Slim Devices Squeezebox2 Wireless Music Server Review

[Audioholics]

<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2><A href="http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/SlimDevicesSqueezebox2p1.php"><IMG style="WIDTH: 115px; HEIGHT: 100px" alt=[squeezebox2] hspace=10 src="http://www.audioholics.com/news/thumbs/squeezebox2_th.jpg" align=left border=0></A>Since the introduction of their SLIMP3 system in 2001, Slim Devices has captured the hearts of audio enthusiasts everywhere by producing affordable, scalable solutions that focus solely on audio. Their newest development, the Squeezebox2, is the next product from a company that appears to be focused on continually improving its product platform. The Squeezebox2 is not a video server, it doesn't display your photos or have TV outputs for on-screen display. It focuses solely on serving audio to an external powered system, whether located in your office, bedroom, or home theater. In addition, the Squeezebox2 seems dedicated to maximizing audio quality and providing a flexible interface that has room to grow and adapt to new formats.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>[Read the Review]</FONT></P>

 

[mawst95]

Question:

So this thing streams music wirelessly from your computer through your wireless router, through the squeezebox and into your receiver?

You mention MP3's and I assume these are played from your computuer and output wirelessly? What about if you play a CD or DVD-A from your computers DVD drive? Will it take the audio from the computers disk drive and output the audio wirelessly? Maybe I'm way off on what this thing does.

 

[Audioholics]

It takes audio from your PC (and yes, it could be WAV, AIFF or FLAC files - so good quality source files in addition to MP3, ogg, etc) and outputs it (analog or digital) into your stereo or home theater system.

It does not have inputs, so anything you want to play has to be "ripped" first and sourced from a PC.

It is wired or wireless so it can tie into your network via Ethernet cable or via an existing wireless b/g network. It also plays Internet Radio and can stream RSS feeds... this is all in the review

For $249 it is very cool indeed.

 

[MBauer]

Thanks Clint

The SqueezeBox is the player I have had my eye on as it seems to be a great combination of performance and cost. So the timing of your review is excellent. I think in my case having excess equipment around (receivers, etc) it is a better choice than the Sonos unit previously reviewed. It will be great to read your codec review. Keep up the great work and thanks again!

 

[FLMike]

The lossless via wireless makes it for me

Yes, I agree with Clint that this is a very cool product, especially considering the price. I particularly like the fact that you can stream lossless, bit-perfect music via wireless to your receiver reliably (assuming you don't have a crowded wireless LAN, of course) because they have modified the device to use the 802.11g standard rather than the less reliable/smaller bandwidth 802.11b.

If you have your collection saved to your PC in lossless format, and you use the optical or coax digital out to connect to your receiver or an outboard DAC you don't need a CD Changer or player in the room (ok, that statement will probably get me shot!) for standard CD's. And you don't sacrifice any quality in the process.

 

[sleepysurf]

Nice review, but I think Clint barely scratched the surface on all the features of this device, and the SlimServer software. I've been using a Squeezebox2 in my higher end system for a couple months now, and am more in awe with it every day. Streaming MP3 (or other compressed formats) files makes little sense, unless you just want a high-tech boombox. It really "sings" when streaming FLAC (lossless) files, and decoding them on the fly, to generate bit-perfect CD-quality sound. SlimDevices has taken special measures to ensure they deliver an "audiophile" experience for those of us demanding such, while still incorporating lossy file support for everyone else. I certainly hope he updates his review after listening to lossless FLAC (or WAV) files, compared to CD.

Also, IMHO, the alphanumeric remote control is actually a marvel of form and function, and rivals a "Tivo" remote in overall usability.

Their SqueezeNetwork is now up and running (beta), and offers direct Internet Radio streams without even needing a PC.

I do agree there is a (current) lack of support documentation, and you really have to surf their online Forum to get answers. However, there are few tech companies that I know of where the CEO personally monitors the support forum, and jumps right in to answer questions!

Overall, the Squeezebox2 offers superb fidelity and ease of use, and great value, compared to it's competition. I can't wait to see what new features they introduce in the future.

FYI... for Apple devotees, here's a Squeezebox2 Review, from a Mac perspective...
http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/articles/slimdevices/

 

[furrycute]

I am still confused as to how music from the PC gets to the squeeze box.

