Why not.....dlna....

[Mike Mcsweeney]

I, sometimes, use DLNA with Jriver to the Oppo BDP103 and that's connected to a NovaPre via Coaxial. It works flawlessly with anything I throw at it, however it just doesnt sound as good (to my ears) as my laptop connected via USB to the Peachtree. Maybe it's the use of the EQ or any of the other functions Jriver provides. Maybe I'm just crazy.

 

I am sure the jriver has ability to disable equalizer?

Either way, thanks for the info....

 

I just read this

Archimago's Musings: MEASUREMENTS: ONKYO TX-NR1009 as HDMI / SPDIF DAC... Are AV Receivers any good?

 

I really will be surprised if i won't be happy with using a PC hdmi 2.0 direct to a new HDMI 2.0 Marantz AVR. I am leaning toward even forgetting about trying DLNA at all at this point....

[Mike Mcsweeney]

Mike,

 

I am not pimping MSB but I would have you look at their solution just to give you an example of an elegant DLNA solution, albeit it one with issues that Chris has raised. The UMT+ acts as a DLNA renderer using the OPPO 103 chipset, then buffers the data bits to memory where their PROI2S board is clocked to their DAC. So basically the issues of a USB tethered computer are eliminated and the bit stream flowing to their DAC is extremely accurate and there is no tweaking, USB board differences, optimization files, etc. HOWEVER, gapless is still an issue, streaming can occasionally be an issue with high res stuff, so there are issues. Of course, one can compare such a solution to a USB server to see which they like better. I am still demoing the UMT+, the jury is out as to SQ, but I can tell you the server solution via USB is much more responsive.

 

 

THANKS! I will research...

[kumakuma]

The more I look, there seems to be many professed audiophiles that suggest spending more than $200 on an external dac is unnecessary, and I don't even consider myself an audiophile.

 

As they say "Opinions are like a$$holes. Everybody's got one..."

 

When it comes to audio, if you look hard enough you can always find someone who agrees with a decision you've already made.

[Mike Mcsweeney]

As they say "Opinions are like a$$holes. Everybody's got one..."

 

When it comes to audio, if you look hard enough you can always find someone who agrees with a decision you've already made.

 

I haven't made any decisions yet regarding my new office stereo setup, and it will be summer before I do, but i found this interesting.

 

Archimago's Musings: MEASUREMENTS: ONKYO TX-NR1009 as HDMI / SPDIF DAC... Are AV Receivers any good?

[kumakuma]

I haven't made any decisions yet regarding my new office stereo setup, and it will be summer before I do, but i found this interesting.

 

Archimago's Musings: MEASUREMENTS: ONKYO TX-NR1009 as HDMI / SPDIF DAC... Are AV Receivers any good?

 

Looks like you've found your solution.

[Mike Mcsweeney]

Looks like you've found your solution.

 

no, i personally don't like onkyo (although they are the only reciever I have tried that allows you turn the center speaker up without having to go into setup....i wish other AVR manufacturers would add that for dialog purposes), but it does seem to solidify my beliefs that the AVR's internal DACs can be pretty accurate....and it wasn't based merely on the opinion of someone's listening pleasure. It is the stuff i am looking for....objective vs subjective (as this site refers to it as). It's good meat that's I can chew on. There seems to be so much fluff here, but i prefer the objective insights.

[robcentola]

I am sure the jriver has ability to disable equalizer?

Either way, thanks for the info....

 

I just read this

Archimago's Musings: MEASUREMENTS: ONKYO TX-NR1009 as HDMI / SPDIF DAC... Are AV Receivers any good?

 

I really will be surprised if i won't be happy with using a PC hdmi 2.0 direct to a new HDMI 2.0 Marantz AVR. I am leaning toward even forgetting about trying DLNA at all at this point....

 

 

It would be nice to be able to use the EQ while using DLNA. Too bad I say. I'm really surprised I can't. Jriver rocks though!

[Snowmonkey]

The more I look, there seems to be many professed audiophiles that suggest spending more than $200 on an external dac is unnecessary

Really? On this forum? Who?

[Mike Mcsweeney]

Really? On this forum? Who?

 

Trolls, you gotta luv em...

 

I didn't say anyone on this board...they probably have all been scared off or suspended.

Definetely not anyone that has too much pride to suggest they overpaid by not waiting on technology....nor anyone influenced by marketing hype....

[Melvin]

Trolls, you gotta luv em...

 

I didn't say anyone on this board...they probably have all been scared off or suspended.

Definetely not anyone that has too much pride to suggest they overpaid by not waiting on technology....nor anyone influenced by marketing hype....

 

[Mike Mcsweeney]

Really? On this forum? Who?

 

As far as on this board, i have asked for objective data, but all i get is fluff.

