Digital Drive

Upsamplers, DACs, jitter, shakes and analogue withdrawals, this is it.

Return to Digital Drive


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Need Single CD Transport with USB output

67.174.208.145

Posted on August 16, 2009 at 16:48:36
howgeif
Audiophile

Posts: 354
Location: Northern California
Joined: April 23, 2002
Does anyone make a single CD transport with USB output? This will allow me to use the Ayre USB DAC. I am also looking at a MAC solution but am interested in finding a good quality transport that outputs USB.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Need Single CD Transport with USB output, posted on August 17, 2009 at 04:46:17
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2381
Joined: September 27, 2004
I'm not sure there are any - there really shouldn't be. USB is a computer industry protocol – somewhat alien to Audio.

S/PDIF is the most commonly used and accepted Audio connection between transport and DAC, but there are others - some far better than S/PDIF, in that jitter levels are lower.

USB only exists in Audio because many people choose to use standard computers to store their music and USB is the most usual way of retrieving it, but again there are others, some arguably better. Consequently DAC manufacturers jumped on the bandwagon and either modified existing DACs, or designed new ones to accept USB. Most DACs process this alien protocol via S/PDIF (not a good idea) but a few including Ayre do the job properly.

It would suggest it's very short-sighted of any DAC manufacturer to accept exclusively USB - it puts owners of CD Transports and anyone with for example a digital radio tuner into the situation you find yourself.

Why buy the Ayre if it doesn't cater for standard Audio industry digital connections? I understand it’s only capable of being fed by bog-standard USB, not even by some computer-based but audio-specific hard-drive servers. As it has only a single USB socket you couldn't even have both your tansport and your Mac connected!

As the Ayre only caters for USB input, perhaps you should instead look to something like PS Audio's PerfectWave DAC with Network Bridge (available November). Then you'll get all the inputs you need (up to 7), including an even better interface between hard-drive stored music and the DAC.

It will cost $1000 more than the Ayre, but you’ll be able to do away with your preamp, so it’s not all bad news. With something like a RipNAS feeding it, you can banish your computer with all its audio pollutants (audio and video cards, noisy fans and hard drives, etc) and associated junk (monitor, keyboard, mouse) from your listening room and keep your computer for the jobs it’s more suited to.

Peter
[with apologies to all who use stand-alone computers – and anticipating a healthy but hopefully good-humoured and constructive backlash!]

 

You will have to buy a computer, mac is best. nt, posted on August 17, 2009 at 06:27:47
Gordon Rankin
Manufacturer

Posts: 2928
Joined: June 9, 2000
You will have to buy a computer, mac is best. nt
J. Gordon Rankin

 

RE: You will have to buy a computer, mac is best. nt, posted on August 17, 2009 at 11:08:34
howgeif
Audiophile

Posts: 354
Location: Northern California
Joined: April 23, 2002
I agree that MAC is the best. My problem is I need to convince my wife we need a MAC computer in our living room with an Ayre DAC and external hard drive. Oh, and I also will have wires all over the place. This is not going to be easy. I am not a fan of wireless (security concerns) so I need to run a 200ft Ethernet cable from my living room to my office router. Is Ethernet over power any good? I wish the Ayre DAC would have had another input option besides USB.

 

Don'r rush out to buy a Mac!, posted on August 17, 2009 at 12:51:45
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2381
Joined: September 27, 2004
Avoid the "other half" problem, by having a nice simple attractive and almost wire-free (but emphatically not wireless) setup.

You ask about "Ethernet over power". If you want to avoid long runs of Ethernet cable around the house, don't worry about using your existing house power cabling with Powerline Home Plugs or similar, although you should use this for control only if possible (not for carrying the signal).

Consider this system - it's very simple and excellent quality, better, easier and much neater even than a Mac system:

Use a RipNAS to store your music on hard drive - no need for stand-alone computer or monitor, keyboard, etc - high WAF (wife acceptance factor).

Connect it using Cat 5 cable to to a Sonos or Slim box (or get a PS Audio PWD with Network Bridge when available in November if funds permit) and that's all you need in your listening room. You won't even need a preamp with the PWD, so your system has very few cables.

However you do need to connect the Sonos or Slim or PWD to your home network router - this can be done through your house wiring - it's used solely for control (remote controller to Sonos), so your music signal (RipNAS to Sonos to DAC) stays hard wired. RipNAS has twin mirrored near silent hard drives, so backup is less important, so no need for permanent external backup drive - I'm helping you big time with your WAF problem here!

Contact me off-line if you need further wiring details. I use this system in a rented house so I can't install long, unsightly runs of network wiring and I refuse to have computer junk (monitor, keyboard, etc) in my listening room!

Peter

 

"Is Ethernet over power any good", posted on August 17, 2009 at 15:08:56
Metralla
Audiophile

Posts: 7801
Location: San Jose, California
Joined: January 30, 2001
That doesn't appeal to me.
Regards,
Geoff

 

Uhhh..., posted on August 17, 2009 at 22:41:53
Charles Hansen
Manufacturer

Posts: 6984
Joined: August 1, 2001
>> As it has only a single USB socket you couldn't even have both your tansport and your Mac connected! <<

Since your Mac already has a CD drive in it, why in the world would you want another CD drive connected to it?

