Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Re: DLNA/uPnP - Another approach would be to spread the OH standard to make renderers interoperable and thus less tied up to proprietary solutions.

 

OpenHome is just band-aid on top of traditional UPnP AV. And it is not really "open" either. It just increases the fundamental complexity of UPnP AV. For example AirPlay, Miracast and Spotify Connect (plus bunch of other proprietary solutions) are much simpler and are becoming exponentially more popular.

 

Studio gear using ethernet is also implemented in much simpler way than UPnP AV and I much prefer these simpler ways.

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
All that aside, it is no secret that present day Ethernet/DLNA renderers require more complexity at the DAC end, and limit the choice of player s/w.
The extra complexity at the 'DAC end' actually depends on the type of renderer. If the DAC's built-in sure, but that's only because the box is an all-in-one unit, so you'd expect that. If the DAC's external, then there's certainly no reason why that box needs to be any different.

 

Also, of course player s/w is limited, because the renderers don't actually use them. I don't get why you still seem to be implying that the built-in player of these renderers can't be designed to be as good as any player s/w. Why should not requiring a software player matter?

 

 

 

It is not really "computer audio" at that point, rather it become "appliance audio" with the user buying into a particular system solution. That is okay for many, and I am sure it can be done in a "purist" manner. For myself and my business I would just rather work towards something new and more universally compatible (and affordable for DAC designers to incorporate into their products without having to plan for a software development and technical support staff.).
Well may be a fundamental design shift is required here. Instead of having to supply DACs for 'players' (of both the software & hardware type), why not have the player built-in. The DAC cum player essentially becomes a device that supports the playback of certain music file types.

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment
But despite being based on the open "standard" of DLNA (which I am sorry, I personally will never be a fan of), many of those products lock people into their brand solutions with both their hardware and software--possibly by necessity since no company can afford to provide technical support for a whole universe of s/w and h/w.

I'm not sure I agree with you here. Many manufacturers have provided recommended solutions but none (that I am aware) are locked down. For example Naim produce their own UnitiServer and HDX devices which are recommended form ripping and serving, but that doesn't prevent you using MinimServer, Serviio, J.River or even Twonky on your PC or NAS as the back end server. Equally they provide their own remote control app, but you can still use BubbleUPnP or PlugPlayer, etc.

 

And as for the notion of plug-and-play and it just works, it seems to me that present Ethernet/DLNA systems don't truly fit that billing. If anyone thinks I am making this up, just visit the forums for Linn and Naim and read the countless threads on getting and keeping things working right.

That as opposed to all the posts on this forum with people having problems with USB?

 

Whereas despite being less flexible (for distance, multi-room, etc.), USB generally just works. And it works with ANY s/w player and ANY DAC, with most any file format that can be decoded by the player.

Of course what is wrong with USB is that it is so influenced by cabling, the computer, the software, etc. Many people go for the streaming system because it avoids such debates. Yes there are debates about cabling...

 

All that aside, it is no secret that present day Ethernet/DLNA renderers require more complexity at the DAC end, and limit the choice of player s/w.

We at the DAC end, no no more complexity ... But yes as a player it is more complex and does require the device to be a computer itself (I don't disagree with you there). Of course as I commented above removal of the influence of a general purpose computer is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

It is not really "computer audio" at that point, rather it become "appliance audio" with the user buying into a particular system solution. That is okay for many, and I am sure it can be done in a "purist" manner.

I 100% disagree. A streamer IS still comouter audio or perhaps I should redefine the statement as being "file based" audio which is really what we are talking about. People don't use a computer and USB DAC because the WANT to use a computer. They do it because the want the convenience and/or sound quality associated with such playback. If that is better offered with a General purpose computer and DAC fine, if it's better offered with a streamer than that's fine too. If there is a third way not yet developed then that will be fine.

 

For myself and my business I would just rather work towards something new and more universally compatible (and affordable for DAC designers to incorporate into their products without having to plan for a software development and technical support staff.).

For your business that's fine, but at the moment your "new wheel" is not yet available. Who knows what other people are working on behind closed doors. To be universally compatible though you have to interest big manufacturers. I'm sorry but something you or Miska develop and market yourselves will remain minority interest.

 

When Linn (as arguably one of the big 3 UK audiophile companies) announced computer audio was better than CD playback and they would no longer sell CD player - that was big news. When Alex of a defunct audio manufacturer and now attempting to reinvent with a new company announces UPnP is rubbish it will barely create a ripple because manufacturers have already shown how good it can sound - if they can make it work why do we need something new.

 

As the expression goes ... You'll have to put your money where your mouth is!

 

Eloise

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment
Well may be a fundamental design shift is required here. Instead of having to supply DACs for 'players' (of both the software & hardware type), why not have the player built-in. The DAC cum player essentially becomes a device that supports the playback of certain music file types.

 

In good case, that's called a PC with PCIexpress sound card. :)

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
Of course what is wrong with USB is that it is so influenced by cabling, the computer, the software, etc. Many people go for the streaming system because it avoids such debates. Yes there are debates about cabling...

