View Full Version : Squeezebox Classic compared to TC-7520
Hello,
I have been using a Squeezebox Classic for more than a year now, mainly with flac files and internet radios.
I am very happy with it.
3 monthes ago, I bought a TC-7520 for two reasons
- I wanted to see how the TC-7520 as a standalone DAC (fixed output) compares to Squeezebox internal DAC
- I needed a USB DAC, something the Squeezebox cannot achieve.
My speakers are PMC DB1i speakers.
At first I had an old Yamaha homecinema prologic amplifier, which I recently upgraded to a Creek Evolution 2
It was really not bad with the Yamaha, but the Creek is a real improvement.
You immediatly notice that without any hesitation.
Now I think it is really a very simple and excellent setup for a small room (PMC + Creek)
I have been listening to much more expensive systems, some are obviously better, some sounded worse to me.
In the end I have no frustration with mine.
But I am somewhat perplex as far as the source is concerned.
In my tests, the TC-7520 is always connected to digital output of the Squeezebox
(no difference between optical and coaxial noticed)
I always connect the TC-7520 and the Squeezebox analog output to two different input of the amplifier so it is very easy to compare TC-7520 dac and Squeezebox dac.
At first I compared
- PMC + Yamaha + TC-7520
- PMC + Yamaha + Squeezebox internal dac
The difference was surprisingly small even after extensive use and running in of the TC-7520
The difference was there (TC-7520 better), but no so easy to pick up, and not on all material.
I could check that the Yamaha was obviously the weak link of my system.
After some listening sessions, I bought the Creek, and then expected to hear much bigger difference revealed between the TC-7520 and the Squeezebox.
The result was totally different from what I expected.
Any dac combined to
- PMC + Creek
is really better than any dac combined to
- PMC + Yamaha
not the slightest hesitation about that, very easy to pick up.
But when I compared
- PMC + Creek + Squeezebox dac
- PMC + Creek + TC-7520
They sounded almost the same, really hard to notice a difference, if there is any ...
It seems the Creek brought everything to a clearly higher level, but with Squeezebox internal dac to the same level as the TC-7520 ...
A few days ago, I went to an electronic shop and bought a pair of LM4562NA opamps and put them in the TC-7520
Now I can compare
- PMC + Creek + Squeezebox dac
- PMC + Creek + TC-7520 with LM4562NA
Now the TC-7520 with LM4562NA is better
(but not as much as I expected, and not always so easy to pick up)
When I went to choose my new amplifier, I brought the Yamaha, and the TC-7520 to the dealer.
I could not take the Squeezebox, too complicated to bring the PC needed for Squeezecenter, the router, and so on ...
The TC-7520 was not upgraded with the LM4562NA at that time.
I wanted to compare all amplifiers I wanted to try, including my Yamaha, on the same speakers (same model as mine) and same DAC, my TC-7520, in the same room (small one like mine)
The TC-7520 was connected to the digital output of a Prima Luna Prologue 8 CD player
Hence I had the opportunity to compare the Prima Luna analog output to the TC-7520
Well no surprise, the Prima Luna was better than stock TC-7520
As far as I can tell, with bigger margin than TC-7520 LM4562NA vs Squeezebox
I'll add that I only use the TC-7520 fixed output, I don't have headphones.
I quickly tried variable output of the TC-7520, I think fixed output was always better.
I'm not telling that any dac is not good.
To my ears, the PMC + Creek + Squeezebox is already an excellent setup, better that some very expensive systems which highly disapointed me.
But I'm a bit puzzled.
From what I read and expected, the dac hierarchy was supposed to be the following, with each step clearly audible
TC-7520 LM4562NA > stock TC-7520 > TC-7510 > Squeezebox internal dac
I never heard the TC-7510.
In the end on my PMC + Creek setup, I find that TC-7510 LM4562NA is better than Squeezebox internal dac, but not with such a night and day margin.