Do you have two tuners connected to your preamp?

 

RE: "Is Ethernet over power any good", posted on August 18, 2009 at 03:49:00
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2381
Joined: September 27, 2004
Ethernet over power (using your house wiring and Home Plugs as part of your network cabling) is absolutely fine for control, but not ideal for signal.

I use it in my system (RipNAS and Sonos) to connect my router in the hall to the Sonos in my listening room. It's used for:

RipNAS to look up metadata from the Internet when ripping new CDs
Allowing the Controller to communicate with Sonos/RipNAS
Receiving Internet radio

The first 2 are non-critical and have no influence on the sound - the signal is hard wired within my listening room, the radio signal is fine - absolutely no problem or glitches.

Peter

 

RE: Uhhh..., posted on August 18, 2009 at 04:19:55
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2381
Joined: September 27, 2004
1. Internet radio is rubbish, analogue FM will be discontinued soon (in UK anyway), so how do you connect your digital radio tuner to your DAC?

2. I don't use a Mac - I use a much simpler, neater and easier method of storing my music - on a RipNAS - I don't have and certainly don't want a conventional computer with all its junk (monitor, keyboard, etc) in my listening room. One disadvantage - I can't simply play a borrowed CD - it has to be ripped first. Illegal if I've borrowed the CD and inconvenient if I just want to listen to it once to see if I like it. How do I connect my transport to your DAC?

3. If anyone stores their music on a NAS in another room (most NASs are too noisy to have in the listening room), how would they connect the Cat 5 cable to your DAC? Via Sonos/Slim, etc is rather defeating the object of getting best sound as they resort to S/PDIF.

4. How would you connect an MP3 player to your DAC? [Not that I have one, but some people (or their children) do]

5. "Do you have two tuners connected to your preamp?" No but I do recall having two or three analogue devices connected to my analogue preamp in the dim and distant past!

In my view buying a single-input DAC is like buying a single input preamp - short sighted. Since your DAC has no volume attenuation, OK one needs to retain an analogue preamp, but this will not accept digital sources.

I would prefer a DAC with a choice of inputs and, for that matter, an analogue volume control on the lines of the circuit used by Mark Levinson in the 390S. Then users can get rid of that quaint and eccentric piece of kit - the preamp. After all, it's now usually used only to control volume. It demands extra cables to degrade the signal, so let's get rid of it - apart from vinyl users of course!

Just my view - sorry. I accept your DAC can probably produce the best possible sound from computer-stored music for those who have no interest beyond their own music collection already stored on a single computer.

Peter

 

RE: Uhhh..., posted on August 18, 2009 at 07:44:26
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
"One disadvantage - I can't simply play a borrowed CD - it has to be ripped first. Illegal if I've borrowed the CD and inconvenient if I just want to listen to it once to see if I like it."

PC player software such as Foobar2000 will play audioCDs without ripping them first. This should do what you want. But you may get better sound if you rip them first, depending on your setup.

If you are worried about the legality of ripping a borrowed CD then I think that big brother has really gotten to you bad; you have become a slave of the establishment. Perhaps after listening to borrowed CDs you should take some mind erasing drugs to forget your memories.

If you are worried about the morality of ripping a borrowed CD, then by all means delete the rips before returning the CDs. Especially if the CD is made by a company not known for ripping off its artists by deceptive practices.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: "Is Ethernet over power any good", posted on August 18, 2009 at 07:46:52
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
I would worry about the residual effect of the RF on the power wiring polluting the performance of your audio gear. Not saying that it will, just that it might. Something to check.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Uhhh..., posted on August 18, 2009 at 09:02:17
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
"In my view buying a single-input DAC is like buying a single input preamp - short sighted."

Ah, then its comparable to buying a RipNAS.

I know you love simplicity, but is that achieved by owning 'bespoke' devices such as a dedicate potato pealer, a food processor, a noodle cutter, a salad chopper... or just a paring knife?

I lean towards the latter so I use a computer (a Swiss-army paring knife) to listen to disks, enjoy internet radio (which is a long way from rubbish) and to store and playback music. The Ayre DAC would be perfect for me.

The simplicity/flexibility conundrum has no solution, the best we can hope for is a compromise that we can live with.

Rick

 

Answers, posted on August 18, 2009 at 09:19:21
Gordon Rankin
Manufacturer

Posts: 2928
Joined: June 9, 2000
Dear Sir,

There are a bunch of what I would call Ethernet expandable options. These come in pairs and work like a modem over your power lines and go for about $129.

Put one at your DSL/Cable box and another at the Audio Computer.

Look you can do a ton of stuff with a computer. This is how you can sell it...

