|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on Jul 23, 2018 20:00:14 GMT -5
I guess you didnt notice the LOL at the end. And how does your statement contribute to the OP's question??? I did see the LOL, but what I didn't see is how your old fairy tale contributes to the OP's question. My suggestion regarding audiophile network players is to just avoid them exactly BECAUSE they're typically marketed around that same old fairy tale, when the reality is that they are first and foremost just a convenience thing, which is the complete opposite of spending your money more towards actual quality of the sound. So would you like to make a recommendation of what is suitable when the source is several rooms away from the endpoint? Seems whatever you use is a necessity NOT a convenience. Russ |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jul 23, 2018 20:21:28 GMT -5
Not necessarily. IMO, the kinds of noise floor matters discussed here wouldn't even register on REW, which has value in identifying large scale room mode issues, not fine grade noise. And, as subjective "opinions", measurements don't matter much, let alone need validation. Sounds great or not. Art or science, you decide. Massage or trip to the dentist's drill, both are useful, but somehow feel different. I just read this post again, it make much more sense now! Thanks audiobillTo me it makes zero sense because as a matter of true fact audio is a marriage between art and science. Getting them divorced is what's called unwanted distortion. |
|
|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on Jul 23, 2018 20:27:32 GMT -5
I just read this post again, it make much more sense now! Thanks audiobill To me it makes zero sense because as a matter of true fact audio is a marriage between art and science. Getting them divorced is what's called unwanted distortion. Please answer the question and eliminate the pompous BS. Russ |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jul 23, 2018 21:02:49 GMT -5
I did see the LOL, but what I didn't see is how your old fairy tale contributes to the OP's question. My suggestion regarding audiophile network players is to just avoid them exactly BECAUSE they're typically marketed around that same old fairy tale, when the reality is that they are first and foremost just a convenience thing, which is the complete opposite of spending your money more towards actual quality of the sound. So would you like to make a recommendation of what is suitable when the source is several rooms away from the endpoint? Seems whatever you use is a necessity NOT a convenience. Russ The terms "source" and "endpoint" already suggest you have some kind of network player present. A home network doesn't require those paraphernalia to be functional by any means, so what I suggest is what I've been suggesting for years: music files are just data so as long as they can be fed into the DAC unharmed, you should be good, and what that means is any silent laptop PC or HTPC that can have access to your stored data over your home network will do perfectly fine as long as the bandwidth required to ensure fluent access can be maintained during the playback process so get an ASUS ethernet switch that has a VIP port on it as that will rid you of the various quirks inherent of dealing with QoS and packet prioritization... long story made short, KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid re the networking part of the equation, and, unless you already made your purchase, look for a USB DAC the internal USB interface inside which is the isochronous type with a FIFO to eliminate any and all transport jitter, doesn't go through S/PDIF, and is galvanically isolated as well as is adequately shielded from the more sensitive intestines of the DAC to keep the electronic noise and EMI/RFI out. That is, keep it out of the power supply, out of the data lines, and out of everything inside your DAC unit that isn't its internal USB interface. USB interfaces do generate a lot of electronic noise and EMI/RFI, but then, just in case people didn't already know it, so do ethernet controllers!  |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jul 23, 2018 21:03:57 GMT -5
To me it makes zero sense because as a matter of true fact audio is a marriage between art and science. Getting them divorced is what's called unwanted distortion. Please answer the question and eliminate the pompous BS. Russ It's not pompous BS, it's purely common sense. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 23, 2018 21:54:22 GMT -5
