In Reply to: RE: thanks for the excellent posts. posted by John Swenson on October 26, 2009 at 13:56:54:
> my problem with the way say MPD does things is that you are doing file
> IO at the DAC end
Different goals, different choices. I understand what you have said and see why you made the choices you did.
I like the file I/O approach because it requires no new protocols and no new support for existing protocols by another organization. If I'm going to do s/w development, I want to control my fate.
I think you could make an analogy to the Squeezebox and Sonos product lines. I can be impressed with what Sean Adams accomplished but I think the Sonos architecture makes more business sense. The Sonos folks defined a finite development project, completed it and have been selling the result since then.
> If you are willing to give up a virtual soundcard interface and go with
> a dedicated player its a piece of cake to take MPD and add a netjack
> output. MPD would then run on the server...
I am not especially enamored with MPD but since it exists, it would be attractive for reading audio files and playing them on the playback device. I'd much rather use J. River MC as the UI component (or an equivalent that I write) and pipe the output to something like MPD on the playback device.
---
If you build a good implementation of the FPGA and get it into a well
done DAC, I'll be interested. If the Netjack folks get the PC and
Mac end finished and to a robust state, I'll be thinking of a purchase.
Right now, I am quite attracted to the async mode USB DAC approach. It exists and it makes sense to me. The idea of isolating the computer side from the DAC appeals to me more than tweaking the PC side to minimize the interaction. I just don't spend several thousand dollars very easily.
Bill
my blog: http://carsmusicandnature.blogspot.com/
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: thanks for the excellent posts. - Old Listener 17:29:25 10/26/09 (0)