|
|
Post by Ghumbs on Apr 12, 2010 2:10:59 GMT -5
I keep seeing the Wadia discussed in these threads, but for the life of me I just can't understand why. The Apple TV has digital out and a far better control system (wireless iPod Touch). I'd hate to see you guys waste your money on a dock. The closed, proprietary nature of the box turns some people off. The "better" control system is also a matter of personal preference, and it raises the entry cost $200-400. That's a min. of $500, roughly what I built my HTPC for, and $120 more than the Wadia. While I respect your opinion, I also disagree. I'm referring to the Apple TV vs an iPod+Wadia 170i, so both are closed and proprietary. I understand HTPCs such as your own, I just don't understand a $380 dock. At all. A Wadia 170i is $380 and that doesn't even include the source. The Apple TV is $230 and the iPod Touch (remote) is $200. So for $50 more than the dock, you have the entire system with your entire music library on screen at your fingertips anywhere within your wireless network. I'm not saying nobody could prefer anything over the iPod Touch remote, I'm just saying nobody could prefer it over docking an iPod on a Wadia. |
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Apr 12, 2010 6:53:55 GMT -5
I keep seeing the Wadia discussed in these threads, but for the life of me I just can't understand why. The Apple TV has digital out and a far better control system (wireless iPod Touch). I'd hate to see you guys waste your money on a dock. While I respect your opinion, I also disagree. I'm referring to the Apple TV vs an iPod+Wadia 170i, so both are closed and proprietary. I understand HTPCs such as your own, I just don't understand a $380 dock. At all. A Wadia 170i is $380 and that doesn't even include the source. The Apple TV is $230 and the iPod Touch (remote) is $200. So for $50 more than the dock, you have the entire system with your entire music library on screen at your fingertips anywhere within your wireless network. I'm not saying nobody could prefer anything over the iPod Touch remote, I'm just saying nobody could prefer it over docking an iPod on a Wadia. I have no experience with Apple TV and at this time do not own an iPod. When using the Apple TV does it allow for a straight digital out of the iPod? In other words are the iPod's DACs being bypassed? My interest in the iPod (Classic 160GB) is to get one eventually to use mainly for playing ripped CDs on my home system in a lossless format. I tried the Logitech Duet but the operating system was a flippin' nightmare so I sold it  . I have a lot to learn as far as this process is concerned  . But if I go to the trouble of ripping (correct term?) all my 500 CDs in a lossless format I certainly do not want use the inferior DAC in the iPod to play music on my system. That is why people are using the Wadia 170 so that they can bypass the DAC in whatever iPod they are using. I'm sure there are limitations when using the Wadia but when SQ is desired over features that is when the additional cost of the Wadia is worth it to some people. After doing a little reading on the Airport Express I am curious as to where the digital-analog process would take place when using a analog preamp such as the USP-1? Is there a DAC in the AE wireless unit or would it be done at the computer? I am a total computer noob so please excuse the basic questions  . Bill |
|
|
|
Post by aarheadc on Apr 12, 2010 7:25:43 GMT -5
What Ghumbs is doing is storing all his lossless audio files on the Apple TV itself (which has optical out) and, instead of using the standard remote and a television to view and control it, he has an iPod Touch with a free app from Apple themselves on it called Remote. When you run this app, the look and feel is as if you are navigating all of the music files on your iPod, but it's actually wirelessly navigating the Apple TV. So no special docks needed to bypass anything, all that's required is a wireless network in your home. So in a nutshell, you get the iPod's great user interface, convenience of it in your hand, rather than on a dock, and digital output to go strait into your XDA-1  Does that all make sense? Oh, and the Apple TV is 160GB |
|
|
|
Post by jannick on Apr 12, 2010 8:09:33 GMT -5
Just want to point out that a lossless rip (apple lossless) uses about 30MB/track in average (for my collection). For 500CD's that amounts to a little under 300GB.