Video streaming
DVD player
Streaming Music
Streaming Radio Stations
Music Server
Video Server
Cable Box (usb eyeTv)

You name it... there are just a ton of options.

You need an SPDIF input... well the MAC's have them. So you can put in Toslink input and then output everything in a much lower jitter output using the Asynchronous USB Audio device like the Ayre.

Thanks
Gordon
J. Gordon Rankin

 

RE: Uhhh..., posted on August 18, 2009 at 09:34:12
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2381
Joined: September 27, 2004
I don't follow your arguement at all. I use the RipNAS as my hard drive music store, for which it is excellent. It is one of my digital sources, in the same way my CD player was one of the sources for my preamp in the Middle Ages. A good quality radio (better than Internet radio in audio quality terms) is another - in fact my only other at present, but somewhere down the line there may be something else wanting a DAC to process its signal.

If you are happy with a jumble of audio equipment, including a preamp and monitor, etc with all the associated cables, and you are certain you'll never ever want another digital source, then I'm sure the Ayre is just the job. I have no doubt the sound quality is excellent - possibly the best available from a computer.

Peter

 

RE: "Is Ethernet over power any good", posted on August 18, 2009 at 09:42:55
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2381
Joined: September 27, 2004
I think I'm right in saying that RF isn't a problem over a network, even if carrying an audio file. The receiving processor is only interested in the raw digital file. If the file was a text file instead of audio (they are treated identically by the network), then there would be spelling errors, etc in the text if RF was a problem! It is only when the raw data file has been processed and conveted to audio (S/PDIF, etc) that it needs tender loving care to protect it from RF, etc.

Well, that's what I'm led to believe.

Peter

 

RE: "Is Ethernet over power any good", posted on August 18, 2009 at 09:52:09
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
"It is only when the raw data file has been processed and conveted to audio (S/PDIF, etc) that it needs tender loving care to protect it from RF, etc."

Tender loving care is needed during the D/A conversion process as well.

Tender loving care means not subjecting critical components to unnecessary interference, which can be done by excellent filtering or by eliminating unnecessary sources. My Nak CR-7a tape deck had problems with a nearby cell phone. This was an unnecessary source. I have been highly suspicious of RF ever since encountering this interference.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Uhhh..., posted on August 18, 2009 at 09:57:51
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2381
Joined: September 27, 2004
Thanks for the Foobar suggestion, but I don't use a computer as such for my hard drive stored music. I'm quite happy keeping a transport for direct CD play.

I'm not in the least concerned about Big Brother, but I do sympathise with those trying to earn their crust from making music. If everyone with a computer steals (that's what it is) artists' work, then the future looks bleak. Although I'm not in the music industry I am a photographer. As such I earn a meagre living from selling images for publication. It pisses me off when I find my images scanned and posted onto numerous websites, specially those that charge to look at them - Bastards! That's a similar situation to the struggling artist knowing that for each CD he gets his paltry royalty for, there's a dozen more poeople listening for free - More Bastards!

Incidentally it's perfectly legal to simply listen to a borrowed CD - the offense is for copying or broadcasting it, etc without permission. Otherwise Record Libraries would be closed down!

Peter

 

RE: "Is Ethernet over power any good", posted on August 18, 2009 at 10:12:55
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2381
Joined: September 27, 2004
Tony

A DAC normally receives an already processed signal, not raw data files. Yes, the DAC has to do its best to reduce or eliminate RF, jitter, etc, but the DAC is only ever offered pre-processed data, eg S/PDIF.

The PS Audio PerfectWave DAC fitted with Network Bridge will accept raw files, but it's the only DAC on the market as far as I know that will.

Yes, my fridge used to upset my analogue hi-fi causing clicks, pops, etc, but it never causes my network printer to print an A instead of a B. You really don't need to worry about sending data files over a network, even if the mains cabling is used. But, as I said before, try to keep the network cabling for control only rather than for carrying signal, specially if any of the network is wireless.

Peter

Peter

 

RE: Uhhh..., posted on August 18, 2009 at 10:35:01
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
I don't have a jumble of equipment, the system I'm speaking has three pieces: a computer (yes with monitor/mouse/kbd), an amplifier (actually an old receiver) and speakers. Nowadays I'd probably have powered speakers.

Computers are today's receivers. But I like separates too.

In my neck of the woods there is no radio available better than the internet. Not anymore. Perhaps something further is available to cable TV or satellite subscribers, I don't know.

Rick

 

RE: Uhhh..., posted on August 18, 2009 at 11:03:42
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2381
Joined: September 27, 2004
How strange - your AA profile shows that your existing DAC supports 2 CD transports in your Main system.

Even stranger that you defend a new DAC that has just a single input socket, not suitable for either of your transports! And strange too that your computer is part of your secondary, not your main system.

Probably you've changed things since publishing your equipment profile - only goes to show that flexibility is a GOOD thing and that everything changes with time. That's why I would never entertain a single input DAC or one that doesn't have a volume control, however good it may be at its very limited role in life.

Peter

PS I'll have to update my own profile now!

