Sick and tired of music player hardware manufacturers? Vote and rant here...

[wappinghigh]

This bias in attitude is not just against DSD:

 

It's against higher resolution PCM as well... (eg Sonos)

 

and against file type. eg as has been pointed out with Apple (flac)...

 

What gives corporations (large or small) the right to have this bias: the right to say "we know better...."

 

by effectively restricting the capabilities of their product...?

 

It's the "do gooder" attitude that gets me.. this attitude that "we won't endorse universality in our players"..because "we know better than you: and you (the customer) don't need DSD, or Flac, or 24/192 anyway...."

[wappinghigh]

The file type or resolution should have *nothing* to do with the player..

 

It is simply a means of delivering the music..

 

Players should play all files..

 

Just like every canvas should take every type of paint

Or every TV should be able to receive every available TV channel..

 

The art form (in this case it's the music) is the art...

 

It should be immaterial which player it can be heard from....

[esldude]

I actually am more bothered by the proliferation of various formats. Especially when nearly all are quite questionable as to whether they improve audio sound quality. Re-mastering for those formats can be good. But it all seems geared to get us to buy our music yet again, and again. Such hasn't taken off in a big way because it provides very little actual benefit IMO.

 

Home theater might be even worse. Look at all the possible formats for multi-channel. Does anyone know which are best, and do any really make very noticeable differences? We have the tech to do it all and more, but all that seems to result is confusion and fragmentation of a otherwise fairly simple process.

[wappinghigh]

^ Absolutely agree with this...

 

But now this has happened what do we do?

 

...does the industry seriously expect us to spend hours and hours reformatting, re-ripping, or even re-purchasing music?

 

They got us into this mess.. so I argue it should be them who get's us out of it..

 

Interesting that DRM removal didn't much help....

[crisnee]

The profit motive is the common factor in most (not all) of this. Get rid of that and.... No chance though so it will go on and on. Think back to the beginning of time as we know it; about 1900. Now count all the music/sound delivery systems and variations/improvements per system from then 'til now.

 

And it applies to the other side too. It costs more to manufacture a product that plays all of everything. If the manufacturer thinks it's not worth it (profitwise) to cover play back of whatever, they won't. And that makes sense in a profit/stock market driven society. The question is, does a profit/stock market driven society make sense.

 

Chris

[wappinghigh]

^ I partially agree with this..

 

Though I'm talking about compatibility with simple file types.. and differences in DAC chips that in today's prices of cheap electronics are small change..

 

It's not like a whole new hardware disc or LP format needs to be "re-manufacturered"...

[mayhem13]

I think the answer lies in the problem which really can't be ignored.....file sharing. Music sales decrease annually and the industry is crippled. The purposeful use of multiple formats is to sell us music, even if it is music we already have.......and we buy it! How many here can say they DON'T own some of their favorites in multiple formats?.....I know I can't. So in the economics of the music industry, the model works. Clearly it isn't a long term solution but for now, it's keeping them afloat......and the majority (important to remember who we are not!) of consumers fed.

 

SorrY to say this folks, but I truly feel the future is in subscription streaming services. With the pending merger of Apple and XFinity/Comcast looming, the Face of content availability and ownership is about to change forever. Formats won't be an issue any longer. The model removes the burden of ownership in which eliminates illegal file sharing altogether. It's a win/win for record companies. As I mentioned in the PONO thread, I'd be the first to pony up $15-$20 a month for a premium streaming service with an extensive catalog of Redbook or better quality. That's far less than I used to spend on CDs and downloads.....but more than I spend currently. The reason for this is simply as I get older, I have less of a desire or the time to search out new content.

[Sam Lord]

Good points everybody. I suppose a good combination of candidates for today's gold standard for great quality and versatility at reasonable cost could be a good Caps streamer/server, JRMC (or Amarra?), Exasound or Auralic DAC, and quiet PS all around. I hope Benchmark hurries with an all-formats preamp/DAC since they execute so well.

