audio streamer recommendations - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

post #1 of 23 (permalink) Old 2013-12-06, 07:34 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 77
audio streamer recommendations

Hello, folks.

I was wondering if anyone has a good recommendation for a device that's similar to the old Squeezebox that sadly isn't made anymore. I have a Squeezebox on my main hi-fi system and love it. I'd love another one, or something similar for the bedroom.

It should be able to playback 24/96 flac files and be capable of wi-fi. I don't care if it has any local storage but it should do dlna to tap into media servers on my computer.

The other thing is that I don't want to spend a thousand dollars on a Cambridge Audio or NAD unit. I'd love to buy another Logitech Squeezebox but I'm having difficulty finding one for a decent price that they will ship to Canada.

Thanks for any recommendations.
Wayde
Wayde is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 23 (permalink) Old 2013-12-06, 11:10 AM
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 796
You might still be able to get your hands on another Squeezebox, I've seen them at Audio Oasis (Queen st East, Toronto) or via Craigslist.

If not the Sonos seems like a popular option. Me I use AirPlay (AppleLossless same quality as flac).

I used to use Squeezebox's too, my Synology NAS still supports them as a streaming server. One possible scenario might be using a NAS running Squeezeserver and putting a USB audio adapter on the NAS and plug it into a pair of powered speakers like the Audioengine A2+. Not tested by me but just a thought.

Bill
My blog
blueroomelectro is offline  
post #3 of 23 (permalink) Old 2013-12-06, 11:27 AM
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Milton
Posts: 721
Check out the Denon DNP-720AE. I believe that is what you are looking for. They are hard to find in Canada. It will cost you $400-$500 in Canada, but you can order it from Crutchfield USA right now on sale for $300USD.

There are also Dune HD media players. They range in price from $300 to $600USD. They can be ordered directly from their website. The Dune HD Base 3D player would probably be the cheapest option that meets all your needs at $300 US.

edit: Dune HD Media player http://dune-hd.com/eng/products/full_hd_media_players

Denon DNP-720ae http://ca.denon.com/ca/Product/Pages...c-c045219d6cb4
jokeDR is offline  
 
post #4 of 23 (permalink) Old 2013-12-06, 11:51 AM
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 60
I'm not sure if Sonos meets all your requirements but it will play FLAC. A buddy of my has a fair number of their devices and is quite happy with it.
FuzzyLogic is offline  
post #5 of 23 (permalink) Old 2013-12-06, 11:54 AM
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 796
The Denon DNP-720AE is an DNLA / AirPlay receiver (looks quite nice though). Won't do anything for Squeezebox. I use an AirPort Express as an cheap AirPlay receiver (also doubles as a WiFi extender).

Bill
My blog
blueroomelectro is offline  
post #6 of 23 (permalink) Old 2013-12-06, 12:00 PM
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Milton
Posts: 721
come again?
jokeDR is offline  
post #7 of 23 (permalink) Old 2013-12-06, 12:39 PM
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 796
My mistake, OP did mention DNLA

Bill
My blog
blueroomelectro is offline  
post #8 of 23 (permalink) Old 2013-12-06, 12:41 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 3,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayde
playback 24/96 flac files
Since humans can't hear the difference, what benefit does this provide at the expense of the extra storage requirements?

If you subtract that requirement, there are plenty more options available.
audacity is offline  
post #9 of 23 (permalink) Old 2013-12-06, 01:02 PM
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by audacity View Post
Since humans can't hear the difference, what benefit does this provide at the expense of the extra storage requirements?

If you subtract that requirement, there are plenty more options available.
At the risk of starting some audiophile squabble I'd have to agree. I use a high bitrate true VBR AAC and I have a decent audio system and I can't tell the difference from lossless.

Bill
My blog
blueroomelectro is offline  
post #10 of 23 (permalink) Old 2013-12-07, 08:11 AM
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SaskTel
Posts: 1,101
I'm guessing that the requirement is so he doesn't have to rerip his entire collection
Tikker is offline  
post #11 of 23 (permalink) Old 2013-12-07, 09:57 AM
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 991
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueroomelectro View Post
At the risk of starting some audiophile squabble...
I find it good common sense.
Considering the (low) price of external storage, I believe lossless ripping is a good idea.
I'd apply it to Blu-ray ripping, too...
four is offline  
post #12 of 23 (permalink) Old 2013-12-07, 01:23 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 3,370
Sure, but was primarily referring to about ripping lossless vs ripping lossless at 24/96. But in principle this point also applies to lossy vs lossless. If humans can't tell the difference in controlled testing, why bother wasting the space?

Quote:
Originally Posted by four
I find it good common sense.
Considering the (low) price of external storage, I believe lossless ripping is a good idea.
Sure, a 2TB HDD is cheap, and has been for a while. But there are other considerations. The storage in your phone isn't cheap. If you went from a 16GB iPhone to a 32GB iPhone you paid $100 for that, and that space could quickly be eaten up by the unnecessarily large files you're taking with you.

Now, one could make a argument that "hey, it's worth it because 24/96 sounds better", and I'm aware that people have made that claim before. The funny thing is, people seem to be able tell a difference until you start doing scientific testing. Then, somehow, their ability to tell the difference seems to vanish that day. I guess it's like being psychic, people think it works until you try to claim a prize.

Anyway, the OP could only be wasting cheap disk space for his excessively large audio files. But he could also be wasting disk space and wasting flash memory on mobile devices and wasting mobile bandwidth if he stores his audio on cloud services (where your player is playing your cloud collection). And we know it's limiting his selection of audio players since the best ones like Sonos don't support 24/96 FLAC.

If he were to drop the 24/96 FLAC thing, not only would he have a lot more choice in the music player department, but he would get a lot other benefits, especially if he likes to listen to his music when he leaves the house. Or if he wants to upgrade from the defunct Squeezebox products.
audacity is offline  
post #13 of 23 (permalink) Old 2013-12-07, 01:44 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 991
Who was talking about mobile playback and why should it be under consideration?

The point was: keeping the original copy (or losslessly compressed one) is cheap enough!

Smartphones are such a garbage audio playback medium, 64kbps MP3 would a waste of space.
Keeping such copy of your whole audio library for these very purposes would be a rounding error is storage needed...
four is offline  
post #14 of 23 (permalink) Old 2013-12-07, 02:04 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 3,370
Because I find it's easier to have one well organized and tagged audio collection, and have it synced with stuff like Google Music, various devices, and Sonos. That way, I find a audio format/bitrate combo that is efficient and standard (192kbps mp3) while still sounding great.

Then I don't need to transcode before moving my files.

Oh, and I can easily tell the difference between 64kbps mp3 and 128kbps mp3 on my phone when it's through my car or through any sort of headphones or ear buds. Above 160kbps is about where I can't hear the difference any more. And from the tests I've seen, that's pretty much where everyone stops hearing the difference. But I put the bitrate up at 192kbps "just to be sure" for my collection.
audacity is offline  
post #15 of 23 (permalink) Old 2013-12-07, 02:31 PM
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kanata, Ontario.
Posts: 462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayde View Post
I was wondering if anyone has a good recommendation for a device that's similar to the old Squeezebox that sadly isn't made anymore. I have a Squeezebox on my main hi-fi system and love it. I'd love another one, or something similar for the bedroom.
Another company is making dedicated Squeezebox players now: OpenSqueeze Solo

So far they just have the one model akin to the Squeezebox Solo. If you're looking for a SB Radio or Boom you'll probably just have to setup a Kijiji alert and hope that one comes up for sale in your area.

Adventures in Canadian Cord Cutting: http://www.canadiancordcutting.com/
rosenqui is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome