 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.155.23.7
In Reply to: RE: DAC Sales hit the skids? Add a DSD Module!! posted by Sprezza Tura on October 15, 2014 at 08:45:24
Bargain Alert.
For $1300 you can add a "network Streamer" to your HiFi, which does not do DSD at all, has no USB connection to the DAC, uses SPDIF only (read jitter central on 99 out of 100 DAC's out there), requires you to buy an iPad or aPad to control it and a NAS to hold the data.
Considering that the hardware in the streamer is low grade enough no self respecting 2014 cellphone would employ it and considering it is based on generic computer/cellphone chips this must be a huge bargain.
Then again, 399 + 5 USD buys you a touchscreen equipped cellphone that can stream DSD-512 and PCM-768 from local SD Card storage to any USB DAC so equipped and can stream up to 500MbPS (enough in theory for DSD512) plus needed software and it would even be battery powered.
Or you could get a Touchscreen equipped 14" Ultrabook of last years generation for that money and add software.
People sitting in glasshouses and all that...
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
Follow Ups:
Set up them bowling pins so you can knock them down there captain....
LOL
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
...But if you like to point where anything I wrote is factually incorrect, I'll happily stand to be corrected. But make sure you have YOUR facts straight, 'cause I sure darn well have my ones that way...
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
I stand corrected.
As a manufacturer, - you should be held to a higher standard.
1. With an off-the-shelf computer, - the consumer greatly modifies it to the point where it is no longer a multi-purpose device.
2. With one of the 4 streamers under discussion, - the high end audio manufacturer starts from a single purpose, & either has built custom for her/him, a mainboard, or uses a "stripped down" single purpose mainboard and adds the other components that make up the device. (Often, it is difficult or impossible to use the mainboard for any OTHER PURPOSE).
{SEE Tony's post below as 1 real world example of a rasberry pi mod}
You have already mentioned that you have no experience, therefore, knowledge of any of these specific streamers in question: yet make (hyperbolic) assumptions & conclusions about them.
Wouldn't it be easier to comment from a basis of knowledge?
The folks at Meitner, APL, ESOTERIC, Zanden, and Berkeley Design are all very, very, familiar with each other's work.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
The guy has no standards in his posts, and I bet that he will be coming up with an SD card player. There are plenty in China and Thorsten posts in another forum as Kuai Yang Wang, with the same Ciao T signature.
Manufacturers here are meant to behave themselves and answer questions only.
Hi,
> I bet that he will be coming up with an SD card player.
You are on. You seem to like to loose. How much in the pot?
Say a 5K donations to MFS (Medicins Sans Frontier) if we do not come out with an SD Card player gets a 10K one from me if we come out with an SD Card player in 6 Month?
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
Manufacturers here are meant to behave themselves and answer questions only.
Don't you go worrying yourself about it - should TL dare to offer an opinion on anything, but especially one on a topic on which he has expertise, I'll be contacting the AudioStasi PDQ. They soon put a stop to that sort of thing.
"I'll be contacting the AudioStasi PDQ."
From what I gather, Thorsten might have some personal experience with the actual Stasi. If so, more power to him.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Thorsten might have some personal experience with the actual Stasi.
Er, I knew that. It was pretty much the point of the (attempted) joke. Sorry if it was just too obscure . . .
D
"Er, I knew that. It was pretty much the point of the (attempted) joke. Sorry if it was just too obscure . . ."
Yes we got the joke...
"Don't you go worrying yourself about it - should TL dare to offer an opinion on anything, but especially one on a topic on which he has expertise, I'll be contacting the AudioStasi PDQ. They soon put a stop to that sort of thing."
They actually took this as a serious comment. Lol
I do not think that most things that the manufactures say here are really going to sell much product. Actually maybe we might learn something. I have never seen anything that TL say as commercial, anyone that does IMO is just being an ass...
if an iFi unit comes out soon.
and who takes the trouble to explain, not browbeat, is welcome.
Any manufacturer who tries to use this forum as a pre-release venue
for publicity purposes needs to be reported as you suggested.
Hi,
> As a manufacturer, - you should be held to a higher standard.
Why. I am calling them as I see them, hear them, without any other agenda.
I don't even have a dog in this race, all my products work equally well with any number of sources, general purpose Computers as well as streamers.
If you have solid evidence that shows that the points I make are incorrect I will be the first to stand corrected and you know that.
However, what I am reading are not rational well reasoned arguments that provide evidence that how I see and hear things happens to be wrong, but invective and claims I cannot know what I am writing, cannot hear, am ignorant etc.
All these are not arguments that cut the mustard, even if they were true (which they incidentally are not), as they are off topic.
> 1. With an off-the-shelf computer, - the consumer greatly
> modifies it to the point where it is no longer a multi-purpose
> device.
It depends.
I must say I am impressed with the results I am getting streaming audio via a 5GHz network from my AV machine acting as server via our new Router and a 399 USD Smartphone (Phone and Bluetooth turned off, all un-needed tasks killed).
And that is absolutely unmodified (you cannot modify it, it cannot be opened except with special gear, as it water and dustproof to IP58), not even the OS is modified. While I use a different App than the bundled one for HD, I am also surprised how decent the buid in Walkman App sounds, playing from network and SD-Card.
I also often enough use laptops/notebooks that are completely unmodified and only use a specific dual boot setup so they have an "Audio Only" software setup.
So there is no physical modification needed.
Software modification, maybe.
> 2. With one of the 4 streamers under discussion, - the high end
> audio manufacturer starts from a single purpose, & either has built
> custom for her/him, a mainboard, or uses a "stripped down" single
> purpose mainboard and adds the other components that make up the
> device. (Often, it is difficult or impossible to use the mainboard
> for any OTHER PURPOSE).
If I use a generic CPU (with build in Video and other subsystems), generic RAM, generic Flash Memory, generic network and USB Chips and I am running a generic OS, tweaked a little for Audio, how is this different from a generic computer runing a customised OS?
I mean other than the packaging?
If the packaging matters to you, or you cannot bebothered to deal with the software, don't get a computer.
Worse, if I use this generic Platform and I then do not even implement a tiny fraction of the measures that can be readily applied to generic PC Platforms, how does it make it "better" then a tricked out PC?
Of course, we would have to listen.
My listening so far, using my own DAC designs, in my own system and at shows/shop's has not produced any ADVANTAGE for any supposedly purpose build streamer, over the computers I use. They are usually no worse either.
> Wouldn't it be easier to comment from a basis of knowledge?
It is better, which is why I generally do it that way.
> The folks at Meitner, APL, ESOTERIC, Zanden, and Berkeley Design
> are all very, very, familiar with each other's work.
And?
What under g*d's wide and open sky has that to do with the price of tea in China or Generic Computer vs. Generic Computer repackaged as Streamer vs. other options (e.g. SD Card/Flash memory players)?
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
you said that you have no experience, - therefore you have no knowledge.
If you don't have a comparative basis for high-end disc spinning transports AND no experience with commercial, multi-purpose computers, vs Streamers, - then you simply can't make SQ assumptions and judgments.
Cheers,
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Experience does not equal knowledge. For most people experience is a necessary condition for knowledge. However, experience is not a sufficient condition for knowledge.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
important.
You cannt know how something sounds until you hear/experience it.
#because reality + reason
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
disorderly assertions of 'I am always right'.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Fred,
If you have any facts to contribute that invalidate the points I posted, please provide them. We can then debate them and see who's point holds water.
Otherwise your comment is just a load of old bollox.
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
The entire discussion of sound quality of streamers results from the poor way that DACs are evaluated by audiophiles and reviewers in their listening tests (and measurements). The assumption behind these tests is that the computer, streamer, or digital transport contributes to the sound quality (or phrased negatively, if not "audio grade" subtracts from sound quality). The issue isn't whether or not this happens. The issue is where the credit or demerit goes. The credit or demerit should always go to the DAC, not the streamer. It should not be necessary to listen to any digital transport, just verify that it is putting out a signal that is within the specifications for the output interconnect (e.g. USB), that is no bit errors at the DAC end of the digital interconnect.
While it is annoying and distatasteful to be told, "You have not heard XYZ, therefore you have no business commenting on it" or, "You haven't heard XYZ, therefore you are not aware of the state of the art" with many types of components these are sometimes appropriate comments. In the case of digital sources such as "streamers" being discussed in this thread, such comments are never appropriate. If a digital source imposes any character on the sound the listener hears (or measures) it is an indictment of the DAC that allowed this to matter, not the source.
I am interested in "bad sounding" digital sources, because they can be uniquely valuable as a way of exposing poor quality DACs. I would expect DAC designers and reviewers to have an array of "bad sounding" digital transports in their arsenal of reference components. A preliminary review of a DAC should be conducted with the entire arsenal of these sources and the final review conducted with the particular source or sources that make the DAC under test sound (or measure) as poorly as possible. No DAC should be rated above Mid-Fi unless its sound quality is completely stable as digital sources are changed. The present approach of testing high-end DACs with high end transports is fundamentally bogus and accounts for the lack of progress during the 20 years since two box digital sources first hit the market.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
ITUnes on a PC sounds the same as JPLAY
It's all the DACs fault
Their is not 1 other person on this planet that agrees with you. What does that say about your assertion?
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
There are web statememts about the 'superiority' of a Plextor, but having owned and used one, I find it no better or worse than Samsungs, TEACs or Pioneers.
Plextor drives have been used for some years by mastering engineers burning physical master disks to be sent to CD duplication. (Many newer albums are never realized this way, instead the masters are sent to the factory over the Internet.) I use a Plextor drive because it comes with software that allows evaluation of the error rates on CDs. One can see just how much error correction is needed to read a disk, thereby telling if one's burner is failing or if one is using defective media. Apart from this software, I agree with your comments.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Thorsten correctly pointed out that it could be the fault of the preamp and amps as well as the DAC, including their cabling. It would be possible to isolate the situation down to specific component(s). The situation is no different than I faced as teenaged radio ham when my ham radio transmitter caused interference to my neighbor's phonograph. It was absolutely (and legally) not my fault, it was faulty design of the the phonograph. The problem was fixed at the phonograph.
Note that DACs using SPDIF are broken by design and probably irretrievably so. The same may be true of unbalanced RCA level interconnects. None of this obsolete and inferior technology has any place in a high end system. I don't have any significant software related sound quality issues on my system. I have set up the system properly and do not use technology that was obsolete 20 years ago.
Most iTunes set ups are not bit perfect, at least on Windows which is my only experience. Software that changes what goes to the DAC is obviously going to change the sound. If one changes the bits in the file one can change Beethoven into Beatles. Your iTunes comment is a strawman.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
variety of different situations....People like TBone, Kal, John Marks: have heard tons and tons and tons of sources at many different price levels: and with tons of different cables, amps, speakers, etc.
These folks disagree with each other at an astonishing low rate.
Ed Meitner has been making great external DACs for over 16 years: that sound BETTER than one box disc-spinners.
No USB DAC has ever been said, by anyone, to compare favorably with Meitner.
My question still stands. Can you please explain why you are the only person that holds this position?
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Edits: 10/20/14
I haven't heard a Meitner DAC, but I have heard quite a few DSD recordings made with the Meitner ADC and was able to come to the conclusion that the Grimm ADC sounded better. (Channel Classics makes pure DSD recordings using both of these converters.) In addition, Bruce Brown has made a number of comparison files with various DSD ADCs, all driven off the same tape deck playing master tapes. These are (or were) available for download, linked from the thread below. After listening to these converters, I concluded that the Grimm beat all the other ADCs at DSD64 and wasn't beat by any of them running at DSD128 either, although the Horus seems to be a close runner up.
