC-7520

I try from time to time to change the current input, for more or less long time, on different kind of music.

Honestly, after six monthes, if I don't remember which input is used, and don't look at that, I can hardly guess which one is used.

If I listen very carefully, I'd say that the TC-7520 may be a little more on the "brigth side"
And this is not necesseraly an improvement.
Sometimes, I think the Squeezebox is somewhat more "Classy", not trying to "make too much".
Not sure if this is clear ...

nb2

07-09-2009, 16:57

There must be something about the SB / beresford combination that is just incompatible - I've never had a SB, but I can't believe some people cannot hear a difference between the two.

My first foray into computer Audio was to buy a Trends UD-10 because the common consensus seemed to be that the internal dac was quite a way superior to a basic SB. Despite this it didn't take me long to realize it was still pretty lousy really, so I introduced the 7510 into the chain and the difference was night and day. So I'm struggling ot understand why a basic SB could compare to any beresford :scratch:

My conclusion so far, is that advice on piece of gear I can find on Internet, often comes from people who have never heard it.
It can be a hint, but it is irrelevant until I actually hear it.
"common consensus" is everything but reliable.

It is quite easy to ruin the Squeezebox quality with incorrect setup.
People who can spend days and weeks adjusting the smallest things on a classic setup, are ready to dismiss something like a squeezebox after one hour listening, with obvious basic mistakes is the setup.

I have a simple explanation for that.
You find much more enthousiastic feedback from self convinced people who want to share there satisfaction on extensive periods of time
Much less from disapointed people, may be they write their feeling once, then they switch to something else.

nb2

07-09-2009, 18:07

Dunno, the touch will have it's own power supply. I was assuming I could use one of them portable hard drives, but your question is valid. Someone will have to go fishing on the SB forum.

Apparently the answer is Yes ... :)
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=455757#post455757

And digital outputs and internal DAC may be better than the Squeezebox Classic.
I think I'm going to wait the squeezebox touch, before shopping for another dac ...

Brian

07-09-2009, 18:08

I have to admit I did detect a very, very small difference (possibly a small improvement in the vocals) when I used a Beresford DAC with my SB3. I'd previously tried other DACs and heard no difference at all, so I had become a bit of a cynic regarding DACs and what they do. So, having heard a small difference I sold the Beresford now convinced that a difference can actually be had but not knowing what to buy that will be a vfm upgrade over the DAC inside the SB3. The Beresford was ok for the price but I didn't think it was doing much really. I've been thinking of NOS dacs, but that's all I've done about it so far. I may even leave it altogether because I'm basically very happy with the sound from my naked SB.

Brian

Peter Stockwell

07-09-2009, 18:28

I have to admit I did detect a very, very small difference (possibly a small improvement in the vocals) when I used a Beresford DAC with my SB3.

Yeah, that's about the size of it, there's a difference, maybe, maybe not, who cares, innit ?

Not worth the visual clutter and extra cables in my set of values. I wonder where you have to go for a better performance?

Peter Stockwell

07-09-2009, 18:31

Apparently the answer is Yes ... :)
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=455757#post455757

And digital outputs and internal DAC may be better than the Squeezebox Classic.
I think I'm going to wait the squeezebox touch, before shopping for another dac ...

In short, the touch can be used as a stand alone server with it's local disk accesible of a network. Those that have gone to the trouble of a NAS have got to be scrarching the heads now. I was headed that way. But I see the touch as a way of simplifying the system, and perhaps one day it'll have video capabilities like the Apple TV.

Ali Tait

07-09-2009, 18:32

Well as I said,my Audionote Dac Zero did make an improvement over a naked SB and SB and Standac,but then it should given the relative prices.

Ali Tait

07-09-2009, 18:35

Peter,from what you say,I could buy the touch and just connect the Drobo as a DAS then?

nb2

07-09-2009, 18:53

In short, the touch can be used as a stand alone server with it's local disk accesible of a network. Those that have gone to the trouble of a NAS have got to be scrarching the heads now. I was headed that way. But I see the touch as a way of simplifying the system, and perhaps one day it'll have video capabilities like the Apple TV.