(Anyway I am happy with the TC-7520, I need a good usb dac, and it is one of them).
So what ?
Did I miss something ?
Are dac differences really extremely subtle compared to what you can expect (and actually hear) when you upgrade speakers or amplifiers ?
Is the Squeezebox dac finally an excellent dac, especially when combined to a good speaker+amplifier setup ?
Any comment or suggestion is welcome.
Nicolas
:interesting:
The SB3 Dac has a good Dac, not QUITE as good to my ears as my Cambridge Azur 640 cd player, but not far off to be honest - which surprised me.
So I'd equate it with a 3-400 CD Player.
However my Beresford Dac - even my older 7510 bettered it for musical involvement, soundstage width...pretty much all the Hifi jargon stuff...
The 7520 sounds a lot better than even that to my ears, especially with the modded Op Amps.
Still, just goes to show how this hobby is all subjective.
:interesting:
The SB3 Dac has a good Dac, not QUITE as good to my ears as my Cambridge Azur 640 cd player, but not far off to be honest - which surprised me.
So I'd equate it with a 3-400 CD Player.
However my Beresford Dac - even my older 7510 bettered it for musical involvement, soundstage width...pretty much all the Hifi jargon stuff...
The 7520 sounds a lot better than even that to my ears, especially with the modded Op Amps.
Still, just goes to show how this hobby is all subjective.
Well I'd go even higher than 400 CD palyer for the Squeezebox dac quality.
You can have differences, but that is more a question of personal taste, than real higher quality.
The more I listen to different things, the more I think you finally need to spend some good money in a dac, if you want a real step up with good margin from this Squeezebox thing.
I'm quite certain it is useless to change the dac, if your speaker+amp setup can be upgraded for the same kind of money.
StanleyB
13-05-2009, 12:21
The more I listen to different things, the more I think you finally need to spend some good money in a dac, if you want a real step up with good margin from this Squeezebox thing.
I'm quite certain it is useless to change the dac, if your speaker+amp setup can be upgraded for the same kind of money.
This is without doubt your own opinion, which differs wildly from the findings of even SB3 owners on the Slim Devices forum. Coming to think of it, I don't recall anyone anywhere on the internet ever having managed to put the SB3 ahead of the TC-7510, let alone the TC-7520.
Stan
So what ?
Did I miss something ?
Are dac differences really extremely subtle compared to what you can expect (and actually hear) when you upgrade speakers or amplifiers ?
Is the Squeezebox dac finally an excellent dac, especially when combined to a good speaker+amplifier setup ?
Any comment or suggestion is welcome.
Nicolas
Hi Nicolas,
I think what you need is a new point of reference other than the SB3 as a 'transport'. Your post is very interesting and has raised a couple of suspicions for me as I've been mulling over the concept of a Squeezebox myself.
I've tried my 7520 on the end of quite a few pieces of kit now - Macbook Pro, PC running Foobar on XP, PC running iTunes on Vista, PC running Ubuntu, Sony Playstation 3, a cheap DVD recorder, the list keeps on growing. Everything I have tried sounds markedly different. Some have made the 7520 sound pretty mediocre at best (the PS3 springs to mind) and others are seriously good and can keep you listening for hours (PC with Foobar, and more recently PC running Ubuntu - my current project).
It would be really interesting if you could compare the SB3 into your DAC with your computer into your DAC, whether that be via an optical, coax or USB connection. If you need any help with the optimum setup of a computer then I'd be more than happy to help.
Hi Nicolas,
I think what you need is a new point of reference other than the SB3 as a 'transport'. Your post is very interesting and has raised a couple of suspicions for me as I've been mulling over the concept of a Squeezebox myself.
I've tried my 7520 on the end of quite a few pieces of kit now - Macbook Pro, PC running Foobar on XP, PC running iTunes on Vista, PC running Ubuntu, Sony Playstation 3, a cheap DVD recorder, the list keeps on growing. Everything I have tried sounds markedly different. Some have made the 7520 sound pretty mediocre at best (the PS3 springs to mind) and others are seriously good and can keep you listening for hours (PC with Foobar, and more recently PC running Ubuntu - my current project).
