KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,999
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 8, 2024 17:01:12 GMT -5
I have to say that I am EXTREMELY dubious about this. An ISO file is simply a bit-for-bit image of the contents of a CD. IMGBURN simply copies whatever is on the disc without reading - or altering - it. And, since it is making IDENTICAL COPIES, there is no reason for those copies to sound at all different when the audio is extracted from them. "ISO" and "BIN" files may be different sized due to things like compression... However, assuming that both have been created properly, THEN THE CONTENTS OF BOTH ARE AND MUST BE IDENTICAL. (That's assuming that both were created correctly and from an undamaged readable disc.) It seems sort of obvious that whatever he's using to extract the audio FROM the image files is changing them. (Whether it is extracting them to files or playing them by extracting the audio directly into memory and playing it.) On a different note, I visited my audio amigo yesterday morning. As always, he's been experimenting and thinks he's found some improvements. In the past, he's ripped CDs with all of the current software (and I mean all of it). But lately, he's been experimenting with a free program called "isoburn (or "imgburn" or something like that). The program will allow the user to rip to traditionally "non-audio" formats such as iso / bin / cue. From those formats, the audio can only be played from a computer, but it works fine. And the thing is that playback sounds differently depending on the file format used. The iso format seems to enhance detail and imaging. The bin format sounds thicker in the midrange (but still with exceptional clarity). Amigo didn't play me any cue files, so I'm unable to comment on them. Amigo has also found that he can rip SACD, DVD audio, and other digital files typically considered uncopyable because of encryption. I think he ran the digital output from his players into a Tascam digital mixing device, but I'm not sure of his method details. On the negative side of things, the program he used is Windows-only. Tough stuff, Mac guys... Also, the resulting iso and bin files took a LONG time to convert from the source discs, and the output files were larger to much-larger than the original sources. But if you're interested, amigo's opinion was that the conversion from 16/44 CD to an ISO file resulted in an equivalent SACD file. He also opined that converting an SACD to an ISO file sounded indistinguishable from the master tapes (and he WOULD know). Just a FYI...
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Apr 8, 2024 19:06:50 GMT -5
That was the selling point of ALAC and FLAC. Create a bit-accurate copy of the original file......
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 8, 2024 19:42:04 GMT -5
You said the magic word - KeithL - COMPRESSION! One change is the compression algorithm used to rip - another is the decompression used for playback. THESE can change the sound audibly, even if the copied file is (technically) “bit-perfect.” It also seems impossible for ANY copy to be a “bit-perfect” copy when the source and copied files are RADICALLY different in file size, yes? There IS something audibly different in source, img, and bin files. I’m not technically edumocated enough to explain WHY the files sound different, but I can assure you that they DO. I’m not now (and never have been) prone to audible hallucinations, nor am I prone to expectation bias. I’m just a writer who does my best to clearly describe what I hear. I DEFINITELY heard differences in file types on the same song - both when listening to the whole song and then the whole song again in a different format AND when switching rapidly between formats during the song. The listening setup was: Familiar room - well treated with absorbers, diffusers, and bass traps - familiar electronics (Aurilac DAC -Jolida preamp, Dahlquist crossover, Crown PSA power amp driving Thiel CS-3 speakers, and Electron Kinetics Eagle 3a driving dual Crown passive 10” subwoofers) - all driven from a Windows PC. Wish you were here…
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Apr 8, 2024 21:29:19 GMT -5
My camera features LOSSY compression in the form of many JPG choices. It also features LOSSLESS compression of RAW files in 12bit or 14bit color.....