I also want to get rid of my laptop which I have to power on to access my flac library.
I don't like the NAS solution.
One day or another, you have a software problem.
It is much easier to deal with it on a netbook + small usb hard drive.
Besides it is cheaper than a NAS solution.

Anyway it seems that the Touch will be the best way to go to solve that issue, and I won't need a netbook.
The Touch seems to be small linux computer, running a small version of the squeezecenter with some features (like plugins) desactivated by default.

From the little I read about it, it is everything I was hoping for ...

Spur07

07-09-2009, 19:09

My conclusion so far, is that advice on piece of gear I can find on Internet, often comes from people who have never heard it.
It can be a hint, but it is irrelevant until I actually hear it.
"common consensus" is everything but reliable.

It is quite easy to ruin the Squeezebox quality with incorrect setup.
People who can spend days and weeks adjusting the smallest things on a classic setup, are ready to dismiss something like a squeezebox after one hour listening, with obvious basic mistakes is the setup.

I have a simple explanation for that.
You find much more enthousiastic feedback from self convinced people who want to share there satisfaction on extensive periods of time
Much less from disapointed people, may be they write their feeling once, then they switch to something else.

nb2,

In retrospect, I'm sorry to say there must have been plenty of hype associated with the UD-10. I read proper hands-on reviews as well as comments garnered from forums. The reviews were claiming £1000 CD replay - more like entry level £200 to my ears. I soon got rid.

It's just my Hi-Fi fanatic friend who has many highly modded variations of the SB/SB+/Transporter warned me the stock SB unit would be no match for a bog standard CD player, let alone my Naim player. But I guess despite the fact that he's quite technically minded he must setting it up wrong.

Peter Stockwell

08-09-2009, 07:44

Peter,from what you say,I could buy the touch and just connect the Drobo as a DAS then?

I asked myself that, and I have to hedge. I'm not computer savvy enough to be entirely certain.

The drobo when it's attached to a mac, for example, lies about the disk space that's available. For instance, if you put 4*500Gb discs in the machine OSX thinks it has 1.88Tb to play with. That's not actually true, because the Drobo's data protection scheme takes about 25% of the real disk space and you finish with about 1.35Tb of usuable space.

You can get around this by defining a sparse image of up to 90% of the real drobo available space.

http://nslog.com/2008/11/11/formatting_the_drobo_for_time_machine_backups

When a Drobo gets 95% it starts to have problems writing data. But I don't know how a drobo behaves on a windows or a linux machine. I fear that because it runs some kind of "middleware" before writing the data that it may not work with a logitech touch.

I'll do some searching on the SB forum and see what I can dig up.

Brian

08-09-2009, 07:58

Yeah, that's about the size of it, there's a difference, maybe, maybe not, who cares, innit ?

Not worth the visual clutter and extra cables in my set of values. I wonder where you have to go for a better performance?

That's the question.

I've been thinking on and off about the Satch DAC (http://www.diyhifisupply.com/catalog/28/satchdac) kit, but it's $600 in basic form plus delivery and taxes. With a tube output stage it's nearly $1000, though that's pre-built. This is a lot of dosh for anything, let alone a DAC and I'm just not convinced enough right now.

Alternatively I've been pondering over one of the Valab NOS DAC's seen on ebay, which are much more affordable.

Stratmangler

08-09-2009, 08:17

Labarum

08-09-2009, 08:18

That's the question . . .

Alternatively I've been pondering over one of the Valab NOS DAC's seen on ebay, which are much more affordable.

Or put yourself down for one of the next batch of Caimans.

http://www.theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3404

Peter Stockwell

08-09-2009, 08:51

Brian

08-09-2009, 09:43

Or put yourself down for one of the next batch of Caimans.

http://www.theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3404

That's a 29 page thread. What's the gist, bottom line etc. I don't see anything about it on the Beresford site so don't even know how much it costs, let alone how to order one? Is it on a money back guarantee etc?

Brian

Stratmangler

08-09-2009, 09:50

Hi Brian

Click on Stan's website link, then look at the products listing.

Chris;)

Brian

08-09-2009, 09:54

Hi Brian

Click on Stan's website link, then look at the products listing.