There are enough fairy tales around about USB and network audio to fill an entire new volume of Aesop's fables (or, perhaps, Fractured Fairy Tales). As usual, some of them are based on a small nugget of truth; others, errr.... not so much. The power supplies in computers are in fact quite noisy... And, if that noise manages to leak into the analog circuitry on your DAC, it can cause audible noise problems. In general, this isn't a problem in the real world, because most modern DACs are designed to reject or ignore this sort of noise - or are isolated from it. (Although some USB-powered DACs are still quite sensitive to it.) If you want the absolute best noise prevention known to modern technology, it'll cost you $10... it's called a Toslink cable. (Toslink has other drawbacks, but it has absolutely perfect isolation and noise immunity.) If you're hoping to eliminate the noise that might be coming from your computer by using some sort of Ethernet bridge... think again. Ethernet is a packetized protocol... which means that the data is divided into little chunks at the sending end and reassembled at the recieving end. And, guess what's in the little box, sitting next to the DAC, that reassembles those packets..... a little computer. All you've done is go through a whole bunch more steps to get right back where you started. And, obviously, re-clocking Ethernet packets is totally silly, because Ethernet is specifically designed to be immune to minor variations in clocking anyway. Incidentally, most Ethernet switches, even the cheap ones, re-clock the packets anyway.... (If you really want to re-clock your Ethernet packets, just make sure you buy a "store-and-forward" switch rather than one of the "cut through" variety. Cut-through switches have lower latency, but store-and-forward switches re-clock and regenerate every packet that passes through them. ) Likewise, devices that re-clock USB packets have been around for quite some time... long before USB audio. (Standard USB hubs re-clock the data that passes through them... although, since modern asynch USB DACs have their own clock anyway, it really shouldn't matter much.) Also, incidentally, if you want real high-quality galvanic isolation, and your DAC doesn't include it, USB isolators start around $50.... I hate to be a wet blanket.... But randomly trying every gadget that someone claims will make your system better is a great way to spin your wheels... (And, sadly, while it's a sure way to spend a lot of money, it's equally likely to make things worse as to make them better.) You're much better off carefully considering the situation, locating any weaknesses that may actually exist, and then addressing them in the most expedient way possible.... Slaying imaginary dragons is unlikely to win you the riches of the kingdom outside of fairy tales. Nick, what do you think you want from this beyond your mac mini / Brooklyn combination? Thanks, Ill find out this evening when I start to break in the Brooklyn. From what ive read a computer directly connected to the DAC brings a lot of noise. If Im going to place something in between Im not looking at a half measure. Of course at this point Im not sure what Ill hear. Hopefully much better sound, mind you my setup as is is pretty dang good IMHO. I do have 30 day window to return any product I test drive. If I dont hear enough of an improvement I may just stay with the Explorer 2. Maybe an Sonore or sOtm product. Experiments in motion! 😁🎶🎶🎶🎶 |
|
|
|
Post by brubacca on Jul 24, 2018 6:32:45 GMT -5
KeithL...
I disagree with you on one very specific point. You infer that these Ethernet to USB bridges or network players are basically just computer so they can bring nothing to the table. This is really a generalization. You lump all devices into the same bucket. Now if you are talking about a Bryston BDP-3 that looks to be standard computer motherboard in a Audio case then I'd be inclined to agree with you. The BIG BUT is these smaller devices like the MicroRendu, UltrRendu, SMS-200 and SMS-200ultra... These are purpose build circuit boards (Much like you would have and optimize in a CD-player). They are designed with Audio in mind and you would think designed similar to what Emotiva does for other products.
Emotiva must have a budget to test and evaluate competitive product. I'd encourage you to try one of these devices for yourself. I have put down my own experiences here several times. Very simply the mR is a better transport than several other things I tried. Again that is my personal experience and others may vary. Although there are many here and a few new ones who are hearing the difference these little devices can make.
As far as Toslink goes, I have never liked the sound coming from a Toslink connection for Audio. It has always sounded soft to me. Coax has always brought me better enjoyment for Audio.
|
|
|
|
Post by sahmen on Jul 24, 2018 7:36:59 GMT -5
KeithL... I disagree with you on one very specific point. You infer that these Ethernet to USB bridges or network players are basically just computer so they can bring nothing to the table. This is really a generalization. You lump all devices into the same bucket. Now if you are talking about a Bryston BDP-3 that looks to be standard computer motherboard in a Audio case then I'd be inclined to agree with you. The BIG BUT is these smaller devices like the MicroRendu, UltrRendu, SMS-200 and SMS-200ultra... These are purpose build circuit boards (Much like you would have and optimize in a CD-player). They are designed with Audio in mind and you would think designed similar to what Emotiva does for other products. Emotiva must have a budget to test and evaluate competitive product. I'd encourage you to try one of these devices for yourself. I have put down my own experiences here several times. Very simply the mR is a better transport than several other things I tried. Again that is my personal experience and others may vary. Although there are many here and a few new ones who are hearing the difference these little devices can make. As far as Toslink goes, I have never liked the sound coming from a Toslink connection for Audio. It has always sounded soft to me. Coax has always brought me better enjoyment for Audio. +1 . I Wholeheartedly endorse and second what he said  Listen to Mac or PC side by side with an appropriately powered SOtM or -rendu network player/renderer, with an open mind, and especially, without any prejudices or preconceptions based on science (as this science is evolving very rapidly, creatively outpacing and outflanking itself on different fronts and levels, apparently). I'm betting that Mac/PC are left in the dust every single time. The difference is not subtle, as there is really no contest at all here; it's not even close. |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Jul 24, 2018 7:44:05 GMT -5
Wireless streaming only, no Ethernet connection. Russ[ Really? It has an RJ45 network connection? And the manual says "16. Ethernet - For a wired connection directly from a router or Network Attached Storage (NAS) source. Using the MUZO Player app stream Spotify (incl. Connect), TIDAL, Napster, QQ Music and many more. " |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,485
|
Post by DYohn on Jul 24, 2018 9:01:10 GMT -5
There are very clear and easily discernable differences to be heard in different implementations of USB for audio, and between different digital transport and delivery methods. To dismiss network audio as relying on some sort of hocus-pocus is both insulting and demonstrates ignorance at best or an agenda at worst.
This thread has suddenly gone to sh**it.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,083
|
Post by klinemj on Jul 24, 2018 9:03:54 GMT -5
My experience this past week with a microRendu differs from the opinion Keith expressed. I'm with DYohn brubacca and sahmen on this one. Mark |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 24, 2018 9:24:36 GMT -5
I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that they bring nothing to the table. And, yes, some of them may well be optimized for audio in some useful way - most likely by having an operating system that is purpose designed minus all the extra apps and functions that would distract a typical general purpose computer from doing the best possible job for audio. However, bits are really just bits. For example, Ethernet packets are digital data, which means that they are comprised of very high frequency square waves, with a lot of high frequency content. Therefore, ANY device that processes them is almost certain to generate a lot of high frequency noise. You may be able to use "soft switch" diodes in a linear power supply to reduce noise, but you can't do something like that with an Ethernet signal, because limiting the frequency response is BAD for digital signals. (It's sort of like trying to design a safe chainsaw blade; if you round off the teeth it no longer works right.) Likewise, USB audio is packetized, which means that it's made up of little blocks of data, with spaces in between, that have to be reassembled into a steady data stream. DACs from twenty years ago actually locked onto the cadence of the packets themselves, so making sure they arrived smoothly and consistently made that job a bit easier, but modern DACs don't work that way. Since they're going to throw away the original clock anyway, and create an entirely new one, making the original clock better doesn't serve much purpose.
Because both Ethernet and USB are sourced from digital systems, both should be expected to contain a certain amount of power and ground noise... and a properly designed DAC should be designed not to be affected by it. And, if your DAC is affected by it, then the solution is not to spend a lot of money trying to make the input signal a tiny bit cleaner.... the solution is to get a better DAC that isn't affected by it. And, yes, if your DAc is effected by noise there will be an audible effect; it's not going to be some vague and subtle thing that you can't actually hear. I absolutely DO agree that some of these little devices do a better job at streaming audio than a regular computer, because they may do a better job of buffering packets, or of avoiding dropouts... and they may have software that is much more carefully optimized for audio. I've even seen one or two streamers thata ctually experienced frequent dropouts when asked to decode certain audio data formats. However, especially lately, those claims are very often overplayed and overstated....