If you don't need the transport/source solution right now, I would wait for a Tegra 2 based solution. Will probably be out at around the same time as the XDA-1.
|
|
|
|
Post by bearfan51 on Apr 12, 2010 8:41:44 GMT -5
While I respect your opinion, I also disagree. I'm referring to the Apple TV vs an iPod+Wadia 170i, so both are closed and proprietary. I understand HTPCs such as your own, I just don't understand a $380 dock. At all. A Wadia 170i is $380 and that doesn't even include the source. The Apple TV is $230 and the iPod Touch (remote) is $200. So for $50 more than the dock, you have the entire system with your entire music library on screen at your fingertips anywhere within your wireless network. I'm not saying nobody could prefer anything over the iPod Touch remote, I'm just saying nobody could prefer it over docking an iPod on a Wadia. I'll be honest, I wouldn't own either one. I have more music ripped into FLAC than will fit on my 64GB touch, or even a 160GB Apple tv unit. Unless theApple tv hard drive is user upgradable, I have no use for it. (that, and between the PS3 and HTPC, it would be redundant in its usefulness to me) As was already mentioned, the Wadia bypasses the internal DAC of the ipod, and is the only product that does so, as of now. IMO, it's a product with very limited use, but audiophiles aren't exactly known for their practicality...lol Personally, there are a lot of audio products priced higher than I'm willing or able to pay, but they are worthwhile to someone out there, and we all have more choices as a result.  For me, a separate means (HTPC) of streaming uncompressed audio to my stand-alone DAC made the most sense. |
|
|
|
Post by sanjaygolf on Apr 12, 2010 10:38:42 GMT -5
I keep seeing the Wadia discussed in these threads, but for the life of me I just can't understand why. The Apple TV has digital out and a far better control system (wireless iPod Touch). I'd hate to see you guys waste your money on a dock. While I respect your opinion, I also disagree. I'm referring to the Apple TV vs an iPod+Wadia 170i, so both are closed and proprietary. I understand HTPCs such as your own, I just don't understand a $380 dock. At all. A Wadia 170i is $380 and that doesn't even include the source. The Apple TV is $230 and the iPod Touch (remote) is $200. So for $50 more than the dock, you have the entire system with your entire music library on screen at your fingertips anywhere within your wireless network. I'm not saying nobody could prefer anything over the iPod Touch remote, I'm just saying nobody could prefer it over docking an iPod on a Wadia. I have no experience with Apple TV and at this time do not own an iPod. When using the Apple TV does it allow for a straight digital out of the iPod? In other words are the iPod's DACs being bypassed? My interest in the iPod (Classic 160GB) is to get one eventually to use mainly for playing ripped CDs on my home system in a lossless format. I tried the Logitech Duet but the operating system was a flippin' nightmare so I sold it . I have a lot to learn as far as this process is concerned . But if I go to the trouble of ripping (correct term?) all my 500 CDs in a lossless format I certainly do not want use the inferior DAC in the iPod to play music on my system. That is why people are using the Wadia 170 so that they can bypass the DAC in whatever iPod they are using. I'm sure there are limitations when using the Wadia but when SQ is desired over features that is when the additional cost of the Wadia is worth it to some people. After doing a little reading on the Airport Express I am curious as to where the digital-analog process would take place when using a analog preamp such as the USP-1? Is there a DAC in the AE wireless unit or would it be done at the computer? I am a total computer noob so please excuse the basic questions . Bill The Airport Express has it's own internal DAC but can transmit a digital signal via toslink. For both digital and analog connections a 3.5mm adapter is required. Obviously, for better sound quality, the digital connection is preferred so you can connect it to an external DAC. The internal DAC in the AE is basically the same as that in the iPod, i.e. not very good. If you like using iTunes and your music is already ripped Apple lossless onto it, then it's a very reliable and cheap way to go. |
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs 
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Apr 12, 2010 10:40:30 GMT -5
