Anyone Have Experience with Squeezebox2

[Don McRitchie]

I have been looking into replacing my near 20 year old CD player. However, I just recently came across information on a new high tech gadget from Slim Devices that has me rethinking my approach. Basically, this device allows you to wirelessly connect your stereo to your PC which acts as a music server. It includes software that lets you losslessly rip and compress your CD's to a hard drive. A 300GB drive (which can be had for $200) can losslessly store approximately 1000 CD's. The device is only $299 so the DA converter quality is likely suspect. However, you can output the digitial stream to a DA converter of your choice so that is not a concern for me.

I'm interested if anyone here has any experience with this device since, right now, all I have to go on is the manufacturer's hype.

http://www.slimdevices.com/

[Don McRitchie]

Further checking indicates that my request for experience with Squeezebox2 is moot since the product has yet to be released (target March 31 shipping). However, any experience with the original Squeezebox would be relevent to me. A cursory scan of net reviews for the older version resulted in almost uniformly positive feedback.

Don

[GordonW]

We sell 'em here... had the original Squeezeboxes, waiting for the II's. They seem to work very well. If the MP3 is recorded hi-fidelity (good data rate, ie, above 128K, from a good source), then they sound pretty darn good. Good enough, that we were actually noticing improvements in the sound, putting them in front of good TUBE PREAMPS and such (VAC)...

No, it's not going to match the sound from a Benchmark DAC1 decoder, but it's definitely better than radio... even better than most satellite radio broadcasts. Definitely enough for anything other than super-critical listening.

Regards,
Gordon.

[kevf]

Don,
if you're looking for a cost effective way of setting up a PC music server, you may want to check out the EMU 0404 sound card for your PC. This card is widely regarded as one of the best in its price range - at $100US. I bought one last month (also to replace my 10 year old CD player) and the difference was dramatic. The EMU 0404 is also better than my M-audio Transit USB soundcard.

I rip all my CDs using Apple Lossless. My other source is a VPI MK III turntable but the sound from the PC is very very good.

The guys over at the head-fi forum are all over the EMU. Info here:
http://www5.head-fi.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=59

I tell ya. Its awfully convenient to have all my CDs on the PC. I find my vinyls are getting increasingly less plays these days...

Kevin

[Don McRitchie]

Well, I broke down and bought one and it arrived today. I have had all of two hours to play with it. So far, this device has the potential to be the absolute koolest gadget I have ever bought, and this is coming from a certified geekhead.

In advance of getting this device, I threw another two 250GB drives into my computer for less than $300. I now have 1TB in disk storage on just this one machine. Just one drive is being used for storing music, while the other new drive is strictly a backup. I can get at least 400 CD's on one drive with no compression whatsoever. If need be, I can convert to either Win media lossless or FLAC lossless compression to store even more CD's and still play back through the Squeezebox (Apple lossless is also supported).

The beauty of this device is that it is wireless and can be opperated through one of the most effective remote control based user interfaces I have encountered. Given the limitations of a hand held remote, I was amazed that I could get to any song in my library in just a few presses of the remote buttons. The LCD display on the device was so intuitive to use that I was up and running out of the box in no more than ten minutes.

I had ripped around 100CD's in advance of the device's arrival. I'm pleasently surprized that the average ripping time is only 5 minutes per CD so that this is a very managable task. I've also linked my MP3 library to the device so I now have around 2000 songs to play with.

So far, the sound quality is very impressive. Of course, MP3's still suck through this device due to the massive compression. However, uncompressed CD's sound identical to me through Squeezbox compared to my CD player. I even queued up the same song on both my CD player and Squeezebox to A/B them in real time and I have yet to detect a difference. There is absolutely no noise or RF interference like I have come to expect from a direct PC hookup.

The convenience factor is unbeatable. I don't have to be at my computer to set up playlists or change songs. I can stay in my listening seat and use the remote to instantly select new songs from a list of thousands. There is absolutely no lag in selecting tracks out of order like you get on a CD player. For the first time, I can also control the volume by remote since the Squeezebox has variable output levels.

Colour me impressed.