It would be really interesting if you could compare the SB3 into your DAC with your computer into your DAC, whether that be via an optical, coax or USB connection. If you need any help with the optimum setup of a computer then I'd be more than happy to help.
Hi,
I think there is misunderstanding here if some people think that I meant that the TC-7520 does not sound very good.
I never found the squeezebox better than stock TC-7520, but I did find it surprisingly close, and sometimes as good in some situations (interestingly not the ones I expected ...)
The TC-7520 does sound very good especially with LM4562NA opamps
(I think you really have to do that to take advantage of it, it would be good to have the upgrade as an option when your order it, since it is really a cheap upgrade, and some people could be frightened to unplug original opamps)
In my opinion that is the Squeezebox dac which sound also amazingly good too ...
I had the opportunity to listen to really high end systems.
I am amazed by the result you can get with a simple Squeezebox coupled to a good speaker+amplifier setup.
My main conclusion so far, is that the very first thing you have to do, the one that makes 95% of the result, is to find the right speaker+amplifier setup.
If you don't do that, you'll get some (real) improvement with a dac, but far from what you will achieve if your speakers are the best you can afford for your room, and your amplifier good enough to really drive correctly your speakers.
One of the main reason for my TC-7520 purchase was to connect it to my PC with USB.
Everyday I can compare
PC + TC-7520 via usb
Squeezebox + TC-7520
Both are excellent, may be a little better for the second one.
I have no doubt that you can get a real improvement with the TC-7520
But from my experience, I would say
1/ find the best speaker for your room
2/ find a good amplifier that drive correctly your speakers
That's more that 95% of the final result
3/ find the best dac for your ears to achieve a few % left.
I've tried my 7520 on the end of quite a few pieces of kit now - Macbook Pro, PC running Foobar on XP, PC running iTunes on Vista, PC running Ubuntu, Sony Playstation 3, a cheap DVD recorder, the list keeps on growing. Everything I have tried sounds markedly different. Some have made the 7520 sound pretty mediocre at best (the PS3 springs to mind) and others are seriously good and can keep you listening for hours (PC with Foobar, and more recently PC running Ubuntu - my current project).
You are talking about transports for the TC-7520
Did you make those comparison on the same amp+speaker setup, with the same material ?
If not, I'm not sure differences your hear come from the couple transport+TC-7520
In my experience, even when you compare two dacs on the same setup, the material you listen to is important.
I mainly have flac ripped with EAC files, and internet radios.
Some flac are very revealing, others absolutely not.
On the same radio, within in a couple of minutes, they can play some flat recordings, and then some amazingly good quality material
One of the main reason for my TC-7520 purchase was to connect it to my PC with USB.
Everyday I can compare
PC + TC-7520 via usb
Squeezebox + TC-7520
Both are excellent, may be a little better for the second one.
I'd love to know more about this comparison. How would you describe the differences and what are you using to get the audio from your PC into the 7520 - operating system, audio drivers, playback software etc.
Covenant
13-05-2009, 16:49
On the same radio, within in a couple of minutes, they can play some flat recordings, and then some amazingly good quality material[/QUOTE]
Also different radio stations broadcasting at the same bitrate sound different. Maybe to do with the quality of equipment they use.
I find the 7520 great with average quality radio. Evidently there is a circuit within it which improves the quality of MP3 (one of Stans many closely guarded secrets)
I'd love to know more about this comparison. How would you describe the differences and what are you using to get the audio from your PC into the 7520 - operating system, audio drivers, playback software etc.
I gave my general impression.
Normally I don't use those solutions for the same things
PC +TC-7520 (usb) for deezer, spotify, or movies
Squeezebox + TC-7520 for my flac library and internet radios.
I'm going to make some test on the same material (I think flac file is the best) and i'll let you know.
