|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.196.210.197
In Reply to: RE: Not really posted by Jonathan Tinn on February 06, 2009 at 23:45:26
Jonathan,
This being said from someone who is offering a $15K dac and using 16bit 48KHz off the shelf USB technology.
I think for $2500 with 24/96 capabilities, async USB, ultra low jitter clocks, Custom FPGA digital filters with discrete output technology and no feedback is pretty damn impressive wouldn't you agree.
Thanks
Gordon
J. Gordon Rankin
Follow Ups:
....I've got a great Pro DAC that can play any file up to 24/192, without the need for custom after-market drivers or plug-ins to make it work, and its own low-jitter studio clock technology. With its word clock I/O's, I have the ability to add a reference-level studio master clock to gain even greater performance (which I've done). And all I use is an inexpensive firewire cable....pretty much plug-and-play.
So? Pretty damn impressive, wouldn't you agree?
Gordon,
What is this WWA tag team?
USB is just one connection and that is all it is. You guys act as if it is some breakthrough technology. If you want up to 24/192 use AES.
Give it a break!
Jonathan
Exactly.
This is the first way to get the audio out of your computer (Windows or Mac) and into your hi-fi while putting the fixed-frequency master audio clock 1" away from the DAC chip (right where it belongs for the lowest jitter) and doesn't require any custom software or special drivers.
So, yeah. It is a breakthrough.
nt
Like I said in the white paper, Firewire and Ethernet are both good possibilities for avoiding the jitter that is inherently added by S/PDIF (aka, AES/EBU,Toslink, etc.).
The problem with them is that they both require custom software to work -- at the very least custom device drivers. We made a decision that we would rather develop great new products than have to maintain computer software for all iterations of all operating systems on all hardware platforms.
Other people make different decisions. That is fine. If you find a Firewire DAC that meets your needs, then you should consider yourself happy. And for your sake, I hope that the manufacturer of your DAC continues to make the necessary device drivers for future operating systems, and that you can continue to find replacement computers that still have Firewire ports as you upgrade your hardware.
While I don't think that Firewire will disappear as fast as, say, an EISA slot (remember those?), it is clear that it is on the way out.
Like I said in the white paper, Firewire and Ethernet are both good possibilities for avoiding the jitter that is inherently added by S/PDIF (aka, AES/EBU,Toslink, etc.).
Glad you agree. My primary reason for choosing a firewire solution, besides the latency issue (or non-issue, as it were), was because I could have my cake and eat it too regarding hi-rez reproduction....I had no frequency limitations whatsoever.
The problem with them is that they both require custom software to work -- at the very least custom device drivers. We made a decision that we would rather develop great new products than have to maintain computer software for all iterations of all operating systems on all hardware platforms.
Charles....there's no problem. There are numerous pro companies that have been in business FOR YEARS, making highly reliable product. And their products have the necessary device drivers that make them reliable (in addition to their tried-and-true circuitry) and compatible for the various formats, or recording and mastering studios wouldn't be buying and operating them for these many years.
Other people make different decisions. That is fine. If you find a Firewire DAC that meets your needs, then you should consider yourself happy. And for your sake, I hope that the manufacturer of your DAC continues to make the necessary device drivers for future operating systems,
Re-read the above paragraph. Perhaps you are not as well-informed regarding the pro market, and the demands made by studios and live recording venues. The companies I'm referring to are among the best and most-respected in the industry. Some have created the technologies that must be bullet-proof in the field. No fly-by-nights, no start-ups, nor companies just entering the marketplace.
and that you can continue to find replacement computers that still have Firewire ports as you upgrade your hardware.
Now that's throwing up a straw man argument.
While I don't think that Firewire will disappear as fast as, say, an EISA slot (remember those?), it is clear that it is on the way out.
That wholly depends on who you talk to. I'll take my chances with tried-and-true pro companies, who have been around this block far longer, with proven technology. And you are overlooking the obvious....if the technology changes, you can be assured that pro companies will be at the forefront, not playing catchup with methodologies that are old hat.