 

BTW my cost premium for all formats was intended for not only the all-format ability but mostly for the increase in noise and distortion performance to really take advantage of the greater data resolution. Not that lesser components wouldn't benefit from DSDx2 or DXD, etc. I would be happy to stream all my music from now on, I get no joy from molecular delivery these days. It feels really great to vent about this first world problem...

[wappinghigh]

I think the answer lies in the problem which really can't be ignored.....file sharing. Music sales decrease annually and the industry is crippled. The purposeful use of multiple formats is to sell us music, even if it is music we already have.......and we buy it! How many here can say they DON'T own some of their favorites in multiple formats?.....I know I can't. So in the economics of the music industry, the model works. Clearly it isn't a long term solution but for now, it's keeping them afloat......and the majority (important to remember who we are not!) of consumers fed.

 

SorrY to say this folks, but I truly feel the future is in subscription streaming services. With the pending merger of Apple and XFinity/Comcast looming, the Face of content availability and ownership is about to change forever. Formats won't be an issue any longer. The model removes the burden of ownership in which eliminates illegal file sharing altogether. It's a win/win for record companies. As I mentioned in the PONO thread, I'd be the first to pony up $15-$20 a month for a premium streaming service with an extensive catalog of Redbook or better quality. That's far less than I used to spend on CDs and downloads.....but more than I spend currently. The reason for this is simply as I get older, I have less of a desire or the time to search out new content.

 

I don't disagree with this either. But it's not just direct file playback. I would love a DSD and 24/192 quality streaming service.. but this doesn't detract from the fact that we are still going to need some standards of universal playback and we are going to need the hardware manufacturers to provide us the hardware capable of playing these services.

[wappinghigh]

The industry can't have their cake and eat it. They keep creating the deliberate "purposeful, multiple format" problem to avoid torrents, then turn around and say it's the consumers fault for not embracing these multiple formats when there aren't universal players available..

 

They created the problem.

 

Years ago there was usually one format at any given time>

 

record, tape, then CD.. If music was released a consumer was pretty much guaranteed that if they invested in one of these standard type players for a decade, they would be OK. That is NOT the case now..

 

It's the industries problem> They made this bed, so they have to lie in..

[Miska]

The manufacturers have got to get over this and start to produce "universal" players or streamers that play EVERYTHING..

 

That would increase cost quite a bit. For example MP3 license costs a bit, note especially the "Minimum Royalties" part. Given sales volumes of high end audio manufacturers, that's quite a bit. How many customers would be willing to pay something like $100 more for the device just to get MP3 support?

 

Would consumers put up with this nonsense with TV channels?

 

"Sorry, this TV only picks up stations in the following (limited) frequency band..

 

Well, that's happening all the time. Our TV has support only for DVB-T and DVB-C (both use MPEG-2 video), but now bunch of new channels use DVB-T2 (that uses MPEG-4 video and supports full-HD) so we had to buy a separate new set top box to be able to see those channels. Our previous TV had support only for DVB-T, so we needed a DVB-C box at the time to be able to see any cable channels.

[CatManDo]

Well, that's happening all the time. Our TV has support only for DVB-T and DVB-C (both use MPEG-2 video), but now bunch of new channels use DVB-T2 (that uses MPEG-4 video and supports full-HD) so we had to buy a separate new set top box to be able to see those channels. Our previous TV had support only for DVB-T, so we needed a DVB-C box at the time to be able to see any cable channels.

 

You can buy a TV with triple tuner included (DVB-T, DVB-S, DVB-C), but they are more expensive. It's not a feature can can simply be implemented by software. There would be no point in including triple tuners in every TV, when users only need one or two types of tuners. Given that the display is the most expensive part of a TV and good for many years (if you don't care about 3D or 4K developments), they should make TVs modular, so that the processor part could be upgraded like a computer.

 

This would also be a solution for high end streamers, to make them future-proof. Keep the DAC and analogue section, but replace the processor board.

[4est]

Who is "they" and what industry? As I understand it, many codecs are created by computer companies, and we just so happen to use computers for high end audio. I'd say it is our problem, and we vote with our wallets.

They created the problem.

It's the industries problem> They made this bed, so they have to lie in..