When it comes to evaluating DAC quality, the best reference is a live microphone feed or 30 IPS master tape. One compares the straight feed with the ADC - storage - DAC feed. Once one gets to the point where the difference is not significant then there is little need to listen to newer equipment for non-sonic reasons. Without a reference of this kind, one can not tell whether effects, such as high frequency glare, are on the recording and should be reproduced or are an artifact created by a DAC.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
of the conversation: in their entirety.
We are talking about playback devices for the home.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
You are talking about playback devices "for the home". I am talking about digital audio technology which includes recording technology. Let's leave it at that. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Right...but what was the point of your off topic observation concerning an esoteric ADC and DSD?
Grimm does not make consumer grade components that are widely known or distributed.
So is usb, judging from the errors you and I have found, and from the cheapish clocks chips used in many usb audio converters.
I have evidence that the Wave IO, which uses NDK low jitter clock chips fed from an external power source and not the usual cheaper usb powered arrangement, sounds better or at least as good from the spdif output as direct usb input into the W4S DSDSe and Mytek DSD which you use.
So, until you have actually investigated this, please do not propagate the web make such a sweeping and false statement.
When you are all done with this Wave IO setup, how much did you spend on it, power supplies, cables and whatever extra accessories might be needed?
Did this setup provide better isolation from the computer than running USB directly to the DAC? Do software and hardware changes to your computer have as much effect with this extra box in between the DAC?
My comments about SPDIF stand. The design is defective and inappropriately cheap. The use of multiplexed clock and data creates jitter problems that would simply not exist with a dedicated clock line, for example with I2S. Better is for the clock to originate at the DAC. This is an option with I2S. It is possible to build good implementations of a poor architecture that beat poor implementations of a good architecture.
The complexity of USB (A camel is a horse designed by a committee.) makes implementations in DACs noisy unless extra cost is spent on power supplies and isolation. It also makes it likely that many implementations will be poor, if only because the designers attention span isn't long enough to take in the entire specification. (I found it very time consuming to get an answer to a simple question from the USB specification.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Like you said, S/PDIF is flawed by design. I can think of at least 3 major issues with it. Communication is simplex (unidirectional) without flow control and therefore the DAC must have a variable clock, and it must be synchronized to the clock reference provided by the transport using a PLL. Second, the data is self-clocked via Manchester encoding, which was never meant for transmission of a high quality clock signal. Finally, it's single ended, so there will be ground loops and greater susceptibility to EMI and RFI. Given this kind of interface, I think it's unreasonable to expect the DAC to be immune to differences between transports and digital cables. If the audio industry were to adopt an interface standard that avoids these three problems, then I would agree to blame the DAC if transport differences persist.
I2S only addresses one of these 3 flaws, by separating clock and data signals. It's still simplex and still single ended. Likewise, AES/EBU only addresses one of these 3 flaws. It's balanced, but it's still simplex and encodes the clock with the data. And Toslink provides galvanic isolation, but it's also simplex and encodes the clock with the data, not to mention that a lot of Toslink connections are low bandwidth. It seems like all of these transmission standards were created before the importance of clocking in digital audio was well understood. It's a mystery to me why they are still used in high end products.
I think it's best to locate the clocks in the DAC right next to the DAC chips, which requires flow control by the DAC and therefore duplex communications. I'm not aware of any audio specific digital interface standards which support that, so we're stuck with general purpose computer interfaces like Async USB, FireWire, and Ethernet. These have their own disadvantages. Async USB and FireWire include DC power and ground, so they aren't galvanically isolated. Ethernet over twisted pair gets the physical connection right, but requires too much processing to be a good digital transport to DAC connection.
Unfortunately, the only interfaces that tick all the boxes seem to be proprietary.
good set of comments, although usb transfer still requires clocking to produce the 44.1 and 48k related signals and many of them are not that good.
A lot of the noise is due to commercial inter and personal prejudice.
The sdif interfaces in my dCS converters are really good and impedance matched.
What DCS units do you have?
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
I2S comes in two flavors: clock at source and clock at master. It's the same signals in either case, the difference is where the clock itself is located and which way the clock signal travels on the wire. If the clock is at the source then (assuming all the wires are the same length) there will be no skew problems between the clock and the data lines. The problem is that noise on the clock line translates via limited risetime to a jitter source at the distant end. If the clock is at the transport then this noise jitters the DAC itself, causing distortion. (However, this jitter is at least uncorrelated with the signal, unlike with SPDIF.) If the clock is at the the DAC then noise on the clock line doesn't affect the DAC. The problem might be skew, but this can be minimized by limiting the round trip time to a fraction of a bit time. Alternatively, and this has been used as far back as the 1960's in "super computers" the cable length can be fixed so that round trip time is an integral number of bit times.
I2S was proposed as an on-board interconnect, originally TTL levels. If it is used across a cable there are electrical issues that must be addressed, but the signals can perfectly well be sent in a balanced fashion, reducing noise coupling.
AES can be used correctly, with the clock at the DAC for playback and separate cabling used to send a clock signal to the transport. In this regard, it is almost as good as I2S, since any jitter on the incoming data lines caused by the Manchester coding is lost when the signals are latched by the local clock. (No need for phase lock loops.) I2S over cables is not standardized, so some implementations probably provide balanced signaling.
There is an operational benefit for placing the clock at the source, even though this is sonically inferior. The clock signal identifies the sampling rate. When the clock is placed at the sink then an out of band channel is needed to select a sample rate that matches the source, assuming that the source is not willing to do a sample rate conversion to a common rate. In some professional systems, separate datacomm links have been used for the out of band channel. With USB, not only is there bidirectional data flow, but there is also the ability to send control and status signals as needed to deal with housekeeping factors.
Since the relevant signal quality and jitter issues were known at the best communications and computer laboratories as far back as the 50's and 60's the situation in audio reflects ignorance on the part of the designers or cost pressures that are appropriate to mass market products, but just plain wrong when used to design "cost no object" products, which is what the "high end" purports to do. I say "purports" because some vendors sell expensive audio jewelry.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
My comments about SPDIF stand. The design is defective and inappropriately cheap. The use of multiplexed clock and data creates jitter problems that would simply not exist with a dedicated clock line, "for example with I2S. Better is for the clock to originate at the DAC. This is an option with I2S. It is possible to build good implementations of a poor architecture that beat poor implementations of a good architecture.The complexity of USB (A camel is a horse designed by a committee.) makes implementations in DACs noisy unless extra cost is spent on power supplies and isolation. It also makes it likely that many implementations will be poor, if only because the designers attention span isn't long enough to take in the entire specification. (I found it very time consuming to get an answer to a simple question from the USB specification.)"
You are talking theory which is fine, but many are using UBS-SPDIF with positive results. Sometime it is hard to mix theory into practical discussions. Some do not differentiate the two.
You were just told by the streamer cognoscenti not to be discussing ADCs here... Get with the program Tony!!! :):)
Edits: 10/20/14 10/20/14
The idea that spdif is broken arose from vendors of usb audio devices. It was repeated ad nauseam here by promoters of these devices who have never taken the trouble to provide proper impedance matching and who insisted on using a phono connector with poor spdif circuitry such as those used in computers with a web published passive signal line.
Some, including TL, just didn't seem to like Sony or Phillips - not invented here!
agree.
SPDIF may be "broken" in theory but not in application.
Philips and Sony brought us 44/16 instead of 48/16. That was (for decades) the death of high quality audio. This is why I don't like these companies. The battle was between the US on the one side vs. Europe/Japan on the other side. Mid-fi mentality won the day. This was about politics and greed vs. quality.
The idea that SPDIF was broken was publicized first by Julian Dunn. This was well before anybody was using USB for audio purposes. This was at least a decade before USB audio products hit the market.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Broken By Design" is a great name for a new audio company making digital components!!
You're full of Schiit. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Touche'!!!!
No point in discussing your obsession.But usb audio is also broken because you, I, others, and Gordon have discovered errors in transmission highlighted by 'software'?
When you slate something, it needs to be based on collective knowledge and experience, and not on dislike or a quote from someone like Julian Dunn who is highly mathematical and theoretical. His associates actually make and sell very good sounding aes3 or spdif products.
Edits: 10/21/14
box I have; power supplies I have (I did a 'mass' production of ALW superegulators years ago); cables I have.
Time? Maybe 1.5 hours. Messing with different versions of usb software? Hours.
''The design is defective and inappropriately cheap''
Only if you choose to use defective and cheap hardware - it's your own choice entirely just like usb audio boxes.
So many opinions here passing off as facts.
As a matter OF fact, balanced circuits have no business in a modern high end system.
This is easily evidenced by the sheer number of "pseudo" balanced components on the market to cater to a perceived, phoney benefit.
Some vendors lie and make false claims that their product does X. Therefore, no modern system should use X, since it won't have benefits, even if correctly implemented. This is a logical argument? Your "evidence" does show the lack of sophistication of high end customers. The proliferation of ignorant customers with fat wallets poses a large temptation to some vendors who have incompentent engineers and/or dishonest marketing people.
If you believe that fancy CD mechanisms are relevent in today's world, then why do you post on Computer Audio? Fancy CD transport mechanism are a complete waste of money. There is no need for any physical device to spin or move while playing digital audio. Save your money for an LP or tape playback system where there are sonic benefits to impressive machines. When I listen to digital music, the source is solid state memory, not an expensive rube-goldberg mechanism.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Really? LOL.
The Philips drive is so so compared to a TEAC
Tony,First, while I partially agree with "Bits are bits, but we must fix the timing", there are material issues in other magisteria.
Specifically the RFI and EMI resistance of the whole system, common mode and radiated noise and noise conducted by cables between units.
This is a subject to give rise to major engineering challenges in single boxes merely to mandated limits of RFI/EMI, having more than one box interconnected makes it into a bit of a nightmare, even if you get to design all the boxes yourself.
In most audiophile systems different units come from different makers and we have zero control over interconnecting cables and their relative electrical parameters.
This means no matter how well the DAC designer does his job, he has little if any control over final results in a system.
And Computers of any kind regardless how they are designed, are liable to produce massive amounts of noise. Even if they pass mandated emission limits, these emission limits generally only apply above several MHz and are already quite relaxed at those frequencies, the tightest limits are imposed 100MHz - 5GHz.
So below a few MHz few manufacturer even care about EMC as it is not mandated and due to fieldstrength and wavelength becomes fairly hard to control.
This is why even "keeping aroundbad transports" does not help. And this is (not aimed at you Tony) why we must worry and evaluate the underlying mechanisms.
What all the issues I touched on above mean is simple. Evaluting any given device and it's impact (even one not directly connected to the system, such as a Tablet used to control the system, or a LED Lamp) will be severely system dependent.
A system with well designed components (in terms of EMC at low frequencies especially) will be quite resilient. I often astonish people by the improvements I make to sound quality of their systems when I go around the house and systematically shut of any noise generators (including energy saving lamps, Wifi Routers etc.). And these are often systems at substantial cost.
In my own house I use LED Lamps and many other mod con's and creature comfort and if I find it affects the way the system sounds negatively (or rather positively ifI turn them off) I tinker with it, until I can fix this.
There is no generalisation whatsoever that may drawn from results in a single system or even several systems, unless we can first provide reliable proof that measures have been taken to eliminate secondary and tertiary path of degradation, which have zip to do with direct audio forward path.
Finally, instead of a poor transport, it is more gainful for evaluating DAC's resistance to source problems by deliberatly generating a poor source (adding Jitter, Common mode noise etc) and then sweeping the stimulus and observing for example awideband high resolution FFT on an AP2.