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Apr 9, 2024 9:21:45 GMT -5
You said the magic word - KeithL - COMPRESSION! One change is the compression algorithm used to rip - another is the decompression used for playback. THESE can change the sound audibly, even if the copied file is (technically) “bit-perfect.” It also seems impossible for ANY copy to be a “bit-perfect” copy when the source and copied files are RADICALLY different in file size, yes? There IS something audibly different in source, img, and bin files. I’m not technically edumocated enough to explain WHY the files sound different, but I can assure you that they DO. I’m not now (and never have been) prone to audible hallucinations, nor am I prone to expectation bias. I’m just a writer who does my best to clearly describe what I hear. I DEFINITELY heard differences in file types on the same song - both when listening to the whole song and then the whole song again in a different format AND when switching rapidly between formats during the song. The listening setup was: Familiar room - well treated with absorbers, diffusers, and bass traps - familiar electronics (Aurilac DAC -Jolida preamp, Dahlquist crossover, Crown PSA power amp driving Thiel CS-3 speakers, and Electron Kinetics Eagle 3a driving dual Crown passive 10” subwoofers) - all driven from a Windows PC. Wish you were here… If a digital number is reconstructed from a compression scheme, and the output digital number is the same as the digital number at the input, the result is the same. You have to look elsewhere for differences in sound. This statement from KeithL is obviously true to me – “It seems sort of obvious that whatever he's using to extract the audio FROM the image files is changing them. (Whether it is extracting them to files or playing them by extracting the audio directly into memory and playing it.)”
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 9, 2024 13:36:16 GMT -5
”If a digital number is reconstructed from a compression scheme, and the output digital number is the same as the digital number at the input, the result is the same. You have to look elsewhere for differences in sound.” This statement from KeithL is obviously true to me – “It seems sort of obvious that whatever he's using to extract the audio FROM the image files is changing them. (Whether it is extracting them to files or playing them by extracting the audio directly into memory and playing it.)” I must disagree. Same source disc + same ripping program + KeithL says that both img & bin files are “bit-perfect” copies. And yet the two ABSOLUTELY sound different. The “extraction program” in BOTH cases is the same software. The “playback software” in BOTH cases is the same program. The actual question we need to be debating is “Can ‘identical bit-perfect files’ have different sound?” If the answer is “no,” then the iso & bin files are NOT bit-perfect. If the answer is “yes,” then the encoding/decoding process of iso files is different enough from that of bin files that audible differences are being introduced there. It is also incorrect to claim that two bit-perfect copies MUST sound identical. Why? One copy may have more jitter than the other. The CODEC on one may be different than the other despite the program bits being identical. The indexing may be slightly off on one copy despite identical bits. The optical disc itself may be warped (or off center). Etc. Any of these are things might cause different audio despite having absolutely identical bits in the computer drive(s) used to make comparisons.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Apr 9, 2024 14:09:07 GMT -5
”If a digital number is reconstructed from a compression scheme, and the output digital number is the same as the digital number at the input, the result is the same. You have to look elsewhere for differences in sound.” This statement from KeithL is obviously true to me – “It seems sort of obvious that whatever he's using to extract the audio FROM the image files is changing them. (Whether it is extracting them to files or playing them by extracting the audio directly into memory and playing it.)” I must disagree. Same source disc + same ripping program + KeithL says that both img & bin files are “bit-perfect” copies. And yet the two ABSOLUTELY sound different. The “extraction program” in BOTH cases is the same software. The “playback software” in BOTH cases is the same program. The actual question we need to be debating is “Can ‘identical bit-perfect files’ have different sound?” If the answer is “no,” then the iso & bin files are NOT bit-perfect. If the answer is “yes,” then the encoding/decoding process of iso files is different enough from that of bin files that audible differences are being introduced there. It is also incorrect to claim that two bit-perfect copies MUST sound identical. Why? One copy may have more jitter than the other. The CODEC on one may be different than the other despite the program bits being identical. The indexing may be slightly off on one copy despite identical bits. The optical disc itself may be warped (or off center). Etc. Any of these are things might cause different audio despite having absolutely identical bits in the computer drive(s) used to make comparisons. You are missing my point. Two identical digital numbers are identical. You have to look elsewhere for differences in sound. One copy may play back with more jitter than the other. There are other possibilities. Nothing here that I can see to argue about. I don't doubt that you heard a difference. I refer back to KeithL's statement - “It seems sort of obvious that whatever he's using to extract the audio FROM the image files is changing them. (Whether it is extracting them to files or playing them by extracting the audio directly into memory and playing it.)” If the digital information is the same, and the rest of your system/room is the same, the only thing left is your program and the extraction process.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,999
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 9, 2024 15:26:35 GMT -5
Then I'm afraid that, this time, you're wrong. As usual, ASSUMING THAT EVERYTHING WORKS CORRECTLY...