Well I'd go even higher than 400 CD palyer for the Squeezebox dac quality.
You can have differences, but that is more a question of personal taste, than real higher quality.
The more I listen to different things, the more I think you finally need to spend some good money in a dac, if you want a real step up with good margin from this Squeezebox thing.
I'm quite certain it is useless to change the dac, if your speaker+amp setup can be upgraded for the same kind of money.
For a Squeezebox owner though.....
IMHO theres NO WAY spending the price of a Beresford 7520 on amp/speaker upgrades (less than £160) would make any improvement.
But I titally agree on the general feeling of speakers first then amp then source.
I recently discovered room interaction with speakers plays a MAJOR part in the overall sound.
In my case, moving my setee back from the wall 4 inches amd removing the Toe-in from my speakers (having them facing straight forward) changed the sound significantly.
For a Squeezebox owner though.....
Of course
IMHO theres NO WAY spending the price of a Beresford 7520 on amp/speaker upgrades (less than £160) would make any improvement.
Not sure about that.
I think I could have done that when I replaced my amplifier.
The Creek evolution amplifier is now at 342£ on superfi.co.uk ...
It has been the case for several monthes I think.
Ok that's because there is now the new evolution 2
In my opinion, a lot of people could sell their current amplifier for less than 200£, buy this one now, and make a HUGE improvement, much bigger than a dac replacement.
I bought the Evolution 2 new because I wanted the direct AV input, I wanted to buy from my dealer where I made all tests, and anyway, superfi.co.uk doesn't ship to France.
(My dealer had also a discounted Creek evolution, but I choose the new one)
When I tried different amplifiers, this was the old version now discounted that I tested.
It wasn't in my list, I wanted to buy a Cyrus, a Primare or a Naim, all really more expensive than the Creek.
And I had to aknowledge that I really prefered the Creek (on my current speakers and for my ears of course, it could have been different with different speakers)
Strange thing to have to convince yourself that a much cheaper product than the ones you were looking at, is finally the best for you ...
(I really wanted the Primare, the more expensive, to be the best, because it is so beautiful ...)
Another way to get a free upgrade for a lot of people.
I think (that's just me) that many people have speakers too big for their room.
They could get HUGE improvement, replacing them by a more suitable model, even if this is a cheaper one.
You are talking about transports for the TC-7520
Did you make those comparison on the same amp+speaker setup, with the same material ?
If not, I'm not sure differences your hear come from the couple transport+TC-7520
Sorry for the late reply, only just noticed this post.
Yes, I've always used the same amp + speaker setup for comparisons - Muscial Fidelity A3.2 pre-power and Shahinian Arcs - Quite a revealing setup (see my recent post in the gallery for pics). The only thing that was changed in the setup was the transport, so there's no question of where the differences were coming from. The transport is fundamental to how the DAC will sound.
I have a number of reference tracks stored losslessly which I have been using over the last 5 years or so that I have been using a computer setup so I am very familiar with how they sound or should sound now.
Have you tried using Foobar on your PC with the ASIO output plugin? If you're using anything else (this is assuming you're running Windows) then there are definite improvements to be gained.
Sorry for the late reply, only just noticed this post.
Yes, I've always used the same amp + speaker setup for comparisons - Muscial Fidelity A3.2 pre-power and Shahinian Arcs - Quite a revealing setup (see my recent post in the gallery for pics). The only thing that was changed in the setup was the transport, so there's no question of where the differences were coming from. The transport is fundamental to how the DAC will sound.
I have a number of reference tracks stored losslessly which I have been using over the last 5 years or so that I have been using a computer setup so I am very familiar with how they sound or should sound now.
Have you tried using Foobar on your PC with the ASIO output plugin? If you're using anything else (this is assuming you're running Windows) then there are definite improvements to be gained.
All right that's interesting.
I'll be quite busy for a few days.
Not sure I'll be able to test a lot of things.