Don

[pmakres1]

I am real new to this end of things. What if your PC is in a different room from your Stereo system?

[Don McRitchie]

My PC is in a different room from my stereo. The device works off of a standard PC wireless network. This means buying a wireless router which can be had for as little as $50 and connecting it to your PC. Once your wireless network is set up, you can place the Squeezebox anywhere in your house and the only wires hooked up to it are the power cord and the RCA cable to your pre-amp. The range of a wireless network is generally around 1000ft. I know that I have picked up my home network from a laptop in my car from a block away.

[pmakres1]

My PC is in a different room from my stereo. The device works off of a standard PC wireless network. This means buying a wireless router which can be had for as little as $50 and connecting it to your PC. Once your wireless network is set up, you can place the Squeezebox anywhere in your house and the only wires hooked up to it are the power cord and the RCA cable to your pre-amp. The range of a wireless network is generally around 1000ft. I know that I have picked up my home network from a laptop in my car from a block away.

Hi Don,
I thought maybe that was it-I too have a wireless router (Linksys 2.4 Ghz) for my laptop. And these can both work from the common Ethernet that is connected to the router from my PC? Forgive me if some of my questions on this seem silly! :o:

Peter

[Don McRitchie]

It's not silly. The device can either be hard wired with an ethernet cable to your router or it can run wirelessly like a wireless laptop. It is compatible with both "b" and "g" series wi-fi standards, which pretty much includes every router made. Since every wireless router that I have seen can handle at least 4 wireless devices, the Squeezebox would not interfere with your laptop if both were in use at the same time.

[Don McRitchie]

It's now been 48hrs that I've had this device and my original assessment hasn't changed. This is the most fun I've had with any audio device or any gadget period.

It hasn't been entirely trouble free. The server software that comes with it has some bugs. However, I've only encountered them when using the non default interface. The standard interface is quite stable. This morning, I couldn't get the device to connect to the network. It took me about 20 minutes of futzing around, but eventually, a reboot of my router got it running. I don't think this was related to the Squeezebox but rather my router since my laptop wouldn't connect either during this time. Twice now, I've heard a static spike at the beginning of a song. I've gone back and played these songs again, and there is no spike. Not sure what this is, possibly the buffer running out. Other than this, it has been trouble free. It has been running 6 hours now without incident, and yesterday evening, it ran for eight hours without interruption.

The flexibility of this device is what makes it so much fun. I've basically had my entire CD collection on shuffle play during all the time that I am in or awake. Mostly it's backgound music as I go about my business. But then I'll hear a song that grabs me, and I just sit down and listen. Ususally, it's a CD I haven't played in months or even years. With a couple of remote clicks, I'll listen to the entire CD. Then it's back to the shuffle play. I'm rediscovering songs and albums I had pretty much forgotten about.

One feature that I was not aware of with this device is its ability to act as an internet radio receiver. Through Shoutcast and other streaming radio servers, you can connect to thousands of internet radio stations, all through the hand held remote.

The server software is a web based application. This means that you can access it from any computer on your network. For example, if I find the remote control interface is just too time consuming for a certain task, I can fire up my wireless laptop at my listening seat and connect to the server software running on my desktop in my bedroom. The server software itself is one of the most customizable applications I have run. Virtually every feature of the server and the Squeezebox hardware can be customized through the web interface. You can even change the interface of the Squeezebox hardware. The software is open source with numerous outside developers writing plugins. For example, through a default plugin, you can have the player display news headlines from any news website with an RSS feed when in screen saver mode. Personally, I don't have a need for this, but the geek in me finds it cool. There are also numerous screen savers such as analog VU meters and spectrum analyzers that can display on the player's front panel when in screen saver mode.

All of this is cool from a technology perspective, but it would be quite useless to me if the sound quality was substandard. This is just not the case. I'm running a full 1411kb/s PCM data stream from the original wav files to a 24bit A/D converter in the player. I have still yet to discern an audible difference from my dedicated CD player. If this keeps up, the CD player will soon be up in the closet because, right now, I don't see a role for it.