- if you create both an ISO and BIN file from the same CD - and then write those two files to new CDs - the resulting CDs will be identical - and, if you then RIP those two CDs, without errors - the resulting files will be identical - and will and must sound identical (note that there is a bit of a grey area if something doesn't work correctly) There's a bit more to this than you think... and not in all the same places. 1. The whole purpose of "an image file" is to make an EXACT image of the data on a CD... Therefore, by definition, if the images are not identical, then the software has NOT worked as intended. (I'm referring to the data stored in the image). (And, sure, there are several reas0ons why different programs MAY create DIFFERENT or INCORRECT images from the same disc.) 2. Audio streams, which consist of both data and a clock, can and do have jitter. FILES consist of only data - so a file CANNOT have jitter. Jitter can affect when a file is transferred or written... But the ONLY way it can do that is to cause "bit errors'... in which case the file will NOT be "bit perfect". 3. The fact that the file extraction or playback software is the same PROGRAM is not all that meaningful. The reason is that, even though the main program may be the same, it uses different code modules to decode different types of files or data. If the programming is flawed it's quite possible that one or both of those may not do the extraction or conversion properly. There may also be SETTINGS which affect this by instructing the extraction software to change the output (like certain "volume levelling" settings). It is also possible that, even though both programs may work correctly, they may impose very different workloads on the CPU. (So two different modules could produce correct identical outputs... but you may see more jitter on one of those outputs because the CPU is doing more work... which CAN affect timing.) 4. It would be more correct to say that... Two bit-perfect files MUST sound identical IF PLAYED UNDER THE EXACT SAME CONDITIONS. To be quite blunt... If you have two files that ARE BIT-FOR-BIT the same, and you play them under the exact same conditions, then they must sound the same. And, if they do not, then you are missing a difference that is finding its way in somewhere. In this case... BIN and ISO files utilize quite different formats... Therefore, they are being "handled" by different code modules, and require different amounts of work to extract... -------------------------------- To address your assertions... One copy may have more jitter than the other. - Jitter does not EXIST in a file... it only manifests when you play the file. - Therefore two files CANNOT "have different amounts of jitter" because files cannot HAVE jitter. - The jitter is ONLY present when a file or disc is being played. The CODEC on one may be different than the other despite the program bits being identical. - The bits are the data... the CODEC is just the container... - Assuming that your CODEC is bit perfect, and so won't change the bits inside it, then the same bits stored in two different containers will still be the same. The indexing may be slightly off on one copy despite identical bits. - If "the indexing is off" this can cause errors for a few different reasons. - HOWEVER, either it results in bit-errors in the resulting file, or it does not. - So we're back to "either the file is bit-perfect or it is not". (Note that some ripping programs can be configured to ignore certain types of indexing errors... but, if they do so, then the result is not bit-perfect.) The optical disc itself may be warped (or off center). - If the disc is warped, off center, or just plain bad... then it either will or won't be within the drive's ability to correct. - If it is "correctable" then the resulting bits will be perfect. - If it is NOT correctible then the resulting bits will NOT be bit-perfect (but you can't get "correct but slightly odd bits"). It is also indeed possible that a crappy disc could force a CD drive to perform multiple retries... And this could result in more jitter, at the output of the drive, "because the drive is working harder", WHEN LISTENING TO THAT DISC. But, as long as as the bits can be read correctly, this jitter will NOT be somehow stored in the file when it is saved. (Because jitter is a timing/clock error... and, when you save that audio data to a file, THE CLOCK IS DISCARDED/IGNORED.) ”If a digital number is reconstructed from a compression scheme, and the output digital number is the same as the digital number at the input, the result is the same. You have to look elsewhere for differences in sound.” This statement from KeithL is obviously true to me – “It seems sort of obvious that whatever he's using to extract the audio FROM the image files is changing them. (Whether it is extracting them to files or playing them by extracting the audio directly into memory and playing it.)” I must disagree. Same source disc + same ripping program + KeithL says that both img & bin files are “bit-perfect” copies. And yet the two ABSOLUTELY sound different. The “extraction program” in BOTH cases is the same software. The “playback software” in BOTH cases is the same program. The actual question we need to be debating is “Can ‘identical bit-perfect files’ have different sound?” If the answer is “no,” then the iso & bin files are NOT bit-perfect. If the answer is “yes,” then the encoding/decoding process of iso files is different enough from that of bin files that audible differences are being introduced there. It is also incorrect to claim that two bit-perfect copies MUST sound identical. Why? One copy may have more jitter than the other. The CODEC on one may be different than the other despite the program bits being identical. The indexing may be slightly off on one copy despite identical bits. The optical disc itself may be warped (or off center). Etc. Any of these are things might cause different audio despite having absolutely identical bits in the computer drive(s) used to make comparisons.
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 9, 2024 15:45:54 GMT -5
If what you say is true, then audio amigo's other software/hardware is responsible for the audible differences. The effects (wav / img / bin), however, are highly consistent even with rips from multiple source discs. The file sizes (wav / img / bin) are radically different (if the data is bit-perfect, then I must assume that the size artifacts are due to the "container?").
I do note however that audio amigo did each of the following:
Used different drives to rip his CD / SACD / DVDA discs Used different computers to rip his CD / SACD / DVDA discs Used different softwares to play the ripped img & bin files Used different computers to play the ripped files Used different DACs to convert the ripped files
Despite these variables, the differences between the wav / img / bin files were consistent.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,999
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 9, 2024 15:48:45 GMT -5
I'm afraid you simply don't understand the "finer points" of compression. In the digital world there are two different types of compression: LOSSLESS COMPRESSION and LOSSY COMPRESSION. With LOSSLESS compression, when you compress a file, then uncompress it again, what you get out is IDENTICAL to the original. So, for example, when you use ZIP or RAR to compress one or more files, then uncompress them, what you get back is EXACTLY the same as what you started with. Not "sort of", not "nearly", not "almost"... it is EXACTLY BIT-FOR-BIT the same. This is the DEFINITION of lossless compression. With LOSSY compression, like JPG and MP3, this is NOT true. Lossy compression intentionally discards data to make the file much smaller... And, when you uncompress a file stored with lossy compression, you WILL NOT get back an exact copy of the original. When you "RIP" a CD what you are SUPPOSED to be doing is creating an exact bit-for-bit copy of the PCM audio data stored on the CD in a file. And, at least in principle, it shouldn't matter what program you use to do it... And saving a CD to an image file, and the extracting the audio data from that, SHOULD produce the same result. The program I use actually calculates a checksum of each track it RIPs... And then it compares those values to a public database of the checksums that OTHER PEOPLE got when they ripped that same CD. And, yes, it verifies that the checksums between those tracks are identical... (And out of the last 500 tracks I ripped... there were only two errors... on individual tracks that were also flagged as "bad".) However, to be extremely blunt, not all software does exactly what it should. I have zero doubt that either the binary files you have are NOT identical... Or the player software you're using is not playing them identically... But my point is that, if you ATTRIBUTE that difference to a difference in the files, then you are barking up the wrong tree... And, if you do that, you are unlikely to discover the correct answer. You said the magic word - KeithL - COMPRESSION! One change is the compression algorithm used to rip - another is the decompression used for playback. THESE can change the sound audibly, even if the copied file is (technically) “bit-perfect.” It also seems impossible for ANY copy to be a “bit-perfect” copy when the source and copied files are RADICALLY different in file size, yes? There IS something audibly different in source, img, and bin files. I’m not technically edumocated enough to explain WHY the files sound different, but I can assure you that they DO. I’m not now (and never have been) prone to audible hallucinations, nor am I prone to expectation bias. I’m just a writer who does my best to clearly describe what I hear. I DEFINITELY heard differences in file types on the same song - both when listening to the whole song and then the whole song again in a different format AND when switching rapidly between formats during the song. The listening setup was: Familiar room - well treated with absorbers, diffusers, and bass traps - familiar electronics (Aurilac DAC -Jolida preamp, Dahlquist crossover, Crown PSA power amp driving Thiel CS-3 speakers, and Electron Kinetics Eagle 3a driving dual Crown passive 10” subwoofers) - all driven from a Windows PC. Wish you were here…
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,999
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 9, 2024 15:52:14 GMT -5