I think the differences are just a matter of perspective.
The pro companies started working with computer audio many years ago, as it was a much cheaper way to do things than have dedicated, ground-up audio workstations. At that time, Firewire was being heavily promoted and people thought that USB was just for peripherals like mice and keyboards.
Apple was the main champion of Firewire, and they were about the only people that included it with their computers. If you were a professional audio person, having to buy a Mac instead of a PC in order to get Firewire wasn't a big deal. The computer only cost a small fraction of what ProTools or some of the other software packages did. So the whole pro industry focused on Macs and Firewire. That made complete sense given what was available and the needs of the pro industry.
But even Apple didn't think it was important enough to include support for Firewire audio devices, so the pro manufacturers were *forced* to write their own device drivers. (Not an easy task, but much easier than designing a complete computerized audio workstation from the ground up!)
But today is different, and we are designing for a different market. Most of our customers have PCs -- Apple still only has about a 10% market share, and even they are starting to drop Firewire from their products. So it doesn't really make sense for us to design something that has limited hardware support and requires custom device drivers. Not when we can design something that has universal hardware support and runs on the native drivers that come with the OS.
That doesn't mean that you should throw away your equipment and run out to buy new stuff. Obviously your equipment works great and there is no reason to change it. It's just that it wouldn't make sense for us to design a Firewire product in 2009.
I certainly don't question your business decisions, and your thorough explanation is completely sensible. I needed to point out that there are other very worthwhile solutions that already exist that exceed 24/96 (for those of us that wish to take advantage of the highest resolution files), are field-tested and proven, and manufactured by noteworthy pro companies. Their hardware and firmware was made for the long haul....recording and mastering studios will accept nothing less.I purchased what I purchased knowing I won't need to upgrade for perhaps a number of years. With over 2000 CD's, I have plenty of 16/44 material for years to come, but my setup (with pro-level mastering software) allows me to playback any hi-rez available up to 24/192, more of which will be coming in the not-too-distant future via download. In fact, more is coming out weekly.
As I stated earlier, I wanted my cake, etc. etc. That's why I waited as long as I did to make my purchases. If someone else is happy with the limitation of 24/96, or in the alternative, doesn't see that as a limitation, more power to them. There are many paths to Nirvana. The whole point is to enjoy the music, as Stevie R. always says.
But, I do take issue with this statement:
But even Apple didn't think it was important enough to include support for Firewire audio devices, so the pro manufacturers were *forced* to write their own device drivers. (Not an easy task, but much easier than designing a complete computerized audio workstation from the ground up!)
So?? And the pro manufacturers, stepped up and wrote those drivers....years ago. And they still operate easily and efficiently in a myriad of pro interfaces, many of which have implemented 24/192 for some time. And to them, 24/96 is already in the rear view mirror, with some product already being fazed out because of that limitation. State-of-the-art is now considered at 24/352.4K and 24/384K. Heck, Tim de Paravicini deduced the digital equivalent of the best analog reproduction at 24/384, perhaps 20 years ago. This ain't new information.
But in your view, what is the difference between what these manufacturers were required to do, so many years ago, and the hoops that Gordon has been jumping through (recently) to make USB work properly, at 24/96?
Edits: 02/07/09
You have produced a string of posts devoid of hard facts. Every one makes you seem less credible and your product less likely to be worthwhile.
Bill
The equipment is designed by Andreas Koch. He is a very sharp and talented designer who worked for several years with Ed Meitner of EMM Labs. The player has received good reports from those who have heard it, and I have no doubts that it is an excellent product.
The problem is that he is a "one man show" and has therefore contracted with an outside company to do his sales and marketing. You can judge for yourself whether or not this was a good decision.
Charles,You appear to be going out of your way to mislead and manipulate people here about things you have no knowledge of. I have tried to email you privately but you will not accept unsolicited emails so I am left to do this publically.
"The equipment is designed by Andreas Koch. He is a very sharp and talented designer who worked for several years with Ed Meitner of EMM Labs."