Anyway, Tony I am pretty sure based on other posts by you that you do know these niceties, but I felt it important to append them to your post.
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
Edits: 10/18/14
These are switchers of the cheap kind and so you should listen in darkness, unless you install solar ones.
Hi,> These are switchers of the cheap kind
They are, though they all pass EMC.
> so you should listen in darkness
Why? In my system turning them off makes no difference worth having.
So what about the bet you proposed?
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
Edits: 10/21/14
The bet you proposed which carried no sense as you then control the events.
Talk about twisting words or truth!
Hi,
You wrote "I bet he will do this and that".
If we were actively developing an SD Card player then 6 Month (or perchance a year) would be a sensible timeline for a release or at least for prototypes to show in public. Otherwise there would be no point to try to promote anything. BTW, I do not control the timing of product releases. The Board does, they usually want it the month before last or earlier.
There has to be a deadline. It cannot be "at the end of time".
Any other way makes no sense. You said you wanted to bet, so are you a betting man? I am sure the suggested charity can use your donation.
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
nt
"Anyway, Tony I am pretty sure based on other posts by you that you do know these niceties, but I felt it important to append them to your post."
You are correct.
"This is a subject to give rise to major engineering challenges in single boxes merely to mandated limits of RFI/EMI, having more than one box interconnected makes it into a bit of a nightmare, even if you get to design all the boxes yourself."
One would think that vendors selling "high end" components would have addressed these issues. That they do not, is an indication that the "high end" marketplace lacks knowledgeable customers.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Since you've never heard any high end boxes: how can you make a determination of their level of RFI/EMI interference: or if it is mitigated somehow? Are you familiar with ERS sheets used in the space program? What do you think of them? Have you seen them utilized in any audio applications?
Have you compared any two devices, and made an assessment of RFI/EMI IF?
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
"Are you familiar with ERS sheets used in the space program? What do you think of them? Have you seen them utilized in any audio applications?"
Go over to the JPlay forum allot of good information. IMO a very worthwhile addition to one's sytem.
If a transport is a high end box it won't cause any interference. There will be nothing to hear. No need to listen. Given that the level of interference of existing devices is low, this bounds the possible gains one might get from pursuing unobtanium. If one wants a reference, then follow Thorsten's suggestion to use an SD card based transport. This is about the simplest possible way of providing digital transport functionality and, while inconvenient, it is no more bother than dealing with reel to reel tape.
Manufacturers and reviewers are the ones who should be evaluating and measuring interference susceptibility. I know enough about this technology from working at a computer manufacturer, including the spook department, to realize that a major investment in test equipment is needed to address these issues. Not a hobbyist venture.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
can't get a simpler truth: are you asserting otherwise?
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
I am asserting that transports "sound" only through the DAC and, to the extent that the DAC input, clock and power circuits are fully up to snuff, the transport will have no sound barring problems with downstream amplifiers. (This is the ideal, and to the extent that this ideal is not attained, one does not have a true reference system.)
With a well set up system, there are existing DACs where the remaining transport differences are small, making it a matter of opinion whether differences are worth worrying about. If they matter, then there is a good chance of improving the sound by adding isolation devices between the transport and the rest of the audio system. These include various devices in the signal path such as reclockers, USB to I2S or SPDIF converters, USB hubs, some with optical isolation or other forms of galvanic isolation. These also include isolation devices in the power wiring and providing noise isolation between digital devices and analog devices. Similarly, careful attention may be needed to signal and power cabling. Even something like moving components or changing the cable dress may affect sound, and if so this is a strong indication of an unstable system.
I am also saying that if one experiences an "unstable" system it is not an indication of a superior system that is somehow more "resolving". It is an indication that something is wrong that warrants fixing. Steps taken to reduce susceptibility to interference in DACs and amplifiers are of benefit even if the digital transport emitted zero noise, because there are other electrical devices that generate interference.
I am also saying that the subjective and objective testing and reviewing of audio equipment should include operating in noisy environments that show the equipment in the worst possible light, thereby driving manufacturers to produce products that deliver their full performance in all realistic electrical environments.
I am not saying that "bits are just bits". I am saying that bits should be just bits and that this ideal can be approached ever closer if the market demands this.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Transports sound different regardless of anything any DAC may or not be doing "wrong."
"" adding isolation devices between the transport and the rest of the audio system"
In the case of the VRDS-NEO, - more information just makes it to the DAC. There are reasons and explanations as to why, and these are born out in listening: and are independent of any isolation devices. We know this through extensive testing.
Sprezza asserts that his Sim Audio Mind sounds different than his Bryston BP-2. He uses the same DAC, the same cable to the DAC. The transports sound different, the DAC is in no way at fault.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
"In the case of the VRDS-NEO, - more information just makes it to the DAC"
This is complete and utter BS. There is no "information" on a CD other than the 1's and 0's that were placed there during the mastering and production process. If you are lucky, the best you can hope for is to get these back correctly and then turn them back into sound without any further degradation. The problem with inferior transports isn't the lack of information, it is the extra noise that makes it through an inferior playback chain and masks such information as was on the original disk. (Which, by the way, in case of Redbook, is already significantly less than what would be on a good quality analog master tape.)
In some cases (more than you might like to admit) all of the "information" that got stamped or burned on to the disk that expensive nonsensical NRDS-NEO "read" have already passed through a lowly Plexor drive. Not the situation at all with an LP on a Goldman turntable or a reel to reel tape on a Studer deck unless it was a bogus digitally mastered "analog" recording.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
S
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
No read errors on a decent $40 computer optical drive with an undamaged disk. Zero. Verified by accurate rip for commercial CDs and verified against master WAV files for CDs that I have mastered. Zero errors, unless the disk has obvious damage such as scratches or is a CDR that has been stored at hot temperatures such as in a car. Over 97% of all disks that I have ripped were free of errors and most of those with errors had no audible damage, even when listening specifically at the point where the error occurred. There were a few that had lots of clicks, but they looked like they had been used for a game of Frisbee with a dog.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Born out by listening tests, & widely accepted & undisputed superiority.
In short, no one who has compared it, remains unconvinced.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Listening tests are a tedious and unreliable way of detecting data errors, compared to a direct comparison of the delivered bits vs. the correct bits. People may prefer expensive transports and they may be actually hearing superior sound, but if so the reason is not likely to be associated with the lack of data errors reading the CD, unless the drive in the comparison player was broken.
As to live playback, this depends on the way that the device works to do the CDA error correction. This comes in two levels of correction, plus a level of interpolation plus a level of muting. Most disks have no errors that require the second level of correction. For master disks that I burn there are strict limits on the number of C1 errors corrected and the limit is zero on the number of C2 errors corrected, otherwise I junk the "coaster". This provides the needed tolerance for wear and tear.
I feel sorry for people who have these expensive transports when they suffer wear and tear or laser problems and no longer work reliably, skip, etc... The same thing happens with the cheap computer drives like the Plexor that I use, but it's a 10 minute drive swap (no tools required) and the replacement part is under $50. My drive comes with software that diagnoses disks and plots the number and location of the various types of errors.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
The laser's reading ability: as we've seen improves whenever a more consistent and accurate speed is achieved by the motor spinning the disc, and when the disc doesn't wobble: (clamping mechanism).
""As to live playback, this depends on the way that the device works to do the CDA error correction.""
Yes and no. CDA data correction, is not all it's cracked up to be, - due to "A." (less wobble by clamping mechanism).
""For master disks that I burn"
Not relevant or applicable to a playback situation.
Of course, as we've seen with much of this stuff, - theoretical "shoulds" are proven wrong quite often.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
My comments about the lack of bit errors on CD playback are based on years of experience with hundreds of disks, a small fraction of which gave problems. This caused me to seek out and obtain the necessary tools to understand what was going on. This is not a theoretical issue, or a question of "should".
CD players are not getting bit errors on playback on undamaged disks unless the players are broken. A cheap transport may sound worse than an expensive one, but it is extremely unlikely that the cause is bit errors. If you want to verify this for yourself, just take the two CD transports under test and feed their SPDIF output into an SPDIF input of a computer sound card and capture WAV files of the two outputs. You can then use an audio editor to difference the two files and count the errors, if any. Once you've identified their location(s) you can then play clips and see what the errors sound like.
Unless you have actually studied the presence or absence of bit errors as I have, you have no basis for positing a technical cause for sonic defects that you may have heard.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony, I have not gotten too involved in the transport debate, but if to condense your view in the briefest of ways, distinct differences in the sound of transports, that being defined as an optical disc transport, or file player, computer, streamer etc, should be attributed to flaws in the DAC design, is that correct?
Not quite. The DAC is the primary place of attack to improve sound in digital audio playback.
The playback chain consisting of digital transport, DAC, and analog amplifiers is a system and its performance has to be evaluated as such. The chain reads the media and generates a string of bits that get clocked, converted to timed samples, converted to a continuous analog stream and then amplified. Reading the media and generating a stream of bits is a solved problem, but the process of doing so generates unwanted noise byproducts. These pollute the operation of downstream components and degrade the sound. There are three ways to fix this: have the transport produce less noise, isolate the transport from the sensitive components, and make the sensitive components less sensitive.
It seems pretty clear that the DAC, as the place where the noisy digital electronics meet the sensitive analog electronics,is the primary place where the noise battle needs to be fought. The second place where unwanted coupling comes in is through power wiring, and the third place is through cabling. It is possible to reduce the noise generated in the computer by "gold plating" the computer, but the economics seems to favor "gold plating" the DAC and amplifiers, especially since there will still be noise from other computing devices even if the transport has been made noiseless by putting it into a Faraday cage with Tempest grade red-black separation as used with military encryption devices.
That we are still arguing over physical machines and whether they can correctly read bits off of media, shows how hopeless the "high end" market is. I have avoided this marketplace for a long time and concentrated instead on equipment made to be sold to professional audio engineers, who are by and large more technically competent that audiophiles.
I hope it remains warm enough to enjoy your Italian car. It's too cold and damp now in Vermont for fun cars as we await the start of ski season.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Hi Tony:Very little to disagree with your well worded post. I don't agree about Pro Audio gear, I have gone that route with great dissatisfaction, but that is just me.
So in regards to your reply, how would you account for some audiophiles who have superbly set up, high quality gear, yet hear big differences in computer O/S, add ons like Jplay, playback software, and even updates to playback software, and best of all, USB cables?
A perfect example is Mercman. He has superb gear, and clearly knows how to set it up..Ayre, Wilson, MSB, and a number of very good cables, sources, power products etc, yet he consistently says he hears differences in O/S updates, USB cables, playback software etc.
P.S. Nice and balmy where I am...my baby is gripping the roads nicely.
Edits: 10/23/14 10/23/14
Hearing differences is not the end of the world. I hear differences if I move my head half an inch. Every seat in a concert hall sounds slightly different. So it's a concern only if one hears significant differences. If one does hear significant differences and if they are consistent then it is probably possible (with a huge amount of effort) to come to the bottom of the situation and figure out how these differences are happening. As far as I know there is no DAC that is perfect when it comes to isolation. As Thorsten explained, the DAC can be perfect but the amplifiers sensitive to interference. (My Focal powered monitors pick up my cell phone if it's within a few feet.)
