Auraliti PK100 File Player Review

Chris did a great job describing something that seems to challenge simple description. A few points brought up here I'll address:<br />

<br />

1) NAS support. We agree that NAS support is important. The underlying challenge is making an easy to use solution when the player has no UI and our customers are not IT professionals. This product will be shipping by the end of March.<br />

The server will be simple to use:<br />

Plug the server into your network via Ethernet<br />

Switch on the Server then the PK100 Player<br />

Open the server on your desktop or laptop to load files (the Server works as a Samba Share volume)<br />

Play files loaded on the Server from the PK100<br />

Thats it!<br />

The Server will also provide services for other music playback devices the customer may already have such as Logitech or Sonos as well as other Auraliti Players..<br />

<br />

<br />

2) we chose to not open the attached storage for external access. Again its the configuration problem compounded with the potential of causing big problems if the drive is yanked while the box is playing or content is being written to it across the network.<br />

<br />

3) We have removed the resampling functionality as much as we can. We don't recommend using the PK100 with a DAC that doesn't support the native sample rate of your source content. One of the core goals was to be able to pass the 176.4 KHz and 192 KHz files to a DAC untouched. You can use the onboard analog output if you don't have a DAC that can handle the sample rate. <br />

<br />

4) We have not made any substantial changes to the Juli@ card's digital section except for the BNC output and removing the Toslink. We have done a handful of tweaks to the analog section. Its pretty good but ESI's decision to use a really odd footprint opamp has limited our upgrade options. The premium products get more of a makeover in many ways to pull cleaner digital from the system.<br />

<br />

5) The USB version is close to release. We are fiddling with sheetmetal. Its more than just enabling the USB connector for audio- we add a special USB interface card.<br />

<br />

6) External Clocking- External clocking sounds great, until you look at the specific challenges. We can play a mixed sample rate playlist. The process is invisible to the user. However, if the clock is externally derived and there is no way to tell the external clock source what clock frequency to pass back you can get unpredictable and potentially very destructive-to-loudspeaker results. I'm playing with a novel way to make this work and I'm not sure how the end results will turn out but its an interesting experiment.<br />

<br />

7) There is an ongoing and learned discussion on whether a source device like this running bit-perfect can have an effect on the sound. Chris attempted to discuss the sound issue. Comparing to a Mac Mini becomes problematic since the Mini doesn't have an S/PDIF coax output that supports 176.4 and 192. The PK100 is not targeted at USB audio (it works but isn't the best we can do and this version isn't USB audio class 2, that is the pending USB version). <br />

<br />

8) A touch interface is available with either the MPoD, MPDroid (for Android devices) or the Neompc (any web browser) user interfaces. They are not as pretty as the local JRiver touch interface that requires onboard video support by the file player/server. However the upcoming MPaD app will be more attractive and allow browsing by cover art.<br />

<br />

9) USB audio class 2 is like many standards, -- not that standard. There are more than a few ways to implement even the asyncronous audio version, not to mention the others. We have only been able to test with Streamlength variations so far. No promises on others yet.<br />

<br />

This is a distraction but-<br />

There are several implementations that I have seen that are supposedly compliant but use different legitimate "rate feedback" codes to control loading the buffers. They seem to be linked to different platforms, one for OSX, another for Linux and some confusion for Windows. I expect this to all get ironed out over the next few months.<br />

<br />

There are also a number of non-compliant solutions in broad use for Windows, the Emu ones come to mind first.<br />

<br />

Interrupt serviced, now back to the main thread.

Only works on an S/PDIF stream. It has no word clock or superclock input (I wish it did). That's one of the reasons that external clocks are hard to implement.

I can confirm that the auraliti does not work USB out into the wired dac - nothing nada not even static. I assume you need the driver installed and that is not possible.<br />

In my comments I mentioned I was initially disappointed with the auraliti it sounded flat and thin as opposed to the Mac mini ( no special mac mini just the usually common sense approach to utilizing it for sound)<br />

the difference in sound after I had reset the Wyred dac was almost a complete switch - now the Mac appeared thin and flat compared to the Auraliti, I double checked all output values and made sure the were the same for the mac and Auraliti.<br />

Now remember it is not perfect AB situation - the mac was running USB direct into the Dac and the Auraliti was using BNC direct, they were both playing the same flac files albeit from different drives and yes I also switched the drives to see if that was an influence.<br />

I not only used Amarra and pure music but also other music player software and the Auraliti always sounded richer more resolved and it was not a close contest.<br />

Damien put me down for the server!<br />

Btw what kind of storage will the server utilize?