You have no idea who is or was involved with the design and production of the Playback Designs products. You are making assumptions that may be totally incorrect, partially incorrect or entirely correct. Since you do not know, you should not speak as you do. It is the same as lying.
"The problem is that he is a "one man show" and has therefore contracted with an outside company to do his sales and marketing. You can judge for yourself whether or not this was a good decision."
Again, you state that there is a problem and also what you think that problem is. You also state that he contracted me out. How do you know such things? Would you swear to this as truth if your company and home depended on it? Where do you get your so-called facts? Why don't you acknowledge that you are making all of this up.
Your "compliment" toward Andreas is no such thing. It is a deliberate back door attack on me and you are out of line. Do not talk about my company again and I would suggest you be very careful as you proceed.
Edits: 02/07/09 02/07/09
Okie-dokie, Jonathan.
The problem is that he is a "one man show" and has therefore contracted with an outside company to do his sales and marketing. You can judge for yourself whether or not this was a good decision.
Have you read Andreas' background? He did a hell of a lot more than working "several years with Ed Meitner".
Then you infer that Jonathan did not make a good decision. The same could be said for your decision to license Gordon's doo-dad, no? Not everyone thinks that Gordon is the sole repository of knowledge. There are many paths to digital Nirvana....Gordon's, Jonathan's, and yours being just 3 of them.
Charles said
> > The problem is that he is a "one man show" and has therefore
> > contracted with an outside company to do his sales and marketing.
> > You can judge for yourself whether or not this was a good decision.
Alan replied
> Then you infer that Jonathan did not make a good decision.
I didn't interpret what Charles said to be a slight on the designer. Rather it is a defence of him and the credibility of the product.
The sentences you quoted clearly refer to Andreas's decision to contract out the sales and marketing.
Bill
I appreciate that you "didn't interpret what Charles said to be a slight on the designer", and thank you for stating so. However, to a certain degree, I did. And others might.The sentences you quoted clearly refer to Andreas's decision to contract out the sales and marketing.
Echoing my response to Charles below, how do you know that Andreas "contracted out the sales and marketing"? To be fair, are you privy to Jonathan's and Andreas' business relationship?
Edits: 02/07/09
Bill said
> > The sentences you quoted clearly refer to Andreas's decision to contract out the sales and marketing.
Alan said
> Echoing my response to Charles below, how do you know that Andreas
> "contracted out the sales and marketing"? To be fair, are you privy to
> Jonathan's and Andreas' business relationship?
Alan earlier
> Then you infer that Jonathan did not make a good decision. The same
> could be said for your decision to license Gordon's doo-dad, no? Not
> everyone thinks that Gordon is the sole repository of knowledge.
> There are many paths to digital Nirvana....Gordon's, Jonathan's,
> and yours being just 3 of them.
I was simply stating that Charles referred to Andreas's decision to contract out the sales and marketing. You appeared to interpret Charles reference to a decision to be another slight on Andreas and raised the question of Charles licensing Async mode firmware from Gordon.
Charles did not take a position on the wisdom of Andreas's decision to contract out sales and marketing. That isn't a technical decision and has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of Andreas's approach.
My remarks clearly do not endorse Charles statement or draw any inference from it. They simply point out that my interpretation of what Charles said.
Bill
I'll try again. Old Listener said that with each of Jonathan Tinn's posts that the product was less likely to be worthwhile.
I was pointing out the fact that Jonathan Tinn did not design the unit. Andreas Koch did, and he is not making these posts.
The Playback Design player is what it is, regardless of whatever is posted about it. In other words, shoot the messenger if you must, but that doesn't mean that the product isn't worthwhile.
you can address 'direct' questions to you, about your prodcuts and/or, you can post to 'clear' up any misinformation about your products.
Engaging in generic, wholesale commentary about products you sell or market, or really engaging in talk about competitors' products is against our rules.
Thanks, Chris
Please re-read this sub-thread.
I am defending the Playback Designs unit as a great piece of equipment made by a talented designer.
Is there really a problem with that? Or is there a different specific post you have a complaint with?
.
absolutely agree.
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: