Squeezebox Touch -- Modifications - Page 37 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > PC Based

PC Based Computer music servers, crossovers, and equalization

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 2nd March 2011, 07:03 AM   #361
diyAudio Member
 
soundcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D
Quote:
Originally Posted by warpeon View Post
Soundcheck: First, I would like to thank Soundcheck for his great work in modifying the SQT.

Kuja, I thought we could share our experience as we pretty much have the same system; my sys:
NAS: Synology 411+
SQT: modded with Soundcheck Toolbox 2.0
DAC: Naim
Digital Cable: Vitus Digital Interconnect

Most of the mods worked for me, except having the FLAC decoded at the NAS level. I found the sound I get is almost "in my face" when I had the FLAC decoded at the NAS level. However, when I had the SQT decode the FLAC, everything feels much more comfortable, a more laid back presentation. I was wondering if this had to do w/ the network setup at home (I had to go through 3 routers between my NAS and SQT).

Additionally, I found digital cable (coax or optical) makes a huge difference. I am still experimenting digital cables. Any experience you could share?

Lastly, I am thinking to get a linear power supply, anyone has any experience to share? I am thinking between the TeddyPardo and the S-booster.

Cheers!
So. What you're saying is you run the NAIM DAC and you do experience
a different performance of that device if modifiying the Touch? Is that correct?

According to NAIM marketing this should not be the case!

If you talk about differences on coax vs. Toslink. In what direction?


Let see if I can get access to such a device to see by myself how it performs.

Last edited by soundcheck; 2nd March 2011 at 07:08 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2011, 07:13 AM   #362
warpeon is offline warpeon  Hong Kong
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Soundcheck,

Yes. Things changes, at least from my experience:
1) FLAC decoded @ NAS --> More laid back, but slightly less defined
2) FLAC decoded @ SQT --> More forward, a lot more definition and clarity
3) NAS w/ 128MB RAM (Synology CS 407) --> can't even play in a continuous manner (so I doubt Naim DAC buffers the entire song)
4) Soundcheck mods 2.0 (everything except screen off) --> darker background, tighter bass, etc
5) Soundcheck mods (screen off) --> sounds a lot more relaxed
6) Cambridge Audio BD650 Coax out vs. SQT --> Cambridge Audio transport more musical and smoother (the highs feels like "screaming")

Further on #6, I believe some of the factors below will make SQT better than the CD transport:
1) Coax vs. TOSLINK (my dealer said Naim DAC works best with a Audioquest Optilink5 when connected to a Mac) - not sure if this is the case for a Squeezebox
2) Linear Power Supply
3) Rack - my gears are all living together in a small rack, which I believe a lot of interference is going on at the back. Might need to get a bigger rack to house them

Anyone could help me with the following:
1) is SQT better with a TOSLINK out or Coax?
2) Which linear power supply is the best?

Cheers,

Edwin

3) If Coax were better than TOSLINK,
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2011, 09:34 AM   #363
diyAudio Member
 
soundcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D
Quote:
Originally Posted by warpeon View Post
Soundcheck,

Yes. Things changes, at least from my experience:
1) FLAC decoded @ NAS --> More laid back, but slightly less defined
2) FLAC decoded @ SQT --> More forward, a lot more definition and clarity
3) NAS w/ 128MB RAM (Synology CS 407) --> can't even play in a continuous manner (so I doubt Naim DAC buffers the entire song)
4) Soundcheck mods 2.0 (everything except screen off) --> darker background, tighter bass, etc
5) Soundcheck mods (screen off) --> sounds a lot more relaxed
6) Cambridge Audio BD650 Coax out vs. SQT --> Cambridge Audio transport more musical and smoother (the highs feels like "screaming")

Further on #6, I believe some of the factors below will make SQT better than the CD transport:
1) Coax vs. TOSLINK (my dealer said Naim DAC works best with a Audioquest Optilink5 when connected to a Mac) - not sure if this is the case for a Squeezebox
2) Linear Power Supply
3) Rack - my gears are all living together in a small rack, which I believe a lot of interference is going on at the back. Might need to get a bigger rack to house them

Anyone could help me with the following:
1) is SQT better with a TOSLINK out or Coax?
2) Which linear power supply is the best?

Cheers,

Edwin

3) If Coax were better than TOSLINK,
Hmmh. Thx for the feedback. "All my hope is gone". The NAIM device
seems to respond to the transport tuning as sensitive as most of the
devices.

From what I read. The NAIM won't store an entire file. (Which actually would be the best solution of all - Bert Doppenberg BD-DESIGN did it some time ago on one of his DAC devices) The NAIM uses a ring buffer.