In that case, since I wasn't there, I can't even guess at what the reason is... But, clearly, something isn't doing quite what it's supposed to... I WOULD expect a BIN file to require slightly more computing power to extract than an ISO file (I believe the ISO CODED is somewhat simpler and faster). But I would not expect that difference to audible affect most computers... And certainly not if connected to a DAC with an asynchronous USB input (which should neutralize any jitter that the computer does cause). If what you say is true, then audio amigo's other software/hardware is responsible for the audible differences. The effects (wav / img / bin), however, are highly consistent even with rips from multiple source discs. The file sizes (wav / img / bin) are radically different (if the data is bit-perfect, then I must assume that the size artifacts are due to the "container?"). I do note however that audio amigo did each of the following: Used different drives to rip his CD / SACD / DVDA discs Used different computers to rip his CD / SACD / DVDA discs Used different softwares to play the ripped img & bin files Used different computers to play the ripped files Used different DACs to convert the ripped files Despite these variables, the differences between the wav / img / bin files were consistent.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,999
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 9, 2024 16:09:36 GMT -5
It also occurs to me that there aren't many programs that can play audio DIRECTLY from an IMG or BIN file... (Although, to be quite frank, I haven't looked especially hard, since it's not something I tend to do.) I kind of suspect that they would have to be MOUNTED as "CD images"... Which involves somewhat more software... And makes the process of playing audio from them somewhat more complex... In that case, since I wasn't there, I can't even guess at what the reason is... But, clearly, something isn't doing quite what it's supposed to... I WOULD expect a BIN file to require slightly more computing power to extract than an ISO file (I believe the ISO CODED is somewhat simpler and faster). But I would not expect that difference to audible affect most computers... And certainly not if connected to a DAC with an asynchronous USB input (which should neutralize any jitter that the computer does cause). If what you say is true, then audio amigo's other software/hardware is responsible for the audible differences. The effects (wav / img / bin), however, are highly consistent even with rips from multiple source discs. The file sizes (wav / img / bin) are radically different (if the data is bit-perfect, then I must assume that the size artifacts are due to the "container?"). I do note however that audio amigo did each of the following: Used different drives to rip his CD / SACD / DVDA discs Used different computers to rip his CD / SACD / DVDA discs Used different softwares to play the ripped img & bin files Used different computers to play the ripped files Used different DACs to convert the ripped files Despite these variables, the differences between the wav / img / bin files were consistent.
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 10, 2024 17:20:48 GMT -5
I’m PROFOUNDLY DISGUSTED with trying to leave YouTube comments on my cell phone. I just wasted 15 minutes trying to leave a comment on one of Paul McGowan’s videos, but when I tried to scroll up to review the comment prior to posting, all my text disappeared, and there was NO way to retrieve it. S**t!
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Apr 11, 2024 22:22:02 GMT -5
Movie notes: I'm concerned with remake movies.
First? Some simply should NOT be remade. Alfred Hitchcock made Psycho. the REMAKE was crap on cold toast. Forbidden Planet. Absolute classic of the 50s. Literate and based on Shakespeare. NEVER be equalled and I'm glad never remade.
Too many versions of 'Alien' franchise. Degenerated into blah.
A few have argueably been improved. The Thing From Another World.....1951. Has been remade at least 2x with the Kurt Russel my personal favorite. Maybe sequel or prequel?
True Grit. Both were good........Jeff Bridges equals 'The Duke'......
I Am Legend......look up also? The Last Man On Earth and The Omega Man..... All good in their own way.....
Do the work and look around. Many 'remakes' out there are a few actually better than the original.
The Creature From The Black Lagoon (1954?) has a recent sequel calledd 'The Shape Of Water'.....Guillermo Del Toro got that one going.
Happy viewing.
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,235
|
Post by novisnick on Apr 11, 2024 22:34:59 GMT -5
I’m PROFOUNDLY DISGUSTED with trying to leave YouTube comments on my cell phone. I just wasted 15 minutes trying to leave a comment on one of Paul McGowan’s videos, but when I tried to scroll up to review the comment prior to posting, all my text disappeared, and there was NO way to retrieve it. S**t! I’ve learned to highlight and save my comments before doing anything but typing. YES, I learned the hard way!
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Apr 12, 2024 23:44:45 GMT -5
Boom talked about a possible natural gas generator to replace the gasoline type?
If you DO go with natural gas? Get a gas drying system if possible. Some also remove CO and CO2 which is all to the good.
Moisture alone with cause problems, especially with systems which has long time INACTIVE cycles.....Anything 'iron' or 'steel'
can rust.