Chris;)

Weird. I did that earlier but didn't see it. Now I can. :confused:

Ta

Labarum

08-09-2009, 09:59

What I'd like to determine is why some of us think that a Beresford 7510 or 7520 makes a barely apreciable difference and others say the difference is dramatic. The volume control in the squeezebox is disactivated. (I can't remember if I can turn off the digital outputs or, not, If I can then those are off too).

I found turning the volume control on or off on the SB3 did not make any difference, provided just a few dB of digital attenuation was used. Volume at 100% is the same as volume control off, anyway.

My initial tests with a 7510 6/3 lead to the following ranking.

Best

SB3 > coax > 7510 > fixed output > power amp

(relies on SB digital volume control running at no less than 85% volume)

Middle

SB3 > coax > 7510 > variable output > power amp

(SB3 volume at 100% most of the time, but still remote controllable)

Worst

SB3 > coax > 7510 > fixed output > Quad pre-amp > power amp

All of these options were very close and all of them better than any configuration omitting the 7510.

The Caiman raises the game very considerably.

I honestly fail to understand how anyone can claim even a basic Beresford does not better the SB's own DAC - unless the subsequent analogue replay chain is poor.

Labarum

08-09-2009, 10:32

Hi Brian

Click on Stan's website link, then look at the products listing.

Chris;)

I dont see anything different:Caiman still out of stock.

StanleyB

08-09-2009, 10:51

What I'd like to determine is why some of us think that a Beresford 7510 or 7520 makes a barely apreciable difference and others say the difference is dramatic.
A large part of that is down to the rest of one's system. If the amp and speaker combo cannot take advantage of the extra information coming out of the DAC, the advantages of having a DAC are not worth it.

At the same time, sometimes the improvements are large, but the DAC user is looking for even more, or something different.

STan

StanleyB

08-09-2009, 10:56

Is it on a money back guarantee etc?
That's the type of question that causes me to advise people to try a range of other products from other companies first:). I prefer to be the last option, after everything else has been tried.

Stan

Stratmangler

08-09-2009, 11:04

What I'd like to determine is why some of us think that a Beresford 7510 or 7520 makes a barely apreciable difference and others say the difference is dramatic.

I wouldn't say that the differences in my case are dramatic, but they are appreciable. The SB3 alone is rough in comparison. The sound I get with my TC-7510 is more refined and better defined, and has more life and realism about it. I would find it very difficult to return to using just the SB3.

Chris:)

Labarum

08-09-2009, 11:08

I wouldn't say that the differences in my case are dramatic, but they are appreciable. The SB3 alone is rough in comparison. The sound I get with my TC-7510 is more refined and better defined, and has more life and realism about it. I would find it very difficult to return to using just the SB3.

Chris:)

I wonder how much it depends on musical taste. I always use classical piano music to make my initial assessment - the piano is both demanding and revealing.

As Stan says, it may depend on what the listener is "looking" for.

I commented in another thread that some might actually prefer the fully bodied bass of the 7510 over the Caiman which has much better bass control. The Caiman does not boom and handles typani and the left hand of the piano very realistically. The SB3's DAC's bass is even less well defined than the 7510.

Peter Stockwell

08-09-2009, 11:48

The SB3's DAC's bass is even less well defined than the 7510.

I'd say that is where the weakness of the SB3 alone lies, it's clearly (obscurely) veiled when listening to the same music over the Audiocom CDX/XPS.

I think I'll wait to get a "touch" and revisit the DAC question later.

Maybe, I'm just not as picky as I once was.

Brian

08-09-2009, 15:29

There would be no advanatge is using a re-programmed USB out from the Touch. With a Standac you would be better using S/PDIF - Optical or Coaxial.

The USB socket on the Touch could then be used for a hard drive, the two boxes together making an extremely high quality stand alone media player which would also act as a server to other Squeezeboxes in the house.

I currently own a SB3 which I feed via either a laptop HD, or alternatively, I can connect an external Passport device to the laptop USB port in order to access additional music that isn't stored on the laptop. I could have everything on the Passport.

Let me run this by you to see if I understand correctly.