I have no experience with Apple TV and at this time do not own an iPod. When using the Apple TV does it allow for a straight digital out of the iPod? In other words are the iPod's DACs being bypassed? My interest in the iPod (Classic 160GB) is to get one eventually to use mainly for playing ripped CDs on my home system in a lossless format. I tried the Logitech Duet but the operating system was a flippin' nightmare so I sold it . I have a lot to learn as far as this process is concerned . But if I go to the trouble of ripping (correct term?) all my 500 CDs in a lossless format I certainly do not want use the inferior DAC in the iPod to play music on my system. That is why people are using the Wadia 170 so that they can bypass the DAC in whatever iPod they are using. I'm sure there are limitations when using the Wadia but when SQ is desired over features that is when the additional cost of the Wadia is worth it to some people. After doing a little reading on the Airport Express I am curious as to where the digital-analog process would take place when using a analog preamp such as the USP-1? Is there a DAC in the AE wireless unit or would it be done at the computer? I am a total computer noob so please excuse the basic questions . Bill Bill, If you intend using the iPod for your home system, why would you need the iPod? The largest 160Gb version will only handle 400 CD's at best. iPod is ideal for in the car or to take your music to your workplace, but using it at home as storage and playback for music files is like getting rid of your Porsche, buy a Golf and then try to pimp it to reach 911 performance. It will never be the same. The best way to use Apple Lossless would be to install a Mac mini and wire it optically to an AV-receiver or to the XDA-1 or anything with a good DAC in it. You could use a iPod Touch (AKA "iTouch") as a REMOTE, not as a storing device. You could use (WIFI) screen sharing from another Mac to control iTunes library. This is what I will do after we move in the new house. Another good way would be to use an Apple TV instead. It has limited capability but still allows you to play independent when your Mac is not on. The easiest way is to use an AE as a streaming device. It has a DAC inside, but for best performance, connect it also optical digital to anything with a good DAC. In fact, you don't even need a standard separate stereo for proper Hifi when you connect to the AVI ADM9.1 which are active speakers with DAC and amps in it. But your Mac needs to be on. You still can use the iTouch as a remote, but I don't like that because it turns off so quickly, so I walk into my office (Mac is on always anyway) when I want to change the music. Get plenty of storage because I am now over 500Gb after 2,5 years of ripping... BTW, we have 4 iPods in the family. The kids have 1 each, my wife uses the Classic in her office and we have a iTouch as a remote. You notice they're not in my sig, because I don't consider it to be Hifi gear. The AE is the cheapest way to distribute music to all the stereo's in the house, but it can only handle 1 song for all, not any song on any AE. |
|
|
|
Post by brubacca on Apr 12, 2010 15:37:07 GMT -5
We should start a new thread with all this apple talk, but for what it is worth I did a lot of investigating and read several places that the AirPort Express was prone to pretty serious Jitter problems.
I went with a Squeezebox 3 and love it. I'll like it more after I get a good DAC to partner with it...
When can we preorder the Emo DAC?
Just go back to the last design and start shipping the bugger!
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Apr 13, 2010 3:28:41 GMT -5
We should start a new thread with all this apple talk, but for what it is worth I did a lot of investigating and read several places that the AirPort Express was prone to pretty serious Jitter problems. A wired solution will always be better, but AE is convenient in existing houses. Mine don't sound to bad with the DacMagic and the Yamaha AV. It's always on. Imac in the Home Office, AE in the Living Room, AV powering zone 2 speakers in the Home Office. Best to use the optical connections for Apple when possible was what the Apple seller told me. Folks who complained about Jitter were not using optical. I will setup a proper server in the new house though. Here's an example on CA: www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Build-Audiophile-Music-Server-CA03 |
|
|
|
Post by orangeLollies on Apr 13, 2010 5:28:38 GMT -5
FWIW, I have iTunes installed on my HTPC, which feeds audio to my Marantz via optical toslink. I can use my iPhone (with remote app) for wireless visual control of playback and volume. Works a treat, and nice not having to turn TV on and/or fluff about with monitor & mouse... ...also... just to show off a bit ... and to be super-lazy....I have setup my HTPC to talk to my Marantz via serial RS232. When iTunes starts playing, the HTPC checks that the Marantz is turned on and on the correct input... ;D Oh yeah, back on topic, the original XDA design looked much better  |
|
|
|
Post by rdaneel on Apr 13, 2010 12:06:00 GMT -5
I actually prefer the new design, I never liked having a VFD or LCD way off to the side.
Either way, it looks like a great product, I hope they can make it available soon!