 

RE: Uhhh..., posted on August 18, 2009 at 11:47:07
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
Sorry for any confusion. Nothing has changed.

The system I was talking about is the one in my study. Nowadays I do about 99% of my listening to it for a couple of reasons: I like to listen as I work and I don't currently have provisions for streaming audio upstairs.

The latter needs to be addressed. I tried a squeezebox and it didn't work well with my iffy ISP. I'll soon be trying to resurrect my old fried laptop and see I can get that to do the job for the main system. Which by the way is in a closet so appearance isn't very important.

A lot of this is both philosophic and temporal. I've got two systems that I'm 97.54% satisfied with which is about as good as it gets. Although they started out new, now they are vintage and are starting to have problems. Me too so it's a race to the finish.

The wild card is high-res digital. I want it somehow or another and it's hard to imagine a solution without a computer as the source. I'm sold on the critters...

Rick

 

RE: "Is Ethernet over power any good", posted on August 18, 2009 at 13:36:21
Dawnrazor
Audiophile

Posts: 12592
Location: N. California
Joined: April 9, 2004
C,

I think Tony is talking more of the contamination that is in the POWERLINE from using it to network.

Of course this wont make an A into B, but I am betting that many amps and dacs and pres wont benefit from such signals riding on the powerline.

I'd be surprised if conditioners would help at all. Heck just a cable box in the other room can pollute and you want to actively put stuff on the ac line???

I certainly can't think of any real reasons not to run a wire. Unless you have some kind of old historical house, just get an electrician to run some cat 5 and be done with it. If one rents as I used to, it is pretty easy to run some cat 5 on the baseboards and up walls. Hey, I ran about 150ft of it in my old apartment using some wire holders (they had a U channel and a nail to hold onto the wall.) If I can do it, most anyone can. Paint over it if it is a big deal, but I found white cat5 that was preterminated.

Cut to razor sounding violins

 

solution looking for a problem, posted on August 18, 2009 at 14:00:45
KT88
Dealer

Posts: 5054
Location: Roanoke VA
Joined: October 5, 2001
Why not just use any number of more well appointed, wonderful sounding, and less expensive DACs?
-Bill

 

RE: Need Single CD Transport with USB output, posted on August 19, 2009 at 09:52:33
howgeif
Audiophile

Posts: 354
Location: Northern California
Joined: April 23, 2002
I would like to thank everyone that responded to my question above of “Needing a Single CD Transport with USB output". My question no longer applies. I used the information everyone sent me below to explain to my wife the advantages of a music server, the hardware requirements and the needed shelf space. And, WOW! She agreed! Yes, this means it is a go! I am now looking at a MAC solution with a DAC to connect to my Ayre AX-7e Integrated amp. My research continues on the music server hardware, etc.

 

RE: Uhhh..., posted on August 19, 2009 at 10:34:42
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
While it may or may not be illegal to borrow a CD, copy it to hard drive, rip it, play the ripped copy, delete the ripped copy and return the borrowed CD (in that precise order) that is a matter of law and politics and depends on how fascistic your country has become. Done this precise way it is not theft by any reasonable moral standard. It is, frankly, none of an artist's business what equipment is used to play his work. It may be a slippery slope from here all the way down to posting the rip on THE PIRATE BAY, but that's a separate discussion.

There are some changes in U.S. copyright law that would be appropriate, in my opinion. The copyright term should be put back where it originally was (14 years plus a 14 year renewal). There should be a deadline under which all orphaned works must be registered (complete with proof of ownership) otherwise the copyrights go into the public domain. There should be a law that any product which sells more than a very limited number of copies (say 100) must be continuously offered to all comers (e.g. via the Internet) or else the copyright is forfeit. None of this will happen, of course, because the "Copyright Industry" takes money that should be going to creative artists and spreads it around for nefarious purposes, including payments to corrupt politicians.

There is no natural basis to copyright. Human ears, minds and mouths, as well as computer systems and networks, are natural copying machines. Copyright is a social bargain struck between creators and a society. At present Copyright has been corrupted by greedy middlemen.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Uhhh..., posted on August 19, 2009 at 10:42:54
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2381
Joined: September 27, 2004
What a load of unadulterated bollocks! I won't bother to respond further.

Happy listening and keep supporting musicians.

Peter

 

I thought his arguments were logical and well presented, posted on August 19, 2009 at 20:11:32
Charles Hansen
Manufacturer

Posts: 6984
Joined: August 1, 2001
What are your arguments?

 

These:, posted on August 20, 2009 at 04:47:34
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2381
Joined: September 27, 2004
Charles

Tony said:

“copy it to hard drive, rip it, play the ripped copy, delete the ripped copy and return the borrowed CD (in that precise order)”

What! Just to play a borrowed CD? No, you just stick it in your CD transport . Oh sorry, no you can’t if you bought a single-input DAC.

“It is, frankly, none of an artist's business what equipment is used to play his work.”

I agree with you there, but it is the artist’s business if you deprive him of royalty (a living) by illegally ripping borrowed CDs and retaining the copies.