<br />

"I'm playing with a novel way to make this work and I'm not sure how the end results will turn out but its an interesting experiment."<br />

<br />

Good luck with this, Demian. I do understand the challenge.<br />

<br />

Clay

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/4/40207.html<br />

<br />

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/4/40026.html<br />

<br />

If you have something capable like a LIO-8, you would be foolish not to use it as the master device instead of the Juli@ internal clock.<br />

<br />

<br />

"firewire diehard"? was it that obvious? ;0<br />

<br />

As to your question, why consider the Auraliti - probably lots of reasons.<br />

<br />

Like you, I like the philosophy. Even though (as was said upstream) it may only be pure and simple now, I think it will rise to "elegant" sometime soon.<br />

<br />

<br />

I've believed for quite some time that purpose-built Linux music playing "appliances" will likely be the future of computer audio.<br />

[thanks to the ideas of John Swenson many moons ago]<br />

<br />

What pushed me over the edge is that a Linux solution appears to be available which is as easy to use/configure as to tweak a Mac Mini. And I think it may sound better.<br />

<br />

<br />

Also, I've probably grown tired of the endless tweaking of what might be a fatally flawed approach (i.e. commercial computers/OS feeding top notch DACs) and our collective inability to sort out why the computer impacts the sound so much even when using Asynchronous interfaces. (read: endless tweaking = antithesis of elegant)<br />

<br />

<br />

And of course, there's the boredom factor, to be addressed by moving to - and learning about - something new. <br />

<br />

Fortunately, my LIO-8 accepts AES.<br />

<br />

<br />

cheers,<br />

clay<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

The Server will use mirrored low speed, low noise hard drives for storage. Capacity at this time will be 2TB of on line storage from two 2TB drives. If a single drive fails the customer will still be able to play music until the failed drive is replaced. Once a drive is replaced the Server will then mirror the content. The system will boot from a small SSD just like the Auraliti file players. Boot from SSD avoids any system related problems if a storage drive should fail. We will provide pre-formatted drives so the process with be mechanical and not software intensive.<br />

<br />

To answer the inevitable question for all fans of storing files on SSD, yes we did extensive listening test and system noise measurements to confirm what Demian and other engineers already know. There should be no audible difference between HDD and SSD in this well isolated sever. You may ask, if Demian already understood this then why did we spin our drives doing this testing? Because I did not know and neither did you so we spent a bunch of time and money confirming what we know you guys want to know.

I read through the threads and they confirm what I thought- no easy word clock in. And the issue of automatically selecting the remote clock remains.<br />

<br />

What we are doing in the Constellation is heroic in its hidden complexity. However we do have the bi-directional communications necessary to make it all work. For a general purpose solution its harder and the user will need to get involved or forgo auto switching.<br />

<br />

For the L1000 premium product I have planned an internal ultra high performance clock option that could be used to lock external devices. This would simplify the process but I'm not sure that many DAC's would understand changing sample rates on the word clock input. Ultra performance means ultra expensive long lead parts (one key possible source quoted 1 year) so its not going to happen quickly.<br />

<br />

No easy solutions (or they would already have been done).

then several other FW DACs could easily provide the master clock. Of course for owners with one of the Metro Halo DACs or something similar, syncing to an external clock via S/DIF is no problem.<br />

<br />

I ‘m not sure why you would plan an internal ultra high performance clock option for the L1000 premium product. You might as well include an internal DAC and make the L1000 a complete standalone unit. Especially if you find difficulties with many DACs changing the sample rates on the word clock input. Is this one of the difficulties of not using a computer? In any case the premium product, L1000 should still accommodate those fortunate to have better DACs or external clocks otherwise the L1000 would be limiting those seeking ultra sonics.<br />

<br />

Perhaps my thoughts are because I view your products as possibly superior replacements for the CD transports or computers in the listening room and not as a replacement for DACs or external clocks, though all these could be included albeit at higher and perhaps for some unnecessary costs. By your own admission, ultra performance means ultra expensive long lead parts, possibly 1 year plus your R&D time.<br />

What are the differences among the PK100, L1000 and the proposed PK200? I understand the USB offering, and the server of course. By the way, your guys at the Flamingo were very nice and gave me kudos for knowing enough about your products, but I'm beginning to lose that mantle very quickly.