There are also people who hear differences that aren't present in the audio equipment or environment but that merely exist inside their own head. I don't believe this covers Merman, since he seems to be a straight up guy. And besides, he has Lucy to keep him honest. Perhaps you should ask Lucy your question? :-)
Also, keep in mind that a Maserati is a more finicky car than a Mercedes, so expensive and high performance is not necessarily the same as stable and reliable. I had a Citation II tube amplifier back in the 60's and 70's and it sounded great when it wasn't blowing up KT88s, etc... I then inherited a Mac 275 that was solid and reliable, but I could never stand its sound. (I was annoyed that I inherited the Mac, because I had advised my grandfather to get a pair of Marantz 9s and he ended up with the Mac 275. However, it might have been a space problem with his custom installation.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
We are talking differences that do not include changes in listening position or physical space. Same chair, same chain, but switching out ONE item like a USB cable or an O/S update.I think environmental effects on good audio gear is highly exaggerated. It is extremely easy to isolate a DAC from a power amp.
So back to the original premise, there are listeners who report vast differences in the items previously listed which are changes at the SOURCE only.
I've come to the conclusion that Lucy is the sanest of us all!
Today's Maserati's are not your father's Maserati's. Everything is microchip controlled, CAD designed and tested, and precision engineered. The times have changed.
Today's tube amps are also not your father's tube amps. Been running tubes for 8 years now with nothing but tube biasing once a year. Replaced several sets of tubes voluntarily.
Edits: 10/24/14
posting stuff without good basis or foundation.
If anyone wants a no tool method of mounting a CD Drive, fine but comparing this to a TEAC Neo owner and feeling sorry for him or her? This is a warped way of thinking.
I actually have 2 laser spares for my Krell with swing arm drive
I guess you don't remember the apodzing filters that were celebrated as the second coming of audio jesus...made knarly 80s CDs sound fresh remasters....
I thought you would get a kick out of the marketing tag line for the AMR 77 CD player:
"To bring compact disk playback back en par with the vinyl system."
Apodizing filters belong in the recording process. They do not belong in the playback process. If they were used in the recording process then many of the high frequency problems with Redbook playback would not be present. The problem is that recordings made properly with apodizing filters sound dull when played back with another round of apodizing filters, whereas recordings made with brick wall filters can (usually) be improved by playing them back with apodizing filters. This situation exists only because of the incompetence of Sony and Philips in specifying the Red Book standard. As a result, for best CD playback listeners have to select between a set of filters on a per recording basis, a situation akin to the early days of LPs, pre RIAA. (A few years ago, I simply gave up on tweaking filters. I just accepted the fact that no 44/16 digital recording could ever be considered to be high end and as such can never be a suitable reference for evaluating a playback chain. With CDs, one must simply accept their limitations and enjoy the music or else move on to better formats if the artists are still alive and recording with better technology.)
All of this is easy to verify by starting with a high resolution digital recording and downsampling it to Redbook with various filters and then playing it back with various filters. It can also be measured on spectrum plots or seen in impulse response plots. I speak from a fair amount of personal experience on this matter, as well as a fair amount of theoretical understanding. I have spent many hours experimenting with apodizing (and other) digital filters, measuring their performance and listening to how these filters affect sound quality. In each case, I started with a reference of how the particular recording was supposed to sound and the specific degradation imposed by the limitations of the 44/16 format and the conversion processes used (which were state of the art).
From a marketing perspective, the situation is obscured because of the variety of recordings and the variety of playback systems. Some playback systems start out too bright and in this case an apodizing filter serves as an upper treble "tone control", and in some cases multiple apodizing filters provide much needed high frequency roll-off. This is a characteristic of poor system setup, and has nothing to do with the digital filtering. These set up problems can be identified using high resolution digital recordings and corrected by appropriate measures, typically involving speaker placement, cross-over adjustments or room treatments.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I agree about you that the filters belong in the recording procecs.
But around 2008 or 2009 when the sales of expensive CD players hit the skids, the manufacturers needed something to get people excited about and quite frankly they used clueless reviewers as stooges to spread the word.
It is fairly common for a few posters here, and I am certain you know who they are, to bring in topics from left field, literally out of nowhere, when they can't back their assertions with first hand experience.I also said to myself what on earth a pro grade ADC has to do with this conversation. And even worse, the comments were confined to DSD.
Edits: 10/20/14
He wants to end the conversation, - and that's cool.Sadly though, - I'm going to get beat up the next time i counter someone saying that there's no difference in transports, that everything sounds the same: and experiencing & listening to components have no value.
It's OK, cognitive dissonance is a bigger deal IRL.
Cheers.....
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Edits: 10/20/14
What is interesting is that Mercman proclaimed there was a "problem" on this board with Gordon Rankin.
I have NO problem with Gordon Rankin or his products, and by all accounts he has happy customers. It is with his posts.
Fmak, who i don't always agree with said some manufacturers go about brow beating here on this forum, and he is right.
If GR had take the tact of saying, "USB audio, you just may be surprised, give it a listen"...we get "Gang, USB audio BLOWS AWAY a $10,000 transport." That puts a HUGE bullseye between your eyes, sorry.
And we get things like Ethernet sucks for audio, when in fact it has been used in recording studios and in mission critical live audio applications for a decade plus. Then we here about an Ethernet product he developed, and now a DSD module, after proclaiming DoP worthless.
The fact is it has never been a good strategy to denigrate competitors or competing technologies to sell your product.
"The fact is it has never been a good strategy to denigrate competitors or competing technologies to sell your product."
Agreed. This was one of the ethical principles upheld by the founder and CEO of the computer company I used to work for. He was thrown out by the Wall Street people who had no moral scruples and were interested only in money without regard to screwing customers or employees. Within two years after I left the 100,000 employee company had evaporated. This was around 1996. In another dozen years Wall Street learned how to tap directly into the taxpayers to bail out their incompetence and fraud.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony, at my sales first job right of college I was told this. For some reason it has stuck with me ever since.
I was always impressed when the owner of the company, when asked by a potential customer about a competitor, he would say, "They make great products", or when asked about a competing technology, he would say "Perfectly valid approach, but we do things a bit differently for the following reasons". The company grew leaps and bounds in short period of time and I stayed until it was sold, an another opportunity appeared.
But I always remembered that approach.
" at my sales first job right of college I was told this. For some reason it has stuck with me ever since.
I was always impressed when the owner of the company, when asked by a potential customer about a competitor, he would say, "They make great products", "
Burger King???
All you need to know is I left with enough money to never have to work again, drive Italian cars, and hire 10 pee-ons like you as my man servants. And I'm not joking.
"All you need to know is I left with enough money to never have to work again, drive Italian cars, and hire 10 pee-ons like you as my man servants. And I'm not joking."
Yes you are very impressed with yourself, as shown by your attitude here.
BTW: Your Yugo is a copy of an Italian car so it doesn't really count.
And... As far as you being peed on by your 10 man servants, you could have gone down to the pier and had that done for free. I guess we now can see the genesis of your love of STREAMERS...
Let me mull that over while I fire up my Maserati this afternoon. And when I head to the airport tomorrow to one of my two European residences, where I am installing a new streamer. Yes, really.
Edits: 10/21/14
"One would think that vendors selling "high end" components would have addressed these issues."
Yes, one would. I surely do.
Traditionally "audio engineers" think that the world stops at 20Kc and that a single point ground is THE answer. They think (thought?) that because it was usefully true in the tube/analog days. Ah, the "good" old days, some audiophiles and manufacturers still live in them.
For the rest of us that era is long gone, whether for good or ill is blurry and personal. Actually EMC issues have been part of the engineering life since the days of the superregens but pervasive clocked digital systems have really brought it home, as it were.
"...That they do not, is an indication that the "high end" marketplace lacks knowledgeable customers."
I don't agree with that Tony. Customers are paying for performance and expertise, they surely can't be expected to all have the knowledge and skills necessary to analyze these complex systems. Reading AA provides solid proof that most don't even though they have an exceptionally high level of interest in the gear and it's performance.
Rick
although Thorsten's post is just a summary of what many interested audiophiles with a science background know.
Sorting out mutual interference of multiple components is not an engineering challenge, although both posters make this out to be in stressing 'expertise' It is a technological fact of life in the modern connected world.
It may be of interest for me to say that I do all of the things that Thorsten says he does in friends' houses and that it is nothing new or contain any element of special expertise..
I have a Honda that passes all of the Euro tests, but every now and then, when passing groups of aerials, my sound system, though turned off, emits gurgling noises. Not being young, I have not bothered to look at the suppression capacitor or anything like that. But a switched off amplifier reproducing interference? This should be a challenge for a technician to track down.
we listen for the pleasurable experience of enjoying music.
When we pile up experiences, - we get the BEST indication of how a product sounds, within various contexts.
There is no USB DAC yet made that sounds as good as any of the top 3 or four DAC manufacturers. As much as we have any consensus in the SOTA, top-tier, high end audio playback systems, - this is pretty much undisputed...
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Yet another wordy, indulgent post filled with theoretical blather.I will take listening experience over theory any day of the week. None of what you wrote here has any basis in reality or experience. It just makes you feel better.
I have been into digital audio since I bought my first compact disc in 1986, and I have gone through all the progressions from the earliest CD rippers and burners to now. Couple that with an enormous amount of time in recording studios being exposed to digital recording.
To say something like there has been little progress shows me you are incredibly out of touch.
Edits: 10/18/14
recognise that the likes of you and (I?) exist.
Bits were not just bits back in the early 90's when I got my first two box CD player. This appears to still be the case, at least with most equipment and certainly with most audiophile beliefs. Little progress has been made in this regard over the course of two decades.
I don't believe this is an engineering problem. It's a market problem. There are plenty of engineers working for computer equipment companies, telecommunications equipment companies and military equipment companies who know how to provide effective analog to digital isolation and resistence to EMI/RFI at extreme levels. They work in those industries rather than hi-end audio because that's where the money is and also because they have the pleasure of selling their products to knowledgeable customers.
There are a few high end audio designers who understand these issues, but from what I've seen many of them are struggling to afford the necessary lab equipment to bring out stable products. Some also seem more concerned with creating a "house sound" based on coloration as a way of differentiating their products.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Again, you avoid answering the question of listening experience.
An I don't even mean the crazy expensive stuff from cCS, Aurender, Light Harmonic, Constellation etc.
I can tell you from making my own high resolution recordings, and being at the actual event, and then hearing the mastered version through my various front ends, many do have it right.
I just recorded a band in Brooklyn, who brought their own vintage mics. I was at the side of the stage and heard the acoustic event as it unfolded. When I finished the files and loaded them on the server(s), it was all.there within reason of suspending belief.
Same goes for my master tape copies which I dub to high resolution. I can compare live playback from a B77 to the server and the results are astonishing.
I trust my ears more than any lab instruments or theory,
If what you say is true, why the huge market and nostalgia for NOS DAC chips and DACs..Steve Hoffman says the Audio Note digital gear is the "the best he has heard" and they literally using 25 year old designs.
I used to know the guy in Brighton; he liked colourations.
"I used to know the guy in Brighton; he liked colourations."
Many people do to some degree...
At least he is like....
There once was a man from Nantucket...
that's because it is actually not easy to implement a technically high performance system which also sounds 'excellent'
Thorten's typical MO is long meandering, cutesy replies that rarely, if ever, address the main topic, or question, filled with technical blather and theoretical BS.And again, rarely, IF EVER, any real world experience passed along with regards to modern products.
I told him to stick to DACs because having heard the iFI stuff, is it very good, especially considering the price and features.
As far as front ends, he does not have a clue taking into consideration his position.
Edits: 10/17/14
You miss the essential point: Thorsten knows what he is talking about. Some others do not. Some don't know or won't admit to their ignorance. BTW, I don't always happen to agree with Thorsten, make of that what you will. He contributes a lot of useful ideas and information and is, unlike some others, rather easy to interact with.
