No I don´t trust you. Care to elaborate on the mechanism that would
make this possible ?
I´ve just read your blog, real great satire.
Some Highlights:
"Both files had the same checksum. Both files were the same size. Both files sounded different!"
"Another suggestion is to rip directly to a USB stick. It also seems to sound better than ripping to the HDD!"
In the end digital does not really exist... It is just an abstraction or representation of analog signals, so the one digital is not the other, right? They can still have the same checksum, but if the pc is handling the file differently when reading (other hardware at work, etc..), maybe there could be a mechanism that could explain this. Not that I am not sceptical though.
LOL
There is software that will compare files, if they are the same then they will play and decode the same.
I am also curious how when copying files as data, is jitter of any consideration...
If the files copy exactly the same, then they are the same... If there is a different set up during playback (ie different software running etc) then the experiment is invalid.
There is software that will compare files, if they are the same then they will play and decode the same.
I am also curious how when copying files as data, is jitter of any consideration...
If the files copy exactly the same, then they are the same... If there is a different set up during playback (ie different software running etc) then the experiment is invalid.
Hi Marce,
Yes they will play the same, but dont sound the same.
I'm curious too, but the proof is in the listening. If jitter is not responsible for the sonic difference, then what is? I don't propose to know the answer, only reporting what I hear.
No, the playback software is the same. Only the state of the operating system is different during ripping. All other control factors are the same.
I don't wish to hijack the thread, with a debate which is easily answered by trying it for yourself. I started another thread
here to discuss it, if you so wish.
Yes they will play the same, but dont sound the same.
I'm curious too, but the proof is in the listening. If jitter is not responsible for the sonic difference, then what is? I don't propose to know the answer, only reporting what I hear.
No, the playback software is the same. Only the state of the operating system is different during ripping. All other control factors are the same.
I don't wish to hijack the thread, with a debate which is easily answered by trying it for yourself. I started another thread
here to discuss it, if you so wish.
Last edited:
ST Touch Toolbox with Furutech GT40 USB DAC
I am a late arrival in this discussion. I have been SB Touch user for some time, and recently installed Souncheck's TT3.0 Toolbox - all good. I am running in analogue out mode, having no external DAC at present.
However, I am awaiting delivery of Furutech/ADL GT40 phonostage/ADC/DAC, which I bought for reasons unconnected with SB Touch - I just have got my turntable back after years in storage, needed a phono stage, and was planning to use the GT40 as an ADC to digitise some of my vinyl.
Then I realised that I should in principle be able to also use the GT40 as external DAC to the SBT. But not out of the box. I found John Swenson's posts in Squeezebox forums suggesting that mods to the SBT (in asound.conf) may make it work, but I understand there are problems with some (async?) USB DACs, though others work OK. JS recommended the TT mods, which I've installed. But TT3.0 (an aside in Souncheck's description) "does away with" asound.conf, so I'm wondering what I need to do to try and get the GT40 when it arrives, acting as external DAC to the SBT. Do I need to uninstall TT3.0, install 2.0 and John Swenson's mods? Has anyone successfully used GT40 as external DAC with SBT? All info gratefully received - thanks
Bryn
I am a late arrival in this discussion. I have been SB Touch user for some time, and recently installed Souncheck's TT3.0 Toolbox - all good. I am running in analogue out mode, having no external DAC at present.
However, I am awaiting delivery of Furutech/ADL GT40 phonostage/ADC/DAC, which I bought for reasons unconnected with SB Touch - I just have got my turntable back after years in storage, needed a phono stage, and was planning to use the GT40 as an ADC to digitise some of my vinyl.
Then I realised that I should in principle be able to also use the GT40 as external DAC to the SBT. But not out of the box. I found John Swenson's posts in Squeezebox forums suggesting that mods to the SBT (in asound.conf) may make it work, but I understand there are problems with some (async?) USB DACs, though others work OK. JS recommended the TT mods, which I've installed. But TT3.0 (an aside in Souncheck's description) "does away with" asound.conf, so I'm wondering what I need to do to try and get the GT40 when it arrives, acting as external DAC to the SBT. Do I need to uninstall TT3.0, install 2.0 and John Swenson's mods? Has anyone successfully used GT40 as external DAC with SBT? All info gratefully received - thanks
Bryn
I don´t know much about the Touch and even less about some Swensson mods but there is something going on with letting the Touch run as capable transport with USB out up to 192k.
Triode, a member on the Slimdevices forum just is producing facts with rewriting parts of the Touch firmware.
You may enter there to get all answers to your thoughts about your Touch feeding your DAC.
Announce: Enhanced Digital Output app - USB Dac and 192k Digital Ouput for the Touch
Triode, a member on the Slimdevices forum just is producing facts with rewriting parts of the Touch firmware.
