[francisdemarte]

I'm infering from this article that MacOS and itunes isn't bit perfect by default:
 
http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=20110414045956265
 
So some processing is added to the output that you find pleasing hence the difference.
 

 

[vrln]

Except I was using Pure Music in memory playback + hog mode, with all DSP settings disabled which results in bitperfect audio on OSX. Every comparison was done this way. Also did another test using Decibel, which is another bitperfect OSX playback software. I used to be a hardcore audio objectivist, but I have to admit that my faith has suffered a few blowbacks. This is one of them, there is a clear and audible difference in favor of the Mac Mini in a volume matched scenario, with two allegedly bitperfect transports. What causes it, I have no idea. But the difference is so clear I am positive I can notice it in a blind test as well.
 
Actually this reminds me of the Violectric V200 amp I once had for a few weeks: it measures neutral, comes from a pro audio company, yet it´s the most colored amp I´ve ever heard. Opamp rolling in the Asus STX card also results in audible differences despite measuring the same when it comes to frequency response. The HD 650 also shook up my former beliefs a lot when I noticed how well it scales with different amps, it´s almost a different headphone when powered well (ie, it´s not just about gain).
 
Personally I think neutral audio has been available for a fair price for a long time already, but this hobby is not really about neutrality if you ask me People use different words for what they are looking for, "natural" being the most common one I guess. These days I simply go by an intuitive "this sounds better" thing, after which you can start thinking about what exactly in the sound makes it sound better. Point being, subjectively the Mac Mini sounds better: more dynamic, draws me in and so on. The hifi industry is all about engineering a sound signature that sounds like something potential buyers want to listen to.

 

[francisdemarte]

Ah! I guess it is what it is then. I was just trying to sort out why the Mac Mini and Touch would sound different. 
 
I'm a big fan of colored sound as well, after all it all comes down to your ears and your brain which are the most flawed audio devices ever.
 
Right now I really enjoy the sound the comes out of my turntable/Touch + vintage Marantz. One day I would love to convert to a full tube set up to color things even more.
 
 

 

[Pudu]

Does anyone own an SB and a Bifrost? How does the sound from each compare?

I'm looking at getting the Bifrost eventually to feed into the Lyr. But I'm wondering what to expect if I put the Bifrost in between the SB and the Lyr.

Cheers

 

[Audioexcels]

Quote:

The Mac Mini is the latest 2011 edition, no disc drive and 8gb RAM added. Volume was matched in both situations, with the DAC feeding a full signal into the integrated amplifier. Also the integrated amplifier has an active volume control stage from 0 to 100, so the volume should have been exactly the same. As for optical, the Mini doesn´t have optimal output I think? Not sure though, I checked briefly and didn´t notice one. The Touch loses badly also when it is using toslink.
 
This amazes me too, I wasn´t expecting such a clear difference...

 
Reason I asked about the signal level is because my cd player, for example, is nowhere near as loud as running a usb-s/pdif adapter into my pc.  One gives a stronger amount of gain somehow and it increases the illusion that there is greater detail when it's really just opening up my system more due to having the low gain structure that I have.  It's not that my cd player cannot generate loud volume, but that it is unable to give the same voltage my usb-s/pdiif converter can.  But it sounds like you are hearing more resolution which is not the case in my system where I simply hear more detail in one transport vs. the other due to my system's poor gain structure=can hear the same detail/musical information via either digital source, but the one (usb-s/pdif) simply brings that detail out much more=greater treble, more pronounced midrange sounds/information, etc.
 
The mini jack on the 2011 Mac Mini is also an s/pdif, but you have to use a mini-tos converter and then run the toslink which gives you the opportunity to further test its ability.  Would be interesting to know how the USB sound is by comparison.  
 
 Here is any article on the 2011 Mini:
 
http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/index.php/internet-audio/373-mac-mini-2011.html
 
"The good news is our analyser showed that rate conversion either up from 44.1 to 48, an awkward non-multiple, or down from a 48k rate to 44.1k produced no serious jitter issues, unlike earlier models. In fact, jitter was very low by everyday audio standards our analysis below shows, so the latest Mini is fine as a music server in this respect, contrary to common speculation. Noise behind a high resolution 24bit test signal was incredibly low at-145dB so noise is not an issue either. The figure with 16bit is inevitably higher due to quantisation artefacts, measuring -92dB, but there was a flat noise floor with no computer generated electrical mush."
 