For those who don't understand him, perhaps you don't know enough about the underlying technology. That's not to say you can't get good sound out of your computers. It is also possible to find one's car keys searching in the dark if one is sufficiently persistent and lucky. Actually, if one is sufficiently organized and methodical the technical knowledge isn't really necessary. Unfortunately, not many seem to be organized and methodical.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Much of what he says about computers has little to do with quality audio.
Using an SD Card? Only people with little to do would bother with the procedure and process (or perhaps gadget addicts).
Hi,
> Using an SD Card? Only people with little to do would bother with
> the procedure and process (or perhaps gadget addicts).
It is clear tome that you have no idea how the SD Card players I refer to are designed and operate. They simply play the file (Wave or DSD - something that contains the raw master, no compression etc. supported) directly, using very basic logic (no complex OS,no large scale MCU, I have even seen this done 100% in discrete logic). The data is extracted from the SD Card with the timing of main audio clock and directly send to the DAC Chip, no buffering, reclocking etc, all minimal, even more minimal that CD-Playersever were..
I will readily own that this kind of system has a usability score of minus one million, but that is not the point here. What it delivers is a File player with non of the problems normal Computer based systems (streamersor general purpose) have.
So if I need an "in house reference" as a "stalking horse" strictly for soundquality, such a system would be more likely to be on my list than a "Streamer".
And I still think if someone were to solve the usability issues with such a system, say by having a big SSD Pack internal and by having some form control from an App running on a tablet or PC that offers the same rich interface and ease of use as real PC via ultimately an optical isolated serial I/O, then we would have something that makes the whole debate going on here pointless.
And that is what it has to do with Computer Audio. It is about removing the computer from the equation of audio playback completely.
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
that the card needs to have music copied to it; needs to be of a large size, and needs to be changed if there is a large library (unless you erase and recopy which is a hassle). If one wants to be masochistic ,go for the arrangement. This also counters your arguments for a 'convenient' system.
There are so many offers made for SD cards and the like, and so many fakes that I would not, for one, spend a lot of money for a large card. You don't seem to have understood this either.
Hi,
> What you seem unable to comprehend is that the card needs to
> have music copied to it; needs to be of a large size, and needs
> to be changed if there is a large library (unless you erase and
> recopy which is a hassle).
I comprehend this fine. You still do not get my point. I donot recommend such a system as it exists now for general use. It may however be used as a kind of "absolute reference" against which other systems are judged.
Further, your arguments are not really making much of a point.
If using a computer HDD the music also needs to be copied to them.
To work around the size limits (256GB max at the moment) a multi-slot reader may be integrated. An 8-Socket reader can right now hold 2TB.
To make filling the player easier, simply have a USB Interface for a PC. Add a manager app that also adds all the required meta data (Playlist files, coverart etc.) with the music files, you can fill those 2T quite easily, with the player acting as USB SDCard reader.
If one where to add a small wireless bridge (bluetooth?), one would be able to retrieve the meta data from the SD Card and store it in the the control apps local cache (e.g. on an Tablet). Then you have all the rich interface, searching etc. we get on a Computer, but a playback device which in playback mode is a very basic serial memory reader that then sends the data on.
A USB DAC would not be supportable, but there is no point why a DAC should not be included.
> There are so many offers made for SD cards and the like, and so
> many fakes that I would not, for one, spend a lot of money for
> a large card. You don't seem to have understood this either.
I recently bought a large number of 64G SD Cardsfor my Sony Phone, to take along music in HD (yes, I have to swap cards by hand). Other than having to swap cards the whole arrangements is very convenient and quite easy to use.
I had no problem getting genuine cards at a good price. Maybe you are just too greedy and going for the lowest price ends you up with fakes?
Anyway, I am considering right now buing the Tablet version of my Phone and using this as dedicated music playback/streamer, it sure is cheap enough. Of course, that is still using Computer, even if it is in effect the same platform as a fair few "streamers".
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
spell it right in your post.
You posted as though it was a general thing to do and your reply simply demeans your status as an 'expert'.
SD cards costs at least $2500; more in the UK.
Oh but it were so simple.. :-) That SD card itself already is a computer, albeit a minimal one. SD cards can be hacked. However, it's definitely a very low power computer and its small size probably makes it a poor radiator.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony,
SD Cards contain a Microcontroller (usually 8 Bit 8051) for some housekeeping jobs. They operate synchronous with the card operation.
Past that an SD card is just a giant serial flash memory chip. Reading is fully synchronous. All in all an SD Card makes a fine facsimile of a CD in mst areas of operation.
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
I'm not familiar with the instruction set of the 8051, but I am familiar with the similar 6502, which was the processor in the Apple II personal computer. I even programmed it to do digital signal processing (LPC compression of telephone quality voice), and this worked after a fashion, but the processing ran at 10 times slower than real time after I speeded up my original Basic code by changing the data encoding, rewriting the math library routines and doing all the processing in assembler. The 64 kb RAM allowed storage of only a few seconds of voice. My friends and I built a sound card out of a free sample 64 kb Motorola CODEC chip. This was around 1980. I also made the Apple II speaker (connected to a programmable flip-flop) play a mix of square waves of two different frequencies by using pulse density modulation.
While the SD card runs in one clock domain, I'd be surprised if the number of clock cycles required per data transfer is fixed. I'm certain that is not the case when it comes to writes, which can become very slow, particularly if the card has a lot of wear from many writes. I use one of these SD cards with my Raspberry Pi, and I have gone through about six cards in 18 months due to wear-out, from doing system updates, etc..
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony,Nothing stops you fixing the clock...
I cannot say I had any flash memory fail on me (despite being machine - washed in my trouser pockets), but my normal use of Flash memory is VERY static (I almost use them in WORM mode), except in my Digital Camera, but even there I tend to pile pictures untilnearly full, then I copy them off and after that format the card.
8051 based MCU are the mainstay of primitive embedded systems, think Fridge, CD-Player etc. and I have used them quite a bit. Though for my recent designs I have switched to ARM2 based Freescale Kinetis 32 Bit processors, which are incredibly more flexible and competetive price wise.
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
Edits: 10/19/14
Are they, and their receptacles shielded? How good is the power supply to them. How big do they need to be in capacity for a system that is convenient to use? What is the price of a 256G card? How do know know before buying that they work as claimed?
For a 256G SD card, I can buy a much larger ssd; may be 1.8 in although these are a nuisance as well by way of some connectors.
This is indeed fascinating. What are the ways that one could realistically be vulnerable or harmed? I only use SD cards for my portable digital recorder and digital cameras.
The main take-home is that these cards can hold hidden information that can not be discovered by the user using only normal access to their pins. This means:
1. If they contain illicit material or malware, they may retain this unwanted information after you think you have "sterilized" the card. This information may remain accessible to anyone who knows a secret code, but otherwise inaccessible by a normal user.
2. This capability makes it easier for the card to serve as a vector for malware or spy ware, etc...
3. If you do not trust the supply chain for the card or if the card has ever been connected to an untrusted computer then it is not to be trusted, and should not be connected to any computer that you wish to continue to trust.
Of course, this depends on how paranoid you are, what information you have and who might want to know it, if you are a person of interest, etc... Probably not a problem for cards used in computers that are never used for anything but audio, but if you have a file server that holds personal material as well as music then there may be a risk.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Thanks for the information.
I guess we have to define a person of interest.:)
Wow! I'd never really considered that. Stupid I suppose but somehow even knowing about wear leveling and defect detection and correction didn't quite ring the bell that there might be a hackable controller on board.
Obviously time to take the dog for a walk, that seems safe and untechnical. Now where's my cell phone...
Rick
I am more concerned with the fact that many won't work reliably in PCs and some can't even be formatted in ntfs.
They seem to work more reliably in cameras.
I have to heavily junk my inbox against sd card and usb thumb drive promotions as I am now very discerning about what removable media devices I buy.
By coincidence, I discovered that SLC thumb drives work best and fastest.
My Raspberry Pi runs off an 8 GB micro SD card. After too many failures I switched to the more expensive cards. These seem to be somewhat better. Operating system updates and software builds are particularly hard in terms of write overhead. Running my embedded system is not a problem, because it is designed to write very little data to the card, and that only on system shut down.
Based on my track record with smaller cards, I'm not likely to shell out the money for a larger SD card. It probably would work OK for holding a small library of reference tracks, but to use it to shuttle daily listening music seems risky, in addition to inconvenient as you pointed out earlier.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Class 10, Ultra, 45MB/s are just labels. In reality none of these shape up to claims and this is buying from major names and large retailers.
Some cards just don't like PCs and Windows. I actually think that it is the controllers which are not sorted.
There are many cheapish Chinese SD card players but there is no telling what player software is embedded. I may try a few at shops when I visit and see what they can do. It is still unwise to pay for large cards for hires music.
On my modified Korg MR1, I actually chose to use a 1.8 in ssd and not a sd card because of the number of modders who had trouble getting them to work with brands other than Photofast .
"Thorsten knows what he talking about" is a very general statement.
If you mean concerning DAC technology and digital processing related to, then yes.
The topic(s)he clearly is not experienced with is the market for audio grade file players or streamers. Nobody with a modicum of first hand use of these components could possibly post what he does.
When he doubted out loud if there was a streamer that does DSD with USB output for less than $1500 and had to be told about the SOtM Mini Server for $449, and others, is pretty conclusive proof he had not spent five minutes researching the market.
Quite frankly there plenty on this board who are very technical with degrees, and some related engineering experience who don't have the first clue how to set up an audio system to stream files and make it sound great, not just good because they are of the spec sheet mentality.
Market knowledge (of the latest "in" products) is at best ephemeral. If one is in the market for purchasing new audio equipment it may be valuable to have this information, and it is certainly important if one is planning a business strategy in a market area. Apart from that it is generally worthless.
I am quite certain that Thorsten could take a collection of mid-fi components and set them up well, so well that they would probably blow away many of the systems put together by high budget dilettantes and poseurs. If you will read Thorsten's posts and learn of his history you will see that he did not come up from the "spec sheet mentality". No one who went that route makes inexpensive good sounding products.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
They stand as firm evidence & Thorsten's erroneous contradictory statements clearly indicate that he didn't bother to look at them.
Since it's never possible to know how equipment can sound on the basis of it's specs, he clearly has very limited, cursory, knowledge.
1. Wrong conclusions about the internal components
2. Hasn't heard the device
3. Wrong about the price
4. Refuses to conduct further research
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
"Wrong conclusions about the internal components"
Are you joking??? If you look at it, it is in no way a hi end design. It is just a tablet in pretty dress. He is not going to say anything about it. smh... Enough already...
uh no.....
Are you the moderator?
My claim is that it is different: and that is most true.
My claim also is that it is more high-end than a commercial, mult-purpose, computer main-board, - which is also true.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
"Are you the moderator?"
I do not think I said that..
"My claim is that it is different: and that is most true.
My claim also is that it is more high-end than a commercial, mult-purpose, computer main-board, - which is also true."
This is a total waste... They are the same, but you will never, or do not want to know. A mother board is a mother board. When you see an audio motherboard please tell us...
Bob, you must know that each brand and issue of motherboard is different.
I tend to like using the same brand and issue for general use because I can migrate w/o hassle. But going Gigabyte to Intel on XP with the same HDD? Different ball game.
"Bob, you must know that each brand and issue of motherboard is different."
Hi Fred,
Yes actually I do. I was making the comment in an attempt to eventually to get the streamer guys to think regarding the "boards" in their pleasure devices.
Slots, ports or the lack of them, does not make a good board, or bad board for audio (as you also already know) and IMO.
The boards they they are using are nothing special. Often off the shelf, an even if custom as in the Aries, still using mainstream parts.