Screaming highs. OK. Some pages earlier somebody mentioned a similar
experience. As far as I recall in his case this went away when tweaking the ethernet. He installed the hub and added a better PS to it. The PS did
the trick in his case.

I experienced that beside the ethernet also my SPDIF link was causing
slight problems on the highs. I solved it by adding a pulsetransformer on the DAC input and some more little optimizations on that SPDIF link. I do hope that the NAIM comes with transformers on the input.

Things are getting complicated - I know.

For the "real" DIY folks over here: You might want to read this thread of how to get IS2 properly tapped off. Though watch out.
There are also some traps with such an approach. As the guy mentioned
there is a. no galvanical isolation in place and b. the timing/clocking of your DAC clock needs to be carefully tuned. I do think that this approach in general is the best approach. No idea why nobody builts such a thing.

Cheers

P.S: I prefer COAX over Toslink ( I own a Van den Hul Optocopler II). Since I have my pulsetranformer etc. in place coax IMO performs much better. But as I said. I consider it a receiver issue not to be able to cope with the different jitter or other distortions associated to each of those interfaces.

Last edited by soundcheck; 3rd March 2011 at 09:39 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2011, 10:30 AM   #364
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
 
Bas Horneman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Blog Entries: 18
KandKaudio had developed a solution for the Touch. It uses an HDMI cable

K&K Audio / Lundahl Transformers - Logitech Touch I2S digital output mod complete! - KevinC - February 06, 2011 at 14:03:39

Click the image to open in full size.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Touch_I2S_Mod.jpg (101.7 KB, 432 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2011, 10:53 AM   #365
diyAudio Member
 
soundcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D
interesting. Do they slave the Touch?
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2011, 11:52 AM   #366
diyAudio Member
 
soundcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundcheck View Post
interesting. Do they slave the Touch?
I can answer it myself.

NO they don't. The Touch clocks are still in operation.
This solution just replaces the SPDIF interface.

An external DAC will be slaved and clocked by the Touch. NO GOOD!
(With a little extra effort it can get much better!) Or you still apply my Toolbox.

Those K&K I2S send/receive interface devices won't galvanically isolate either. K&K is doing that on the DAC board itself. Hmmh. ( Yep. Those guys are aware of the isolation issue)

Last edited by soundcheck; 3rd March 2011 at 12:17 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2011, 12:02 PM   #367
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
 
Bas Horneman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Blog Entries: 18
Quote:
This solution just replaces the SPDIF interface.
Correct.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2011, 03:55 PM   #368
diyAudio Member
 
soundcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D
Hi folks.

Any Linux folks around?

Here's something for you to try:


Touch local ramdisk playback


I just put this method up to eliminate the nework streaming impact. We play the .wav track from the Touch ramdisk this way. By using this method and aplay we're also eliminating the impact of "jive" the Touch player app. It's therefore not 100% apples vs. apples.


Any feedback is welcome.

Cheers
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2011, 05:07 PM   #369
diyAudio Member
 
soundcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundcheck View Post
Hi folks.

Any Linux folks around?

Here's something for you to try:


Touch local ramdisk playback


I just put this method up to eliminate the nework streaming impact. We play the .wav track from the Touch ramdisk this way. By using this method and aplay we're also eliminating the impact of "jive" the Touch player app. It's therefore not 100% apples vs. apples.


Any feedback is welcome.

Cheers
For now I removed that post at the squeezebox forum.

Cheers
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th March 2011, 11:40 AM   #370
Kuja is offline Kuja  Yugoslavia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Belgrade, Yugoslavia
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundcheck View Post
So. What you're saying is you run the NAIM DAC and you do experience
a different performance of that device if modifiying the Touch? Is that correct?

According to NAIM marketing this should not be the case!

If you talk about differences on coax vs. Toslink. In what direction?


Let see if I can get access to such a device to see by myself how it performs.
As I understood, Naim DAC is jitter free internally, it does not introduce any jitter of its own.

I guess that it can not be responsible for deficiencies in transport quality,
or for example reflections in SPDIF cable with wrong impedance and stuff like that.

.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
question to Squeezebox Touch users Martin Prothero PC Based 50 13th August 2010 10:27 PM
Which PS for Squeezebox Touch upgrade? Twisted Pear Placid, or AMB σ11? orpheus PC Based 8 4th June 2010 09:52 AM
Squeezebox Receiver Modifications jkeny Digital Source 3 12th March 2010 08:22 AM
Finish of the speaker, the final touch.. thanx Multi-Way 3 20th November 2007 03:12 AM
Squeezebox 3 I_Forgot Digital Source 0 3rd January 2006 03:16 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:00 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2