[Miska]

You can buy a TV with triple tuner included (DVB-T, DVB-S, DVB-C), but they are more expensive. It's not a feature can can simply be implemented by software.

 

Yes, but this one was about DVB-T vs DVB-T2... I don't need -S for anything, and not -C anymore either, but I need both -T and -T2. But about five year old Sony doesn't have -T2 yet... (DVB-T2 transmissions started here about two years ago)

 

This would also be a solution for high end streamers, to make them future-proof. Keep the DAC and analogue section, but replace the processor board.

 

IMO, there's no point in having the processor side at all in the same device as DAC and analogue section. Every time I upgrade my PC I get my player processor upgraded as side effect...

[Hiro]

I think that the main problem here is that so few manufacturers are adding network/streaming functionality to their devices (is it because of their lack of know-how in this arena?).

 

There are already more than 100 DACs with DSD support on the market, the problem is that they are not DLNA/UPnP ready!

[Miska]

I think that the main problem here is that so few manufacturers are adding network/streaming functionality to their devices (is it because of their lack of know-how in this arena?).

 

One reason is that UPnP is just horribly badly designed and poorly interoperable standard. Implementing it very carefully according to the spec doesn't mean that two such devices could really interoperate in real world.

 

There are already more than 100 DACs with DSD support on the market, the problem is that they are not DLNA/UPnP ready!

 

DLNA specification doesn't even mention DSD to begin with... Things like LPCM is mandatory, and I think MPEG audio was too. Then there are optional things like WMA. But it's miles away from any audiophile stuff.

[Hiro]

One reason is that UPnP is just horribly badly designed and poorly interoperable standard. Implementing it very carefully according to the spec doesn't mean that two such devices could really interoperate in real world.

 

DLNA specification doesn't even mention DSD to begin with... Things like LPCM is mandatory, and I think MPEG audio was too. Then there are optional things like WMA. But it's miles away from any audiophile stuff.

 

When I read about the new Onkyo HT receivers that stream gapless 5.6MHz DSD over DLNA, I was like, wait a minute, so Onkyo already implements the feature on A/V receivers and specialist audio manufacturers somehow still can't make it to work properly?? Something ain't right here.

 

BTW, isn't Auralic's upcoming Aries bridge going to support double-DSD as well?

[Miska]

When I read about the new Onkyo HT receivers that stream gapless 5.6MHz DSD over DLNA

 

UPnP just says you can play any format imaginable, but of course this imposes problem if the two devices don't have a format in common. DLNA is trying to fix this specifying set of standard codecs, sampling rates, word lengths etc. on top of UPnP standard.

 

AFAIK, DLNA doesn't list anything for DSD at the moment.

 

And you can check DLNA certified products here:

Product Search

 

Anything that is not listed there is not really DLNA certified and shouldn't advertise DLNA compatibility.

[wappinghigh]

Re the Onkyo receivers. Exactly my point. Can somebody please post the model no.s? Thanks.

[Hiro]

Re the Onkyo receivers. Exactly my point. Can somebody please post the model no.s? Thanks.

 

Receiver | A/V Receiver | Stereo Receiver | AVR | TX-NR636 | Onkyo USA

[Hiro]

AFAIK, DLNA doesn't list anything for DSD at the moment.

 

And you can check DLNA certified products here:

Product Search

 

Anything that is not listed there is not really DLNA certified and shouldn't advertise DLNA compatibility.

 

It looks like Buffalo

 

 

and QNAP

QNAP HS-210 Silent & Fanless NAS | AudioStream

 

support DSD over DLNA as well.

 

PS Interestingly enough, the search tool with DLNA-compatible products didn't find the Onkyo TX-NR636, but I suspect it's only because it isn't available yet

[Miska]

support DSD over DLNA as well.

 

PS Interestingly enough, the search tool with DLNA-compatible products didn't find the Onkyo TX-NR636

 

Maybe over UPnP, but such thing as "over DLNA" doesn't really exist, because DLNA specification is add-on on top of UPnP. DLNA pretty much just adds certain media content formats as "mandatory" or "optional" on top of UPnP in order to achieve compatibility between two UPnP devices (because UPnP doesn't standardize any content formats).