Please identify yourself. I have found none. To be clear for the DAC to be the source for the system clock it must know the sample rate for the file to be played. The source has this info but no way to communicate it to the DAC, except via USB or Firewire. <br />

<br />

that as a relative newcomer, I know I should probably keep my mouth shut...<br />

<br />

but...<br />

<br />

Geez. Could this whole world be any more complicated?<br />

<br />

When do any of you have a minute or two to sit down and enjoy listening?<br />

<br />

Asked another way, where's a good place to start? Seems I read trade-off after trade-off, but I can't quite glean the underlying rules of the game.<br />

<br />

Speakers -vs- Headphones? Room acoustics? Receiver quality? Cable quality? Music playing software? Burning DVD-a? S/PDIF -vs- USB-DAC? Better USB-DAC?<br />

<br />

Where do you start? Where do you first upgrade? Is it ever good enough? Do we ever find contentment? Or is this a case of enjoying the journey, not the destination?<br />

<br />

Kevin

If your are fascinated with hardware, feel compelled to have the "best" audio among your peers, are always insecure that someone may have a tweak, no matter how outlandish, that might make everything sound better then there is no peace for you (although therapy may be a lot cheaper in the long run).<br />

<br />

If you are here because the hardware was restricting your enjoyment of the music for any reason (too complicated, something doesn't sound right, the music lacks "music") then you may find bliss pretty easily and leave this chaos behind as you enjoy your collection. <br />

<br />

You need to understand your values and goals, not get lead astray by arcane discussions you don't need to understand, and find the inanimate machine that does what you want. A Squeezebox, Mac Mini or PK100 may be all you need as you move to the important part, finding the music you like.<br />

<br />

Many here (I'm probably one of them) are too caught up in hardware to enjoy the music these boxes can make. I substitute concerts every week to force myself to just enjoy the music. Its hard to tweak musicians in public performances, you just accept what they give you. And there are no cable swapping options.

It’s a hobby and for me a lifelong hobby in the enjoyment of music. I liken it to taking a different cruise every year. Perhaps a different cruise line, different ships, and different destinations. You experience new as well as old, whether places, people, food, entertainment, etc., it costs money but it gives you lifetime enjoyment and memories. <br />

<br />

Start with something inexpensive especially since something is usually better than nothing. IMO upgrade after you have acquired a modest library of musical treasures, that is, music that you really care about and brings you great pleasure. Upgrade only if the new has proved itself to be significantly better in your system than the old and is worth the cost in time and money. With this path you will find contentment, peace, pleasure and not enough time or money. And of course make sure that you attend live performances and shows since IMO there is no better reference for music.<br />

Interesting thread, interesting product. Have been considering a MacMini as a file server, with an eye on CAPS (CAPS2 ?). I can build a windows based PC well enough, but use Mac just about exclusively now. I am not a Unix guy though, and the thought of building and configuring an MPD based system is beyond my current knowledge.<br />

<br />

Looking at the Auraliti page, I noticed the L1000 with its AES only output and figured it was the one best designed to address my DAC.<br />

<br />

A question though, as I truely don't know. Is the one AES connector enough for the 24/192 playback? If so, what is the purpose of the dual AES connectors on some of the more expensive gear.<br />

<br />

If the L1000 is able to be pointed at a NAS, and is not a lot more expensive than the PK100, it might be what I am looking for. I currently use PM or Fidelia and frequently use my iPhone to choose songs while doing other things. I have noticed that heavy computer use will cause disruption of the music from time to time, just hiccups, but still it is distracting.

<em>If the L1000 is able to be pointed at a NAS, and is not a lot more expensive than the PK100, it might be what I am looking for.</em><br />

<br />

The L1000 is about 4x the PK100, or $3,000 (dealer network) vs $799 (direct). I have asked for the differences, etc and the price/features of the PK200 but still no details. I'd love to talk up these players on my HiRez forum, too, but emails and my specific posts here have gone unanswered. I visited them at the Flamingo and chatted for quite awhile with a couple folks there. The L1000 and the server (prototypes) looked very promising.