The Intel server board I am using is a good board. The board you are using is a good board also. As you know because it is kind of dumb it can successfully be used with multi-rail linear supplies. Something that cannot be done with many boards.
1. (if you're referring to me) I am not a streamer guy.
I am running a MAC Mini. Sprezza also, is BOTH.
2. Slots, ports or the lack of them, does not make a good board, or bad board for audio (as you also already know) and IMO.
Unless you've tested, them, - how do you? How can you formulate an opinion about something that you have not tested? (hidden answer spelled out): you can't. In several instances: as seen with other types of mainboards, - removing components from the signal path DOES indeed help SQ. Now how much, and if in this case, - is still speculation: with the specific board the we're talking about: (Aries).
3. ""The boards they they are using are nothing special."" What does that mean? How do you define special? Off of what shelf? Are you talking about the Aries? If so, - then of course you are wrong. The gold plated connectors, and the hard soldered in gold plated SPDIF connector clearly shows that the board is not off the shelf. Is it made by AMD, ASUS, INTEL, AnTec, IMicro: from whom's "shelf" does this come?
If you are on some kind of crazy agendae to prove that all transports sound the same, and that a streaming device is the same, and therefore sounds the same: you really should get your facts straight first.
Why not open up that closed mind and back up your speculation with some experience? Or at least admit that you don't know. This is serious dogma regurgitation. Same thing as the VRDS-NEO. Claiming that the VRDS-NEO sounds the same as all other transports because on your own, you decided that the differences "shouldn't" make enough difference, - so you make your speculation into a certain fact. Why do you have such a huge investment in denigrating another approace? Are you that insecure in the one that you're engaged in?
I find this ironic outside the conversation of mainboards, - in that you "all the same" guys are also turning your commercial computer into an (audio only device) by pulling the fans, installing SSD drives, upgrading the HD cables, and installing linear power supplies, and then adding tweaks.
The best that we can say about the Aries is that we don't know if its mainboard differences make it sound any different, or any better.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
As far as forming opinions, there are primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. These can be used and weighed accordingly.
I am not calling you a streamer guy or saying that all boards sound the same.What I really I wish you could understand is that what I use and what many of the "serious" people are using are nowhere close to commercial computers.
Please read some other boards such as Jplay and CA if you are interested. Many of these systems are as specialized or more specialized than the brand name streamer transports minus the fancy box and name plate.
I think you really might be missing this point of the discussion.
Edits: 10/22/14
The Bryston looks similar to some of the custom music server builds I've seen. Bryston focused on the quality of the SPDIF and AES/EBU outputs whereas many custom designs like CAPSv3 are focused on the quality of the USB output. I believe you can get the same or better SQ with your own build for less money, but you'll have to take the time to do it, and it will be hard to match Bryston's convenience and system integration features such as front panel display, IR remote, trigger inputs/outputs, RS232 control, and web interface. So I don't think it's a bad deal at all. The Bryston will be for people who want a well integrated, well packaged, turnkey solution. A DIY computer based music server will be for people who enjoy the process of building, configuring, learning, and tweaking as much as the final result. I don't see why there needs to be a pissing contest between people who have taken one approach vs. another.
The Auralic Aries is a bit of a different animal. It is a streaming audio renderer and is designed specifically to receive audio streams over the network and output them to a DAC, with only the minimum hardware necessary to do that. It doesn't have internal storage for your music, it doesn't support attached storage, it doesn't access a remote filesystem, it doesn't manage or index a music library. Because it is more limited in function, and the hardware design is more narrowly focused, there is the potential for it to be a better sounding streamer than a custom DIY computer used as a streamer. But I think it's too soon to say whether it's going to deliver.
Hi Dave K:
I found the tone and content of your posts here to be most welcome.
Lots of thoughtful and neutral ideas.
On the Bryston, however, let me clarify a few things. I have talked extensively with the team there that developed and continues to develop the product.
First, their USB output is every bit the focus as is their AES/EBU and SPDIF outputs. As a matter of fact, they just released a BDP-USB, with USB output ONLY < and no soundcard.
Second, they strongly discourage the use of the display and the remote. The remote is really a system remote. There are several excellent control apps for iOS, and Android to control the BDPs. You can use a web browser too.
The product is based on Auraliti's architecture and was designed for local or ethernet file access.
Lastly, the BDP series can be used with internal storage, SS too, if you desire.
I have not needed support but when I monitor the message boards, the level of support is like nothing I have ever seen.
The Aries..yes a different animal but similar. They CLAIM it is not a streamer but it sure as heck is.
BTW, an upcoming firmware will unlock local file playback from directly connected storage.
"The Bryston looks similar to some of the custom music server builds I've seen. Bryston focused on the quality of the SPDIF and AES/EBU outputs whereas many custom designs like CAPSv3 are focused on the quality of the USB output. I believe you can get the same or better SQ with your own build for less money, but you'll have to take the time to do it, and it will be hard to match Bryston's convenience and system integration features such as front panel display, IR remote, trigger inputs/outputs, RS232 control, and web interface. So I don't think it's a bad deal at all. The Bryston will be for people who want a well integrated, well packaged, turnkey solution. A DIY computer based music server will be for people who enjoy the process of building, configuring, learning, and tweaking as much as the final result."
I agree with you 100%!!!
"I don't see why there needs to be a pissing contest between people who have taken one approach vs. another."
Good point, I agree also... This really does not happen to the same degree on other boards... For some reason when anyone talk about something they might not, or want not to understand the conversations here turn to garbage. There is a good thread on CA now regarding fans and RFI. Take a look back at what happened here when the same topic was mentioned.
Forget about audio for a moment. Are all motherboards equally stable? Are they equally tolerant of a sub-par power supply? Do they all overclock the same? Of course not. Just to pick on two fundamental things, consider power and ground. Power regulation has a large effect on performance, and grounding schemes have an effect on noise on the board and noise radiated from the board. I think it's unreasonable to believe that a small amount of CPU activity in the form of background processes will affect digital audio output but fundamental things like power regulation and grounding will not.
""Power regulation has a large effect on performance,""Very true. The main board is down the list, - for sure.
SOTA performance is of course, a different story.
When the team at Esoteric/TEAC thought that they'd try to see and see what happens when they used a much more precise, beefy, and overkill motor: and a magnesium disc clamping mechanism, - they probably weren't sure if it would improve SQ. And certainly that transport wouldn't sound as good if it had a crappy power supply, or the DAC that one used it with was not very good either.
When one moves up into the category of superior playback, removing unnecessary, (and sometimes what appears to be minutiae), components, can yield (however slight), positive results.
Do you think that a Rasberry Pi and the "slightly custom" board that the Bryston uses would sound the same in the same the case, with the same PSU?
Would the Aries sound the same as the Rasberry Pi running off of it's USB outs?
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Edits: 10/22/14
"Do you think that a Rasberry Pi"
Why you keep using this as an example. The Pi is not really up to "audiophile" standards IMO.
If you are looking at ARM boards, there are better ones out there. No they would not the same, but if you took a similar class boards a put it in the system, you could obtain similar results. They did not necessarily select the board for it's "audio" qualities.
When the team at Esoteric/TEAC thought that they'd try to see and see what happens when they used a much more precise, beefy, and overkill motor: and a magnesium disc clamping mechanism, - they probably weren't sure if it would improve SQ. And certainly that transport wouldn't sound as good if it had a crappy power supply, or the DAC that one used it with was not very good either.
When one moves up into the category of superior playback, removing unnecessary, (and sometimes what appears to be minutiae), components, can yield (however slight), positive results.
With a design like the VRDS-NEO, I usually wonder whether the engineering team developed an optimum design through experimentation, data gathering, and analysis. Or did they simply try to make it as perfect as they knew how, hoping that it would improve things. The latter approach seems to be common in high end audio, and it usually does yield improvements, but often we can't pin down the specific design decisions that are most responsible for improvement.
Do you think that a Rasberry Pi and the "slightly custom" board that the Bryston uses would sound the same in the same the case, with the same PSU?
Would the Aries sound the same as the Rasberry Pi running off of it's USB outs?
That's the $100000 question. A problem with computer audio is that there are so many variables. You can optimize all kinds of things only to be let down by a grounding issue or one bad component choice.
From what I can tell based on their designs & the component selections visible in pictures, I would expect the Aries to be superior via USB output except in environments with a lot of RFI, in which case the Bryston might be superior. Regarding replacing the mainboard in the Bryston with a Raspberry Pi, I couldn't guess which would be better via USB output, but I'm certain they would have to cut the feature set if they used a Raspberry Pi. Via SPDIF or AES/EBU, it's really not obvious whether the Bryston or Aries would be better, but they have both spent effort trying to improve these outputs relative to what you would get from a typical sound card.
I am assuming that the differences in SQ between these transports are not due to different data being transmitted, or differences in data rate, or errors in transmission of the data. Restated another way, the hypothesis is that all three transports are equivalently functional as data interfaces.
A USB 2.0 cable contains 4 wires: +5V DC, ground, D+, and D-. The data is transmitted as a differential signal on D+/-.
Of these, the ground is probably most important to SQ. The Raspberry Pi is designed to have a floating ground, and from the pictures of the Aries I believe it is too. So no ground loops, but also no low impedance path out of the circuit for RFI. The Bryston, on the other hand, appears to be grounded to the mains equipment ground. Which is better will be system dependent.
Assuming that you're not powering the DAC via USB, the +5V DC output probably has the least impact on SQ because it will only be used by the transport to signal its presence to the DAC, and the DAC may not require it and might even leave it unconnected. The Aries has a dedicated regulator right next to the USB output, the Bryston has a modular MeanWell supply located on a separate power supply board providing +5V to the mainboard, and the Raspberry Pi also has a +5V input. From a design POV, I guess I would give the edge to Aries here because the dedicated regulator would isolate the +5V USB output from anything else on the board using +5V. But I doubt it makes much difference at all with most DACs.
The D+/D- signal lines could be important, and some of the things that might make a difference are clock stability, bandwidth (sharpness of edge transitions), noise, and possibly DC offset if these lines aren't transformer coupled at the receive end. In this case, I would expect the Aries to have an advantage because it has a dedicated high quality clock for the USB output right next to the controller and it looks like the outputs from the USB controller are buffered by line drivers. The Bryston is just using the USB outputs provided by the mainboard and same for the Raspberry Pi; I couldn't guess as to the quality of these.
Of course, all of this is conjecture. The Aries looks to be well designed for the purpose, but all it takes is one bad design decision or component choice to spoil the sound quality.
All it takes for you to look at the picture, - but you....just
can't
bring
yourself
to
do
it
""A mother board is a mother board""
yes, - you can say it twice: but it doesn't change the fact that not all motherboards are the same: or are you trying to say otherwise?
"When you see an audio motherboard please tell us."
I don't need to, - there's one posted above, so is the Rasberri Pi, goodness they're everywhere.... it's raining motherboards. Wait-a-minute, - we're in a drought, everything sounds the same, all of these streamers are just the same as my ASUS LGA2011 dual Xeon. Those aren't gold connectors: the PCI bus & the video port, and USB inputs are invisible.....
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Edits: 10/20/14
So you are playing music on a dual Xeon board. OK..
no
I am arguing on the internet with people who do not understand basic, deductive logic.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
So you are arguing with your self. Why bring up something unrelated. I do not think you really understand what the difference in board design might have in relation to improvements in sound? Do you?
Let's make believe that having a video port on a board makes a difference... You might think it would... What about no port, but a chip set with video, but no port? Thumbs up, or thumbs down? What really matters?
I am game......
""Why bring up something unrelated""
I am just responding to your post: which of course, was unrelated.