They later say jitter measured lower than most cd players.

 

[korzena]

Quote:

Tried the new Touch Toolbox from Soundcheck.....don't like it at all, the sound is too thin and without smoothness or meat

That's exactly my impression of the newest soundcheck's Toolbox (3.0) - the sound seems to be leaner, more digital, has less weight, less bass.
I don't like it either, however I suppose in some systems it can sound good, unfortunately not in mine.
 

 

[LarsHP]

That's exactly my impression of the newest soundcheck's Toolbox (3.0) - the sound seems to be leaner, more digital, has less weight, less bass.
I don't like it either, however I suppose in some systems it can sound good, unfortunately not in mine.

This could be why vrln liked his Mac Mini better than the Soundcheck modded Touch?

 

[francisdemarte]

They've done a crap job of marketing the whole Squeezebox system for years. It will become yet another victim of the Apple marketing machine and iPlay. There's a slim chance it might stick around in one form or another as open source software.
 
Don't forgot that Logitech also owns Ultimate Ears. Which it is also doing a great job of flushing down the toilet.

 

[Audioexcels]

Quote:

This could be why vrln liked his Mac Mini better than the Soundcheck modded Touch?

Would kinda suck if putting it all back to stock resulted in a superior sound than the Mac.  Hopefully Vrln tested the Touch one last time before packing it up and getting prepared for sale.

 

[nspindel]

Quote:

My Spider senses are telling me that the SB-Touch will be discontinued sometime next year....along with the remaining supplies of the Transporter.  Logitech is not really in the business of catering to the limited number of Audiophiles in the world. After all they are a computer periphial company not an audio company. Mass produced keyboards and mice fits their business plan....devices like this fit more with Creative than Logitech.
 
 
 
 
 

 
I can't say that I disagree.  Having been a SqueezeBox'er for many years, I never really understood why Logitech bought SlimDevices in the first place.
 
 

 

[DeadEars]

I agree.  The Logitech business model is all about volume, whereas the Slim Devices model was about quality (and they hoped for volume).  Unfortunately, neither Slim Devices nor Logitech have been able to make the Squeeze family simple enough for non-computer users to just plug in and use.  The Touch was a good effort in this direction, as was the Duet, but both are still really dependent on a client-server model that consumers don't "get."
 
I've wished for years to give my sister a Squeezebox. But I just know that she'd give up on it the first time the software was upgraded.  And she'd never go through the process required to rip CD's to FLAC, label all the tracks (especially since most of her music is classical), and run it on a server so that her music player can access it. 
 
So instead I'll just give her a Bryston music player and then send her an annual external SSD with new music on it to plug in to one of the 4 USB ports.  Arguably better quality than any server-based delivery system, but still can be managed remotely from her listening chair with an iPod.  A missed opportunity for Logitech though!

 

[DrTone]

Quote:

I don't know, the latest Soundcheck mods kinda suck.  The sound is way to thin....ymmv of course.

I found I had to adjust my speaker placement and do a few other tweaks after TT 3.0  After making the adjustments, I was getting a full sound with more detail.  But my speakers weren't really situated right in the first place as per NHT's recomendations.

 

[Audioexcels]

Quote:

I found I had to adjust my speaker placement and do a few other tweaks after TT 3.0  After making the adjustments, I was getting a full sound with more detail.  But my speakers weren't really situated right in the first place as per NHT's recomendations.

Yes...with software changes and soundstage changes in effect, if you re-locate the speakers, and it comes together, that was the problem.  If after re-locating and doing all you can to get the soundstage proper, and it still is not proper, something is wrong with the software/driver/etc. "effect" that was done.

 

[mrarroyo]

Finally have a Touch! After owning two Classic V3's and a Duet I find the Touch to be the easiest to use and setup. Very happy with the unit and I hope I can stop myself from buying an upgraded power supply.

 

[LarsHP]

Finally have a Touch! After owning two Classic V3's and a Duet I find the Touch to be the easiest to use and setup. Very happy with the unit and I hope I can stop myself from buying an upgraded power supply.

Read John Darkos reviews at DigitalAudioReview before you go any further ...