Are you saying above that with a Logitech Touch I can do away with the laptop, plug the external Passport device directly into the Touch to access ALL of my music, which will then also be available to my SB3 if it is also connected to the wireless network?

Ta

Brian

Labarum

08-09-2009, 15:46

Are you saying above that with a Logitech Touch I can do away with the laptop, plug the external Passport device directly into the Touch to access ALL of my music, which will then also be available to my SB3 if it is also connected to the wireless network?

Yes, if a "Passport Device" is a USB drive.

The Touch has a cut down version of the Squeezecenter server running on it - give it access to a hard drive - either a network drive, or one connected to it's USB port and no computer will be needed to access all your files.

Of course you will still need to plug your USB drive into your laptop to rip CDs to the drive - then move it back to the Touch.

That is my understanding, anyway.

Brian

08-09-2009, 16:27

Yes, if a "Passport Device" is a USB drive.

The Touch has a cut down version of the Squeezecenter server running on it - give it access to a hard drive - either a network drive, or one connected to it's USB port and no computer will be needed to access all your files.

Of course you will still need to plug your USB drive into your laptop to rip CDs to the drive - then move it back to the Touch.

That is my understanding, anyway.

Interesting. I may well be in the market for a SB Touch.

Labarum

08-09-2009, 16:35

Interesting. I may well be in the market for a SB Touch.

Or you buy a network drive that has sufficient processing power to run Squeezecenter

https://www.ripcaster.co.uk/node/128

Brian

08-09-2009, 16:41

Or you buy a network drive that has sufficient processing power to run Squeezecenter

https://www.ripcaster.co.uk/node/128

I'm already thinking that running just the SB Touch with a USB Passport device is going to draw less power than a SB3 and a NAS. I'm not totally obsessed with how I consume energy, but I'll save it where I can.

mattbinns

08-09-2009, 17:16

...Of course you will still need to plug your USB drive into your laptop to rip CDs to the drive - then move it back to the Touch...

The USB drive should show as a network drive once connected to the Touch, so no need to move it to back and forwards , at least that's my impression from this thread http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=67487

nb2

08-09-2009, 18:19

What I'd like to determine is why some of us think that a Beresford 7510 or 7520 makes a barely apreciable difference and others say the difference is dramatic.

Me too, I'd like understand that.
I thought about that.
The "common consensus" is that the more your setup is resolving, the more you are going to hear the difference in dacs quality.

In the end, I am not certain this is always true.
I notice that people who can hardly hear a difference between Beresford dacs and Squeezebox, often own higher end setup, than those who hear a noticeable difference.
(Of course you will always find opposite situations)

As I reported sometimes ago, I was very surprised when I upgraded my amplifier about six monthes ago.
The difference between the Squeezebox and the TC-7520 was clearly much less noticeable with the new setup, which was overall really better.

Now I wonder if the explanation could be the following one.
Let's say you rate your overall setup quality from 0 to 100.
Let's say replacing the squeezebox dac by the Beresford add 1 to your overall setup rate, this added value being the same in a good or in a bad setup.
Which after all is not so stupid nor impossible.

Your setup rate is 10, you add the Beresford, your rate is now 11.
It is 10% better, the difference is obvious.

Your setup rate is 90, you add the Beresford, your rate is now 91.
it is only about 1% better, you hardly notice it.

Of course this is a very simplified way of seeing things.
But that could explain why I felt my TC-7520 was much less an improvement when I upgraded my setup.

Labarum

08-09-2009, 18:29

But that could explain why I felt my TC-7520 was much less an improvement when I upgraded my setup.

Fanciful thinking and flawed logic: it is the "rubbish in - rubbish out" principle that is in play.

A poor signal cannot be improved by a following high resolution system; but a good signal can be degraded by a poor resolution system.

You cannot average a score across the system.

nb2

08-09-2009, 18:50

Fanciful thinking and flawed logic: it is the "rubbish in - rubbish out" principle that is in play.

A poor signal cannot be improved by a following high resolution system; but a good signal can be degraded by a poor resolution system.

You cannot average a score across the system.

In my opinion, flawed logic is to take as obvious a theory, when actual experiment leads to opposite result.

