[bcowen]

I can't say that I've ever considered my BF2 'unrelentingly sharp' or anything other than nicely detailed and balanced with a bit of a tilt toward warm sounding.

Same here. "Unrelentingly sharp" would, I think, be the last descriptor that would ever come to mind. My BF2 is feeding tube amps (well, duh), and maybe that makes things different. Or not. FWIW, the TAS reviewer was listening through loudspeakers, and while I've never heard the speakers he was using, I can think of several loudspeakers I have heard that would make any DAC sound unrelentingly sharp.

 

[vinylguy87]

I love the fact that you are still using a Slim Devices Squeezebox @AudioGal

I have a Squeezebox ‘Classic’, a Touch and three Transporters!

You could say I’m a bit of a fan…

The Squeezebox is used in my study, connected directly to some tiny desk top monitors. It is great for internet radio and casual listening.

One Transporter is used in my ‘second’ system- connected directly to some active ELAC Navis ARB 51 speakers with balanced XLR cables.
In this ‘one-box’ system, the Transporter works as streamer, DAC and preamp.
I use it to play all my ripped CDs and stream Qobuz.
It sounds great!

My ‘main’ system is currently all in boxes, but I use another Transporter as digital source, feeding Yggy A2 via BNC to ATC SCM 100 ASL speakers from Yggy’s balanced output.
That sounds fantastic, to my ears!
I do have a Freya S which will be used when I finally get to use my new Jay’s CD transport (CDT2- Mk3).

My Squeezebox Touch is currently unused in a box and like new. I might hook it up to some small active speakers one day or just keep it as a spare for when the Squeezebox Classic in my study finally dies.

The third Transporter is a spare!

I managed to buy a couple of Transporters in mint condition on eBay for around £350, which I think is a bargain, even if only used as a digital source.
They are becoming very rare now.

Many HiFi dealers in the UK have told me that the Transporter is rubbish and obsolete technology.

Maybe they are right.

All I can say is that having tried several, very expensive streamers, none impressed me enough to ‘upgrade’ from a Transporter.

Maybe my ears have been damaged from attending hundreds of gigs over the years, but several friends have also commented on how amazing the main system sounds.

They also like the sound of my ‘second’ system, using the internal DAC in an old Transporter!
The ‘second’ system is what I am currently using for my main listening and have been for several months.
I am looking forward to unboxing the main gear, but could happily live with this second one as my main system, as it sounds surprisingly good.

In the end, this is an entirely subjective hobby and we all like different set ups, which is part of the fascination.

Enjoy the music.

I’m still a Squeezebox user as well. I’ve got a Touch that I added a firmware hack to years ago (can’t remember what it was called) that allows it to pass 24/192 out of the coax. I’ll be quite sad when it finally gives up the ghost.

 

[Les Strat]

I’m still a Squeezebox user as well. I’ve got a Touch that I added a firmware hack to years ago (can’t remember what it was called) that allows it to pass 24/192 out of the coax. I’ll be quite sad when it finally gives up the ghost.

Those Squeezeboxes were amazing little devices.

I did try my Touch using its digital coax output into my Yggy and it sounded remarkably good for such a low-cost and tiny device, which was designed a long time ago!

The digital output from the Transporter sounds better to my ears but so it should, as they cost about £1,200 back in 2007.

Sean Adams, the founder, and main designer at Slim Devices, said that the transformer-coupled BNC S/PDIF output on the Transporter is the best option, and that has been my experience.

I understand that there is a firmware update which allows 24/192 output from the USB port on a Touch, but I haven't tried it.
I run an old version of LMS and daren't upgrade it, on the basis that 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. I don't get on well with IT...

A friend of mine who understands the tech far better than me ( which isn't difficult) is also a Squeezebox fan and has built his own version of a Touch using a Raspberry Pi. He is very happy with it.
I know that the use of R Pi for a digital source has been debated on this forum at length, so I won't go there...

My really guilty secret, is that as well as the Transporter, I also have a turntable to use as a music source in my main system.
It is a Technics SL 1200G, still unused, in its box.

I have no idea how it will sound compared with Qobuz/CDs/lossless files, as I haven't had vinyl replay for well over 20 years, but it will be great fun to find out.