I am willing to look at output waveforms, comparison data, anything to show that the circuitry in a midlevel DAC of yesteryear has more accuracy THAT IS AUDIBLE, than what is in modern day dragonfly's or mid level AVRs or BLU-RAY. I have yet to see anything that suggests more accuracy. I understand there would be differences in the algorithm's used to guesstimate what the original waveform looked like, but ads i have seen on high-end stuff suggest they use algorithms to "sweeten" the sound rather than make it more accurate.

 

I don't want to pay for an algorithm that the manufacturers guesstimate what will "sweeten" the analog signal.....

 

THat is why they all sound different, why there are thousands of models out there, and why if you go with anything more than what the basic DAC ic chip does, it is so subjective. Use speakers and amps to decide your listening pleasure, not the DAC? The purpose of the DAC "SHOULD" be to simply reproduce the original analog signal as close as possible that is audible, and i haven't seen any evidence that an OPPO or Mid Level AVR doesn't do that already.

[Snowmonkey]

The more I look, there seems to be many professed audiophiles that suggest spending more than $200 on an external dac is unnecessary

Really? On this forum? Who?

Trolls, you gotta luv em...

 

I didn't say anyone on this board...they probably have all been scared off or suspended.

Definetely not anyone that has too much pride to suggest they overpaid by not waiting on technology....nor anyone influenced by marketing hype....

I wasn't trolling, I was asking you a straightforward question. It seems to me you have come onto this forum, purporting to ask for advice, then dismissing anyone who doesn't agree with your preconceptions, or the opinion of Oppo's sales staff, as fools who are too proud to admit they are wrong. You also seem to be accusing the forum administrator of suspending anyone whose opinion agrees with yours. Why are you wasting time on this forum when you could be on one of those other forums where everyone agrees with you?

[Mike Mcsweeney]

I wasn't trolling, I was asking you a straightforward question. It seems to me you have come onto this forum, purporting to ask for advice, then dismissing anyone who doesn't agree with your preconceptions, or the opinion of Oppo's sales staff, as fools who are too proud to admit they are wrong. You also seem to be accusing the forum administrator of suspending anyone whose opinion agrees with yours. Why are you wasting time on this forum when you could be on one of those other forums where everyone agrees with you?

 

I am on this forum because I have got a lot of good advice...just nothing worthwhile from you but interruptions...and that is what i consider trolling. What are you offering in the way of intelligible data input to either substantiate or negate my observations. I would think if there was any scientific proof I would have seen it by now if this board is full of such knowledgeable people? Instead i get subjective input and trolls such as yourself that do nothing but interrupt. If you don't have anything to offer of substance, i would appreciate it if you found another thread to troll on.

 

To those that have been helpful, I apologize, your advice is appreciated.

 

PS, i would love it if someone corrected my thinking with objective data. I am the newbie here...and i really expected to be wrong (grin). I am just looking for hard facts.

I challenge anyone to put me in my place and show me that even a $1000 DAC is more "accurate" than what is in a dragonfly or the built-in dacs of a oppo or mid-level AVR. If someone can show me such evidence, I would likely buy one.

[Snowmonkey]

Well I already informed you that I had a Dragonfly and that I had upgraded to a $450 DAC and it sounded much better to me. No, I don't have objective data to prove it sounds better. I would have thought that was exactly the sort of info you were after, except you seem to have not noticed it, presumably because that's not what you want to believe.

[Mike Mcsweeney]

Well I already informed you that I had a Dragonfly and that I had upgraded to a $450 DAC and it sounded much better to me. No, I don't have objective data to prove it sounds better. I would have thought that was exactly the sort of info you were after, except you seem to have not noticed it, presumably because that's not what you want to believe.

 

I can turn the bass or treble up and like the sound better. just because you like the $450 DAC better, i want to know why. how do the waveforms differ. Maybe it just uses a different algorithm to create the waveforms and it is just more enjoyable to your ears. I am not going to try 10,000 different $500 DACs to find one that sounds more appealing to my ears. That is what i shop for speakers for. IMHO, the DAC should do nothing more than to reproduce an accurate waveform from the 1s and 0s.

[Mike Mcsweeney]

Well I already informed you that I had a Dragonfly and that I had upgraded to a $450 DAC and it sounded much better to me. No, I don't have objective data to prove it sounds better. I would have thought that was exactly the sort of info you were after, except you seem to have not noticed it, presumably because that's not what you want to believe.

 

But to add, i do appreciate your input about the DAC you bought and that you like it. I will research it...who knows, maybe that is what i will end up with. That is what i am here for...I just don't want to spend $450 without a reason.

[Mike Mcsweeney]

Well I already informed you that I had a Dragonfly and that I had upgraded to a $450 DAC and it sounded much better to me. No, I don't have objective data to prove it sounds better. I would have thought that was exactly the sort of info you were after, except you seem to have not noticed it, presumably because that's not what you want to believe.

