Squeezebox Touch -- Modifications - Page 82 - 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 17th November 2012, 08:03 AM   #811
diyAudio Member
 
soundcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D
Quote:
Originally Posted by gazzagazza View Post
I found low buffer settings to produce a thin edgy sound. 20000 was much better. Now I have EDO and TT3 and use EDOs large buffer setting which I think is 100000.
You confirm what I said above.


As I said, in my opnion many of those people who prefer larger buffers, use those to potentially hide other problems in the chain.

We had examples where people reported egdy sound first.
And after following some of my network/server optimization recommendations edgyness was gone and higher resolution stayed.

Many people consider vast amounts of details tireing. If you pair those with edginess I'd agree. I for myself would never let those added details go. Even if edgy - I'd strive to get away from the edginess.


It's been and still is a very common method to hide upstream flaws by
introducing/accepting certain "filtereffects" ( jitter, noise, phaseshifts, tubes etc.) . This usually causes the "body" many people look for or better people are used to.
I do agree that sound gets "thinner" (compared to jittery/noisy environments) the better the source gets. That doesn't mean that this is wrong. To me it's more realistic.
Not every system/room/person can cope with this realisim.
Most systems are integrated or better "tuned" with a certain source at hand.
If you change your source, you should review the rest of the chain too.

If you don't want to do that, you'll lock yourself up at a certain level.


Recently I bought a nice pair of IEMs. The soundsignature I experienced
was very close to that what I hear with my main system. I think it is
a good idea to compare your main system with a good headphone
setup.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2012, 06:13 AM   #812
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NZ
I have a very high resolution system, and the touch, with these mods, including large buffers, is giving astoundingly good sound, with great detail, and a wide and deep sound field.

Sent using Tapatalk
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2012, 11:15 AM   #813
phofman is offline phofman  Czech Republic
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Pilsen
There is no technical reason why small alsa buffers should produce better sound than large ones. In fact larger buffers result in lower CPU load and lower bus load. Smaller buffer significantly raises the risk of xruns as has been experienced and reported by many users. I have yet to see a credible report of objective blind tests confirming the sonical improvement. Even though those claiming so have been asked countless times to produce one.

But the mod certainly makes happier those who need to believe and a bit of happiness can never hurt
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st December 2012, 02:18 PM   #814
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
I've been using TT with good results since the beginning and later on began fiddling around with TT 3.0 + EDO also with good results.

I recently switched to a USB setup and have not been able to get EDO to work with TT 3.0 since. I tried installing them in different orders and blindly fooling around in prio settings but it just won't work.
The signal LED on my DAC is on but there's no sound. I know others seem to have been successful but nobody on the Squeezebox forum seems able or willing to walk me through the procedure. Seems to be a "hot potato" topic.
I find this rather frustrating.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2012, 12:28 PM   #815
le´flu is offline le´flu  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hoexter
Hi Soundcheck,

some pages ago you recommended using W8 and fidelizer. My system based
around W7 and fidelizer is running pretty good.
What changes in performance will be if upgrading to W8 btw, what betters the
W8 for the SB-server?

Greetings ULf
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2012, 03:49 PM   #816
diyAudio Member
 
soundcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D
To be honest. I'm not sure.

I guess they improved the networking stack (and more).


The soundimage should get slightly cleaned up.

If it's worth the 40bucks/euros !?!? You decide.


It won't beat my Linux server setup anyhow.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th December 2012, 05:37 PM   #817
le´flu is offline le´flu  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hoexter
Hi Klaus,
just ordered the W8 upgrade for Christmas ;-)
Will report if i audition any differences. What makes me
skeptical about W8 are all those bad comments about handling
without touchscreen.
Greetings ulf
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th December 2012, 05:39 PM   #818
le´flu is offline le´flu  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hoexter
To all of you...
i´m using dbpoweramp as cd-ripper. I´m just using the default setting.
What changes do you recommend and what encoder setting do you use - why?

Greetings ULf
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th December 2012, 08:31 AM   #819
diyAudio Member
 
soundcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D
Quote:
Originally Posted by le´flu View Post
Hi Klaus,
just ordered the W8 upgrade for Christmas ;-)
Will report if i audition any differences. What makes me
skeptical about W8 are all those bad comments about handling
without touchscreen.
Greetings ulf
Hi.

There are (free) toolboxes that let you run W8 in W7 mode with start menu.

I'm using one if these.

Cheers
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th December 2012, 08:35 AM   #820
diyAudio Member
 
soundcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D
Quote:
Originally Posted by le´flu View Post
To all of you...
i´m using dbpoweramp as cd-ripper. I´m just using the default setting.
What changes do you recommend and what encoder setting do you use - why?

Greetings ULf
Use flac @ compression level 0.

Flac is most widely used.


Benefit of higher compression levels can be neglected.

Look for players which do offline decoding, if you look for best SQ.
  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 11:28 PM.


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