I never tried things like ASIO drivers.
Mainly because when I really want top quality, it is through flac files and squeezebox.
In this case, ASIO are useless.
Spotify has its own software.
For Deezer the interface is simply a browser (I usually use Google Chrome)
For movies or files which are not yet in my Squeezecenter library, I use VLC (from videolan.org) or the media player from satsuki pack.
I had a look at your setup pictures, it is very nice.
What's interesting with the squeezebox is that the computer can be in another room (ethernet wired is perfect up to 100 meters length ... and wifi is also a solution)
It is far more flexible than usb.
If money is not too tight, a squeezebox classic is quite cheap, even new, and can be returned with some dealers if you are not satisfied.
(I choose the classic over the duet, the duet controller seems nice, but it seems to have more issues than the classic, is more expensive, and the classic has a remote much easier to use than it seems).
[Edit]
which are your reference tracks ?
did you try others dacs than the TC-7520 ?
It should be a very interesting comparison. I'll be intrigued by your results. Certainly if you play the same FLACs through Foobar/ASIO as you would normally through your squeezebox.
I have a number of reference tracks that I have on rotation. Some are there to provide a test of dynamics, soundstage and excitement:
Tracks from Vangelis' "1492 Conquest of Paradise"
Shellac's "Excellent Italian Greyhound" (24-bit FLACs)
Muddy Waters' "Folk Singer"
Then for the emotional involvement where the transports really tend to show themselves to be failing:
Aimee Mann "Video" (From "The forgotten arm")
Neil Finn "Driving me mad" (From "One nil")
Shearwater "The snow leopard" (from "Rooks")
Kate Bush "Moments of pleasure" (from "The red shoes")
Then for shear 'rock out' value
Genesis "Firth of fifth"
Aphrodite's Child "The four horsemen"
Nirvana "Tourettes"
Future of the left "Manchasm"
Not an exhaustive list, but my current favourites when setting up a system.
In terms of other DACs, I still have a 7510 which got modded with new op-amps - the 7520 is WAY better. Before that I had a Densen B-410 CD player (either Beresford with a good source wipes the floor with it in my system) and then before that I had a DDDAC kit (from www.dddac.de) which was also excellent but being a kit encouraged me to tweak way too much, until I ended up breaking it :(.
Shellac's "Excellent Italian Greyhound" (24-bit FLACs)
Thanks for your playlist.
I'm going to see if I can get some of them since I have few of them in flac.
One thing I forgot, if I remember correctly, the squeezebox cannot handle 24 bits.
Older versions of squeezecenter played them anyway forgetting some bits, now in recent versions, 24 bits material is converted to 16bits by the server before being sent to the squeezebox.
If your are really interested in 24 bits files, you should take the transporter instead of the squeezebox, but it is much more expensive, and may be others solutions should be considered.
ReachtheSky
15-05-2009, 02:19
IMHO theres NO WAY spending the price of a Beresford 7520 on amp/speaker upgrades (less than £160) would make any improvement.
But I totally agree on the general feeling of speakers first then amp then source.
I can only agree with you Gaz.
IMHO, in the past (say 25yrs ago) one had to spend approximately equal sums on source to amplification to speakers to get the optimal sonic output from your system. Today, with the dramatic electronic advances/improvements and cheaper electronic manufacturing relative cost, that same costing ratio is now approaching; 1 unit for source (including DAC) to 5 units for amplification to 10 units for speakers.
IMHO a HiFi system is like a chain in being only as good as the weakest link. Without adequate amp/speakers to enable relative quality output, there is a limit (an absolute ceiling) to the benefit one will gain from upgrading the source (including DAC) beyond a certain point. But due to current costs, the source/DAC’s are the cheapest to experiment with until you hit that ceiling!
maxrob200
15-05-2009, 05:06
IMO the Squeezebox analog out suffers from "sins of omission" which means that it doesnt try very hard to add zing or relentless hifi type characteristics to its presentation. It is therefore quite listenable and many people would be quite happy with the sound. However, using the 7520 with LM4562 op-amps IMO gave a more open and realistic rendition to the music, especially on vocals and stringed instruments. Much more musical. This is on co-ax cable. Using toslink I found that the quality was more congested and lacked air and extension.