I apologize for coming off harsh. I think i confused you for one of the other members that kept giving me a hard time. I went back through your emails, and you have been unpleasant to me. I have felt a bit attacked since i have came here, and have found myself on the defensive...and I mistakenly thought you were one of those individuals...again, i apologize.

[Snowmonkey]

Apology accepted Mike. I'm no expert in these matters, but as far as I have been able to ascertain, comparing the output from a DAC with the original digital data is no easy matter. You would need to resample the output and compare the two files mathematically. To do that, you need to align the two hypothetical waveforms, to eliminate phase differences, and then to correct for amplitude differences. The only way I can think of to align the two files is by brute force, incrementally shifting the relative timing of the files and looking for a best fit. You would also need to decide the criterion for best fit and if two different DACs generated files with the same measurement for best fit but which differed from each other, they may well still sound different. That's just my amateur view of the problem, but when I raised it in another thread, none of the experts on the forum commented, though esldude kindly sent me a PM, basically agreeing with that analysis of the problem and suggesting some software which may be capable of carrying out such comparisons.

Anyway, if there was any published unbiased research comparing the output of DACs objectively, I suspect someone from this or some other forum would have brought it to light by now.

[esldude]

Apology accepted Mike. I'm no expert in these matters, but as far as I have been able to ascertain, comparing the output from a DAC with the original digital data is no easy matter. You would need to resample the output and compare the two files mathematically. To do that, you need to align the two hypothetical waveforms, to eliminate phase differences, and then to correct for amplitude differences. The only way I can think of to align the two files is by brute force, incrementally shifting the relative timing of the files and looking for a best fit. You would also need to decide the criterion for best fit and if two different DACs generated files with the same measurement for best fit but which differed from each other, they may well still sound different. That's just my amateur view of the problem, but when I raised it in another thread, none of the experts on the forum commented, though esldude kindly sent me a PM, basically agreeing with that analysis of the problem and suggesting some software which may be capable of carrying out such comparisons.

Anyway, if there was any published unbiased research comparing the output of DACs objectively, I suspect someone from this or some other forum would have brought it to light by now.

 

Well, having done the differencing Snowmonkey is talking about it isn't that hard. There are plenty of pitfalls however. Mostly from lack of knowledge I have learned several ways to get corrupted results. On the other hand the idea is simple, but sound. In time I learned how to get very good results. I had intended to do exactly as described above with DACs.

 

However, having done that with interconnects, which let me assure you in the way they are most used do absolutely nothing close to the audio range that isn't identical, I am not encouraged. Too many people do not wish to know the truth if it contradicts their sighted listening impressions. Now matter how you do the test, it isn't convincing to most people. Nor am I the first person to do such a thing.

 

What limited difference testing I have done with a few DACs leads me to doubt they sound different above a certain quality point. Maybe around $300-500, maybe less. Things like the DACs in computer sound cards, and laptops are not too bad though most are in error in ways that are audible. Though that is a moving target and a few are surprisingly good.

 

I also think having done this sort of thing the proper arrangement of your basic usual audio tests comes darn close to telling you everything you need to know. Audiophiles for the most part aren't accepting of that. It is much easier than difference testing. Difference testing has the advantage that any difference shows up somewhere. Take care to eliminate artifacts of the testing (like relative timing of the two signals), and it really leaves nothing out. And yet that convinces almost no audiophiles. It has the other advantage of being able to use actual music for the test signal. An oft heard complaint that sine waves are not like complex music. Contrary to the accepted wisdom I have found the right test signals far more revealing than music. Most of which doesn't stress components in our system until you get to power amps and speakers. There is a body of research that supports that idea as well. That simpler signals, simpler music allow human listeners to more accurately, and precisely perceive differences. Just not believed by the mainstream high end audiophile.

 

So you can read the almost certain replies explaining how wrong I am, and make up your own mind.

 

Also some friendly advice Mike. Your first post being a thread with poop in the title is not a good friendly introduction to a forum where you are a new member.

[mayhem13]

Hey Mike. I can understand some of your frustrations, but you have to take some of the responsibility of deciding and making an informed decision for yourself. One of primary audible characteristic of DACs that really does matter is Jitter. While Jitter is pretty specific in the objective side of things, there seems to have been a development where everything digital is some sort of jitter?.....again which doesn't help matters and not surprising given the audiophile community. But....have YOU ever experienced jitter in playback of a digital source. It's important to know what you're looking for before beginning to look........and I don't mean to come off poorly here. It's certainly easier to ask others for either subjective experience or measured results but having experienced objectionable levels of jitter for yourself is more valuable IMO.