You bring up two excellent examples..... CD players and Toslink cables. Assuming both are working properly, a computer sourced digital audio stream and one coming from a CD player should be identical. Not "sort of similar" - identical. There is no reason for them to sound any different whatsoever. Likewise, a Coax S/PDIF cable and a Toslink cable carry the exact same signal... it is bit-for-bit identical. Of course, since we live in an imperfect world, they aren't quite identical - but the differences are simply flaws in one particular implementation or the other. A typical low-cost Toslink interface and cable will often round off the edges of the packets a tiny bit more than a typical Coax interface, this may make for a little bit more jitter in the recovered signal, which in turn may make it a little more difficult to lock onto. Therefore, if your DAC happens to be sensitive to jitter, that may result in an audible difference in sound. However, the cheapest Toslink cable and interface has PERFECT galvanic isolation so, if computer ground noise is a problem, then a Toslink cable will fix it. course, if your DAC really worked perfectly, then there would not - and could not - be any difference between any of them.
The problem I have with this entire subject is that what we're really dealing with are specific flaws in specific equipment - and specific devices which may reduce or minimize their effects. If your system has ground noise from your computer audio source intruding on the audio, then a high quality ground isolator may really help a lot. However, if your system doesn't have a problem with ground noise, then it's simply a waste of money... and, since you've introduced yet another device, and more wires and connections, you actually risk introducing other problems by adding it. Likewise, if the Ethernet input on your new streaming player works properly, then, like any other well-designed Ethernet device, it is totally immune to the amounts of noise and packet jitter commonly encountered on networks. Yes, if it's a little fussy, then that fancy packet-reclocker may improve its performance, but otherwise it's just a waste of time and money. (And, if the guys who designed your streamer failed to provide proper isolation between the digital and analog circuitry, while certain tweaks may help, nothing is going to entirely compensate for their poor design.)
So, yes, to get back to your initial reaction..... some of these devices really do provide valuable benefits - and eliminate certain problems that certain people experience with certain specific combinations of equipment. However, many of them provide expensive solutions to problems that most people simply don't have... And more than a few are simply snake oil that is most unlikely to ever help anybody...
What concerns me is that an awful lot of people don't seem to understand the difference between "improving performance" and "solving a problem"... As a result, many spend money on expensive gadgets, in the hope that they will make their system sound better, by solving problems they don't actually have... And more than a few of those devices claim to solve problems that are more than just really uncommon... they just plain don't exist.
(Sometimes it reaches the level of spending $500 for a salt shaker - "to solve the dire and life threatening problem of dangerously underspiced food".)
The other specific issue I have is with "cute little USB and Ethernet gadgets" that are sold as "audiophile tweaks" - under what I would consider false pretenses. For example, both USB hubs and most Ethernet switches re-clock the data signal - as part of their basic functionality. If you're going to put either one in a fancy case and sell it for $500 as an "audiophile tweak" - you really should be willing to show, WITH NUMBERS, that it does something better than the $20 one sold online. And, if a real $100 USB galvanic isolator provides an actual isolation spec, why do they expect you to pay $500 for an "audiophile version" because three thrilled users swear it sounds better?
(And, no, testimonials from thrilled users don't really qualify, because we know both how easy those are to fake, and how many people let their imaginations run away with them.)
But, to get back to the topic at hand..... I don't do an awful lot of streaming, and I don't have much experience with any of the devices being discussed, so some may well work better than others. However, if so, I would expect them to be able to provide a few numbers to explain the difference.
Is one bit-perfect while the other is not? Does one have fewer dropouts than the other? Does one simply have a better menu system, or boot up more quickly? (I would consider both of those important.) Does one support more streaming services, or more formats, or lock up less often?
Does one deliver an output signal with lower jitter?