Definately will put it way out of range for what I am willing to spend for a music server. Is that not in the Sooloos range, with nice touch screen etc?

Bones, I am fairly sure the PK100 can be special ordered with AES on the output. I suggest emailing them direct if this is of interest to you.<br />

<br />

From what I understand Sooloos Control 15 (inc touchscreen) starts at $7.5k.

Good to know about custom options. I had looked at the pretty pictures of the Sooloos, but guess I managed to blank out the cost in my recollections.<br />

<br />

My current thinking is still to get a headless MacMini server, and have a lot more options, and tweakings that can be utilized over time.<br />

<br />

But, I am happy to see items like this come to fruition, and be aimed at audiophiles, computer savvy or not.

I studied some about the the Bryston BDP-1, which as Chris mentioned is quite similar. BDP-1 has both BNC and AES connectors, several more USB ports (2 front and 2 rear), and a front panel display and control buttons.<br />

<br />

On the BDP-1 you can have a playlist on a USB thumbdrive and play it just using the front panel buttons - completely without computer interaction (other than to load the USB key, unless the music files are purchased pre-loaded)<br />

<br />

Listening to their rational helped me to understand the Auraliti better. They consider it a GOOD thing to not have any video circuitry, keyboard/mouse circuitry or WiFi working inside their box. From what I can tell the ethernet connection just had to be there to allow remote control with computer/iPhone/iPad, and they prevent ethernet streaming of the music files, and only allow the music to come in via the USB ports, which are not responsible for anything else, at least in the PK100 and BDP-1.<br />

<br />

Will be watching for players of this type being compared to "music servers" of the Mac, CAPS, and other computer varieties.<br />

<br />

And considering personal tastes: will the euphonics presented by the latest OSX software players on a relatively inexpensive MacMini beat out the true bit-perfect goal of the Auraliti/Bryston hardware players?

(Demian, et al, I use that term fondly and not meant to be derogatory description at all) since they seem to really get the Einsteinian "make it as simple as possible, but no simpler" approach. When you look at all the non-audio processing that is going on with the other OS's, regardless of how much you tweak the machine, then you realize what a low power truly dedicated system could potentially bring. <br />

<br />

I wonder if the minimalism of these machines will effect a lesser sonic signature on the various audio codecs (FLAC, wav, AIFF, etc). Theorists scoff at the notion that some of us can hear differences in wav vs FLAC, and I don't mean for this thread to become another debate about it, but it would certainly go a long way toward explaining the differences if a Linux appliance presented FLAC as clearly as it does wav, yadayada....for those of us that care. I would LOVE not to have to jump through the silly hoops I jump through in order for my MAC wav tunes to have any tagging or significant metadata. All my archiving is in FLAC, and listening to those "directly" would be a huge advantage for me personally....I know, I'm an idiot.

<br />

"When you look at all the non-audio processing that is going on with the other OS's, regardless of how much you tweak the machine, then you realize what a low power truly dedicated system could potentially bring."<br />

<br />

I agree, Ted.<br />

<br />

the seemingly endless "improvements" (to be had) from minimizing the software processing (of the music player) on the Mac are surely great evidence that Einstein was right.<br />

<br />

<br />

I was reminded a couple of days ago that Sonore - one of CA's advertisers - offers linux-based boxes, and has for quite some time.<br />

<br />

clay<br />

<br />

<br />

The BDP-1 and Auraliti are similar because we assisted in the design of Bryston's product. In fact we are credited for the work on the back page of the new BDP-1 brochure.<br />

<br />

The Auraliti PK100 was developed as an alternative to repurposed general use computers like the Mac Mini. The PK100 is cost competitive with using a Mini as part of an audio system and as you state is more accurate to the original recording than is possible the typical laptop or desktop computer. <br />

<br />

The BDP-1 and Auraliti L-1000 take the concept further in different directions and offer unprecedented file playback performance with ease of use.

Factoid: In extensive testing I (and a few others) have been unable to hear a difference between flac and wav on the Auraliti players.<br />

<br />

Of course the fact that I have not heard a difference doesn't prove there is none but I'm pretty confident that any difference will be small. For what its worth the system load on a 176.4 FLAC is around 30% and a similar WAV is around 3.3% in the Atom based player.