Squeezebox Touch vs. Apple

[Flac2Dac]

OK...even though I've been streaming music for about 6 years, and now stream everything under the sun...I cut my teeth on SBs and that's all I've ever used in my 2-channel system.

 

I currently have a Touch, and even though it gets good reviews and generally positive marks, I'm curious how much "better" the Apple-based servers might be. I'm no stranger to the Mac Mini as music server, as it seems that when the audiophilia consensus jumped on board the streaming bandwagon...with both feet...the Mac Mini was the set-up du jour. I always thought it was because crusty old men, who'd resisted for so long, were seduced by the simplicity of iTunes. But for someone like myself...who'd been ripping and streaming for years, and has always been taught that iTunes was in fact a terrible ripper...it seemed like a choice based on convenience, not necessarily quality.

 

Now I'm not so sure. I know some, who run it in conjunction with programs like Pure Music, and I have to admit; those things that a full-fledged computer allow, are pretty tempting. I always thought the argument against Mac and any computer-based system...as source...was the need for a monitor to navigate. I don't like the idea, but of course...for a while now...I'm sure the Apple based systems are easily run headless, with an iSomething (pad, phone, pod) as remote.

 

My faith has been shaken even more, to recently discover there are all kinds of "hacks" for the SBT, supposedly to "unleash" it from stiffled SQ. Things like the volume control and display, affect the SQ...and these hacks can bypass and disable them? So now I'm wondering if maybe it isn't the time to try and see how the other side lives?

 

Can anyone offer up a comparison? iTunes, on its own, has a hi-res limitation, right? That would rule it out for me...but Pure Music overcomes that? As a streamer, any reason the newer, faster Mini's are desirable, or should you go (fleec)eBay shopping, and try to get an old one on the cheap...because it's enough, more than enough, for streaming purposes? What's the cheapest route to go for an iRemote...an old iPod Touch? What about the ATV and/or ATV2, instead of Mac Mini? My guess is it'll do straight iTunes, but not run something like the Pure Music on top of it?

 

Thanks for any help. I know that's a lot of newbie questions, but like I said...I cut my teeth on SBs, and have never used anything else. I'm not unhappy...just curious.

 

CD

 

[tbodin23]

I have essentially the same question - looking forward to what people think on this.

 

[mwheelerk]

iTunes in itself is not limited on high res files. I run 24/96 files and don’t know of any issue in running 24/192. The limitation of iTunes (really Audio Midi Set Up on a Mac OS) is that it does not auto switch between sample rates. This means each time you want to playback either 16/44.1 files or 24/96 files you have to close iTunes, open Audio Midi Set Up, select the appropriate sample rate for the music files you wish to play back and then relaunch iTunes. Pure Music eliminates this step (hassle) and auto switches sample rates but again iTunes will playback high res files itself.

 

Pure Music works together with iTunes. Pure Music when mated to iTunes becomes the media player (versus Quick Time) and control while iTunes acts as the data base manager. You cannot run Pure Music without iTunes. Pure Music provides a free 14 day trial and I would highly recommend you try the demo and then make up your own mind whether PM is right for you.

 

You need a monitor available at some point for set up and importing or downloading new material. I have my HDTV connected via HDMI to my Mac Mini but any monitor would do. For simple day to day playback there are a number of solutions available including iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad with the Apple Remote App. I use the iPad and the functionality though basic gets the job done.

 

One mistake I made was to buy my Mac Mini with the minimum of 2GB of RAM. I recommend a minimum of 4GB of RAM. I ran into some performance issues with the lesser amounts when playing back gapless albums. I have only owned and used the 2010 Mac Mini which seems to be highly thought of in comparison to older versions but I cannot offer any comparisons of the two.

 

Apple TV is where I started my journey with computer audio and although it was a decent place to start it is not the place to be. First and foremost the ATV will not handle high res files so under your criteria this is automatically eliminated.

 

Good Luck

 

[Flac2Dac]

That's a great overview. I was just telling a friend, if I were going to try a MacMini system I was going to start cheap, cheap, cheap; used MM and iSomething for remote. I have to admit, the new MacMini's are sexy...but now you're talking ~$700, plus that RAM upgrade. ~$700 against a $5k transport is a bargain; against the $300 SBT, not so much.