 

That being said, take some time to review the topic and maybe do some hands on comparisons on your own if your passions run that deep. I would say that if you want to experience Jitter, start off with a decent set of headphones which reveal both digital and analog anomolies much better.

[Allan F]

Thanks. I really like just using windows and foobar and want simplicity, so it will likely be a last resort, but will at least try it if I am not happy with HDMI 2.0 before spending $500+ on an external dac. I may end up buying that external DAC, but i will see if i can satisfy my unskilled ears without spending the $500 first. The more I look, there seems to be many professed audiophiles that suggest spending more than $200 on an external dac is unnecessary, and I don't even consider myself an audiophile.

 

This site is called Computer Audiophile. In audiophile terms, a $500 DAC is quite inexpensive. Anyone who suggests that spending more than $200 on an external DAC is unnecessary is, IMO, anything but an audiophile. If sound quality is not that important to you, then you have come to the wrong place to ask for advice.

 

You don't have to look very far on this forum to find that there are two different schools of thought on the issue of measurements. One group tends to reject any notion that something is audible if 'scientific' proof cannot be presented to prove it. The other group trusts its ears and believes what they hear. Their position generally is that current knowledge is unable to identify other aspects that contribute to sound quality and therefore are unmeasurable.

 

Your somewhat less than civil posts are hardly going to resolve the 'debate' that has been going on for many years.

[mayhem13]

This site is called Computer Audiophile. In audiophile terms, a $500 DAC is quite inexpensive. Anyone who suggests that spending more than $200 on an external DAC is unnecessary is, IMO, anything but an audiophile. If sound quality is not that important to you, then you have come to the wrong place to ask for advice.

 

Computer Audiophile.......that is correct sir. I don't believe it has a second name like Allen F's Audiophile site. I find it a bit unfair for you to characterize what consititutes an audiophile and placing a $$$ amount on sound to be exempler of EVERYTHING that's WRONG with this hobby.

 

Your last statement is extremely rude and uninviting to the OP, who is trying to learn and came to CA to do so. What you apparently intend to teach him IS NOT what CA is about at all.

 

I purposely left out the second part of your post wich aims to further divide this forum, something of which you have criticized before, but seem to lack the conviction to help repair.

 

I've been on the other end of your sarcasm and poking before of which you think me the instigator in many of these debates......and yet prior to your post i adressed the OP with a helpful, well tempered response that may aid him in his search. Seems quite ironic and a better indication of who's intentions are what. Consider yourself exposed.

[Mike Mcsweeney]

Thanks everyone for all the advice.

 

Since I got my new blu-ray blp-s790 player in (bought used on ebay for $155), this is what i have done.

 

I took my refernce file (dianakrall.wav), burned it to cd, and played it in my blu ray (analog out) and it sounded better than I have ever heard it before. I don't know if it's because on the PC there is internal noise, the usb, the dragonfly, the cable or if the sony's DAC is that superior to the dragonfly? All I know is it sounds 10 times better...maybe there is upscaling?

 

Next i played the same song via DLNA from a WDMYCLOUD, and it sounds just as great as playing from the cd. The screen says LPCM 1.4Mbps..not sure what that means.

 

I am now experimenting using JRIVER....will post more later.

 

For right now, i am of the impression that my $155 investment was GREAT! I am sure i won't be buying an external dac...and will even have a dragonfly to sell very soon. I also don't even think i will need to buy another AVR...i actually like the sound of the marantz i bought used for $50.

 

I may try HDMI, but for right now, i cant find anything wrong with this DLNA setup using the BDP-S790 dac.

[Mike Mcsweeney]

i got jriver working but it wasnt working on mp4 videos i downloaded from youtube.......i tried Serviio and got it working with mp4....sounds so much better than the dragonfly....

 

i just got a response back from jriver to try a setting for mp4s....

 

time for a break...this has been fun and exciting!

[tranz]

Mike,

 

I am not pimping MSB but I would have you look at their solution just to give you an example of an elegant DLNA solution, albeit it one with issues that Chris has raised. The UMT+ acts as a DLNA renderer using the OPPO 103 chipset, then buffers the data bits to memory where their PROI2S board is clocked to their DAC. So basically the issues of a USB tethered computer are eliminated and the bit stream flowing to their DAC is extremely accurate and there is no tweaking, USB board differences, optimization files, etc. HOWEVER, gapless is still an issue, streaming can occasionally be an issue with high res stuff, so there are issues. Of course, one can compare such a solution to a USB server to see which they like better. I am still demoing the UMT+, the jury is out as to SQ, but I can tell you the server solution via USB is much more responsive.

 

Hi Priaptor,

 

Did you ever get gapless to work in the UMT+?

 

Really too bad it has the overhyped 'quality' OhNo bits inside doing the rendering.