You may enter there to get all answers to your thoughts about your Touch feeding your DAC.
Announce: Enhanced Digital Output app - USB Dac and 192k Digital Ouput for the Touch
I can recommend to try that feature, for those who'd like to hook up
a USB DAC to the Touch.
I'm running it since several days, to see how stable it is..
The feature still comes with certain limitations, such as "flac" transfer instead of "PCM/wav" transfer. And as you can read, to be able to run certain USB DACs you need to hook up a USB hub in between your DAC and the Touch..
Of course not every USB DAC is supported. (The Alsa problem)
Triode has implemented one of my major TT3.0 features ( he openly admits it btw). The feature will have a similar impact on USB DACs - yep - even on asynchronous DACs as it has on the SPDIF output.
For those who own a Touch and a USB DAC it's IMO well worth to
try this new plugin.
Most of the DAC manufacturers put more emphasis on the USB port compared to SPDIF.
There's a slight chance that you'll gain a little extra sound quality.
Using TT3.0 on top seems to enhance USB operations even further.
I might allign my Toolbox to USB dac operation.
However.
If you like to run a USB DAC I'd consider a small PC and Vortexbox+VortexBox player (a squeezeplay clone) the better solution.
( I prefer the Squeezboxeserver (today its called Logitechmediaserver) and SW client plus control environment (iPeng) over MPD btw.)
You'll be more flexible and you'll be more up2date, when it comes to kernel and Alsa when going the Vortexbox route.
Just to let you know:
I hooked up my iPad (+iPeng player app) via camera connection kit (USB) to my Audio-GD Digital Interface the other day. Data were transfered as "Flacs" "wireless" from the server. To be honest.
This setup sounded just great without the need of any tweaking. I really had to push myself to hook up my heavily tweaked Squeezebox Touch again.
Enjoy.
Cheers
May one ask if any hardware bits for the server have been played with?
Changing the psu's on my router and access point made a nice but small difference, in comparison to putting 3 isolating feet under my XP server, the improvement was somewhat more noticable.
So I was thinking a linear psu for the XP server should further improve things.
Sorry I'm thinking hardware (unscrew bits, screw new bits in) as I understand that a bit more than software, but I'm learning and reading with interest.
A question with regards, Ubuntu Oneiric server:
Would one of these run on a windows network?
If it were to run slimserver and that alone, could it pull files from a NASLite machine across the router and acess point that windows uses?
Cheers
Deaf Cat.
Do you want an honest answer??
My advise. Stop trying to fix the upstream environment.
Doesn't matter what you'll do upstream, you'll never get it under control.
The environment - network - server - transport - is just too complex.
People buy 450$ SOTM-USB port cards and now even Sata filters to get
their transports under control. That's IMO insane.
I also bought a used IBM ethernet 1000/Pro server card some weeks ago, which impoved the things. You know that I run expensive network cabling. Belive me. That there's a lot more to gain if you tweak the server SW setup itself. It'll never end.
What we should really try to fix is the renderer input stage.
To make that immune on all the mess, which is coming down the stream.
And that's is mainly noise and digital jitter. Obviously it is not that easy.
You can read over here that e.g. XMOS interfaces such as WaveIO respond to slightest changes/improvements on the server. The others don't do much better. All of the designers involved IMO got some homework to do.
There are quite some interesting projects ongoing over here.
E.g. the reclocker project over at DIY-Audio looks promising.
Most of the USB interfaces you'll find over here and elsewhere seem to badly fail on this challenge to get the mess out though. That's a pity. I think it makes technically and moneywise more sense to work on the audio-interface instead of trying to fix the upstream world.
I'm currently running my Audio-GD DI V1, which does some filtering and reclocking. People who tried isolators on the DI report no real improvements by doing it. It might not be the best interface out there. Though it's doing quite a good job at a reasonable price tag. The V2 will be out in May.
Cheers
Do you want an honest answer??
My advise. Stop trying to fix the upstream environment.
Doesn't matter what you'll do upstream, you'll never get it under control.
The environment - network - server - transport - is just too complex.
People buy 450$ SOTM-USB port cards and now even Sata filters to get
their transports under control. That's IMO insane.
I also bought a used IBM ethernet 1000/Pro server card some weeks ago, which impoved the things. You know that I run expensive network cabling. Belive me. That there's a lot more to gain if you tweak the server SW setup itself. It'll never end.
What we should really try to fix is the renderer input stage.
To make that immune on all the mess, which is coming down the stream.
And that's is mainly noise and digital jitter. Obviously it is not that easy.
You can read over here that e.g. XMOS interfaces such as WaveIO respond to slightest changes/improvements on the server. The others don't do much better. All of the designers involved IMO got some homework to do.
There are quite some interesting projects ongoing over here.
E.g. the reclocker project over at DIY-Audio looks promising.
Most of the USB interfaces you'll find over here and elsewhere seem to badly fail on this challenge to get the mess out though. That's a pity. I think it makes technically and moneywise more sense to work on the audio-interface instead of trying to fix the upstream world.
I'm currently running my Audio-GD DI V1, which does some filtering and reclocking. People who tried isolators on the DI report no real improvements by doing it. It might not be the best interface out there. Though it's doing quite a good job at a reasonable price tag. The V2 will be out in May.
Cheers
I compared today the sound quality of LMS running on W7 and Ubuntu server 11.1.
It is the same dual boot Lenovo dual core 2600GHz notebook with ssd for os and usb for the music library. So the same hardware configuration for both os.
SBT is wired, with Teddy ps, TT 3.0 and between notebook and sbt there is a small Cisco switch dedicated only for streaming.
Sound quality with W7 compared with Ubuntu Server 11.1 is MUCH better, at the moment ...
It is the same dual boot Lenovo dual core 2600GHz notebook with ssd for os and usb for the music library. So the same hardware configuration for both os.
SBT is wired, with Teddy ps, TT 3.0 and between notebook and sbt there is a small Cisco switch dedicated only for streaming.
Sound quality with W7 compared with Ubuntu Server 11.1 is MUCH better, at the moment ...
1. I'm connecting the Touch ( currently no TT30 installed) via USB to DI.
2. I connected my iPAd through camera connection kit ( which was as good as the Touch incl HW tuning and SW tuning) to DI
3. I tried the Pure I-20 dock ( iPhone and iPad) via SPDIF
I could have lived with any of those setups.
4. I used external power on the DI until today. I had a spare SBOOSTER 5V supply at hand.
At that point I thought "Quite nice. What else do I want!?!?"
5. Today I installed 6.6V LipoFe4 on the DI and also connected the SPDIF cable to the internal cabling to skip the connector and jack.
I'm running the DI via SPDIF into the HifiMeDiy DDX320 full digital amp.
That last actvitiy (5) was quite a step forward. Much more dynamics. You need to get used to it in the beginning.
But that effect is known. As soon as you start working with LiPoFe 4 batteries you'll gain quite some dynamics compared to most other power supplies.
That's where I'am today. The DI stays. It might get replaced with the new DI V2 which will be available in May.
Cheers
That we know.
At least those of us who tried it.As I said earlier. I had to apply quite some modifications to get the Linux going.
1. I did bake and install a brandnew rt-kernel, with certain modifications applied
2. I applied all kind of network and OS tweaks ( similar to TT3.0)
3. I use the Ubuntu sox and flac and other binaries
4. I heavily improved the streaming chain
It's even better then Windows 8 + Fidelizer. (Windows 8 is better than Windows 7)
Cheers
Dear Soundcheck,
Thanks for your reply. Just want to make sure I understand your findings. You meant connecting sbt to audio-gd digital interface (via soldered coax cable between the 2) plus 6.6V LipoFe4 on the DI yields better result that just applying tt3.0 + SBOOSTER 5V on the sbt? Your tt3.0 already did I magic to the sbt, I would be extremely interested to try what the di could do to the sbt
yep. that's correct.
Just to add:
Touch without TT3.0 and just the Triode USB plugin + DI sounds pretty similar to my own TT4.0 + highly tweaked server setup. Therefore I'd expect the DI setup to be better then TT3.0 plus a pretty standard network/server setup.
Right now I'm working on a TT Version which won't conflict with the Triode plugin. Let see if there's even more to gain. You never know.
Cheers
Last edited:
Hi Soundcheck,
Thank you for your reply, and yes I like honest answers!
I did not know that you could spend that sort of money on the hardware "450$ SOTM-USB port cards "
My nework card was only a pound, maybe, I'll look out for one that is £3 never know may give a slightly clearer presentation ;-)
I see your point in working on the "audio-interface instead of trying to fix the upstream world". Quite supprising how your TT3.0 and such things like process lasso have an effect on the sound. But not understanding much on the software side one just picks up little bits as one goes along reading.
Cheers for now, off to have a little baffling read about software not hardware
DC
Thank you for your reply, and yes I like honest answers!
I did not know that you could spend that sort of money on the hardware "450$ SOTM-USB port cards "
My nework card was only a pound, maybe, I'll look out for one that is £3 never know may give a slightly clearer presentation ;-)
I see your point in working on the "audio-interface instead of trying to fix the upstream world". Quite supprising how your TT3.0 and such things like process lasso have an effect on the sound. But not understanding much on the software side one just picks up little bits as one goes along reading.
Cheers for now, off to have a little baffling read about software not hardware
DC