[Tom Loizeaux]

All this wireless, computer interface, gigabyte stuff sounds impressive, but it makes my head spin. Shoot, I still feed my sound system with a consumer CD player...a single disc version to boot!
I've worked for a year to get my system set up so that all I have to do is turn everything on, put a CD in, hit play, and sit down. No need to push buttons or fiddle with tone controls ... I just let the system make the music happen.
I think it's all I need. Am I really missing something?

Tom

[Bernard Wolf]

All of this is cool from a technology perspective, but it would be quite useless to me if the sound quality was substandard. This is just not the case. I'm running a full 1411kb/s PCM data stream from the original wav files to a 24bit A/D converter in the player. I have still yet to discern an audible difference from my dedicated CD player. If this keeps up, the CD player will soon be up in the closet because, right now, I don't see a role for it.

Yes, but Don, aren't you comparing it to a 20 yr old CD player ? Hows about up against something a bit more up to date? Or better yet, vinyl ?

B

[boputnam]

...I can get at least 400 CD's on one drive with no compression whatsoever. ... The convenience factor is unbeatable. Cool! :applaud:

All you seem to lack is a wine pourer - I'm eminently qualified! :D

[Bernard Wolf]

Shoot, I still feed my sound system with a consumer CD player...a single disc version to boot!
I've worked for a year to get my system set up so that all I have to do is turn everything on, put a CD in, hit play, and sit down. No need to push buttons or fiddle with tone controls ... I just let the system make the music happen.
I think it's all I need. Am I really missing something?

Tom

Not unless you would like your music served up tepid...:biting:

Bernard

[Don McRitchie]

Yes, but Don, aren't you comparing it to a 20 yr old CD player ? Hows about up against something a bit more up to date? Or better yet, vinyl ?

B

Sorry Bernard, but I do not share your views on vinyl. I have heard $50,000 vinyl rigs and they come across as flawed to me. Aside from the issues of noise and wear degradation, vinyl definitely sounds different but not better to me. There are very valid reasons why vinyl sounds different. The vast majority of records (and I mean over 99%) have the bass summed to mono below 50hz and hard filtered at 30hz. Otherwise, albums with any degree of bass could not hold more than 10 minutes of music due to the goove size. The same vast majority of albums have HF cuttoff at 15khz otherwise the cutting heads would overheat. That's not as big an issue for me since that's about the limit of my hearing.

The fact that vinyl is an inherently equalized media means that the record and playback equalization is another area for sonic differences. It is not unknown for high end pre-amp designers to purposely tweak the RIAA curve in their products and this results in sonic differences. Feedback is another issue I cannot ignore, no matter how well isolated, I have never heard a turntable that is completely immune to feedback.

Finally, though I deferred talking about the noise issue from the start of this discussion, it is possibly my overiding issue. I cannot hear past the pops clicks and hiss that many who enjoy vinyl can. Not to mention that response and noise issues only get worse with every play.

Regarding modern CD players, I have listened to a number and never been able to discern a difference. I am not alone in this. While I don't intend to preach double blind testing as the be-all and end-all, it remains a fact that no-one has ever demonstrated a sonic difference in double blind tests between two competently designed CD players (and I mean excluding cheaply and poorly designed mass market gear).

None of this is intended to invalidate your personal experience or preferences. I have no doubt that you have discerned differences between various high-end CD players and truly find that vinyl sounds better than digital. More power to you. The point is that I have not and therefore have made my choices based on my preferences and experience.

BTW, you should check out the audiophile criteria that were used in the design here:

http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_faq.html#about2-audio

This is not a mass market, lowest common denominator design.

[John]

Hey Don Can you post a picture of the remote for that system:bouncy: This is starting to sound good:applaud:

[Mr. Widget]

All you seem to lack is a wine pourer - I'm eminently qualified! :D

I'll second that... in fact Bo don't under rate yourself... you're a damn fine wine pourer and could possibly make a passable sommelier.