Does one actually have a lower noise floor?
I'm not suggesting that it doesn't make sense to choose a product based partly on user recommendations.
I'm just suggesting that people avoid getting carried away... or spending a fortune on really dubious benefits.
KeithL... I disagree with you on one very specific point. You infer that these Ethernet to USB bridges or network players are basically just computer so they can bring nothing to the table. This is really a generalization. You lump all devices into the same bucket. Now if you are talking about a Bryston BDP-3 that looks to be standard computer motherboard in a Audio case then I'd be inclined to agree with you. The BIG BUT is these smaller devices like the MicroRendu, UltrRendu, SMS-200 and SMS-200ultra... These are purpose build circuit boards (Much like you would have and optimize in a CD-player). They are designed with Audio in mind and you would think designed similar to what Emotiva does for other products. Emotiva must have a budget to test and evaluate competitive product. I'd encourage you to try one of these devices for yourself. I have put down my own experiences here several times. Very simply the mR is a better transport than several other things I tried. Again that is my personal experience and others may vary. Although there are many here and a few new ones who are hearing the difference these little devices can make. As far as Toslink goes, I have never liked the sound coming from a Toslink connection for Audio. It has always sounded soft to me. Coax has always brought me better enjoyment for Audio. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 24, 2018 9:27:07 GMT -5
Just to be clear here.... I've never compared those two particular devices, so I don't know how well one works compared to the other. However, if there is an audible difference, then I am quite certain it will be due to a measurable difference in actual performance.
It absolutely, positively, will NOT be due to "some intangible something that can't be measured". And, if we can't figure out what the reason actually is, then we have no way to figure out whether it will or won't make a difference in a particular system. At that point it becomes a bit like taking a prescription drug "because it made your friend feel better".
(This is one reason why we see so many discrepancies, where one person swears they hear a huge difference, yet another person hears none.)
My experience this past week with a microRendu differs from the opinion Keith expressed. I'm with DYohn brubacca and sahmen on this one. Mark |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,083
|
Post by klinemj on Jul 24, 2018 9:36:26 GMT -5
KeithLYour cautions are valid, but you are speaking to real users who have tried and found improved sound with various of these devices. That said, when Emotiva can provide me with a device that allows me to take my stored digital data and get it to my DAC in a way that is: - Easy to set up. - Easy to use/operate - Enables a full range of playback formats up to the highest available speeds - Is Roon Ready for those who want Roon yet can use other approaches (DLNA or whatever) - Is reasonable cost - Improves sound vs. what I was using (Windows 10 PC puling data from my NAS or Tidal and sending it via USB to my DAC) ...then I'll be interested. Until Emotiva has that, I've found a solution that truly delivers on all counts in my list. Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jul 24, 2018 14:21:42 GMT -5
KeithL... I disagree with you on one very specific point. You infer that these Ethernet to USB bridges or network players are basically just computer so they can bring nothing to the table. This is really a generalization. You lump all devices into the same bucket. Now if you are talking about a Bryston BDP-3 that looks to be standard computer motherboard in a Audio case then I'd be inclined to agree with you. The BIG BUT is these smaller devices like the MicroRendu, UltrRendu, SMS-200 and SMS-200ultra... These are purpose build circuit boards (Much like you would have and optimize in a CD-player). They are designed with Audio in mind and you would think designed similar to what Emotiva does for other products. Emotiva must have a budget to test and evaluate competitive product. I'd encourage you to try one of these devices for yourself. I have put down my own experiences here several times. Very simply the mR is a better transport than several other things I tried. Again that is my personal experience and others may vary. Although there are many here and a few new ones who are hearing the difference these little devices can make. As far as Toslink goes, I have never liked the sound coming from a Toslink connection for Audio. It has always sounded soft to me. Coax has always brought me better enjoyment for Audio. They do bring something to the table, and