Sooloos music server: Anyone hear, anyone a dealer

The Sooloos was being used in a number of rooms and was very impressive. The touch screen interface is superb. It is dramatically more responsive and than most touch screens. The GUI is also the best I have ever seen. I understand that they get the software from AMG Tapestry?

The downside is that they are very expensive. The attention to making good sound is there, but isn't offering performance beyond what you could do with a carefully chosen computer setup and the right associated gear. It's really the excellent touch screen interface, superb GUI, impressive aluminum chassis metal work, and lack of build-it-yourself headaches that you are paying for.

They have the main big system for around $12-13K which can hold up to 3 TB mirrored using off the shelf hard drives housed in their chassis. That includes the beautiful and big touch screen with the CD drive built in to the base.

There is a more basic system that they announced with a max of 1 TB of storage and the same interface and touch screen for around $7K.

Very expensive but very nice. I wanted one.

I had the opportunity to see one, but not hear it, in a prestigious hifi store whose name I chose not to disclose. The store manager told me that downloading playback material in bit form without carriers (CD's, etc.) is definitely the direction in which the industry is going, because that is the direction where their clients are going. They are finished with talking about quality, it appears. This thing is all about functionality but not about the sound.

When they sell a unit, they then take the 5-10 suitcase-full collections of CD's from the clients and rip them to the sooloos hard drives. They charge $5-$7 a rip! There's a lot of money involved in this! And the clients either do not care, or think (for some reason...) that they are going to get good sound.

For example, the unit I saw did not feature clock in for digitally slaving. That is a missing link if you are looking for quality, even if only through a PLL for software on-the-fly sampling rate choice. We are in, what, 2008, and this is hifi? It isn't.

"super low-jitter design ( < 1 nanosecond)" -- This is just plain embarrassing. That's about 900 times more Jitter than what the state of the art is worried about, and probably comparable to any old 80's CD player which has been out in the rain.

Add to that Jitter the fact that if you want to add an external converter, it will be in slave mode to it, and you are in for some serious low-fi.

About the graphics: honestly, I felt as though I was browsing on Amazon for a CD. The playlist looked frighteningly the same. The search looked frighteningly the same. Then there is a feature where you hook up the thing to a LAN connection and call in support for a software upgrade. The implications are that in future they will offer you to download tracks for money from iTunes (good business scenario), or if they are successful, from their own sooloos.com music download store (excellent business scenario), where they'd get not only money per download, but they'd actually be able to scan what is being played how often in each home that has one. Even what the kids play as compared to what the parents listen to. It is like the web running Amazon search with business tentacles that reach out of your home computer's screen into your bedroom, into your snoring wife's brain to scan the dreams there in order to recommend to her more music she's bound to like.

It's all about controlling the user's music expenditures while making the user feel more in power than ever before.

It is also about catering to people who don't want to set up a home computer for audio, because they don't have time, or don't like the looks.

I don't mind the product. Don't get me wrong. I just don't like the marketing that makes it sound like progressive technology in terms of quality, when in fact the only progressive thing is the business venture idea of screening your music playback and pooling the data for business executives to see trends, maximize profits, etc. Basically, you are then a terminal hooked up to the boundless internet, which somebody will control. It is a PC with good looks and in the end, none of the freedom.

At least there is no fan noise, so that's nice.

Liudas

lessloss, interesting perspective from someone in the business. I am also a little surprised by your comments of sound quality, when you admit you have never heard the unit before.

I was told I could just transfer my already converted lossless files over to the system. There is a computer program that comes with it.

I was also told that you should use it with a stand alone DAC, if you want the highest quality play back.

In the end however, your comments about jitter and master/slave is not only a complaint about the Sooloos, but based on your website, your overall complaint on most digital players, lacking a clock input.

I have no idea what this is all about:
"Don't get me wrong. I just don't like the marketing that makes it sound like progressive technology in terms of quality, when in fact the only progressive thing is the business venture idea of screening your music playback and pooling the data for business executives to see trends, maximize profits, etc. Basically, you are then a terminal hooked up to the boundless internet, which somebody will control. It is a PC with good looks and in the end, none of the freedom."

One doesn't need to necessarily hear a digital playback system in order to tell (ball-park assessment) the quality level. It suffices to look at some of the data that is published. Of course, the data only has this correlation to sound quality once one has heard many, many other devices or tweaks of devices and has a grasp for the correlation between lowered Jitter and sound quality.

So, hearing that there is less than 1 Nanosecond of jitter (that is tons and tons -- and that's why people are saying that transports are better in sound quality (see another thread here) and then that you have to slave a DAC to this Master Digital source for "best sound quality" is simply naive. It is not anywhere near best sound quality and I take issue with such a formulation. It is actually worse in a Jitter sense. It is only better in the DAC schematic sense, so there is a trade-off and to use the term "better quality" is, for me, another way of saying "more gear, different sound, somewhat better, but by far not as good as it could be".

I'm trying to think of a proper analogy to clarify my point. I guess it it would be like going up to a 55 year old established concert pianist and, straight to his face, say: "I have this excellent sounding Steinway. It doesn't have a soundboard, though, and the body is made out of cardboard, but it achieves the best possible sound quality nonetheless." The pianist would look at you and walk away, without even playing the piano.

There are some things which need not be heard in order to be understood right off the bat.

I am up against common Jitter marketing which is quickly taking over the minds of many audiophiles. It may sound improbable when someone says they can tell "how a unit sounds" without having heard it. I don't know how it sounds, but I know what that kind of Jitter sounds like. Sounds like computer audio.

Liudas