1) Via analog output from the PC soundcard? or
2) Are the music files transferred to the squeeze box, and then decoded inside the squeeze box, and outputed to an outboard receiver?

What kind of output does the squeeze box have? Analog out and/or digital out?

Thanks for the help.

 

[sh0]

The Squeezebox connects via your home network to the SlimServer (on a PC) which streams the audio file to the Squeezebox. The Squeezebox then plays the file through either analog or digital outputs. The SlimServer PC does not need a sound card. If I understand the question correctly, the audio is not transmitted over the network, just the file.

At the time I purchased my Squeezebox (not Squeezebox2), it was the only player that could connect wired or wirelessly, output analog or digital audio, and where the server software could run on free operating systems like *BSD or Linux. I haven't tried the server software on anything other than Windows and FreeBSD, but the software is provided in the FreeBSD ports system so it was easy to install and keep updated. Like the article says, the flexibility of the system is one of it's major advantages.

Also, one of the advantages of streaming the file (instead of just using file sharing like another player whose name I can't recall), the server can do things like synchronize multiple Squeezeboxes to play the same thing simultaneously. I have only tried synching a single Squeezebox and the software version SoftSqueeze running on another PC - it's not always perfect but it's pretty cool.

 

[Stefan]

Wireless streaming performance

Once question, did you test the unit using a 11g wireless setup? The reason I am asking I have a 11b wireless router and a laptop in the house with built in 11b that wirelessly connects to my home network. I am very interested in the squeezebox but am worried about streaming lossless audio across a 11b wireless network i.e. will it handle the bandwidth? Due to the way things are set up in my house (file serving PC downstairs, laptop and home theater/stereo upstairs) I will not be able to wire the squeezebox to my PC. I am not interested in streaming heavily compressed MP3s for fidelity reasons.

I could upgrade to a 11g network but that would mean a new router and a plugin card for my laptop, added cost that I would rather avoid.

One thing you didn't mention in the review which is an interesting feature of the squeezebox is that it also has a wireless bridge option i.e. it has a network port that you can use to connect wired devices (like an Xbox for example) to your network using the squeezebox.

 

[SilverMK3]

Assuming that you can get a strong signal from your router to your squeezebox, your 11 Megabit 802.11b network should have a theoretical maximum transfer rate of 1.3 Megabytes per second. That should be more than enough bandwidth to stream any type of audio file and you still have a large 64MB buffer on the squeezebox to compensate for any network congestion or dips in available bandwidth.

 

[m1abrams]

Wireless 802.11b performance.

I have a Squeezebox (not a Squeezebox2), and I stream only FLAC. On the originally squeezebox most people said that 11b was just barely enough bandwidth to stream FLAC, I never had issues but I had a pretty reliable 11b setup with good signal.

However the SB2 should be much much better at the task of wireless FLAC for many reasons I will try to lay them out here.

1. SB2 has more buffer space (i think 2x or maybe even more), this will give you more reliablity in network hiccups.
2. SB2 can decode FLAC natively, SB1 could only handle raw PCM and therefor the server had to decode the FLAC to pcm which more or less doubles the bandwidth needs. This is a two-fold win, you have half the bandwidth need and the apparent size of you buffer above almost doubles.
3. If you do have a G network you have more bandwidth, however improvements 1 and 2 pretty negate the need of the extra bandwidth.

So I would guess if you have a Squeezebox2 on an 11b network you should be ok. Note that with my squeezebox 1 streaming PCM requires ~1.4Mbit/s, streaming FLAC should require about 700-900Kbit/sec sustained avg. Unless your 11b network is pretty bad you should be able to hit those numbers.

 

[Stefan]

The router is located directly beneath the TV/stereo setup on different floors so they are only about 12 feet or so apart and my laptop is happy with a strong signal in that area. In theory it should all work just fine. I am just wondering if someone actually tried this in practice.

I guess I will find out when I actually get the box.

Edit: m1abrams beat me to the post, I am convinced. I am ordering one today.

 

[sleepysurf]

I am using Wireless B, with my Squeezebox2 located ~75 ft from my wireless router. I run SlimServer on my home office laptop, with wired ethernet connection, but have tried it wirelessly as well, and it works fine. One caveat... wireless B (and G) use the 2.4 GHz spectrum, same as many wireless phones, which could lead to interference. I do get dropouts in sound when our microwave is running, but then the music stream starts back up on its own.

