|
|
Post by qdtjni on May 3, 2016 10:20:55 GMT -5
FTR, I have players where I use external USB and FireWire DACs (Win 7, OS X & Linux on both Intel and ARM), where the "DAC" is built into the device, i.e. IP -> i2S and where I use AES/EBU & S/PDIF to the DAC (and ADC) All of them play music stored on a NAS via either Roon or LMS/SB/Squeezelite. Most of them sound fairly similar, if not identical to me.  Some of them allow me to run Dirac with higher sampling rate than XMC-1. Had the XMC-1 had at least 96 kHz, I would probably ditch most if them and just run one simple player to the XMC-1's different digital inputs. To sum up, Dirac makes much more difference than any USB, FireWire, AES/EBU, etc. for sound quality, to me that is. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on May 3, 2016 10:26:41 GMT -5
In fact that depends on how you look at it..... From a "design aesthetics" point of view, of course the fewest conversions is the neatest and most sensible way to do anything.... extra conversions rarely bestow any benefits. However, from a performance point of view, ALL that matters is the "final data" and the "final clock" - the ones that are used as the data is being fed into the DAC chip itself. As long as the data arrives with all the bits unaltered, and that final clock is very high quality, the steps along the way really don't matter. The whole point of digital data transmission is that the data remains "perfect" and flaws in the data path, as long as they remain below "correctable limits", don't matter. (So, assuming you have an i2S signal going into the DAC, with correct data, and a given quality level of clock, the previous steps in the signal chain REALLY DO NOT MATTER.) For example, let's assume that, at some point, you used a really poor connection with lots of jitter and lots of noise. In that case, there would still only be two POSSIBLE results: 1) The data would arrive intact - with all the correct bits 2) The jitter or noise would cause data errors Assuming that the next stage in your sequence generates its own clock, the ONLY thing that would matter would be that you got 1) and NOT 2). (When I read an audio file from a USB drive, there is no "better" or "worse" - there's simply "correct" or "not correct".) In other words, assuming you have an digital audio signal, with all the data bits correct, in the i2S format, with a clock of a given quality, it actually DOESN'T matter how it got there in the least. (The only drawback to additional complexity is "more places for stuff to POTENTIALLY go wrong - and cause the data to not arrive intact".) There is a fair argument that, for the sake of simplicity, it would make more sense to send data directly to the DAC via Ethernet. There is also a fair argument that it makes the most sense to combine the digital audio player and the DAC into a single unit. However, there are two main reasons why this isn't often done: 1) From a technical perspective, there are noise issues when combining "a computer" and "a DAC" in one box... these can be overcome. 2) Most audiophiles prefer to be able to choose their media player and a DAC separately (just like preamps and power amps) I would also add a third "informal" reason, which probably accounts for most of the products we actually see. 3) Designers of network equipment tend not to design DACs and vice versa. It's really that simple; most of the guys who design good DACs don't "do Ethernet", and most of the guys who design network music players don't "do" audiophile DACs.... it's a sort of comfort zone thing... but it's also a technology thing. (And I guess it's also a "market thing".) Assuming your starting point is either digital music files on a computer, or streaming audio, you're starting out with a FLAC file, or perhaps an Ogg Vorbis CODEC data stream from Spotify. Therefore, you're going to need a menu system, and a database, and Playlists, and all the latest CODECS... in short, a computer software music client running on a computer. And it's simply traditional for computers to output their audio data via USB. It seems foolish to read a FLAC file via Ethernet, decode it to digital audio data, then put that data back into Ethernet packets and send them over the network again. (Where some client then has to receive those packets, read the digital audio data, and pretty much do the same thing all over again.) And most people who design high end DACs don't want to bother with Playlists, and menus, and streaming clients, and CODECs. (And, unfortunately, nobody's actually made a computer with a true "audiophile quality sound card" in it - which is really the solution you're positing.) Now, it would simplify the chain considerably if your computer could read that file, decode it, and directly put out i2S. The problem is that i2S is great for sending signals from one end of a PCB to the other, but is very sensitive to cable length, and tends to lose quality rapidly over even one or two feet.... (which is why they use USB). With all due respect, you are the one missing the point here. IP -> i2S is better than USB -> IP -> USB -> i2S, everything else being equal. EDIT: The sound difference is more theoretical than that one would hear it, IMHO. EDIT2: Even with a local player, i.e. not using a device similar to the on OP described, you would have IP -> USB -> USB -> i2S, what's the benefit unless you already have a good USB DAC? |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on May 3, 2016 10:37:51 GMT -5
I agree entirely..... If you can find a network player that connects to an Ethernet port, handles all the file management and decoding, and sends the decoded audio to an internal high-quality DAC, then that is indeed the perfect solution. The general reason that more people don't do just that is simply that they aren't satisfied with the available products. (And, since there seem to be lots of computer-based players available, and lots of really good USB DACs, it makes sense to make that the dividing line and pick one of each.) I used a Squeezebox (and then a Squeezebox Touch) for years... However, Foobar2000 software on my computer plays lots more file formats, and has a lot more features I find useful, and my separate DC-1 DAC sounds better than the DACs in the SB. (And bear in mind that I can buy a laptop computer, with a nice big color screen, and a hard drive, for less than the cost of all but the cheapest network player device currently available.) Honestly, the only way I can see much use for this