 

Such system keeps you from tinkering with those details, but by itself it doesn't remove the root cause at all...

 

To be universally compatible though you have to interest big manufacturers. I'm sorry but something you or Miska develop and market yourselves will remain minority interest.

 

I'm happy when I get what I want for my own system. While doing so, I offer possibility for others to do the same. I don't want to tie myself down on something "designed by committee".

 

Big manufacturers picked up faster on AirPlay, Miracast and Spotify Connect than on UPnP AV. Not that those would be perfect either.

 

Have you heard of any studio using UPnP AV to connect their AD and DA converters? I have not heard of any ADC with UPnP/AV support.

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
In good case, that's called a PC with PCIexpress sound card. :)

 

Miska: Along those lines, what might be clever would be do a nice DAC (perhaps a variant of your DSC1) on a PCIe card, but plug it into the far end of an Adnaco fiber PCIe extender (Adnaco-S1B: 5Gb/s Over Fiber Optic Expansion System – 4 PCIe Slots) to provide galvanic and EMI/RFI isolation from the computer. At the computer end (with the PCIe fiber extender card installed), the OS would see the DAC as a sound card (hopefully just using ASIO or WASAPI drivers). So one gets to skip USB, Ethernet, and S/PDIF altogether, and should still have broad compatibility with player s/w.

Link to comment
In good case, that's called a PC with PCIexpress sound card. :)
I hope that's not another swipe by someone at the purpose built boxes (or Mac users). No, you didn't say In all good case. :)

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment

Not sure what you guys are doing that Dante isn't or Crown or Meridian.

 

We researched all the audio over Ethernet APIs and systems: Audinate's Dante, Cirrus Logic's Cobranet, Digigram's Ethersound, etc. Some were interesting in that they use data link layer packets instead of TCP/IP packets. But they all had more layers and complexity than what we are after--even if they do manage the very low latency and multicasting required for broadcast and alive sound reinforcement us. Not to mention rather steep licensing costs and the same player software limitations as with DLNA.

 

Curious as to how you are going to supersede I2S (if I'm reading your post correctly). That would require custom sand I believe.

 

What I meant was that the Ethernet (and optionally USB) input module at the DAC side may not output I2S directly; rather the board would run a high-speed, raw signal (in a format with chip types we are keeping secret for now) over to ether:

a) the DAC board where the licensee would receive it with isolators and flops and feed their own clock, etc.;

or for the DIY version

b) a small board with isolators, flops, and good clocks (which could even be skipped if the user wanted to feed his own clock back), and which would output I2S.

Link to comment
Big manufacturers picked up faster on AirPlay, Miracast and Spotify Connect than on UPnP AV. Not that those would be perfect either.

Erm... Which big manufacturers would that be?

 

Have you heard of any studio using UPnP AV to connect their AD and DA converters? I have not heard of any ADC with UPnP/AV support.

Now you're just being silly!

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment
Miska: Along those lines, what might be clever would be do a nice DAC (perhaps a variant of your DSC1) on a PCIe card, but plug it into the far end of an Adnaco fiber PCIe extender (Adnaco-S1B: 5Gb/s Over Fiber Optic Expansion System – 4 PCIe Slots) to provide galvanic and EMI/RFI isolation from the computer. At the computer end (with the PCIe fiber extender card installed), the OS would see the DAC as a sound card (hopefully just using ASIO or WASAPI drivers). So one gets to skip USB, Ethernet, and S/PDIF altogether, and should still have broad compatibility with player s/w.

 

If going through that extreme why not just get a regulated linear 125 watt ATX PSU built and use either the AMD Kavani or Intel Atom platforms.

 

You could even plan on basing systems around POE v2 with it's 100 watt envelope. The power supply could literally be 328 feet away.

 

An Atom 1900 based system all in with SSD/M-Sata would maybe draw 20-25 watts including the sound card.

Link to comment

 

 

What I meant was that the Ethernet (and optionally USB) input module at the DAC side may not output I2S directly; rather the board would run a high-speed, raw signal (in a format with chip types we are keeping secret for now) over to ether:

a) the DAC board where the licensee would receive it with isolators and flops and feed their own clock, etc.;

or for the DIY version

b) a small board with isolators, flops, and good clocks (which could even be skipped if the user wanted to feed his own clock back), and which would output I2S.

 

How about this level of module abstraction:

 

1) The "Access" module serves the sole purpose of loading digital audio bits (either DSF or PCM) into RAM.

2) The "Output" module which may perform some degree of digital filtering and format conversion *if so desired* serves to serialize these bits to either a USB, SPDIF, PCIe/Thunderbolt or direct I2S output connector.

3) The "DAC" module converts these serialized bits into an audio signal

 

One implementation of an "Access" module accepts a URI/URL and loads the bits over the network. This module need not be "audio" specific.

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
Miska: Along those lines, what might be clever would be do a nice DAC (perhaps a variant of your DSC1) on a PCIe card, but plug it into the far end of an Adnaco fiber PCIe extender (Adnaco-S1B: 5Gb/s Over Fiber Optic Expansion System – 4 PCIe Slots) to provide galvanic and EMI/RFI isolation from the computer. .

