Logitech Squeezebox sound compared to CD Player

Most of the info on that blob appears to be pure conjecture.

Could not find anything that discounted wireless.

The things I read that might make a predictable difference is choice of ic out, and nothing shocking there and maybe power supply but I would not expect much difference from that.

wireless has nothing to do with it imho. many of us get outstanding results wireless. bits be bits right? LOL!

once again, it's all about what you're using and how it's put together. set-up is what it boils down to. that being said.... seems like the obvious and most logical way to improve an inexpensive digital front is by upgrading the dac. it's almost like the situation with the ipod and the dac bypass docs available (wadia ect..). upgrading the dac processing makes a world of difference when compared to the on-board dac in the ipod (uncompressed downloads or similar).

cheers

I didn't say the wireless was veiled. I had said the squeezebox touch is veiled. Didn't matter in my system if it was hard wired or wireless. I have the Channel Island PS, Revelation Audio Embilicle and had it going into a Tara Labs The One Digital into a Berkeley Dac (direct to amps). Not a shabby set up. I had loved the sound and after installing Esoteric Clock/upsampler, it was a close second to my Esoteric Xo3 SE. I came across an ESI Juli@ and installed that along with J River 16/asio direct to Berkeley (and then Esoteric Clock/upsampler/Berkeley), and it is obvious, to me, that the Squeeze Box Touch was very veiled. It lacks in dynamics and fails to reveal the lowest level of detail thats crucial in an emotional musical experience. It is not very resolving at 16/44. The soundstage is flatter. (instrument/vocal placement is excellent, so is left to right soundstaging, just flat(er). I still love it. I have two set up in other systems and thoroughly enjoy them - the Touch is just no longer the center peice of my digital front end. YMMV.

I own a Squeezebox Transporter that I used to run wireless exclusively and thought there was nothing more to be gained by changing to a hard wired setup. THEN, one day, I decided to give the Ethernet connection a try after doing research on all the ways a wireless signal can be compromised for the purposes of audio.

The SQ difference between wireless and wired is not subtle in my experience with these devices. I now run "Wired" exclusively and am very happy I decided to try it in that configuration. Sure it's more inconvenient and not as aesthetically pleasing as wireless but that can be addressed by installing a dedicated CAT5 drop behind your equipment rack.

There are countless posts on various forums that discuss the reasons why “Wired” is the way to go. Some of these posts are by well respected manufacturers who have the capital and equipment to use any connectivity method they want but are most interested in the best way possible.

Airborne electrical interferences found rampant throughout most homes today is just one of the many reasons why wireless is a compromised connectivity method. If you feel this is all smoke and mirrors then give it a try for yourself or just carry on happily with blinders

IME, the difference was easily noticeable in favor of "wired" but of course this is totally dependant on how revealing the rest of your equipment is.

Eniac...although i can't comment on the SB wireless vs wired, i can tell you my PWD sounds the same both ways. blanket statements like yours rarely hold true. you may be right regarding the SB's wireless shortcomings (i don't know). i can tell you you're wrong regarding wireless in general. you might want to reconsider using the word "blinders". seems you're the one wearing them from where i sit.

cheers