Agree... get the best speakers you can afford (without thinking you'll upgrade them next year), and Then start piecing together a system. You'll get the full pleasure each piece has to offer from the get go.
Peter314
18-05-2009, 07:03
... if I remember correctly, the squeezebox cannot handle 24 bits.
Actually the SB can handle up to 24 bit and 48 kHz. If you want to handle 24/96, you'll need a Transporter though.
Just picked up this thread.
A Standac (or similar external DAC) lifts a Squeezebox into and entirely different league.
The Squeezebox's internal DAC is not very good.
If someone cannot hear the difference the following analogue chain is highly suspect, or the link between the two boxes is faulty,or the hearer needs to find an audiologist and have his ears checked!
Just picked up this thread.
A Standac (or similar external DAC) lifts a Squeezebox into and entirely different league.
The Squeezebox's internal DAC is not very good.
If someone cannot hear the difference the following analogue chain is highly suspect, or the link between the two boxes is faulty,or the hearer needs to find an audiologist and have his ears checked!
Agreed!
Just picked up this thread.
A Standac (or similar external DAC) lifts a Squeezebox into and entirely different league.
The Squeezebox's internal DAC is not very good.
If someone cannot hear the difference the following analogue chain is highly suspect, or the link between the two boxes is faulty,or the hearer needs to find an audiologist and have his ears checked!Agreed! :)
Just picked up this thread.
A Standac (or similar external DAC) lifts a Squeezebox into and entirely different league.
The Squeezebox's internal DAC is not very good.
If someone cannot hear the difference the following analogue chain is highly suspect, or the link between the two boxes is faulty,or the hearer needs to find an audiologist and have his ears checked!
Labarum is spot on.
A Standac will spank the SB3 - different planet. But I suspect, as others do, that it only really shines in exalted company. Pair it with decent amp and speakers and you'll be rewarded no end.
A Standac will spank the SB3 - different planet. But I suspect, as others do, that it only really shines in exalted company. Pair it with decent amp and speakers and you'll be rewarded no end.
Which others dacs did you try, and on which amp-speaker pair ?
I'm surprised by the very different opinions you can hear about that.
Actually, I was surprised to see that upgrading my amp dimished the difference between TC-7520 and SB3 (both much better than with my old amp)
I tried the TC-7520 on amp+speaker up to around 5000 euros, and will soon have the opportunity to try on much more expensive systems.
My TC-7520 with LM4562NA is better than SB3, but I wouldn't say that it spanks the SB3, and put it on a different planet ...
maxrob200
26-05-2009, 00:37
I found that upgrading my old Cambridge amp to the Pioneer A9 greatly demonstrated the difference between the SB3 and SB3 with 7520 in terms of detail resolution and openness. I miss the sins of omission character of the cambridge though and find the Pioneer to be a bit lean at times. Shades of early Linn LP12 "mid range thickness" vs more analytical SOTA or Oracle type sound. Got to start saving for a Moon amplifier LOL
tizer2000uk
27-05-2009, 00:07
The SB and the 7520 comparison very much comes down to how you like your music to sound and the kit you partner it with. The SB does sound pretty good IMO but the 7520 has the edge by a bit of a margin on detail which is not always to everyones liking. Some songs sound better on the SB as it has a bit more.....filler if you like, it just sounds a little meatier than the 7520 does with the NE5532 which wrings an awful lot of detail from every recording.
I find the analogue out of both SB3 and Duet in stock form only ok for background music, serious listening compared to a decent external dac it sounds very compressed lacking any realism and involvement imo
Perhaps I should add my also slightly unfashionable view. This however is not SB related but maybe is relevant in some way.