would be if it's cheaper than the other current USB extender solutions (which run $200 to $300 per 100 feet).... and you really need to put a DAC in some isolated location where you can;t put your computer next to it. And, "if your computer's upstairs in the office where it belongs", then are you planning to run up there every time you want to change songs.....? And, if you're planning to use another computer as a remote control for THAT computer, then wouldn't it be easier to just play the music on the one you're using for a remote control.....? Even though other USB extenders can use Cat5/6/7 cabling, I don't if any of the can use an existing LAN with IP already in place that would also allow for switches, routers, etc, at least not for USB Audio. Hence it might have to be a direct cable from the computer playing music. So if one want to extend USB for any reason, using IP could certainly be beneficial. As for controlling the player in a remote computer, what about LMS infrastructure or Roon from a tablet, smartphone, browser, VNC, etc? After all, that has been possible with Squeezeboxes (or rather Slim Device 2001. Then one might ask why bother with USB at at all when a small player can have network connectivity and DAC in the same box and then use i2S internally instead. Again Slim Devices have been doing this since 2001 although I must say, Roon gives a way better user experience and also works with other devices such as Roon enabled devices, Macs, Linux Windows, AirPlay and more. |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on May 3, 2016 10:42:31 GMT -5
Keith, I mostly agree with you and I really don't see the point with the device the OP referred to. I suggest you have a look at Roon, it all makes a lot of sense for the digital music experience. Also, Slim Devices Transporter, Linn Klimax DS and a few others are truly audiophile players with the DAC built into them, Transporter was out already 2006 and Klimax DS came 2007. Transporter also worked as a top DAC but now is obviously outdated only supporting up to 96 kHz Unfortunately, I don't know of any such player with Dirac built into it. The dream would be a Roon Bridge and support for at least 96 KHz Dirac in the XMC-1. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on May 3, 2016 11:06:51 GMT -5
Yes, it's just data, but you're missing a distinction here..... between "quality" and reliability. Hospitals have two concerns: 1) Some hospital equipment can actually be interfered with, and may produce inaccurate results, if there's too much noise present. 2) People could actually die if the readings are wrong, or if the readings or control signals simply don't get through. It's no big deal if, every once in a while, my computer tells me "Bad file; please retry" when I try to play a song - especially if it works fine when I try again. However, if it was your heart monitor, you might find that to be somewhat more of a problem. And, if the nurse had to come running every time your heart monitor started reporting funny results - because the plug got loose - that would also be a problem. (And it's worth a lot of money to a hospital to make sure those sorts of things happen as rarely as possible.) The main benefit of those fancy "hospital grade" outlets is that they grip the plug tightly, so the plug doesn't get knocked out, and the stuff keeps running. And the main reason for galvanic isolation is to prevent interference and noise (but it only really matters when and if there's noise that needs to be eliminated). If, once every six months, you heard your neighbor's wireless phone conversation coming from your stereo, it really wouldn't be such a big deal..... But you really wouldn't want that happening with your pacemaker. And the cost/benefit ratio is also situational....... That's a fancy way of saying that, whether the Ethernet cable pulls loose from your heart monitor, or the little clip simply slips off your finger, either way the machine will start shrieking, and a nurse will come running and put it back.... (We'll assume that someone decided it wasn't worth running a second redundant network cable - or putting a spare clip on your other finger.) And, as an audiophile, you decide whether it's worth spending $1000 to get your house rewired to prevent your stereo from shutting off mysteriously once in six months. Audiophiles also have a bad habit of associating "preventing problems" with "quality". They're certain that, if they hear that phone conversation coming from their speaker once in six months, then "it's probably making my stereo sound a tiny bit worse all the time - even if I don't hear it". And, sadly, companies that sell expensive line conditioners, and fancy line cords, and silly "USB regenerators" do their best to encourage that fear. (It's not that it isn't sometimes true.... just like there are a few people who really DO legitimately need Volcano Insurance.... but the fear is far more common than the actual problem.) Isn't it just data? Shouldn't make any difference at all. You think your local hospital ICU "wires" their instrumentation differently than ethernet/usb/encrypted wireless? PS - I may be wrong |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on May 3, 2016 11:38:50 GMT -5
From the descriptions, it seems like simply another attempt to sell a product to people who actually believe that the same exact bits will sound different if you use a different protocol to deliver them. (Although, to be fair, if you're really determined to connect a computer over here with a USB DAC waaaaaaay over there - which I wouldn't do - it isn't much more expensive than the other available long-range USB extender options.) Keith, I mostly agree with you and I really don't see the point with the device the OP referred to. I suggest you have a look at Roon, it all makes a lot of sense for the digital music experience. Also, Slim Devices Transporter, Linn Klimax DS and a few others are truly audiophile players with the DAC built into them, Transporter was out already 2006 and Klimax DS came 2007. Transporter also worked as a top DAC but now is obviously outdated only supporting up to 96 kHz Unfortunately, I don't know of any such player with Dirac built into it. The dream would be a Roon Bridge and support for at least 96 KHz Dirac in the XMC-1. |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on May 3, 2016 12:01:33 GMT -5
Mind you, there are worse products around like the audiofool Ethernet, USB and power cables to mention a few.