 

Torn right now. SQ and versatility are most important to me. The SQ of the SBT is "fine", but I have no way of knowing if I sense an improvement without trying, right? I mean, not only are there these hacks to open the SBT up (which makes me wonder if it isn't "closed-off" to a certain extent, in its current incarnation)...but then there's the whole s/pdif issue, and moving to a Mac-based system allows me to go USB (I do know there's also a hack to allow SBT to be used with USB output).

 

And don't even get me started on DACs...lol. Do I want to go USB, so I can take advantage of the smooth sounds of like a Tranquility, or prefer the detail and forward soundstage of a W4S? Ugh...were time and money not a consideration...lol.

 

CD

 

[agentsmith]

iTunes/Mac get unfair bad rep

 

>>iTunes, on its own, has a hi-res limitation, right?

 

iTunes on Mac, does not have hi-res limitation. In fact, it is supposed to be bit-perfect and plays up to 24/192 for me. I tested test files with my previous Weiss DAC202 and everything tested OK

 

The (often misunderstood) problem with Mac and iTunes is that you have to make sure that the sampling rate and bit depth is set in Audio MIDI BEFORE iTUnes is loaded. And if you change sampling rate from one track to another, you have to quit iTunes and set Audio Midi and restart iTUnes. And that is a pain.

 

>>...but Pure Music overcomes that?

That, (and Amarra) is another mystery. With no equalization or upsampling applied, both PM and Amarra are bit-prefect and the only way that I know of that would make any player sound better may be the way they use the CPU to minimize electrical interference?? And those benefits are questionable to me at best. I did buy Amarra and sometimes with wild imagination thought there were some differences. Some golden ear friends of mine could hear the differences. I personally am not sure how much of that is suggestive.

 

Those with Golden Ears will have different experience and would call me tin ears. But they will have to explain to me how 2 bit-perfect streams could sound "night and day" different.

 

The main benefit to me of the above software is that they change sampling rate and bit depth automagically not requiring any reloading. But there are now cheap or free sofware like Audirvana, Decibel and Fidelio that do the same thing.

 

>>and has always been taught that iTunes was in fact a terrible ripper.

 

Same here, I've been using EAC religiously for years. But studio extraordinaire/Weiss guru Kent Poon has compared rips from iTunes and EAC and they are identical. Now I have no doubt that with scratchy discs EAC may make better rips. But my experience with EAC is that if a disc is bad it will retry till kingdom come and the rip that comes out is still screwed up anyway. they just cannot fix what is already broken.

 

See link below:

http://designwsound.com/dwsblog/hifi-computer-faq/cas-5-cd-ripping-for-mac-itunes/

 

Pure music may be nice but personally I do not believe it is the panacea for bad sound, unless it like its unsampling and other features.

 

Running headless is a challenge but doable I control my headless mini with another Macbook Pro, the Apple remote and my iPhone. It has its bad points but generally works.

 

Anyway, I would start with iTunes by itself and experiment with the different player options. Make sure you try the cheapo/free ones as well as I struggle to tell them apart with my tin ears.

 

[soundsolutions11]

I have read on CA, in several places at different times, that one has to change the MIDI setting each time the sample rate changes while using Itunes. I have the MIDI docked on the MM desktop and I have the sample rate set to 96/24 all the time. It plays all of the files I have which are standard redbook cd rips in ALAC as I have no Hi rez files yet. So my question to all is; if these lower res files play fine with the MIDI set to the higher sample rate, then it should stand to reason that it will play 96/24 files without a hiccup and no need to change anything?

 

I welcome any feedback!

 

P.S. I noticed when I set the MIDI to the higher sample rate the Itunes files seemed to sound somewhat better than when it was set to a matching 44/16.

 

[realhifi]

Man, that's a lot of hand wringing over a $700 purchase. It's a bargain against a Squeezebox when you don't have any storage in a Squeezebox! I happen to love (and sell) the Squeezebox Touch and think it is a nice product and can bring a ton of music cheaply into a hifi but I really love the Mac Mini and when you think about the flexibilty one gives you to me it's really a no brainer. You then have your music system seperate, can access any other iTunes library easily, can surf the net and purchase music as you listen, listen to any site's clips such as listening to pieces of music before you buy them (on your system!) from sites like Classical Music Online, listen to Pandora or anything you can find on the web such as new web radio stations, the list goes on...

 

Yes, it is a bargain. Look at the functionality of both and then look again. For a main system, it's the Mac Mini. For a bedroom or den system, it's a Squeezebox. You will STILL need a computer to hold your music and Squeezebox software.