I find that the 7520 connected to my Meridian 588 is marginally better than the 588 used purely as a CDP. It really is very close so in my very limited experience of connecting the 7520 to one example of a CDP this is not a great upgrade.
Connecting the 7520 to my computer to play the same WAVs via Foobar/ASIO4ALL is a totally different story. The CDP is well and truly spanked to such an extent that it is full-on abuse!
You'll get no arguments from me Clive.
Computers are the future :)
This long thread from another place
http://www.avforums.com/forums/hi-fi-systems-separates/920337-dac-dacmagic-much-better-than-beresford-tc-7510-a.html
considers the SB3 by itself and with a Standac (7510) or a Dacmagic
This long thread from another place
http://www.avforums.com/forums/hi-fi-systems-separates/920337-dac-dacmagic-much-better-than-beresford-tc-7510-a.html
considers the SB3 by itself and with a Standac (7510) or a Dacmagic
Another one here, with discussions about Beresford, Benchmark, Lavry and Transporter
http://forums.naim-audio.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8772903417/m/4962985027
Thanks for that input, NB2
The consensus of the thread seems to be here:
I have a pretty entry level system by this board's standard:
202/200/HiCap/NAPSC/Powerline/Hi-line Din-RCA driving Harbeth Monitor 30.
Source is now Slim Devices Transporter. But before that I used a combination of a Squeezebox 2 and Pioneer Universal Player fed into different DACs - DAC1 then Beresford DAC then Lavry DA10, finally settling on the Transporter. I also had the Ariva speakers before the Harbeths.
The Monitor 30s are very resolving and sensitive to changes in the system. Nobody murdered anyone, except maybe the Beresford who died a natural death... But my order of preference is: (Sorry for the lack of proper audio description, I am no reviewer, and I never bothered to make A/B comparisons. I am a strong believer in long term listening).
1. Transporter - Basically stopped my upgrade spiel. Very smooth and non fatiguing, lots of details. Gives me the most goose bumps amongst the 4 DACs.
2. Lavry DA10 - Warmer sounding then the Benchmark DAC1, gave me goose bumps once in a while but not often enough.
3. Benchmark DAC1 - Improved detail on the Squeezebox 2, but stark and sterile sounding. I do not recall getting any goose bump moments at all.
4. Beresford DAC - Different sounding but not much better than the stock DAC in the Squeezebox 2. But then the cost kind of reflected that.
I went for an audition of the Linn Klimax last weekend, I'd say it beat the Transporter but not by much. (I brought along my Transporter to humour my friend.) It has an extremely black background, but in terms of enjoyment I could live with the Transporter and save tens of thousands of US dollars worth.
I can't comment much, except to re-iterate, to my ears the Beresford betters the stand alone Squeezebox by a significant margin.
I cannot say how it would stand up against the Transporter and the expensive DACs.
I would have to find the difference quiet amazing to justify spending £1000, and if I was contemplating that expenditure I would have to consider the AVI option.
http://www.avihifi.co.uk/
And yet my Quad 405 + Quart Towers might take some beating for different reasons.
I'm curious to know how 7520 stacks up against some of the diy dacs, I tried out a modded TC-7510 I repaired recently for somebody
I've now heard a Cambridge DM , still trying to work out why that has had so much hype:confused:
My son has a Denon AV amp - I forget the model number - in "Pure Direct" mode there is not much to tell between it and the Beresford. Listening blind I wouldn't know which I was listening to. The digital source was his Macbook playing FLACs of CDs, and in each case using an optical link.
That was using 4 of the 100w power amps in the AV amp to drive his B and W 684's bi-amped.
How it would sound with my Quarts, I cannot say. They have more bass and probably more resolution than the B and Ws, which are remarkable for the price. Nor would it be fair, because my Quarts cannot be bi-amped so I would be pitting Denon's 100w against the very sophisticated grunt of the upgraded Quad 405.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.