they are designed with audio in mind. But you are still entirely missing the point because for the most part, they are designed to suppress the symptoms of broken DAC designs as opposed to help you understand the root cause of why the designs are broken. I'm not saying it is easy to design a DAC unit in such a way that both the isolation and the shielding are done right, but that certainly doesn't mean there are no DAC units that are designed to be immune to these typical flaws, and that are enineered well in such a way that the devices that you mention are no longer capable to suppress those symptoms simply because the core problem of what's causing those symptoms has already been properly addressed by the manufacturer of the DAC unit itself. An asynchronous USB input interface board that is located inside the DAC unit itself (i.e., an internal interface board) can be galvanically isolated from the rest of that same DAC unit by correctly implementing high quality isolation transformers. This ensures that the electronic noise that gets picked up from the host computer hardware being used for a playback device, as well as gets picked up from the air due to metal cables─ INCLUDING ALL USB CABLES─acting like an antenna, in addition to the electronic noise that is generated by the USB controller hardware [of the asynchronous USB input interface board in question], are ALL adequately eliminated from BOTH the power signal that's feeding the rest of the DAC unit AND the electric signal that carries the data over to the DAC chip. (Yes, it's just ones and zeros, but no, the analog parts inside DAC chips are not immune to electric noise that rides the data lines connected to them.) Operating the DAC chip(s) in a low noise environment proves to be much more important than many think... But isolation alone is not enough, as the input interface board still also emits EMI, so a metal shield surrounding this board [thus effectively separating it from the rest of the DAC unit in question, despite that it is still located on the inside of the enclosure] is compulsory as well. That is, in addition to a robust power supply that isn't easily getting affected by any patterns that characterize how the input interface board draws its power from that power supply. That and ground planes that are steady as a rock. (They all connect back to the shared chassis ground in one way or another, but voltage regulators alone will still cause them to fluctuate too much.) Finally, if the power supply is using dual toroidal power transformers, for example, this will also help to create the low noise environment I was referring to earlier, as they don't radiate as much much EMI as the other nonsense. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,083
|
Post by klinemj on Jul 24, 2018 15:29:57 GMT -5
They do bring something to the table, and they are designed with audio in mind. But you are still entirely missing the point because for the most part, they are designed to suppress the symptoms of broken DAC designs as opposed to help you understand the root cause of why the designs are broken. So...you are saying that those of us who are finding improvements in sound via these devices ALL have "broken DAC designs"? So, Schiit, Emotiva, Mytek, LH Labs, and many others all are "broken DAC designs". Well, alrighty then...got it When is your DAC design coming into production?  Mark |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,485
|
Post by DYohn on Jul 24, 2018 16:29:08 GMT -5
Yes, that pretty much sums up your post. |
|
|
|
Post by badronald on Jul 26, 2018 0:21:32 GMT -5
I guess you didnt notice the LOL at the end. And how does your statement contribute to the OP's question??? I did see the LOL, but what I didn't see is how your old fairy tale contributes to the OP's question. My suggestion regarding audiophile network players is to just avoid them exactly BECAUSE they're typically marketed around that same old fairy tale, when the reality is that they are first and foremost just a convenience thing, which is the complete opposite of spending your money more towards actual quality of the sound. I can see from your equipment lineup that you are obviously are in a much better position then me to give the OP a recommendation on this subject. Fairy Tale....lol, I thing not. Here is a recommendation to you: Try not being such a wise ass in your posts. |
|
|
|
Post by bluemeanies on Jul 26, 2018 12:55:19 GMT -5