“There should be a law that any product which sells more than a very limited number of copies (say 100) must be continuously offered to all comers (e.g. via the Internet) or else the copyright is forfeit.”

Now that really is Big Brother. Why should an artist be forced to sell his wares on the Internet – or worse still, give them away on the Internet? It’s his property and he has a right to choose how, where and when to sell it, or when to withdraw it from sale.

“the "Copyright Industry" takes money that should be going to creative artists and spreads it around for nefarious purposes, including payments to corrupt politicians.”

Twaddle – the “Copyright Industry” (as far as it relates to musical artists) is there to SUPPORT, not to rip off artists. Of course there’s a cost, but any association who’s aim is to protect and support its members has a subscription and uses its funds as its members direct – no different from a Trade Union or a Hi-Fi Industry trade association for example.

“computer systems and networks, are natural copying machines.”

Precisely – that’s why copyright protection and prosecution of those who rip off musicians is to be aplauded.

Now Charles – if you support the illegal copying of artists’ material and depriving them of revenue, come out and say it. Your latest product is likely to encourage such activity as suggested by respondants to this thread.

The original poster was asking about the new Ayre DAC used with a CD Transport (he’s hoping to find one with a USB output) and a Mac computer. My contribution was to point out to him and any other interested reader that the Ayre was not a products designed for anything other that a single USB input. It is therefore possibly not ideal for the original poster, or anyone else who might now or in the foresseable future require more than a single digital source. I gave examples of CD transport, radio tuner, MP3 player, TV audio, Sky box, etc. I suggested that a manufacturer offering such a limited-use product was short-sighted and that customers buying one are condemning themselves to listening to nothing other than the music they can obtain from a single computer with no option for other existing sources or future developments in the audio industry. Also that those Ayre DAC buyers who are content listening to nothing but a single computer source are still required to keep in their systems that most unnecessary piece of equipment (in this day and age) - the analogue preamp.

Peter

PS If a Manufacturer puts his head above the proverbial parapet, he must expect to be sniped at from time to time. I’ve said nothing against the new Ayre DAC except to draw potential buyers to it's irredemably limited functionality - that's surely one of the purposes of forums such as this.

 

RE: I thought his arguments were logical and well presented, posted on August 20, 2009 at 12:24:33
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
In my experience with previous discussions on this subject with a number of other inmates, I have come to expect a proliferation of vehement arguments, some rational, but mostly emotional. There is little point in engaging in such discussions, but sometimes I am unable to resist. It is not clear why this situation exists. It's not just a question of "whose ox is being gored". It may also involve difficulties in understanding fairly complex legal and technical concepts and their interrelationship.

In this instance, I am thankful that I was not called a thief or accused of instigating violation of artists' rights, as has happened before despite what I posted.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: These:, posted on August 21, 2009 at 21:36:50
Charles Hansen
Manufacturer

Posts: 6984
Joined: August 1, 2001
>> No, you just stick it in your CD transport . Oh sorry, no you can’t if you bought a single-input DAC. <<

This is simply untrue.

I have a dual-boot Mac Mini. On the PC side I have both Foobar and J.River installed. If you insert a disc, you can play it without ripping it with both pieces of software very easily. No extra steps, not nothing. Just play it. I do this all the time because I want to listen to some music on my work computer without filling up the hard drive. I think the same is true of iTunes (which I have installed on the Mac partition), but can't swear to it. I only use it to rip discs for transfer to my son's iPod. He has his own external hard drive that we use for that. I'm on the Windows side 99% of the time and only go to the Mac side to manage his music.

>> I gave examples of CD transport, radio tuner, MP3 player, TV audio, Sky box, etc <<

There is no need for two CD transports. Virtually all computers have come with ROM drives for at least 15 years.

I don't know of any radio tuners with digital outputs, so that is not a compelling argument. On the other hand there are (tens of?) thousands of internet radio stations that can only be played via a computer.

MP3 players are a silly example. Very, very few have ever been manufactured with a digital output. If it is your own MP3 player, then the music is already on your computer because that is the only way to transfer it to your MP3 player. If it is your friend's MP3 player it is trivial to transfer the music to your computer to listen to it. Then it would be up to you to delete it later. I'm not going to get involved in that argument. I think that it is theft, but 30 years ago I had friends give me compilation tapes all the time. Should I have erased them after one listen? Would it have been OK to listen to them, but only in the presence of the person who purchased the LP's to make the tape? The line is somewhat fuzzy because of the existence of radio. People can listen to music they don't own on the radio all day long. How much can they listen to music on a tape (or a hard drive) before it becomes "theft". I don't know. Do you?

As far as TV audio, I watch the original Star Trek series on my computer with my kids about two or three times a week. All three seasons are on YouTube with their "HighDef" or whatever it is called. It looks better on my 24" LCD screen than it ever did on my TV 40 years ago. And the sound is spectacular through my USB DAC driving my integrated amp and stereo speakers. I am told that there are low-cost add-on cards to turn any computer into a TV without having to purchase an Apple TV. I don't have first-hand knowledge of this, but have no reason to doubt it. I would assume that any TV card add-on would have simple ways to connect to cable and satellite boxes.