 

[Flac2Dac]

those are valid points for some. I have a 20-bay server for video and audio files, so space or storing locally isn't a concern for me.

 

As for your other points, yes; I agree it offers a lot more flexibility. I like the idea of a dynamic range meter, I like the idea of sampling music from certain websites. I'm not so sure I like the idea of a monitor (which I'd need for some of the niceties of PM or Amarra, etc).

 

But most important, is SQ...and if it doesn't obviously best an SBT in that regard, then that requires some thought. Call it hand-wringing if you like (and I don't deny that), but $700 is still $700; that's just about the difference between my current EE and a W4S...lol.

 

Plus, I've always been one of those guys...right or wrong...that felt like the transport was (mostly) irrelevant; my attitude has been "just get the file there"...the real magic happens in the DAC. Following that philosophy, I'd rather spend $700 on a DAC upgrade than a transport upgrade.

 

Now...is $700 worth spending on the convenience and flexibility factor? Maybe...but that's more of a "hand-wringer", than if the consensus was it sounds better, and it's more flexible.

 

CD

 

[realhifi]

To my ears it is clearly better. I have all of the Squeezebox products and most of Apples offerings and to my ears the Mac Mini and MacBook pro are better. That is without using any Pure Music or anything with them stacked up against the Touch. Your mileage may vary.

 

For even better sound the Naim line of streamer, dacs, amps that use U/PnP are better yet. They take the data from wireless or (better) Cat5-6 and then their dac feeds it to their analog circuit. Not as convenient but WAY better sonics.

 

Don't get me wrong, I dig the Touch. The Mac is just better.

You can use a VNC program with an iPad in your hand if you don't want a monitor also. Clean as a whistle and beautiful control.

 

[gadget geek]

Hello all.

 

Long time viewer, now a member!

 

I own a Squeezebox Touch (SBT) connected to an Arcam rDac via digital coax, which is connected to a Rotel 1570 processor. I'm thrilled with the sound quality of the SBT. I was also debating using a Mac Mini as my digital player of choice. However, I found the SBT works flawlessly with great fidelity. Thus, I find this thread very interesting.

 

RealhiFi, when you say to your ears the Mini and MacBook pro sound better, are you using the analog output of the SBT? Or are you using an external DAC? I own a MacBook Pro and MacPro with stock sound cards. To my ears, as a transport, I can't detect any significant differences.

 

 

 

[realhifi]

To my ears I think it is better using a MacBook Pro USB output into a Dac than a digital out of a Squeezebox Touch. Better yet is streaming UpNP into a streamer therefore bypassing all digital connections.

 

[gadget geek]

Hello there.

 

I just finished up comparing the sound of the Logitech SBT with the MacBook Pro 2010 i7 as a transport. I was intrigued by the fact that many people feel the Apple products sound superior to the Logitech device. Since I own most of the products involved, I figured it would be a worthwhile exercise.

 

The equipment:

MacBook Pro mid 2010 i7

Logitech Squeezebox Touch

Arcam rDac connected to multi-analog input of Rotel 1570 preamp/processor

Amplification - Rotel 1077

Speakers: PSB Synchrony One Full Range

No Subwoofer connected, no other D/A processing engaged.

 

I should note that I connected the MacBook Pro to my Arcam rDac via USB while the SBT was connected via coax digital. I created a playlist of Apple Lossless music files, started playback of both sources simultaneously, and then switched between inputs for serval hours and did some serious listening. I had 3 other "serious" audiophile friends

listen. One other person simply switched the digital input on the Arcam device as we wrote down what device sounded superior to us.

 

Our intent of this test was to see if we could accurately determine whether it was the Squeezebox Touch or MacBook Pro playing the lossless files through the Arcam and if so, which one sounded superior.

 

Now...I understand my testing had flaws. Basically you want to use the same connection type, same cable (USB vs digital Coax), etc. However I wanted to see whether it was worth my investment to look at using the MacMini as a transport.

 

The Overall Result....nobody could accurately pinpoint which device sounded superior.

As a matter of fact, it was our opinion that it was very difficult to discern any differences.

Yes audio is subjective, but in this case....4 enthusiastic audiophiles could not accurately identify or pinpoint a flavour to either the SBT or the MacBook Pro.