I only have one pristine new vinyl boxset to play on the new turntable; the rest of my vinyl collection is ancient

 

[OldRoadToad]

Those Squeezeboxes were amazing little devices.

I did try my Touch using its digital coax output into my Yggy and it sounded remarkably good for such a low-cost and tiny device, which was designed a long time ago!

The digital output from the Transporter sounds better to my ears but so it should, as they cost about £1,200 back in 2007.

Sean Adams, the founder, and main designer at Slim Devices, said that the transformer-coupled BNCS/PDIF output on the Transporter is the best option, and that has been my experience.

I understand that there is a firmware update which allows 24/192 output from the USB port on a Touch, but I haven't tried it.
I run an old version of LMS and daren't upgrade it, on the basis that 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. I don't get on well with IT...

A friend of mine who understands the tech far better than me ( which isn't difficult) is also a Squeezebox fan and has built his own version of a Touch using a Raspberry Pi. He is very happy with it.
I know that the use of R Pi for a digital source has been debated on this forum at length, so I won't go there...

My really guilty secret, is that as well as the Transporter, I also have a turntable to use as a music source in my main system.
It is a Technics SL 1200G, still unused, in its box.

I have no idea how it will sound compared with Qobuz/CDs/lossless files, as I haven't had vinyl replay for well over 20 years, but it will be great fun to find out.

I only have one pristine new vinyl boxset to play on the new turntable; the rest of my vinyl collection is ancient

Memories are memories. They attach themselves to music and that becomes our life's soundtrack. Love is friendship set to music. Cue it up.

ORT

 

[Pondoro]

Memories are memories. They attach themselves to music and that becomes our life's soundtrack. Love is friendship set to music. Cue it up.

ORT

I had a Supremes LP in the 70's, one song skipped at a certain place. When I hear that song now I expect the skip. I do not even remember which song, but if I hear it when it gets to the right place I anticipate the skip.

 

[Les Strat]

Memories are memories. They attach themselves to music and that becomes our life's soundtrack. Love is friendship set to music. Cue it up.

ORT

Very nicely put @OldRoadToad

 

[Odin412]

So I have a technical question. I'm a mechanical engineer but actually built 8- bit D to A and A to D converters in a graduate class. So I understand digital somewhat. You place the equalizer before the DAC. This means that the equalizer looks at the digital signal and adjusts tonal balance. It surely does not perform D to A, equalize, and then reverse the process back to digital. So it figures out what is "high" and what is "low" and changes the digital signal. Here is my very technical question: Doesn't the algorithm used in the equalizer implicitly do a digital to analog process? Simply looking at the 1's and 0's and deciding what frequencies are present implies a digital to analog thought process. Can someone help? Small words please.

Digital EQ is basically a set of digital filters that operate entirely in the digital domain. Wikipedia has (much) more details.

 

[OldRoadToad]

Thank you. I am having difficulty with the quote thingy...I am such a toad. My favorite song is "Could It Be I'm Falling In Love" by The Spinners...The first crush I ever had on a girl and that song was forever in my heart. My wife has the same name as that girl and so those feelings have been for her for over four decades now. I played it for 30+ minutes non-stop this morning. It will be played at my funeral and I like to think I will still hear it.

I just hope she does not bring a date...LOL! Like I said. I know I am nothing to look at and I have a sense of humor about it all. Like the Doobies sang, "Listen to the music". They never said, "listen to the equipment".


ORT

 

[Odin412]

Not to be pedantic, but I think the description was "unrelentingly sharp" from "The Absolute Sound" review.

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/schiit-freya-preamp-and-bifrost-2-dac/3

Not a description that I agree with, but we all have different systems and tastes.

It's interesting how we all perceive sound so differently. What I hear as unpleasant sharpness others here hear as additional (and welcome) details. I wonder what causes this sharpness/additional details? It can't be the frequency response since basically all DACs measure ruler flat from 20 Hz - 20 kHz. So what is it? Different ringing in the digital filter? Different transient response? Different intermodulation distortion? Something else? I keep wondering, but I'm not finding any answers. Any of you fine folks have any thoughts or ideas?