There are enough fairy tales around about USB and network audio to fill an entire new volume of Aesop's fables (or, perhaps, Fractured Fairy Tales). As usual, some of them are based on a small nugget of truth; others, errr.... not so much. The power supplies in computers are in fact quite noisy... And, if that noise manages to leak into the analog circuitry on your DAC, it can cause audible noise problems. In general, this isn't a problem in the real world, because most modern DACs are designed to reject or ignore this sort of noise - or are isolated from it. (Although some USB-powered DACs are still quite sensitive to it.) If you want the absolute best noise prevention known to modern technology, it'll cost you $10... it's called a Toslink cable. (Toslink has other drawbacks, but it has absolutely perfect isolation and noise immunity.) If you're hoping to eliminate the noise that might be coming from your computer by using some sort of Ethernet bridge... think again. Ethernet is a packetized protocol... which means that the data is divided into little chunks at the sending end and reassembled at the recieving end. And, guess what's in the little box, sitting next to the DAC, that reassembles those packets..... a little computer. All you've done is go through a whole bunch more steps to get right back where you started. And, obviously, re-clocking Ethernet packets is totally silly, because Ethernet is specifically designed to be immune to minor variations in clocking anyway. Incidentally, most Ethernet switches, even the cheap ones, re-clock the packets anyway.... (If you really want to re-clock your Ethernet packets, just make sure you buy a "store-and-forward" switch rather than one of the "cut through" variety. Cut-through switches have lower latency, but store-and-forward switches re-clock and regenerate every packet that passes through them. ) Likewise, devices that re-clock USB packets have been around for quite some time... long before USB audio. (Standard USB hubs re-clock the data that passes through them... although, since modern asynch USB DACs have their own clock anyway, it really shouldn't matter much.) Also, incidentally, if you want real high-quality galvanic isolation, and your DAC doesn't include it, USB isolators start around $50.... I hate to be a wet blanket.... But randomly trying every gadget that someone claims will make your system better is a great way to spin your wheels... (And, sadly, while it's a sure way to spend a lot of money, it's equally likely to make things worse as to make them better.) You're much better off carefully considering the situation, locating any weaknesses that may actually exist, and then addressing them in the most expedient way possible.... Slaying imaginary dragons is unlikely to win you the riches of the kingdom outside of fairy tales. Ill find out this evening when I start to break in the Brooklyn. From what ive read a computer directly connected to the DAC brings a lot of noise. If Im going to place something in between Im not looking at a half measure. Of course at this point Im not sure what Ill hear. Hopefully much better sound, mind you my setup as is is pretty dang good IMHO. I do have 30 day window to return any product I test drive. If I dont hear enough of an improvement I may just stay with the Explorer 2. Maybe an Sonore or sOtm product. Experiments in motion! 😁🎶🎶🎶🎶 Hi Nick I have a AUDIOQUEST USB to mini cable connected to my Mac mini then to my Audionote Dac using AIRSTREAM...one time fee of $15.00. SWEET! |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Aug 2, 2018 3:33:43 GMT -5
I did see the LOL, but what I didn't see is how your old fairy tale contributes to the OP's question. My suggestion regarding audiophile network players is to just avoid them exactly BECAUSE they're typically marketed around that same old fairy tale, when the reality is that they are first and foremost just a convenience thing, which is the complete opposite of spending your money more towards actual quality of the sound. I can see from your equipment lineup that you are obviously are in a much better position then me to give the OP a recommendation on this subject. Fairy Tale....lol, I thing not. Here is a recommendation to you: Try not being such a wise ass in your posts. You don't have to be a wise ass to be able to figure out the simple fact if your sound wasn't broken you wouldn't be needing those paraphernalia in order to fix it.  P.S., re your remark of "I can see from your equipment lineup", the DAC that I have uses not one, but two ES9018 chips in mono mode (one for each channel). The Mytek Brooklyn DAC+ use only one ES9028PRO, which is still limited to 133db in stereo mode, whereas the ES9018 in mono mode has 135dB DNR so I can see from your ignorance the kind of position you're in.  |
|
Listen to Mac or PC side by side with an appropriately powered SOtM or -rendu network player/renderer, with an open mind, and especially, without any prejudices or preconceptions based on science (as this science is evolving very rapidly, creatively outpacing and outflanking itself on different fronts and levels, apparently). I'm betting that Mac/PC are left in the dust every single time. The difference is not subtle, as there is really no contest at all here; it's not even close.