|
|
|
|
Post by funboy on Apr 13, 2010 17:46:37 GMT -5
Would connecting this thing via usb to computer be better then connecting it to the digital out from the motherboard? Either way, it will be doing all the DAC so I would think it wouldn't make a difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by jlafrenz on Apr 13, 2010 18:53:13 GMT -5
Would connecting this thing via usb to computer be better then connecting it to the digital out from the motherboard? Either way, it will be doing all the DAC so I would think it wouldn't make a difference. Personal preference. On my DAC I like the optical over the USB. |
|
|
|
Post by aarheadc on Apr 13, 2010 21:42:12 GMT -5
Would connecting this thing via usb to computer be better then connecting it to the digital out from the motherboard? Either way, it will be doing all the DAC so I would think it wouldn't make a difference. According to a man named Ash over at another forum, who seems to know what he's talking about if you read his other posts, says it makes no difference whether you use digital, optical, or usb. www.computeraudiophile.com/content/AppleTV-Music-Server#comment-4487 |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Ben on Apr 13, 2010 22:34:53 GMT -5
Would connecting this thing via usb to computer be better then connecting it to the digital out from the motherboard? Either way, it will be doing all the DAC so I would think it wouldn't make a difference. From what I've read, optical should be at least as good as USB, and may sound better. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeLollies on Apr 13, 2010 23:48:12 GMT -5
Would connecting this thing via usb to computer be better then connecting it to the digital out from the motherboard? Either way, it will be doing all the DAC so I would think it wouldn't make a difference. From what I've read, optical should be at least as good as USB, and may sound better. "Theoretically" optical should be superior for digital signals, as it is a true digital medium. Light is either on or off.... there's no in between. So yeah, optical is the way to go ....theoretically |
|
|
|
Post by BillBauman on Apr 14, 2010 0:49:57 GMT -5
From what I've read, optical should be at least as good as USB, and may sound better. "Theoretically" optical should be superior for digital signals, as it is a true digital medium. Light is either on or off.... there's no in between. So yeah, optical is the way to go ....theoretically Optical and coax can both send one's and zeros. If you want to argue which is better, it depends on the quality of the transceivers. In consumer audio, I would argue fewer 1's or 0's are wrong with coax digital because the vast majority of optical implementations are done with the cheapest transceivers and optical cables possible, and the business of data transfer over wires has many more years of refinement and much lower total cost for a decent quality implementation. The issue with USB is that you have significant overhead and no guarantee of service. The medium itself is going to introduce a lot of unpredictable packet delivery timing. This is what ends up being known as jitter, essentially. There are few connections less well suited for audio than USB. For the most part, you probably won't hear a difference. But, if you have some very high end gear and a very critical ear, you can probably pick it out. It's sort of like the difference between a cheap DAC and a multi-parallel DAC implementation on a CD Player. Hook either of them up to some tin speakers, and it doesn't matter, connect them to a high resolution loudspeaker with a transparent amp, and then yes, there's a difference - even if it's subtle. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 14, 2010 1:41:59 GMT -5
Would connecting this thing via usb to computer be better then connecting it to the digital out from the motherboard? Either way, it will be doing all the DAC so I would think it wouldn't make a difference. Coax and optical are one way protocols. The receiver of the data cannot talk to the sender. USB on the other hand is a serial protocol where there there is a handshake that takes place between the sender and the receiver. In addition to that, there is a checksum of every packet that detects corruption and requests that data be retransmitted to correct a bad transmission of data. Think about it this way: USB is also used for printers and hard drives. When it comes to sending files, the data is protected from corruption. If this were not the case, programs, documents, and other corruption sensitive files would stop working every once and a while. Because USB only allows one device on the bus to communicate at a time, it is always buffered. Otherwise, audio would break up every time you copied a file to a USB drive or printed something. All USB DACs should be reading a buffer from the data sent via USB and creating the audio via a separate clock. Implementations may vary on what is done between the USB buffer and the DAC reading/receiving the buffer. If there is any jitter from a USB DAC, it is probably from a low quality clock in the DAC. That said, I like using optical because it eliminates grounding and EMF noise issues, but USB is what I will be using over short distances on equipment plugged into the same outlet. Sources: www.faculty.iu-bremen.de/birk/lectures/PC101-2003/14usb/FINAL%20VERSION/usb_protocol.htmlwww.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs |
|
|
|
Post by strindl on Apr 14, 2010 2:00:19 GMT -5
My interest in the iPod (Classic 160GB) is to get one eventually to use mainly for playing ripped CDs on my home system in a lossless format. I tried the Logitech Duet but the operating system was a flippin' nightmare so I sold it . How long ago did you use the Duet? I only ask because I have three of them that I use on my audio systems in my house...and I LOVE the whole system. I got mine back in jan 2009, and Logitech has done several major firmware and program updates since then, so I don't know which time frame your experience was during. I have over a thousand CD's ripped in lossless format that I listen to all the time. Plus, I have access to internet radio and things like Pandora, which I also love. I use the digital outs on each Duet receiver. |
|
|
|
Post by funboy on Apr 14, 2010 10:26:06 GMT -5
So, if I were happy with the UMC or future XMC DAC, then I wouldn't need to buy this new upcoming DAC since my computer has a digital out?
|
|
.
. But if I go to the trouble of ripping (correct term?) all my 500 CDs in a lossless format I certainly do not want use the inferior DAC in the iPod to play music on my system. That is why people are using the Wadia 170 so that they can bypass the DAC in whatever iPod they are using. I'm sure there are limitations when using the Wadia but when SQ is desired over features that is when the additional cost of the Wadia is worth it to some people.
.