|
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on May 3, 2016 12:04:35 GMT -5
Or audiofool swtches, NAS devices or claiming SSD disks in your NAS improves sounds over normal hard discs.
|
|
|
|
Post by millst on May 3, 2016 14:14:36 GMT -5
So my question is when will the XMC-1 be able to accept music via the ethernet port from my Mac mini ? Other than loading the Dirac filters, the port has no place in life.  Russ Your life, perhaps. Network control is another function of the Ethernet port. -tm |
|
|
|
Post by yves on May 3, 2016 16:15:43 GMT -5
Dollar per dollar, asynchronous USB done right gives better audio performance than ethernet. So it's essentially a "no frills" philosophy, which I, like many other people, greatly prefer. Done right a music player reading data over an IP network negates the need for USB and sounds better, i2S done right easily beats USB any day. EDIT: Corrected typos. I call BS on all counts. |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on May 3, 2016 16:23:44 GMT -5
Done right a music player reading data over an IP network negates the need for USB and sounds better, i2S done right easily beats USB any day. EDIT: Corrected typos. I call BS on all counts. Good for you. Bon appétit!  |
|
|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on May 3, 2016 17:51:54 GMT -5
So my question is when will the XMC-1 be able to accept music via the ethernet port from my Mac mini ? Other than loading the Dirac filters, the port has no place in life. Russ Your life, perhaps. Network control is another function of the Ethernet port. -tm Well that would be nice too but as I said the Ethernet port is ONLY used for loading the Dirac filters. No network control, no streaming, etc. Russ |
|
|
|
Post by millst on May 3, 2016 17:56:21 GMT -5
Wrong, it IS used for network control. I use it all the time.
-tm
|
|
|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on May 3, 2016 18:02:18 GMT -5
Wrong, it IS used for network control. I use it all the time. -tm Please explain. This is in direct opposition to the user manual which states "for downloading the Dirac filters and then can be disconnected". Russ |
|
|
|
Post by millst on May 3, 2016 18:06:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on May 3, 2016 18:39:25 GMT -5
I use the Emotiva app as does probably everyone else owning an XMC. It works wirelessly from may iPad or iPhone. Does the ethernet cable need to be plugged in for it to work? If so, I did not realize that was the case although my cable is plugged in. Russ |
|
|
|
Post by millst on May 3, 2016 18:42:06 GMT -5
Yes, the XMC-1 doesn't have Wi-Fi.
-tm
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on May 3, 2016 18:48:57 GMT -5
Good for you. Bon appétit! Want to know why I call BS on all counts? I'll tell you anyway. A player reading data over IP is electronically more complex, more costly to get it right if the goal is to go from IP directly to I2S. A player like that is essentially a computer. Computers are known to generate massive amounts of electromagnetic interference. You want to keep that stuff away from the DAC. That's why people buy external DACs instead of internal soundcards anyway in the first place. Building a player into a DAC goes against this useful strategy of keeping noise pollution out of the DAC. |
|
|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on May 3, 2016 19:17:30 GMT -5
Yes, the XMC-1 doesn't have Wi-Fi. -tm Tnx for the insight. Russ |
|
|
|
Post by JKCashin on May 4, 2016 0:15:20 GMT -5
So here's a question then. Optical or USB from my Mac Mini to my XMC-1?
|
|