I made the assertion that they are not the same and they are not.
"" I do not think you really understand what the difference in board design might have in relation to improvements in sound?"
(That is a different statement than the fact that the boards are different). So you admit that there are differences? Good! We are making progress.
"""" I do not think you really understand what the difference in board design might have in relation to improvements in sound?"""
I am confident that you do not....
""Let's make believe that having a video port on a board makes a difference""
I do not know, it may or may not: the only way to tell is to listen to the device and compare it. In a typical audiophile design world, removing superfluous components from the single path usually helps. But either or any bit of speculation is just that.
Do you think that gold plated connectors will help SQ?
Do you think that the lack of a PCI bus will help SQ?
Do you think that the lack of fans on the CPU, a hard drive, or a fan in the case will help?
Do you think that the lack of USB inputs, and a multiport USB bus will help?
How would the (yet again), very different, Rasberry Pi mainboard pan out in listening tests? Would the case matter that you install the Pi in make a difference?
If the mainboards are different, (as you now have finally admitted), do they in fact not sound different? What did you think when you compared them?
Why is your speculation "better?"
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
"No one who went that route makes inexpensive good sounding products."
How about when they design $12,000 CD players..or paper weights depending how you see things.
You clearly read and believe what you want to.No one here is discussing "in" products, with the exception of the Auralic Aries, from a new company with only one well known product to its name.
However, Bryston, Naim, Linn, Pro-Ject, Marantz, and MANY others here that are discussed are companies that have long histories of making excellent products at all price points.
I have never discussed a digital product here that I have a personal interest in that cost more than $3500. My Bryston BDP-2 cost me $2500, which less than three audiophile local buddies spent on their cartridges, and heck, their tone arms.
One of the big mistakes very smart people in their field, and Thorsten clearly is, is that they think they can fake it in areas they have no first hand experience in. It rarely works.
Do your self a favor so you don't to be in the dark anymore as far as discussing computers versus purpose built audio products. Go and listen to several units you don't consider to be crazy expensive. You still may prefer your computer, that is fine. Those of us who have pursued both avenues have a reference.
Edits: 10/17/14
''stream DSD-512 and PCM-768 from local SD Card storage''
Direct quote from his post
What music lover wants to do this? This is proof that technology and price push ignore human convenience and ergonomics.
What about the price of a large SD card? There are so many 'fakes' which don't work properly that I would not buy a large capacity expensive one with the 'ultimate' type of label.
Please have a CLUE about the market before you post this stuff.
-SOtM Mini Server: USB Output, DSD, connects to any networked device or computer. $449.
Bryston BDP1/2, and BDP-USB: USB Outputs, DSD, local file playback or ethernet. $1800 and up
Auralic Aries: USB output, DSD, etc, $999.
Simaudio MiND: AES/EBU, DSD (to devices that decode DSD via non USB connections)
What don't you get? NOBODY who givea a darn about sonics WANTS a screen. Tablet control is MUCH preferred.
Just stick to DACs.
At many more units from Sonore, Aurender, etc etc.
Just to put a bit of reality to the pretty face you are so impressed with.
Can you please tell me what is so audiophile about this picture?
Do you really think this would that much better that a tablet???
Some of the things I see:
+ No mainboard full of ununsed connectors. Each open mainboard connector is potentially another entry/exit point for noise. This also keeps the size small, which helps with noise.
+ Use of minimum necessary components, and absence of all the unused features you would get with a general purpose single board computer. There's a daughter card with the CPU, memory, and regulators. And a removable wifi module. On the main board there's an Ethernet controller, a USB controller, a small microcontroller, clocks, and drivers for the digital outputs. That's about it; just enough for the job and without all of the typical extra stuff that might tax the CPU, power supplies, and/or add noise.
+ Separate dedicated clocks for USB outputs and digital audio (AES & S/PDIF) outputs.
+ Both the AES/EBU and S/PDIF outputs are transformer coupled. Better than tying the S/PDIF shield to signal ground. And the transformer used is a Murata DA101 which should be better than those found on typical sound card outputs at higher data rates due to higher bandwidth.
+ Audio DSP looks custom, implemented on a microcontroller.
+ Looks like some extra regulation stages in there for low noise power to key components
+ Buffers at the USB outputs
But there are a couple of things I'm not so thrilled about:
- Wifi. There's probably a lot of people who demand it, but I'd rather it wasn't there. It looks like the wifi card is removable though.
- Looks like a plastic case. Shouldn't this be shielded?
.
better power supply, higher quality connectors: for a start....
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
"better power supply, "
Not even close.
Really... look a couple of posts below...
.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
What are the big differences? Seriously...
To be fair most of these things are pretty much standard fare on the digital side. To think differently is foolish... My music players, and many others guys are much more trick than many commercial units.
.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
You are just becoming repetitive. And since you don't list your system, and have not heard the products under discussion,your insights are, truth be told, of no interest. Any one can link photos and become an armchair reverse engineer.
You are totally hilarious, or maybe just bored.
I have mention what I use often enough...
You question Steve why he posts about a COMPUTER OS in the COMPUTER AUDIO FORM... And you post about streamers which you say are not computers in the computer audio forum!!!
You are being idiotic now.
A)I NEVER said streamers or file players were NOT computers. They ARE computers..PURPOSE built for audio. I define "computer" as the word is commonly used as a finished product with either Windows or MAC O/S preloaded with keyboards, various non audio related ports, that can run a variety of programs, that can be purchased at any commodity store. This has been clear from the beginning.
B)Even if one clams that in no way shape or form streamers or file players are not even remotely computers, they play computer files, stored on hard drives, which are attached to a computer or are stored in a bay in a NAS running software. That IS a computer.
Your constant attempts to play gotcha and your I'm just a bit smarter than everyone else game is tiresome.
"I define "computer" as the word is commonly used as a finished product with either Windows or MAC O/S preloaded with keyboards, various non audio related ports, that can run a variety of programs, that can be purchased at any commodity store. "
You define... Great so now you can have your opinion that these non computer computers are so different from the computer computers when used for audio. Most everyone will understand that they are really not. My computer hardware is just as, or more so purpose built that what is in you box... My OS and player software IMO is much better. Maybe you do not fully understanding all of what this conversation entails...fine. You are entitled to your myopic opinion.
Your posts are circular and never resolving.
Like many here, you are far, far more interested in the mechanism than the end result.
Translation: you are far more into computers and name checking mother boards and and computer hardware than you are audio. Have fun.
"Like many here, you are far, far more interested in the mechanism than the end result."
The mechanism and the application of it brings you to the end result.
Ring around the Rosey Pocket full of Posey...
You are now on permanent ignore.
Sorry the thought process is too complex for you...
You would have to try real hard to top it....
Alas, that is what you get when knowledgeable members of the community rely on non-experience, and no real understanding of a particular market.
I have the SOtM mini server running right now, with USB out, streaming 44.1 khz to DSD, connected via Ethernet (there is no wifi on SOtM products) controlling the library with an iPad Air.
The sound is stellar.
Let's clarify...I have never used the Auralic Aries.
I have only talked about it as a conceptual product. Based on its use of Femto clocks, its ability to stream DSD via network and other high grade solutions du jour, it looks interesting. I have no idea if it is a great product.
FYI, I have very much cooled on the Aries because I am not crazy about the form factor, and the fact the company has sent out samples that are not quite ready for prime time.
So to answer your question, I have no idea if it is better or worse.
"So to answer your question, I have no idea if it is better or worse."
But you are sure streamers are the way to the promised land???
And not just like any other computer but dressed up is an expensive outfit...
""But you are sure streamers are the way to the promised land???""
Why step so far outside reason, and what he wrote? For the above?
Kind of makes me wonder what you're preaching on your end.
It's been shown, through direct evidence that the two are in no way "just like" each other.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
"Why step so far outside reason, and what he wrote? For the above?"
Because I feel some are not genuinely interested in a reasonably conversation. So what's the point...
Interesting, an off the shelf commodity mini-PCIe wifi card.
"Interesting, an off the shelf commodity mini-PCIe wifi card."Yes and looking further most look pretty run of the mill for something "audiophile"
The board has 4 switching converters and open inductors,which would are bound radiate lots of noise. Nothing special looking, no real filtering to reduce noise.
Edits: 10/16/14
Hi,
> Please have a CLUE about the market before you post this stuff.
I do.
> -SOtM Mini Server: USB Output, DSD, connects to any networked
> device or computer. $449.
Yes, I like this one fine. Fair pricing too.
But it still needs a NAS and a control device. Add them to the bill.
And it still has to deal with networking overheads.
Might still be tempted to use an old leftover cellphone or laptop instead, as I already have them, so they are "free".
In fact, I do, wherever sound quality is of little concern (never would use network streaming anywhere near where it mattered, but fine for background music).
> What don't you get? NOBODY who givea a darn about sonics WANTS
> a screen. Tablet control is MUCH preferred.
Why is tablet control preferred?
Is it because with a tablet you MUST have Wifi on while using an IR remote controled device with it's own screen does not require the use of Wifi or even a network connection and so that solution must be bad?
MY experience is that anything source with Wifi on is game over for sound quality. Just forget it.
Battery powerd cell phones may be an exceptions, but this one is so new, we are still getting handles on what it can and cannot do.
Ethernet wired is also far from great. I only ever use hardwired networks for audio, if I am listening to the music (even background music). Local HDD (ESATA or USB3) much preferred.
And I turn hardwired networks off for serious listening.
Due to the way general purpose OS's work on the network side, running audio from a NAS and controlling it from a Tablet is a safe way of downgrading SQ.
That goes no matter what sort of computer is used (and even if that computer is called "Streamer" or "Blue Ray Player" and not "Mac Mini" or Ültrabook").
Sure, it is convenient though and looks like it keeps the dreaded computer out of the listening room to anyone naive enough.
But at what (s0n1c) c0$t?.
> At many more units from Sonore, Aurender, etc etc.
Yes, there is a flood of streamers. That does not mean they are viable solution in the market.
Are they better than a dedicated optimised computer without Wifi or network based remote control, without pulling data from remote sources via network?
Good question.
Over here, I have not come across one that is, but I mostly evaluate platforms and not specific products.
This may change or not. Time will tell.
For now most streamers I have seen have little to commend them over generic commodity computer hardware, because that is precise what they use and implement with few if any material hardware changes over the commodity options.
Just open them up, look at the IC used and then look up the datasheets and see how much the implementations diverge from the datasheet.
Rest assured, if sales of things become material enough to be worth persuing, you will see one from my direction in 2-3 month (maybe less - we are constantly evaluting the state of the art - me mom, she raise herself no fool).
For now, not worth the effort, based on sales potential.
Again, this may change, just like it did with other things.
Who knows, if I put some effort in it may even end up decent. Then again, if sound quality is the main concern I suspect something like John Brown's SD card player beats anything I know, I intend to get one of them days, as stalking horse. It is just SO darn impractical.
So I may be more tempted to work out the usability kinks out of concepts like that, rather then make another generic "me too streamer" based on cellphone CPU's and OS's that lags behind most PC's correctly implemented or even a Raspberry Pi with an SD Card and wired HID remote (and no network).
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
A big mistake on your part, - IMO.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Wanna take bets on an iFi network streamer/file payer for 2015?
To pinpoint a couple of your distortions..where you claim the NAS and control devices are additional expenses...Nonsense.
I use the same iPad I use for everything else. Eh, one down.
A NAS is absolutely not needed, one can use their home computer running Jriver or any number of DLNA compliant programs. So the SAME hard drives you rip and download to feed your streamers. Those hard drives are there regardless. Second down, next...