 

Anyways...my point here is not to argue or strengthen my theory that the SBT is worth the money. I will be ordering a new MacMini once its refreshed this year. The fact that you can store your music on the drive, use it as a movie server with plex, etc is very compelling.

However in my opinion and 3 of my friends who spend lots of $$$ on equipment, the Logitech SqueezeBox touch is every bit as good sound wise as a transport of digital audio for an external DAC.

 

[soundsolutions11]

I have found very much the same results as you report on here in my own system. I have a SB Classic with higher end RCA cables (Kimber Hero) hooked to an analogue 2 channel pre amp (PS Audio GCP) with no DAC between the two. I also have the SB Classic hooked up to my Krell HT 7.1 using Digital coax (The Dacs are quite good in this unit).

 

I have my mid 2007 Mac Mini with Itunes/ALAC files with the mini toslink to my Krell. I can easily switch between the 3 different sources for comparisons. I have found that the SB Classic’s DAC’s are quite good and just about the same SQ as the Digital out of the SB3 into the Krell (with the edge in sound going to the Krell DAC’s) The SQ is really more “different” than one being much worse than the other. The MAC mini outputs very clean sound into the Krell HT 7.1 and the SQ is slightly better but I would not say substantially better.

 

I also have a higher end Meridian up-sample CD player which cost in the mid $4K range when purchased back in 2006, and I can say that the CD player is a slight improvement over the SB Classic (either output) and the Mac Mini is equal to the CD player. The Mini is a much better component in my opinion because of all of the other advantages and less cost over a higher end CD transport. I rarely use the CD player anymore because there is really no advantage to searching for and loading one disc at a time.

 

Do I think I could get better sound than I currently enjoy, the answer is yes but I am not willing to spend thousands more to do so. The changes I will make will be; selling the Meridian and getting an external DAC which I am sure will increase the SQ for all sources. Also I am going to upgrade to the SB touch for the better DAC’s over the SB Classic, as I have internet radio going almost all day as background music while I work in the Home office, I love the internet radio that you get with the SB and for the price it is nice to not need the computer on to enjoy high quality sound. I will upgrade the software player side of the Mini (not sure which way to go yet), lastly, I will start purchasing some HI-Rez material (as I have none at this time).

 

Audio is much like wine- different flavors for different tastes!

 

Amp- Bryston 4BST

Speakers- Martin Logan Ascent I

 

 

[Quaternione]

I am at a similar point. Being used to so-called high-end audio gear (read expensive), i have started to look into streaming for the convenience it has. Instead of re-investing tons of Euros into Linn's solution I wanted to start cheap to find out about all this PC stuff. In fact i am currently streaming music from my windows pc via ATV2 to my Mark Levinson CD Player which has a DAC I can connect other stuff to.

The result is surprisingly good. Not as good as a CD but close.

Now I am wondering where to improve? Where is my money well invested? How important is the soundcard e.g.? Does it make a difference at all inthis setup as the data ist streamed over WiFi? Is the music player important? I guess with ATV I am bound to iTunes anyway. Not too sure how this works.

One of these days, when high resolution audio files are more common, I will look into an external 24 Bit capable DAC such as the Musical Fidelity M1.

Any suggestions are very much appreciated

Volkmar

 

[Jud]

First and foremost: Streaming? I don't know how many of the Mac audiophile players do that. Everything that follows is about playing ripped CDs, because that's my own experience (though all the players and equipment do at least 96/24, and some will do up to 192/24).

 

- Pure Music: You'll also want to listen to very good alternative audiophile players for Mac - Audirvana and Decibel. (My personal preference for SQ is Audirvana, after extensive listening to it, Pure Music, and Decibel.)

 

- USB: The USB interface in and of itself is worse for jitter than S/PDIF. The best way to get rid of USB jitter that I'm aware of is through asynchronous USB, which takes control of the timing of the data away from the sending computer's USB interface. The three (relative) budget choices here are Musical Fidelity's V-Link, about $170, which I have and like very much; the M2Tech Hiface, in the same general price range; and the Halide Design Bridge, which is more expensive but incorporates its own USB cable, eliminating that cost for you.

 

- Mac Mini: Have a look at Apple's own refurbished store. Excellent manufacturer-guaranteed products at very reasonable prices.

 

- Remote: iPhone, iPod or iPad will work to control all the audiophile players through various means.

 

- My own experience with the SBT is limited to a few minutes' listening at my cousin's house as her husband showed it off. He has a good system that I've heard before, but I was relatively unimpressed with the SBT's contribution to it. His reason for liking it is acceptable sound quality combined with tremendous convenience.