The one thing you didn't mention was a DVD player. Again, you can use a computer as a DVD player. Or I am told that the digital input on a Mac Mini (for instance -- my IBM laptops also had digital inputs) will send that signal to the USB output. I haven't tried it but have no reason to believe that the person who told me this is a liar.

Have we covered everything?

If you want to talk about limited functionality, you should pick on NAS storage devices. They are computers running Windows with hard drives, but no keyboards, no mice, no displays, no way to install programs, and no way to add-on TV tuners. No THAT is a device with limited functionality.

 

RE: These:, posted on August 23, 2009 at 17:05:09
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2381
Joined: September 27, 2004
Charles

You say, "This is simply untrue."

No, it's actually 100% true - read the postings leading up to Tony's proposed ridiculous procedure. He suggested this as I choose to use a NAS to store my music. Although my NAS (RipNAS) will rip CDs without a computer, it won't simply play them in real time. So it's true that I still need a transport unless I use Tony’s procedure.

Yes of course you CAN watch TV, listen to the radio, view DVDs etc on a PC, but this would be daft to most people. They use a TV for watching TV and have a DVD player connected for viewing DVDs. If they want better audio than their TVs can provide when viewing Star Trek DVDs, they will use a DAC to process the signal - but couldn't if they bought an Ayre.

Every radio in UK will soon be digital as FM is being discontinued. These DAB tuners have coax and / or toslink output unless you want to use the grotty analogue out. There are millions of them already in use and will be many more as the switch-off nears. How do we connect these tuners to the Ayre DAC? DAB is better quality on most stations than Internet radio – and better still in some other European countries.

You say, "If you want to talk about limited functionality, you should pick on NAS storage devices. They are computers running Windows with hard drives, but no keyboards, no mice, no displays, no way to install programs, and no way to add-on TV tuners. No THAT is a device with limited functionality."

Absolutely not. You’ve actually pointed out the ADVANTAGES of a NAS, or at least one specifically designed for audio. A NAS that can rip CDs without resorting to a computer or third-party software (eg RipNAS or AVA) means that music lovers can benefit from hard-drive stored music without the need for a stand-alone computer and all its associated junk - monitor, keyboard, mouse etc - these have no place in a good audio system. Computers contain audio and video cards and fans - all unnecessary audio pollutants. A NAS has none of these. I started with a Mac Mini system, but it's nowhere near as neat or "sorted" as a RipNAS.

The Ayre may be a very good DAC if buyers are happy with just one USB input, now and for ever, but that's like buying a preamp with a single input and no volume control - short-sighted. This thread started with someone looking for a transport with USB output for use on an Ayre, but in fact he couldn’t have his transport and a computer connected to an Ayre DAC.

The best audio systems don't use receivers or even integrated amps - they have separate preamps and power amps. In a good system, the Ayre owner will have to retain what is now (for most people) a totally unnecessary item - his preamp, together with its associated cables. That's why I say the new Ayre DAC is unredeemable limited in its functionality - it really is - you must agree - you've either made a mistake with this product, or it's a forerunner to a more comprehensive product, possibly worth waiting for.

Meanwhile I’ll look carefully at PS Audio’s PerfectWave DAC with Network Bridge. It’s so much more comprehensive with up to 7 digital inputs, variable output and will offer network-delivered raw computer file processing, something not available with Ayre, I think. Please let us know if Ayre has a rival around the corner – I might wait!

Peter

I'm not suggesting that

 

What's ridiculous?, posted on August 23, 2009 at 18:33:37
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
"No, it's actually 100% true - read the postings leading up to Tony's proposed ridiculous procedure. He suggested this as I choose to use a NAS to store my music. Although my NAS (RipNAS) will rip CDs without a computer, it won't simply play them in real time. So it's true that I still need a transport unless I use Tony’s procedure."

Perhaps you could clarify what aspect of my procedure is "ridiculous". I rip CDs to a hard drive and then play them from the hard drive. That's the way most of us use our computer audio systems. The only part of the procedure that might be a bit unusual would be to delete the copy at the time of returning the disk. What's ridiculous about that?


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: What's ridiculous?, posted on August 24, 2009 at 05:06:48
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2381
Joined: September 27, 2004
Tony

I have no arguement with you, but I used a quote of yours to illustrate my suggestion that the Ayre is a short-sighted purchase being so lacking in functionality.

You said in your 19 August posting "While it may or may not be illegal to borrow a CD, copy it to hard drive, rip it, play the ripped copy, delete the ripped copy and return the borrowed CD (in that precise order)"

I was simply saying that this is a ridiculous procedure just to play a borrowed CD. If a friend comes round and says "You must listen to this! we would have to sit around for several minutes waiting to rip his CD before we could listen to it. [Remember I'm using a NAS that will rip CDs but won't play them in real time - and (intentionally) no stand-alone computer]. To keep legal, I later have to mess around deleting the CD. My point to Charles is that I would still want a transport so I wouldn't need to go through that routine - just stuff it in the drawer and press Play. His DAC has no provision for connecting any "conventional" digital source, just a single USB socket. In fact I couldn't connect my digital tuner either, or any other existing or future music source.