 

[cbecker33]

I just bought the d-link dsm-320 . I purchased this because I:

1. Didn't need a display, this will be hooked up to my HT (I'll use TV as display)

2. Also wanted to stream video.

The d-link has both a digital audio out and a composite video out. I'll let you know how it goes when I get it hooked up. (might be a couple weeks, I'm moving again)

Chris

 

[furrycute]

Seems like there are 2 methods of streaming music.

1) Use the USB connection on the PC to connect to an external soundcard, then use the soundcard's optical out to connect to an external DAC.

2) Use of a PC with Squeezebox.

Has anyone done a comparison in terms of sound quality?

Of course with option 1 you have to control music playback from the PC.

 

[legacy]

I also have a d-link dsm-320 which is the best of these devices I've had featurewise (I wish it had hdtv support for displaying photos). I particular like the option to browse by folders, since my collection is largely wav files with no id3 tagging of course.

My question:
I'm sure the Squeezebox has better performance via analog outputs than my dsm-320. I use the coax digital output on the dsm 320 into my Receiver (denon 3805) however. Would the Squeezbox2 still have an edge here or since the receiver is doing the decoding does it matter?

 

[sleepysurf]

I'm sure the Squeezebox has better performance via analog outputs than my dsm-320. I use the coax digital output on the dsm 320 into my Receiver (denon 3805) however. Would the Squeezbox2 still have an edge here or since the receiver is doing the decoding does it matter?

SB2 might still have an edge in that it a) has a large 64 Meg data buffer b) decodes FLAC files on the fly (saves network bandwidth). IMHO, the open source flexibility of the SB2, SlimServer, SqueezeNetwork combo is a big plus as well, but not necessarily in audio quality.

 

[krabapple]

From the review:

" Simply put, I will be writing an upcoming review comparing CODECs. For now, I simply recommend that people stay away from standard MP3 encoding, regardless of the bitrate, if they desire high fidelity playback of their music."

Mr. DeBoer, this is simply irresponsible. I hope your upcoming review has some good blind comparison results to back this claim up. Meanwhile, there's lots of double blind codec results at hydrogenaudio.org that *don't* back up your sweeping suggestion. My own experience , and my own tests of others, don't back it up either. Well-done MP3s *can* be audibly transparent to their sources, to listeners comparing them under blind conditions. Large audible differences such as you describe, if verified by blind testing, would be an indication of *poor* encoding or decoding, or *very* difficult-do-encode source music.

I've owned the Squeezebox btw and it's a terrific device. But FWIW these days, since I got a Pioneer AVR with a USB input, I run a USB cable directly out to my receiver's USB input, and use foobar2K as my server software.

 

[Audioholics]

Mr. DeBoer, this is simply irresponsible. I hope your upcoming review has some good blind comparison results to back this claim up. Meanwhile, there's lots of double blind codec results at hydrogenaudio.org that *don't* back up your sweeping suggestion. My own experience , and my own tests of others, don't back it up either. Well-done MP3s *can* be audibly transparent to their sources, to listeners comparing them under blind conditions. Large audible differences such as you describe, if verified by blind testing, would be an indication of *poor* encoding or decoding, or *very* difficult-do-encode source music.

I would be happy to also test various encoders, however I think your are confusing CODECs with MP3-style compression in general. I have found that using the straight MP3 codec is horrendous, regardless of bitrate or encoding software. It is possible that on non-revealing speakers (perhaps computer speakers) it is not readily discernable. On fairly accurate speakers it is quite audible, and (in my opinion) the difference can likely be noticed with 100% accuracy by half-deaf lab rats.

Again, I am not bashing all compression formats, thus the indication that a detailed review and article on CODECs is needed. I am guessing that you have found some compression codecs to be satisfactory - and that is exactly what I would like to test for in a forthcoming article.

But I stand by my statement 110%. People should use ogg vorbis or another codec as the defaul MP3 codec produces very sub-par material. Better yet, if you have the space go for a lossless format like FLAC.

 

[furrycute]

I did a comparison between Minidisc and CD sound quality. I purchased an original soundtrack CD, and copied it to a minidisc. On a Sony shelf stereo system, compared to the CD, the minidsc gave a decidedly narrower soundstage. But this could be due to encoding. As I did the copying from CD to minidisc using the minidisc recorder. I didn't have a standalone shelf minidisc recorder (which I heard usually does better encoding).