In my explanation, I never say that poor signal is improved by higher resolution system, and I never say that good signal cannot be degraded by a poor resolution system.

I just suspect that your logic is flawed.
Because you take for granted that the best signal is necesseraly degraded enough by the lesser resolution system, so the perceived difference cannot be smaller in the better setup, than in the worst.
This may be plain wrong.
The difference may be much smaller.

Ali Tait

08-09-2009, 19:34

I found turning the volume control on or off on the SB3 did not make any difference, provided just a few dB of digital attenuation was used. Volume at 100% is the same as volume control off, anyway.

My initial tests with a 7510 6/3 lead to the following ranking.

Best

SB3 > coax > 7510 > fixed output > power amp

(relies on SB digital volume control running at no less than 85% volume)

Middle

SB3 > coax > 7510 > variable output > power amp

(SB3 volume at 100% most of the time, but still remote controllable)

Worst

SB3 > coax > 7510 > fixed output > Quad pre-amp > power amp

All of these options were very close and all of them better than any configuration omitting the 7510.

The Caiman raises the game very considerably.

I honestly fail to understand how anyone can claim even a basic Beresford does not better the SB's own DAC - unless the subsequent analogue replay chain is poor.

Well all I can say to that is show me a speaker that is more revealing than an electrostatic! I can easily hear any change made in my system,even cable changes are very easily discernable.However,one thing I'd forgotten is that the SB we used was a modded one,by Red Wine Audio.This would explain why we could hear no difference between it and the dac,and indeed says much for the dac,as the mods to the SB were quite extensive with top quality components.The Audionote was an obvious improvement over the Beresford though.

Labarum

08-09-2009, 20:00

I'd forgotten is that the SB we used was a modded one,by Red Wine Audio.This would explain why we could hear no difference between it and the dac,and indeed says much for the dac,as the mods to the SB were quite extensive with top quality components.

How could you forget that?

There are a number of agencies that will improve a Squeezebox or Duet.

The right external DAC might be the cheaper and easier option.

http://www.audiocom-uk.com/mod_inner.asp?id=59

http://www.avforums.com/forums/streamers-network-media-players/1018792-squeezebox-mods-audiocom.html

Ali Tait

08-09-2009, 20:15

It was ages ago and it wasn't my SB!

Peter Stockwell

09-09-2009, 05:34

Fanciful thinking and flawed logic: it is the "rubbish in - rubbish out" principle that is in play.

A poor signal cannot be improved by a following high resolution system; but a good signal can be degraded by a poor resolution system.

You cannot average a score across the system.

In theory I agree with you completely, but something happened with my system, the addition of the avondale S260 power amp, that makes me see, or hear, things differently.

Compared with the NAP200 that preceded the avondale, there's a much fuller note presentation as well as greater openness in the bass. This manifests as hearing more layers on recordings and feeling the ambience, if there was any, of the orinal recording scene.

I also find, however, that rather than being more critical of the source, it's less critical. That is, it will get to the heart of music and leave strictly Sound quality issues as incidental. So while NB2's description of out of a 100 scores may seem off base, I think understand what he's hinting at.

StanleyB

09-09-2009, 07:00

What does 'higher end' mean? More expensive. It is not a technical description, but a financial one.

Keeping that in mind, a lower priced system can easily be designed and built, whilst maintaining or out performing the performance of a far more expensive system. If anyone out there doubt that, let me remind you of the rise of the Far Eastern economy. Western companies moved their manufacturing to the Far East in order to cut cost and in most cases improve quality and reliability.

So plugging a more expensive amp and speaker pair to the output of a CDP or DAC does not mean that it is going to out perform a less expensive amp and speaker pair.
If I had swapped between one amp and another and then noticed a lower level of improvement from one of the amps, I would not say that the signal improvements of the devices connected to the higher quality output from the one amp are suspect. Rather, I would say that the amp with the lowest level of improvement is,... well, er..:scratch:..:bog: .

Stan

twelvebears

09-09-2009, 07:19

Yes, I know, against all standard logic, but that's what I found when I took the Beresford out of my system, no appreciable difference. The CD player and the TT are audibly better, and sometimes by a wide margin, particularly with respect to bass performance.