On the vinyl vs. CD topic. It is true that it isn't a fair comparison to A/B most records and CDs as the EQ curves are different and the vinyl records are typically compressed in an effort to deal with surface noise. In my experience though there are real differences and they do favor the analog domain. Typically CDs sound more monophonic (some call this a stronger center image) with less air and space around the instruments. If you compare an SACD to a CD you get more of this "analog" sound... but yes vinyl records are noisy, they do wear out rather quickly, and have other short comings. I also agree that older CD players do not sound as good as the newer ones... that said, I haven't heard much of a difference between the various "affordable" $1200 and below players I have owned. I suppose there were differences... but no clear winners.

Widget

[Bernard Wolf]

Well Don,I won't dispite anything you have said on the technical measurement front, however, from my own perspective I hear things differently. First of all there is the question of what type of music we are talking about and secondly, what equipment. My CD palyer was once considered a "class A" component, although you may well be right that there are few discernable differences among well desined ones. My turntable and cartridge are very good and yes, there is a difference between a $300.00 cart and a $1500.00 one. I find that most jazz and pop/rock recordings I can live with on CD, although when I do have the same in both formats I do find the Lp invariably sounds more natural - less hard and more like music. But the difference is not enough to bother with most of the time. On classical recordings however, right from the start 25 yrs ago, up untill now, I have found the CD to be unpleasant to listen to... I don't know what it is but they just don't cut it, they sound "canned" and are fatiguing to listen to.. to whit, I have maybe 75 classical CD's and over 2000 Lps. I hardly ever listen to the CD's. I find that no matter how flawed the Lp's are they are still more satisfying, overall, than the Compact Disc is.

I am not the only one to feel this to be the case as almost all of the mags - and I know that no one here has any respect for them - still site the Lp as being the ultimate high resolution format. Also, there is something about taking the time to put on a recording, to then sit down and listen to the music that I still find enchanting. I don't mean to preach here but why has music become more about convenience than trying to get the best sound possible in your home? THe MP3's/CD's that my son gives me full of new music to hear just end up gathering dust as they just sound "tepid".. what can I say? Hey, why not just pipe in Musak and be done with it..?;)

Anyway, Don, each to his own.... but if you are ever out this way bring your best CD/MP3/burnt whatever and we will have a shoot-out.. I gaurantee you that the vinyl will sound better to you 9 times out of 10.

Bernard

[Mr. Widget]

Popular music can also benefit from higher resolution...

Several times I have performed A/B comparisons between Tracy Chapman's first album which is digitally recorded comparing the CD and the vinyl record. The difference in spatial quality is amazing. I have performed this comparison for friends with absolutely no audio background and frequently the response is, "So why do we use CDs if they are that much worse?"

Convenience!

Widget

[Bernard Wolf]

I have performed this comparison for friends with absolutely no audio background and frequently the response is, "So why do we use CDs if they are that much worse?"

Widget

I've heard that one more than once !!

I didn't mean to slight pop music it's just that I have thought that perhaps the amount of information being recorded from a full ochestra might be a bit much for the medium.

Bernard

[Don McRitchie]

I am not the only one to feel this to be the case as almost all of the mags - and I know that no one here has any respect for them - still site the Lp as being the ultimate high resolution format.



Well I lost all respect when I read an article by Stereophile's Fremer that was one of his raves about a multi kilobuck vinyl rig (I think it may have been the $80k Rockport). He made a statement that invalidated his whole vinyl/digital assessment and didn't even know it. He stated that the only CD recordings that he ever found acceptable were homemade CD burnings of vinyl played back through this rig. Think about that for just a second. If the CD burn was able to capture even part of the vinyl rig's magic, then this can only mean that the "magic" is a euphonic production (not a faithful reproduction) and that the CD had higher resolution since it was able to capture it. There is no other explanation.

[Mr. Widget]

He stated that the only CD recordings that he ever found acceptable were homemade CD burnings of vinyl played back through this rig. Think about that for just a second. If the CD burn was able to capture even part of the vinyl rig's magic, then this can only mean that the "magic" is a euphonic production (not a faithful reproduction) and that the CD had higher resolution since it was able to capture it. There is no other explanation.

"There is no other explanation."
I can only think of one... well two actually. First is that it is one of those stupid comments that we have all made at one time or another and that it wasn't based on listening as much as emotion. Second would be that possibly he was using a pro burner running at 24/96... I have a friend with a Rockport doing just that... and they do sound better than red book CDs.