 

[filthy mechanical]

It's interesting how we all perceive sound so differently. What I hear as unpleasant sharpness others here hear as additional (and welcome) details. I wonder what causes this sharpness/additional details? It can't be the frequency response since basically all DACs measure ruler flat from 20 Hz - 20 kHz. So what is it? Different ringing in the digital filter? Different transient response? Different intermodulation distortion? Something else? I keep wondering, but I'm not finding any answers. Any of you fine folks have any thoughts or ideas?

Transient response, and all of us are a little crazy (or at least that is my opinion).

 

[cricket]

It's interesting how we all perceive sound so differently. What I hear as unpleasant sharpness others here hear as additional (and welcome) details. I wonder what causes this sharpness/additional details? It can't be the frequency response since basically all DACs measure ruler flat from 20 Hz - 20 kHz. So what is it? Different ringing in the digital filter? Different transient response? Different intermodulation distortion? Something else? I keep wondering, but I'm not finding any answers. Any of you fine folks have any thoughts or ideas?

I say something else. No audio system stops at the transducers.

Jon

 

[Les Strat]

Thank you. I am having difficulty with the quote thingy...I am such a toad. My favorite song is "Could It Be I'm Falling In Love" by The Spinners...The first crush I ever had on a girl and that song was forever in my heart. My wife has the same name as that girl and so those feelings have been for her for over four decades now. I played it for 30+ minutes non-stop this morning. It will be played at my funeral and I like to think I will still hear it.

I just hope she does not bring a date...LOL! Like I said. I know I am nothing to look at and I have a sense of humor about it all. Like the Doobies sang, "Listen to the music". They never said, "listen to the equipment".


ORT

'Listen to the Equipment'. Brilliant! I'll have that new refrain in my head next time I listen to the Doobies

 

[Pondoro]

Digital EQ is basically a set of digital filters that operate entirely in the digital domain. Wikipedia has (much) more details.

I understand that all DSP processing is in the digital domain, but the input and the intended effects are analog - for example if I want to reduce content near "4500 Hz", I input that analog number, I also input a requested reduction, again analog. Then the algorithm, while digital, must ask itself, "Is there any 4500 Hz content?" and "What must I do to reduce it by the percentage my human master requested?" So these are analog questions, and the digital algorithm (a programable digital filter) must take action to cause an analog result, after the downstream DAC does it's thing. I'd love to hear @Baldr discuss interactions between the digital equalization algorithms (in the recording and mastering studios), in the listener's PC or other streamer, and his finely tuned digital filters in his DACs. Please understand that I am not criticizing anyone's algorithms, nor am I criticizing equalizers, I just thought of all this and it is twisting my head around, a lot.

 

[JamminVMI]

Those Squeezeboxes were amazing little devices.
A friend of mine who understands the tech far better than me ( which isn't difficult) is also a Squeezebox fan and has built his own version of a Touch using a Raspberry Pi. He is very happy with it.

I have several Pi4s and a Squeezebox3 (Logitech package) running in the house and on the back patio, and am very happy with performance and sound. Where I have Unison to output to, I use USB, otherwise S/PDIF coax Using HifiBerry DigiPro boards. I also built a PiTouch with screen and recently switched boards from a Pi3b+ to a 4b, which improved response nicely.

The ecosystem is very cost effective, and making them scratches the itch I have for building stuff as well. Great sound is a really pleasant bonus.

 

[Ableza]

I understand that all DSP processing is in the digital domain, but the input and the intended effects are analog - for example if I want to reduce content near "4500 Hz", I input that analog number, I also input a requested reduction, again analog. Then the algorithm, while digital, must ask itself, "Is there any 4500 Hz content?" and "What must I do to reduce it by the percentage my human master requested?" So these are analog questions, and the digital algorithm (a programable digital filter) must take action to cause an analog result, after the downstream DAC does it's thing. I'd love to hear @Baldr discuss interactions between the digital equalization algorithms (in the recording and mastering studios), in the listener's PC or other streamer, and his finely tuned digital filters in his DACs. Please understand that I am not criticizing anyone's algorithms, nor am I criticizing equalizers, I just thought of all this and it is twisting my head around, a lot.

What makes you think there is an interaction? Each device or software only effects the signal delivered to it, there is no inter-device feedback.