I wouldn't be quite so shocked. I used to own a £3k Musical Fidelity 3D CDP and was amazed at how close the analogue output from my old SB3 used to get to matching it, the internal DAC of the SB3 is pretty good....

The SB Touch definately looks interesting, but as I'm currently using an Apple TV to stream both audio and video to my systems via a 7520, it won't make sense for me.

Being able to handle higher sample rate files is great, but all my music is Apple lossless ripped - standard CDs, so no advantage there. Also, the main iMac is always on with my Drobo attached, so I wouldn't benefit from the stand-alone capability either.

Does look cool though.

twelvebears

09-09-2009, 07:24

The USB drive should show as a network drive once connected to the Touch, so no need to move it to back and forwards , at least that's my impression from this thread http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=67487

Oh really? If that's the case, that could be a real bonus. IF that IS the case, I could plug my Drobo to the SB Touch and effectively make it a network drive and remove the dependancy on my iMac for accessing music and for other machines to access the Drobo....

I'd still have to have it and iTunes running for films because Apple TV can't use network drives but that's not a major issue.

trailer

09-09-2009, 07:27

I'd still have to have it and iTunes running for films because Apple TV can't use network drives but that's not a major issue.

It can if you hack it.

Install Boxee/XBMC via the USB patchstick. It transforms the AppleTV.

twelvebears

09-09-2009, 07:30

Or you buy a network drive that has sufficient processing power to run Squeezecenter

https://www.ripcaster.co.uk/node/128

I and a couple of friends have tried that and had very mixed results. The general result was that cheap, quiet NAS boxes made the Squeezecentre and SB response sluggish, and the ones that ran it with acceptible speed tended to be a) expensive and b) noisy because they were designed to handle multi-drive RAID setups....

NRG

09-09-2009, 07:41

SC is quite processor heavy compared to the older SlimServer, I still use 6.5.4...

Going back to the internal vs external DAC for a moment, I found a 7510 improved both my SB2 and 3...the analogue out of both is not outstandingly good IMHO....low / mid CD at best...

Incidentally there's a tweak for the SB2/3 SPDIF and those inclined to some DIY that improves SPDIF quality....remove the in-line inductor on the SPDIF trace and replace with a wire link... Subtle but noticable...

Labarum

09-09-2009, 07:48

SC is quite processor heavy compared to the older SlimServer, I still use 6.5.4...

I think "Squeezecenter Lite" runs on the Touch.

Maybe that will available to run on other boxes.

I run Squeezecentre on my Laptop, which I never turn off and which rarely leaves the house, so a more fully featured Squeeze server is not an issue.

Brian

09-09-2009, 10:11

StanleyB

09-09-2009, 11:07

Stan, When developing your DACs, what do you use as source, amplification and speakers?

Whatever my Alpha and Beta testers happen to own. I don't design my DAC around what I own. My equipment is not the benchmark, but just a starting point.
Take for instance the use of the LM4562NA. It was not my suggestion, but that of many others. Once a general consensus was reached, I then added it to the Caiman.

Stan

Gazjam

09-09-2009, 11:53

I and a couple of friends have tried that and had very mixed results. The general result was that cheap, quiet NAS boxes made the Squeezecentre and SB response sluggish, and the ones that ran it with acceptible speed tended to be a) expensive and b) noisy because they were designed to handle multi-drive RAID setups....

I was going to buy a NAS but heard of the same issues running SC.

In the end I bought a small form factor Dell from Ebay: £60 for a 3Ghz 1MB Ram PC running SC, bittorent and whatever else I can throw at it within reason.

Its very low power too, so OK for 24/7 use. I have it set to go into Standby automatically and use Wake On Lan to switch it on when listening to tunes.

I'd never suggest to anyone to buy a NAS; in my book an overcomplicated underpowered expensive PC.

starless and slightly fat

09-09-2009, 13:12

What a good and timely thread for me. Now it's a question of getting the 7520 or the SB Touch first. Pretty sure that I'll wind up with both, though. Just a matter of priorities: financial as well as sonic. I haven't quite paid for all my recent upgrades yet.

Thanks for the info on the Touch. I can't wait to read impressions once it's finally released.