Of course if I like the borrowed CD and buy a copy (paying my dues to the artist), then I would simply rip it to my hard drive.

Incidentally on the question of artists' royalties and legality of listening to music other than your own CDs, Charles said "The line is somewhat fuzzy because of the existence of radio. People can listen to music they don't own on the radio all day long" It's scary that the manufacturer of a well respected brand of hi-fi eqipment appears ignorant of the fact that every time music is played on the radio (or TV, or film tracks for that matter) a royalty is paid by the broadcaster, via the body that someone said was ripping off artists!

Hope this clarifies the point I was trying to make.

Peter

Peter

 

RE: What's ridiculous?, posted on August 24, 2009 at 05:45:43
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Well on my setup, music sounds better when played from the hard drive, so I always rip CDs before playing them. It takes only a little while longer to rip a CD to hard drive than it used to take me to clean an LP, so this isn't much of a bother to me. Perhaps if friends came over with a lot of CDs I would have a different opinion. But I doubt it. I might start the first rip while making coffee or tea and then I would rip each successive album while we were listening to the previous one. (If it weren't a critical listening session.) If it were to be a critical listening session there would be many other things that I would have to do, such as power down various other pieces of equipment in the room, etc.. I don't give these matters much thought I've been doing it for several years now, and it's become automatic.

It is my understanding that (in the United States) radio stations pay no royalties to the record labels for the songs they broadcast. Indeed, it was common for the record labels to pay the radio stations to play the songs, but this was outlawed ("payola"), but to circumvent this law middlemen are still sometimes hired. The situation in the case of Internet Radio is different, and the labels do get royalties, and they are outrageously high. This is a very political process, as is all of Copyright. The haves who pay off the politicians get to write the laws to their benefit at the expense of the have-nots. (Or when they don't then they find ways to circumvent the laws if they are the usual greedy types who exploit everyone in sight.)

Radio stations do pay royalties to ASCAP or BMI. But this money is not collected for the benefit of the performing artists. It goes to the song writers and lyricists. With some musical genres these individuals are often the same, but with others, e.g. Classical Music, they rarely are.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

So let me get this straight, posted on August 26, 2009 at 01:30:08
Charles Hansen
Manufacturer

Posts: 6984
Joined: August 1, 2001
We should build a DAC with a S/PDIF input because your RipNAS won't play in real time and you don't want to wait to rip the disc and you have friends dropping by with discs every day and you use the RipNAS to simplify your system but then you have to add a stand-alone CD player (which complicates your simple system) to play your friend's discs that you are too impatient to rip, but the CD player sounds so shitty that you need to add an external DAC (which further complicates your simple system), so we should make one just for you.

And the thirteen other people like you in the world.

OK, I'll get right on it...

 

Yes - Let's get it straight, posted on August 26, 2009 at 04:30:11
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2381
Joined: September 27, 2004
Charles

You are being over-defensive of your no doubt excellent product.

All I am saying is that it would be for me (and I'm sure many others), irredeemably lacking in functionality.

You pick up on one of my arguments - a rather contrived one initiated by the guy who started this thread (not me), but you choose to totally ignore my more pertinent points.

1. Users of the new Ayre DAC can connect nothing to it except a single computer via USB - FACT

2. Users cannot connect a digital tuner - essential in UK and Europe if they want better radio quality than the Internet provides after FM is phased out - FACT

3. Users are not able to connect their TV or DVD player's digital audio output to improve sound from AV sources - FACT

4. Following from the last point, your DAC would encourage owners to use a computer with built-in audio-pollutants such as sound and video cards as their music servers - FACT

5. Users still need to retain their quaint, old fashioned and in this day and age (for most people) redundant analogue preamps - FACT

That's all I'm saying, but I sympathise with your dilemma. You started this discussion by responding with your "Uhhh" posting following my suggestion that the originator of this tread should consider a rival product because of its greater flexibility.

As a manufacturer, it is usually wise to keep your head down and not defend the indefensible in forums such as this. Your product is lacking in flexibility - an unfortunate and in my opinion short-sighted FACT.

I just hope you at Ayre are working on a new DAC that will allow connection of tuners and other digital sources, and will include an output volume control to allow owners to ditch their preamps and associated cables.

Peter

 

RE: What's ridiculous?, posted on August 28, 2009 at 04:59:06
Posts: 10307
Location: Lancashire.
Joined: January 21, 2001
"Radio stations do pay royalties to ASCAP or BMI. But this money is not collected for the benefit of the performing artists. It goes to the song writers and lyricists. With some musical genres these individuals are often the same, but with others, e.g. Classical Music, they rarely are."