 

I don't have the latest DLNA specs because I'm not interested to pay that $500 for it, but I have serious doubts they would have added DSD, especially DSD128 to set of DLNA formats...

Guidelines

 

 

I didn't notice Onkyo saying anywhere on their page that the DSD streaming would be somehow related to DLNA. They just say they support "DLNA, Home Media". And then have a separate list of supported streaming formats. If they support 44.1/16/stereo PCM and some other minor details, they already fulfill DLNA compliance and don't need to support any of the other formats under DLNA badge, although they may support those using UPnP.

 

Since DLNA also includes transcoding, you could play DSD from media server to a device that really only supports 44.1/16/stereo PCM and the media server needs to be able to convert DSD to that format. So while being able to play DSD content doesn't mean that it would be actually DSD between media server and the renderer... And another thing is what happens to DSD content even if it reaches the AVR, does it immediately end up being converted to PCM for processing cross-overs and roomEQ? Or is the Onkyo actually capable of performing those in DSD?

 

Their product sheet says it is DLNA v1.5 certified, so it should have gone through certification. Nice to see they also have WiFi certified -badge. They have just one footnote "LPCM is supported via DLNA only"

 

Usually this kind of material is a bit ambiguous and you have to read between the lines...

[Hiro]

I don't have the latest DLNA specs because I'm not interested to pay that $500 for it, but I have serious doubts they would have added DSD, especially DSD128 to set of DLNA formats...

Guidelines

 

From what I know the Buffalo does both DSD64 and DSD128 via DLNA.

 

It remains to be confirmed if the QNAP handles DSD128 files. I sure hope so.

[Miska]

From what I know the Buffalo does both DSD64 and DSD128 via DLNA.

 

It remains to be confirmed if the QNAP handles DSD128 files. I sure hope so.

 

Can you explain what "via DLNA" means? I could understand "via UPnP AV"... DLNA is not a protocol, it is set of restrictions for UPnP to gain interoperability.

Digital Living Network Alliance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Which DLNA spec it conforms to? DLNA v1.5 spec supported by Onkyo is from 2006...

DLNA is very strict specification, it says things like "device shall support MPEG-1 Layer 3 audio at 128 kbps CBR 44100/16/stereo". Or "device may support MPEG-1 Layer 3 audio at 192 kbps CBR 44100/16/stereo". If it doesn't say about 256 kbps VBR MP3, it doesn't need to work and it is not supported.

 

Especially due to transcoding requirements imposed by DLNA I don't see it as a positive thing, because it pretty much guarantees that you don't really know what format actually goes over the network. It's pretty much way for two devices to find lowest common denominator and use that for streaming by employing transcoding. Purpose is that "you can hear sound and see picture", quality is secondary. Media server could even end up transcoding your DSD128 to MP3 if the that's the format of choice for the DLNA renderer used.

 

"I can listen DSD128 streamed as 128kbps MP3, fabulous!"

[Hiro]

Can you explain what "via DLNA" means? I could understand "via UPnP AV"... DLNA is not a protocol, it is set of restrictions for UPnP to gain interoperability.

Digital Living Network Alliance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Which DLNA spec it conforms to? DLNA v1.5 spec supported by Onkyo is from 2006...

 

Especially due to transcoding requirements imposed by DLNA I don't see it as a positive thing, because it pretty much guarantees that you don't really know what format actually goes over the network. It's pretty much way for two devices to find lowest common denominator and use that for streaming by employing transcoding. Purpose is that "you can hear sound and see picture", quality is secondary. Media server could even end up transcoding your DSD128 to MP3 if the that's the format of choice for the DLNA renderer used.

 

"I can listen DSD128 streamed as 128kbps MP3, fabulous!"

 

The Audiostream article mentions a DSD-capable network player so I assume that no conversion to mp3 is being performed on the way to the device

"While not included in the preloaded app package, you can also install MinimServer on the HS-210 if you want to stream DSD files over DLNA to your DSD-capable network player."

 

http://www.audiostream.com/content/qnap-hs-210-silent-fanless-nas