-S

nb2

09-09-2009, 13:57

In theory I agree with you completely, but something happened with my system, the addition of the avondale S260 power amp, that makes me see, or hear, things differently.

Compared with the NAP200 that preceded the avondale, there's a much fuller note presentation as well as greater openness in the bass. This manifests as hearing more layers on recordings and feeling the ambience, if there was any, of the orinal recording scene.

I also find, however, that rather than being more critical of the source, it's less critical. That is, it will get to the heart of music and leave strictly Sound quality issues as incidental. So while NB2's description of out of a 100 scores may seem off base, I think understand what he's hinting at.

Yes.
I precisely wrote
"Of course this is a very simplified way of seeing things"

What I mean is that, now, I suspect that the intuitive feeling about relationship between more resolving system, and perceived difference in dacs qualities, may be plain wrong.

And I am only interested in differences I actually hear, not in those I hardly notice.

I was very surprised to find out that my new system was clearly, audibly, and with no hesitation much better.
And that difference between TC-7520 and Squeezebox almost disappeared.

That is a fact and I am 100% positive about that.

Now, let's not dispute about what "higher end" means or not.
I had the opportunity to contact several Beresford owners.
Usually, those who find marginal difference between Beresford and Squeezebox, have better systems that others.

I don't think it is necessary to discuss the meaning of "better".
After all you could discuss if the TC-7520 is "better" than my laptop soundcard dac ...
(I am 100% positive, yes, the TC-7520 is "better" than my laptop soundcard ... :) )

Tripmaster

09-09-2009, 17:00

ReachtheSky

09-09-2009, 23:28

Originally Posted by Peter Stockwell
What I'd like to determine is why some of us think that a Beresford 7510 or 7520 makes a barely apreciable difference and others say the difference is dramatic.

My two pence on this issue:

I believe a good music system “is like a chain” in being only as good as it’s weakest link. It is so important to ensure your total system is balanced in quality across all components. Also it may be necessary to match component compatibility, which may be an issue or not!

Therefore the final sonic output is primarily determined from your weakest link – or your weakest HiFi component. So upgrading your weakest component will probably have a major benefit, but upgrading one of the better existing components may only have a marginal benefit if at all!

Peter Stockwell

10-09-2009, 06:51

I believe a good music system “is like a chain” in being only as good as it’s weakest link. It is so important to ensure your total system is balanced in quality across all components. Also it may be necessary to match component compatibility, which may be an issue or not!

Therefore the final sonic output is primarily determined from your weakest link – or your weakest HiFi component. So upgrading your weakest component will probably have a major benefit, but upgrading one of the better existing components may only have a marginal benefit if at all!

Yeah, that's what they all say, and it is what I believe or believed. it's not that I can't hear a difference between, say, my CDX/XPS and the SB3(Classic), I can, and the difference is, let's say, like walking from a side chapel into the main space of a cathedral. Everything sounds bigger better and more real. I'm saying that I didn't hear a difference that was important to me between the TC-7510 MK6/3 and the analogue outputs of my SB3. All of my gear is on a dedicated mains circuit, it's just possible that the SB3 is very sensitive to mains issues, which might explain the differences that some are describing.

The other thing is, that some people will exagerrate differences and others minimise.

Anyway we're way off the original squeezebox touch subject and whilst I think it has very high gadget appeal, I'm wondering if I'd be better swapping the 80Gb drive in my mac mini for a 500Gb drive and leaving everything else as it is!

Labarum

10-09-2009, 07:29

I'm wondering if I'd be better swapping the 80Gb drive in my mac mini for a 500Gb drive and leaving everything else as it is!

I am guessing that would be the better spend for you.

Peter Stockwell

10-09-2009, 07:48

I'm almost certain I'll get a squeezebox touch this year, I was thinking of attaching the portable 320Gb usb drive to the touch as a network drive. Then I started at looking at extra memory and hard drive space on the mac mini, which would simplify the streaming application at home.

I reckon that swapping the drive and adding extra ram is realtively easy, if just a little fastidious, because the mac mini is not the easiest box to open. OTOH upgrading the processor is an option, but more risky.