As for the rest of your comment... In the early years of my making these comparisons, I too wondered about the possibility of "euphonia" with respect to vinyl playback . A couple of years ago when I bought my SACD player and heard the same "euphonic" presentation I decided that it must be that the red book CDs when played back with the equipment that I have owned must be collapsing the sense of space. A well mastered SACD has a similar sonic signature to vinyl records.

Widget

[Don McRitchie]

Second would be that possibly he was using a pro burner running at 24/96

It doesn't matter. If the 16/44 media was able to capture part of the "magic" then this part of the "magic" must be an issue below the 16/44 realm.

[Mr. Widget]

You lost me.

Perhaps I should have mentioned that the 24/96 CDs must be played back on a 24/96 player.

Widget

[Don McRitchie]

Hey Don Can you post a picture of the remote for that system:bouncy: This is starting to sound good:applaud:

I have one complaint about the remote illustrated below. It is much smaller than I imagined so it is easy to lose and a bit difficult to navigate in the dark. However, these are not overiding constraints to me.

If you want to find out how the remote, and how the system interface in general works, you can download and run the server software with a virtual "Squeezebox" that paints a picture of the front panel of the unit and the remote on your screen. You access the remote functions by moving your mouse over the appropriate remote button and click. The virtual front panel displays they exact same information as the hardware unit and the sound is played back through your computer speakers. You can try this if you have any MP3's or similar such music files on your PC. Just download the software on the following page:

http://www.slimdevices.com/su_downloads.html

Once it is setup and has indexed the music files on your pc, you will see a link called "Softsqueeze" near the bottom of the left window pane. Just follow the instructions and it will download a Java version of the Squeezebox emulator.

[Don McRitchie]

You lost me.

Perhaps I should have mentioned that the 24/96 CDs must be played back on a 24/96 player.

Widget

As best as my memory allows, there was no mention of anything other than a standard CD. The context was a misguided attempt to provide final proof that this vinyl rig was obviously better than CD's. The redbook definition of CD media is 16 bit dynamic range and 44khz sampling. It doesn't matter if the front end was 24/96 with respect to the fact that if there were audible attributes captured on the CD media, it had to be within the 16/44 realm.

Don

[Mr. Widget]

Agreed... that was why I said it probably was an emotional rather than rational thing to say. That said, in comparing 24/96 recordings of vinyl played back at 24/96 into an all analog chain is superior to a 16/44.1 red book playback and in addition SACDs made from analog or higher resolution digital do also sound better and in a way similar to vinyl records.

Beyond that I have early digitally recorded vinyl records that also sound spatially flat. So even if there is "magic" in the turntable playback chain... if it ain't on the record it isn't coming out of the speakers.

Widget

[Bernard Wolf]

Anyway.. this digital vs vinyl is all a moot point with regards to the Squeezebox... If Don is happy with CD playback then it sounds like this Box is a super way to go.. provided you are "geek" enough to figure it out. Thats one of the things I hate about this modern technology... the learning curve seems to be way too high for me most of the time.... spinning an Lp I can manage..:blink:

One more aside on the CD/Lp thing.. haven't you ever wondered if something doesn't get lost in the transfere from the analog world into a digital approximation and then back again into the analog ?

B

[Mr. Widget]

One more aside on the CD/Lp thing.. haven't you ever wondered if something doesn't get lost in the transfere from the analog world into a digital approximation and then back again into the analog ?

Sure there is. But there is a hell of a lot lost between a master tape and an analog record too. These are all compromises.

At some point we should start a thread discussing software... analog tapes, records, CDs, SACDs, DAT or CD based hi res digital recordings etc.

We certainly have drifted a bit off course here. As to the merits of a digital juke box... Last night I spent about fifteen minutes looking for a specific CD. I have three stereos and some CDs get left in stacks near each one!!! Something like the Squeezebox would certainly be convenient!