And the cherry on top is that my cost for server and playback software...? ZERO.
I use XLD to rip, and MiniMServer to talk the the streamers. FREEWARE.
Ready for your spin, now that we have debunked all the fabricated obstacles you have claimed.
If you had researched for even five minutes all the current products from Marantz, Sonore, Pro-Ject, or even Cambridge Audio you may have been more up to date.
Edits: 10/15/14 10/15/14 10/15/14
I think the point is that the mere presence of a powered up computer, especially if it is on wi-fi, is probably degrading sound quality. It doesn't matter if the computer is doing anything with audio. If it's just running it is creating RFI/EMI, as can easily be demonstrated by using an AM radio. By computer I mean a device that contains a processor of some form. Today this may include cable boxes, TVs, refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines, furnaces, etc...
The cure for this is to go to the fuse box and turn off all unnecessary circuits. If you have neighbors, go to the main distributor box and pull their main breaker, etc... You get the idea. Just a suggestion, you might find it not so well received.. I'm not saying that I've done it, but then I'm not saying that I haven't done it, either... :-)
Remember, every wire is an antenna. If it's connected to a noisy computer it's a transmitting antenna. If it's connected to an audio product it's a receiving antenna. Even something as rearranging the way two cables cross so they cross at 90 degrees rather than running parallel may make a difference. These differences may or may not be large, but if you are swapping components for evaluation purposes and do not take these factors into consideration you may be making incorrect decisions that seem good today but not next week.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Who said anything about a computer in the vicinity running WiFi?
Folks with streamers have gone that route to GET RID of the computer in the listening room.
In my case, the computer that manages and serves my files, via attached drives is on ethernet only.
A general wifi network is required for phone or tablet control. That stays in the listening position. a good 10 feet away. Let's not get into phantom gremlins.
People use tablets with wi-fi to control streamers. They use them to control other things as well. If the streamer is dumb and depends upon some other computer for control then that computer may need to be controlled by wi-fi.
A streamer is just as much a computer as any other computer, according to the things that it can do to your audio equipment. If the streamer is in your audio room and/or connected to the rest of your audio stack it can degrade the sound. The test for this is to listen to an analog source with the streamer in various situations:
1. unplugged from AC and from preamp
2. plugged into AC but switched off and unplugged from preamp
3. plugged into AC and switched on, connected to file source, but unplugged from preamp,
etc.. Depending on what you hear, other tests will be appropriate.
The reason why I suggested using an analog source is because even an ordinary CD player contains a computer.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"If the streamer is dumb and depends upon some other computer for control then that computer may need to be controlled by wi-fi."
I have no idea what the above means.
My Mac Mini is on Ethernet. My streamer is on Ethernet. The tablet is on WiFi. Never the twain shall meet.
How do you control what music plays on your streamer and how do you start/pause/stop playback?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
With the an iPad. Air. As long as your streamer and your NAS, or computer with files is attached to the network, even with just Ethernet, the control apps talk to your router and send the commands.My Mac Mini has WiFi deactivated. as does my streamer.
I am wondering how limited your knowledge of these products are.
I had the set up for years with a Squeezebox Touch. Never used WiFi to stream the files, but controlled playback with a phone.
Edits: 10/16/14
" but controlled playback with a phone. "
Yes, I know how components talk to each other and how the elements of computing can be distributed across a network. I've been doing that since before 1980.
The Touch has a control panel. That's what I meant by "smart". No need for it to talk to anything else except the server. Other devices don't work that way. For example the SOTM running Miksa's NAA software requires HQPlayer running on a PC to create playlists and start/stop/pause playback.
How is your iPad air connected to your streamer? Where is it physically located with respect to your audio stack?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I am still puzzled by your questions.The iPad air is NOT connected to my streamer. It stays 10 feet away at the listening chair.
It actually "talks" to MiniMstreamer,installed on my Mac Mini , 2 rooms away, which serves the files to streamer, via a router, 150 feet away from all my systems. EVERYTHING is hard wired. The only devices on WiFi in my house are iPads, and occasionally, laptops for work purposes.
I have the SOtM, and all my streamers set up for DLNA.
The point I have been trying to make, and others too, is that these headless solutions are by far the better way to go.
Perhaps this might help:
SELECTABLE OUTPUT MODES
Mode #1 - SqueezeLite Output Mode - This mode works with any Logitech Media Server (LMS) and compatible controllers. This output supports true gapless playback for FLAC, ALAC, WAV, and AIFF. When used with Vortexbox 2.3 you can output PCM and DoD via USB. When used with LMS on your computer or your NAS you can output PCM via USB.Mode #2 - AirPlay Output Mode - This is an AirPlay emulator that utilizes streams sent to it from a compatible player.
Mode #3 - MPD/DLNA Output Mode:
Mode #3a - DLNA Output Mode - This mode utilizes streams from DLNA servers and controllers. Playback has been enhanced and now uses MPD as the renderer. With JRiver, Linn Kinsky, Linn Kazoo, BubbleUPNP and AudioNet as controllers this mode supports true gapless playback for FLAC, ALAC, WAV, and AIFF. DSD/DoP output is supported via USB if your server supports DoP streaming.
Mode #3b - MPD Output Mode - This mode is intended to work with a Vortexbox based music server (Sonore, SOtM, W4S, and Vortexbox) on the home network. When this mode is selected it automatically locates the existing Vortexbox music server and mounts its storage drive for MPD to output PCM and DSD via USB. This mode supports true gapless playback for FLAC, ALAC, WAV, and AIFF.
Mode #4 - HQ Player NAA - This mode is intended to work with Signalyst's HQ Player running on your computer. Digital signal processing is performed by the HQ Player application. This output supports true gapless playback. The processed data is then asynchronously streamed over the network to the Network Audio Adapter (NAA) to output PCM or DSD via USB.
STANDARD FEATURES
The SOtM Mini Server supports gapless playback
The SOtM Mini Server supports PCM output via USB
The SOtM Mini Server supports DSD/DoP output via USB
The SOtM Mini Server supports internet radio and streaming radio services from LMS
The SOtM Mini Server is isolated from noise on the network
The SOtM Mini Server supports the following PCM sample rates: 44.1KHz, 48KHz, 88.2KHz, 96KHz, 176.4KHz, 192KHz, 352.8KHz and 384KHz
The SOtM Mini Server supports the following DSD rates: DSD64 and DSD128
The SOtM Mini Server plays AAC, AIFF, ALAC, FLAC, MP3, and WAV files from HTTP streams
The SOtM Mini Server is controlled via apps on your mobile device
The SOtM Mini Server is based on Sonic Orbiter that is open source (GPL 2)
Edits: 10/16/14 10/16/14 10/16/14
You have an Ethernet cable up to your iPad Mini and to your stream?
Shielded? Cat 5, 6 or 7?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
UPnP (Universal Plug "n" Play) is a set of protocols that allows a streamer Center to access music files that are stored on a Network Attached Storage device (NAS), or other UPnP compatible music server, to be quickly and easily selected and played.
Essentially the server announces its availability on your home Ethernet network that it can be uses as a renderer (playback device) for music stored on a UPnP-capable server. A control point device (iPad, iPhone, Android tablet, etc) is used to select the streamer as a renderer together with a NAS as a server. The control point device requires an app like PlugPlayer or other control point software for browsing and playlist control.
------------------
Funny for not knowing about networks I have three systems being fed Redbook, 96 Khz, 192 Khz, and DSD music files along with metadata with one set of hard drives.
"Funny for not knowing about networks I have three systems being fed Redbook, 96 Khz, 192 Khz, and DSD music files along with metadata with one set of hard drives."
Making a bunch of computers apparently work together is not the same thing as understanding in detail how they actually work or being able to diagnose which device is malfunctioning when they fail to work. These taska include the ability to understand the specifications on which the network is based.
And here, I'm just talking in the "bits are bits" sense. If you start going beyond this mid-fi level of sound quality then you are in an even more difficult world which no one has yet mastered.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I'm in total agreement with you.
You would be surprised, and I sweat it is true, I know high level IT managers that can't figure out how to get music files on their computers to their stereos via network.
Tony I do not think he understands how a network really works. His streamer is on the network it is not an endpoint as you mentioned can be done with HQplayer, LMS, or with a JPlay two computer setup.regards
Bob
Edits: 10/16/14
Funny, I have PCM files up to 192 Khz and DSD files streaming to three separate systems with one set of hard drives. No dropouts, stuttering, or MIA devices. EVER.I thought the way UPnP works is common knowledge.
I don't want to know anything. I just want my music. And I have it in spades.
As I said, you are concerned with the nuts and bolts far more than the enjoyment.
Edits: 10/16/14
"I don't want to know anything."
OK :)
Tony....do you not understand the iPad simply sends commands to the server software which controls playback on the streamer?Why do you think the iPad or any control device has some direct connection to the streamer. They do not directly communicate in any way.
I'm beside myself.
In NO way does WiFi touch my audio files. My NAS (computer with attached drives) is wired with CAT7, my streamers are wired with CAT7. The control point (tablet/phone) is on WiFi. Since everything is on the same network, the iPad is nothing but a remote control, but it DOES not send direct commands to the streamer, nor does it send it files to play.
Edits: 10/16/14 10/16/14
Thank you for answering my question.
The control device may still affect the sound quality of your audio system. It may do so through its direct radiation, through its power connections (if not on battery) or through its Ethernet cables (even if cat 7 shielded). The test for this is to move the control device out of the room, say right next to the computer that it is controlling. Alternatively, if your Ethernet cable is long enough, you can try moving the control device right next to the audio stack and see what effect this has.
It is not a question of "touching files". The problem is not the "touching" of bits that makes them somehow polluted. The problem comes from pervasive noise from digital circuitry polluting sensitive analog components. It doesn't really matter if a device "touches" the bits or not, provided they are just digital data. On the other hand, if a device "touches" an SPDIF signal or any other "digital" signal that contains audio timing information it is touching more than just the bits.
It is not a matter of theorizing how, or how not, some piece of digital gear may degrade sound quality. It is a matter of conducting listening tests to see what matters and what does not in a particular system.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony, I am here to enjoy my life. I simply cannot be bothered with phantom gremlins, real or imagined.
Air conditioning may degrade the sound but I am not going to sit in a puddle of sweat to enjoy music.
I am going to have my iPad at my listening position at all times unless I am listening to a full album then I put it somewhere else simply because I don't want to knock it over.
BTW, I said I was beside myself because I know you are far more erudite than myself....no sarcasm there.
"BTW, I said I was beside myself"
Do you both take turns sitting in the sweet spot during your listing sessions? ;)
Nah, I hog it....his taste in music sucks,
First, what networking overhead? Why do you need a NAS? The Mac Mini which I used for ripping, tagging, downloading, and managing my music library with 2 3TB drives attached IS my NAS. And it is nowhere near my systems.
In the 5+ years I have been on a network architecture I have never, NOT ONCE, EVER had to trouble shoot. When I test new streamers it is simply a matter of unplugging the Ethernet cable and plugging it back in. Then connecting out to the DAC, either with USB, or AES/EBU.
Never ONCE had to worry about playback software, O/S, computer isolation, or any of the nonsense folks here immerse them selves in,
The WiFi has utterly no relationship to the music. The tablet control point uses WiFi to browse the library. THAT IS IT. Some of my streamers do NOT even HAVE WiFi on board like the Bryston.
The VERY BEST part? I stream ONE SET of files to three full systems, with Naim, Bryston, and Simaudio streamers, with a fourth in the works.
You are painting a LOT of inaccurate pictures here. Continuously. And stubbornly.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