Maybe even convert OTHER parts of the house....maybe the Hot water heater / pool heater to natural gas....so you get some
flowthru on the system and it just doesn't sit....Schedule deliveries at the point where the season is about to turn and you may
need a Full Tank of NG....
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 13, 2024 3:00:51 GMT -5
In my 72 years here, the municipal natural gas system has never failed. That said, I live in an older section of town and the underground supply headers are undersized should lots of residents choose to install natural gas generators. Even that shouldn’t affect me since I'm the first drop off the main header. But should draw become excessive, dew point might become an issue so a dryer sounds like cheap insurance - thanks for the suggestion,
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Apr 14, 2024 18:38:04 GMT -5
Natural Gas CAN be fairly inexpensive, too......I'd have to do some looking at how MUCH gasoline or diesel or natural gas a genset uses and under what conditions......
For a 10kw system (all I could POSSIBLY need, right?) I'd look at use at 50% output. That would be a good benchmark.
Also? For Natural Gas? 100 cubic feet is one 'Therm'.....the billing unit in these parts.....
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 15, 2024 22:02:33 GMT -5
I took my Apple TV-3 to the local Apple Store to see if they could exorcize its demons and restore it to a working Roon destination. In a word - no. The Apple kid I spoke with, despite being polite and at least slightly sympathetic, told me:
1. The Apple TV-3 is now an obsolete product. 2. The Apple Store no longer has diagnostic tools for the device. 3. I could buy an Apple TV-4? (actually, no; the version four lacks the optical TOSLINK output that allows the device to act as an audio streamer) 4. Other than the TV-4, there was nothing in their store that even came close to the function I wanted. (Probably true)
So, I looked about (figuratively) for other inexpensive stopgap measures that might carry me through until this summer when the new Roon Nucleus is supposed to ship. The cheapest option I found was the Dayton Audio streamer ($69 with free shipping).
BUT - Before I do that, three other options occur to me:
* The Apple TV-3 that I already own HAS, previously, not only been recognized by Roon as a destination but also was reliable until I started messing with it by trying to enable its video streaming features. The local Baton Rouge MacIntosh Users’ Group meets this Thursday at a local library. Maybe someone there can help me troubleshoot.
* If we meet with no success there, I might be able to find an inexpensive DVD or Blu-Ray player with an Ethernet (or WiFi) input and a digital audio out.
* If neither of the above results in successful Roon streaming, then Roon might be kind enough to let me cancel my order of their Nucleus One ($500), and instead purchase a discontinued Nucleus + ( if they have any left). I have asked & will report what they say…
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Apr 16, 2024 1:21:27 GMT -5
I took my Apple TV-3 to the local Apple Store to see if they could exorcize its demons and restore it to a working Roon destination. In a word - no. The Apple kid I spoke with, despite being polite and at least slightly sympathetic, told me: 1. The Apple TV-3 is now an obsolete product. 2. The Apple Store no longer has diagnostic tools for the device. 3. I could buy an Apple TV-4? (actually, no; the version four lacks the optical TOSLINK output that allows the device to act as an audio streamer) 4. Other than the TV-4, there was nothing in their store that even came close to the function I wanted. (Probably true) So, I looked about (figuratively) for other inexpensive stopgap measures that might carry me through until this summer when the new Roon Nucleus is supposed to ship. The cheapest option I found was the Dayton Audio streamer ($69 with free shipping). BUT - Before I do that, three other options occur to me: * The Apple TV-3 that I already own HAS, previously, not only been recognized by Roon as a destination but also was reliable until I started messing with it by trying to enable its video streaming features. The local Baton Rouge MacIntosh Users’ Group meets this Thursday at a local library. Maybe someone there can help me troubleshoot. * If we meet with no success there, I might be able to find an inexpensive DVD or Blu-Ray player with an Ethernet (or WiFi) input and a digital audio out. * If neither of the above results in successful Roon streaming, then Roon might be kind enough to let me cancel my order of their Nucleus One ($500), and instead purchase a discontinued Nucleus + ( if they have any left). I have asked & will report what they say… I recall with some past configuration of my system getting a device that split out the audio from the HDMI to TOSLINK. HDMI in from Apple TV, HDMI and TOSLINK out. For some reason back then I had the Apple TV connected to the TV and ran the TOSLINK back to the processor. Would that work for you?
|
|