Widget

[doodlebug]

and it is, indeed, high on the 'cool' factor. I've just moved into a new house where I was able to design in CAT5 wiring in all rooms so I am able to use the SB2 without the wireless arrangement. BTW, the SB2 is available without the wireless feature for about $50 less. For those of you with no existing hard-wired connections, the wireless arrangement is a good option.

For the past 2.5 years, I've used outboard USB-connected DACs starting first with the Creative Extigy and shortly after, the M-Audio Audiophile USB DAC. Both of these I've used instead of the built-in audio cards in the PC. The 2 big advantages of this arrangement is: 1) You send the audio signal in the digital domain outside of the compter via USB to the DAC and 2) the DAC operates off its own power supply rather than the not-intended-for-audio PC supply.

For the most part, I've discovered that these devices make quite an improvement in the quality of audio especially with CDs and enables the use of all the internet-radio streams. My current favorites, jazz-wise, is KPLU.org and KCSM.org. Also, the Swedish Radio's classical stream is excellent.

The SB2 differs from the USB-connected DACs in a few ways:

1) Requires the use of the SB2 server software. This is because the SB2 uses its own protocols to operate across your local lan system in your house. Note that this means there are no 'driver' to load on your Windows system. As a result, the SB2 does not appear as a logical device to your Windows PC. I have no Apple computer so cannot comment on its use there.

2) This software is produced in an 'open-source' community. This is quite different from most vendor-provided software where you have to await driver or feature updates when the vendor gets around to it. Here, you can participate in the development of the next release. Since the software's source is also available for inspection and there is more documentation for the interfaces, you'll find lots of plug-ins available for SB2.

3) The downside is that the SB2, without the SB2 software, is not of much use. The nice thing is that it has been implemented so that an SB2 box will attempt to find a software server on your house lan/wireless lan when it starts up. It is also smart enough to know when new firmware must be downloaded into the hardware. This is generally not what you expect from the bigger vendors where you normally have to manually figure out whether you need to update firmware and driver software.

Improvement oppportunities:

1) Power supply: The SB2 uses a 5V, 2A switching supply that's pretty small. I plan to use an old HP regulated lab bench supply as my next upgrade.

2) I'm also inspecting the board once I burn it in for improving the power supply capacitance on the voltage rails as well as opamp/coupling cap improvements. The SB2 is marketed as having audio-grade circuits but the speakers we tend to use here at Lansing Heritage will certainly tell us whether this is, indeed, the case.

BTW, in comparison with the M-audio Audiophile USB my vote, sound-wise, is still with the M-Audio. Much better bass and a wider soundstage than the SB2. The SB2, however, is far more flexible in use around the house. I suspect it will go into the system downstairs for occasional use unless I can get the soundstage wider and with more bass authority.

BTW, I picked up a pair of Altec Valencias - all original with intact wood-mesh grilles - last week to go along with the JBL 4425s I picked up at a yard sale last fall. This is getting too fun.

Cheers,

David

[Mr. Widget]

"For the past 2.5 years, I've used outboard USB-connected DACs starting first with the Creative Extigy and shortly after, the M-Audio Audiophile USB DAC...."


"BTW, I picked up a pair of Altec Valencias - all original with intact wood-mesh grilles - last week to go along with the JBL 4425s I picked up at a yard sale last fall. This is getting too fun."


I just can't help but think.... "We have our hydrogen reactor powered house working well now especially with the coal burning Franklin stove." ....maybe it's just me.:blah:

Widget

[doodlebug]

Hi Widget,

Yep, I did sound like a digit geek, there, didn't I. I'm sure to some having a 40 year old stereo that I'm running digital bits into through all these little converters does appear a bit strange.

Still waiting for those Flux Capacitors to come up for sale on ebay, though....

Cheers,

David

[Stewrt]

Hello Don,

Thanks for sharing your expierence with this piece of gear with all of us.

I've actually been considering this unit for awhile. I think you may have pushed me over the edge.
1 Quick question for you though. I wouldnt expect the internet radio stations to sound great. But am wondering how they do sound?
And what kind of stations are available? News, sports, music, educational, NPR?
I'm currently living in Puerto Rico (military) and cant take the local music much longer.

Thanks again,
Stewrt