 

[bixby]

First Pure Music does not stream, period, so you must use a program that does like itunes. Second the Logitech Touch was easily outclassed sonically by a Macbook in my system (very good and resolving but not stratospheric in cost). As for streaming, the Logitech Touch is leaps and bounds better than the older Apple TV and does fairly good in a second system with it's analog outs. Better using digital out into a better dac. Remember you are using squeeze server as the software not itunes, pure music or any other stand alone player.

 

So if streaming is your priority the Touch may be the way to go but if sound quality overall is your priority then a Mac based server and good ancillary components will beat it.

 

cheers

 

[Paul R]

Natively, Pure Music supports streaming up to 24/192K. See the manual regarding NetSend.

 

To be honest, I have a Logitech Squeezebox Duet here, and streaming CD quality sound, it does not sound any better than the Airport Express to me.

 

Certainly if you feed it to a modest DAC, an Airport Express sounds really good with redbook material.

 

-Paul

 

 

[bixby]

Sorry, forgot about netsend, like an average person like me could ever figure that out!

 

BTW the Touch via dac is much better in my systems than the ATV even through a good dac. Just depends on the systems I guess.

 

[Paul R]

I still have processor hogging issues with Pure Music, and NetSend will add to that. The fans on a MacBook can get really loud!

 

Amarra streams with Rouge Ameoba's Airfoil very nicely, but Amarra has troubles with gapless playback in both Mini and the Full version. At least so far as I can tell it does.

 

-Paul

 

 

[bixby]

My fans have not turned on in my Macbook in 3 years of using as a music server, then again that is all it does.

 

Heard about issues with Amarra, my friend just kicked it to the curb because of that and is now using decibel.

 

[Paul R]

Naw, the Macbook is even running a fresh load of MacOS. Well, other than remote desktop and file sharing access. Just iTunes and PM, or iTunes and Amarra.

 

Amarra does not ever make the fans startup, but with Pure Music, it gets warm and the fans start kicking in. This is especially true if you allow PM to up-sample, but even still true even without.

 

Of course, the Macbook only has 4gigs in it, and is driving a USB powered V-Link device and a self powered set of firewire drives.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

[Jud]

My fans have not turned on in my Macbook in 3 years

 

Mine either in over a year of use.

 

BTW, Audirvana also works with Airfoil. I do wonder about the effect on SQ of another program running, though. With "top," Airfoil shows substantial amounts of memory and CPU usage while it's running.

 

[bixby]

When I boot the Macbook i automatically loads Squeeze server so It can stream to my office if I want to listen in there. But I have found at least with Pure Music that when listening to the Macbook directly, it is much better to quit the Squeeze server application.

 

If the SQ-server app is on in background the whole soundstage collapses to a rather 2 dimensional and less effective illusion of music.

 

EDIT: Jeepers we have gotten this thread off track, sorry, I'll shut up now.

 

[gmgraves]

You might be right. But I have to ask: Is your opinion of the Squeezebox Touch's sound quality arrived at via the Touch's built-in DAC, or via an outboard DAC? The reason I ask is because I find the Touch sound mediocre through it's own DAC, but superlative through the 24/192 dual differential up-sampling DAC in my HK990 integrated amp. I also have both the new and the old Apple TV. The old one sounded better (again with an outboard DAC) than does the new one, both with ALC files from iTunes and from streaming Internet radio sources. And, I find the sound quality of the Squeezebox Touch through the same outboard DAC to be better than either of the AppleTV boxes (and I find it more reliable as well). Of course, the Touch is more convenient to use than the AppleTVs because you don't need the bloody tele turned on in order to operate the blooming thing. It also streams 24/96 with much less falderall than with the Apple products. One merely has to place an alias of one's hi-res files in the same folder as the iTunes files, and point the touch to that file in order for the hi-res stuff to show up in the same library as one's iTunes files. It's much more difficult with the Apple stuff. I am generally an Apple booster, and while AppleTV's main charter is as a video server, it's nice that they include music support, but one must admit that it is an afterthought. All-in-all I much prefer the Squeezebox Touch. It's a great product and easily bests music servers from much more expensive makers.

 

[gmgraves]

Yes, you are right. I too have found that the Touch, through a decent outboard DAC is better sounding than (either of) the ATVs