Most stations I know have an 'anytime' function, in that you can log onto their website and listen to that day's broadcast as and when you want in case you missed anything or want to simply listen to it again.

Now I'd imagine that the day's tracks would also be included, so Charles was spot on when he suggested the issue of royalties was a little hazy, as although obviously the radio station pays a royalty when they play a track, each listener can then listen to that track as many times as he/she wants without paying royalties.


Today is a gift - that's why it's called the Present.

Best Regards,
Chris Redmond.

 

RE: What's ridiculous?, posted on August 28, 2009 at 07:32:42
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
As I understand it (and this relates to US law), an internet radio station is charged for each play to each individual listener, and this results in royalties to the recording owner. The charge depends on the number of plays. So if a listener were to play a song multiple times there would be multiple royalties. This is in contrast to the situation with radio broadcasting, where a station has no way of knowing whether your radio is on or off or which station it is tuned to. I don't think that a radio broadcaster who also runs an Internet radio station can escape the royalties on its Internet activities, by the way. It's like there are two separate stations. But perhaps I am mistaken on this. IANAL.

Either way, if a person were to record a radio broadcast or capture and store the result of an internet stream, subsequent replays would be unknown and hence there would be no royalties paid. Whether this is legal and/or moral is a completely separate question.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: What's ridiculous?, posted on August 28, 2009 at 09:35:35
Posts: 10307
Location: Lancashire.
Joined: January 21, 2001
At the end of the day, copying cannot be stopped and has taken place ever since recording was invented.

It's insane for studios to waste money of any form of copy-protection as history proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that NO system stops copying.

SACD has failed in the market-place and continues to fail because it is hamstrung by Sony morons.

Instead of spending millions on copy-protection and anti-piracy advertising campaigns, they should just make CDs and SACDs cheaper and make them more user friendly so there's less incentive to buy cheap copies or download; simple.

I don't download music or movies, but I'm becoming so brassed off with DVDs and Blu-rays that force you to watch the "piracy is a crime...." trailer and numerous trailers with the 'skip' or 'next' function disabled that I will be downloading videos pretty soon.

I've also had CDs which I haven't been able to make copies for the car for, and again, this only encourages the consumer to download.


Today is a gift - that's why it's called the Present.

Best Regards,
Chris Redmond.

 

Well said!!!!!! I agree 100% nt, posted on August 28, 2009 at 09:58:04
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

There is no product that is perfect for all people., posted on September 1, 2009 at 22:34:27
Charles Hansen
Manufacturer

Posts: 6984
Joined: August 1, 2001
You don't like the feature set on the QB-9. Great. Don't buy it. Buy something else. Last I checked, it was still a free country (at least with regards to purchasing decisions of luxury goods).

Every feature added increases the price and often reduces the performance. You want features that the QB-9 doesn't have. So don't buy it. Very simple.

On the other hand, it fits the needs of many, many audiophiles around the world. It has world-class sound quality for a very reasonable price. We are back-ordered four weeks. We are can't make them fast enough to keep up with the demand.

As for all of your "FACT"s, my response is , "Yawn".

 

Ripping CD's via my laptop, can the quality be improved?, posted on June 22, 2017 at 04:49:48
huubschoenmaeckers
Audiophile

Posts: 1
Joined: June 21, 2017
L.S.

I'm struggling with a question on the above topic. The answer still remains open. Maybe you can help!

I'm an enthusiastic listener of (classical) music and play my Cd-collection from a NAS (QNAP, FLAC format) using a Linn DAC + amplifier. I rip my cd's via my HP-laptop, using dBpoweramp CD Ripper. I have 2 questions about the quality of the rip-process:

 (Q1) To what extend does the quality of my cd-reader (in my HP-laptop) influence the information-transfer from CD to NAS? And therefore I possibly do not have all the CD-info available on my NAS for playing?
Or: are there good or bad cd-readers and, as a result of this, can information get lost due to possible) inferior optical reading & data correction in my HP lap-top?
Background of my question are articles I read about the quality of CD transport mechanisms e.g. Rotel RDD 980 Transport, Cambridge audio CXC CD Transport that should have a perfect readout of the digital data and a "state of the art" error correction.

 (Q2) If there are any better CD transport mechanisms available (compared to my HP lap-top) which are the best ones available then, and how can I integrate it in my rip-process? E.g. is an USB output for de CD-Transport necessary?

Huub Schoenmaeckers

 

RE: Ripping CD's via my laptop, can the quality be improved?, posted on June 22, 2017 at 05:25:23
Kal Rubinson
Reviewer

Posts: 12436
Location: New York
Joined: June 5, 2002
If you are using dBpoweramp, your CD rips are "securely AccurateRip verified error free."

 

RE: Need Single CD Transport with USB output, posted on December 4, 2021 at 12:51:01
Mr. Efforty
Audiophile

Posts: 3
Location: Southwest
Joined: May 10, 2021
Is there any update on an actual product here?

 

Page processed in 0.086 seconds.