 

A more standardized version of this is called "Thunderbolt" which is now 20 Gb/s and is being equipped onto Motherboards other than just Apple's.

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
And what isolates the DAC from the Adnaco?

 

Jesus R

 

Hi Jesus:

 

You know I'm just "spit-balling" and riffing on Miska's mention of PCIe sound cards, and the possibility that perhaps someone should do a really good DAC on a PCIe board and put it at the end of the optical cable from a PCIe extender. I don't really know what the signal is like on or between the boards of the Adnaco. But to answer your question, looking at the 4-slot PCIe board at the far end of the Adnaco, there really is not that much too it, and it runs on 3.3V. So if you had a DAC board in it, I don't see that it would need further isolation from anything.

It just so happens that I shipped a JS-2 LPS to a fellow in Poland last week who is using the Adnaco extender (but with the Adnaco built JPLAY USB card). He had me make him a cable with an ATX24 connector and a 5.5mm x 2.5mm jack for the board, and I changed a resistor in the JS-2 to give him 3.3V from one of the output settings.

 

(Hope all is going great with you. I owe you another phone call.)

 

Ciao,

 

--Alex C.

Link to comment
Miska: Along those lines, what might be clever would be do a nice DAC (perhaps a variant of your DSC1) on a PCIe card, but plug it into the far end of an Adnaco fiber PCIe extender (Adnaco-S1B: 5Gb/s Over Fiber Optic Expansion System – 4 PCIe Slots) to provide galvanic and EMI/RFI isolation from the computer.

 

It wouldn't be a single-box solution anymore. Thunderbolt could be used to make it external too (Thunderbolt is just 1x PCIexpress on a cable).

 

Nice thing is that it would allow busmaster-DMA and could easily do something like DSD1024 at 8 channels...

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
Erm... Which big manufacturers would that be?

 

Pretty much all AVRs at the moment? I've lost count on how many devices ranging from car stereos to boomboxes support AirPlay.

 

Every iOS and OS X device supports AirPlay output. Every Android device starting from Android 4.2 should support Miracast output.

 

For UPnP support there are Apps like PlugPlayer and BubbleUPnP, but those are from small companies.

 

Now you're just being silly!

 

Yes, kind of. In many cases, if something works for a recording studio, it probably is not bad at audiophile use either.

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
Big manufacturers picked up faster on AirPlay, Miracast and Spotify Connect than on UPnP AV. Not that those would be perfect either.

 

Erm... Which big manufacturers would that be?

 

Pretty much all AVRs at the moment? I've lost count on how many devices ranging from car stereos to boomboxes support AirPlay.

Sorry maybe I was misunderstanding your comments ... but virtually all the AVR Manufacturers I know of (Marantz, Denon, Yamaha, Onkyo, Pioneer) which support AirPlay supported UPnP in models prior to adding UPnP.

 

I will give you that there are AirPlay speakers from the likes of B&W which don't support UPnP but in the majority I would say that AirPlay (and I presume Miracast) are add ons on top of supporting UPnP.

 

Eloise

 

PS. what car stereo's support AirPlay or for that matter any kind of network audio?

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment
You know I'm just "spit-balling" and riffing on Miska's mention of PCIe sound cards, and the possibility that perhaps someone should do a really good DAC on a PCIe board and put it at the end of the optical cable from a PCIe extender.

 

For PCM, there are good ones like RME HDSPe AIO (you can extend channels with expansion boards) and ASUS Essence STX II (and it's 8-channel variant).

 

Both can beat quite a number of USB DACs...

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
Sorry maybe I was misunderstanding your comments ... but virtually all the AVR Manufacturers I know of (Marantz, Denon, Yamaha, Onkyo, Pioneer) which support AirPlay supported UPnP in models prior to adding UPnP.

 

Adoption rate. Time-to-market from the availability to product. Spotify Connect has been probably fastest adoption.

 

PS. what car stereo's support AirPlay or for that matter any kind of network audio?

 

Pretty much any you like:

http://www.amazon.com/Car-Wi-Fi-Mirabox-Miracast-Mirroring/dp/B00K36S7WE

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
Adoption rate. Time-to-market from the availability to product. Spotify Connect has been probably fastest adoption.

But Spotify Connect is nothing like UPnP or AirPlay (as I understand Spotify connect is more like UPnP in that the controller on your phone/tablet tells the Spotify Connect device what to download from the server) ... market forces have played a big part nothing to do with the superiority of such devices. As for adoption rate of Spotify Connect - well they didn't announce it till there were manufacturers in line to implement it.

 

Also adoption rate is a misnomer ... UPnP was ahead of its time in some ways (which maybe why it has such problems) and no one was interested at the time. AirPlay has become an essential feature because it allows you to market your device to Apple phone users to stop them going to your competitor.

 

Sorry Miska but a big fat FAIL on that claim ... that is not a car stereo supporting AirPlay (or Miracast) ... its a third party box providing analogue output which could be connected to the stereo.

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment

PS. what car stereo's support AirPlay or for that matter any kind of network audio?

 

AirPlay in the car is called CarPlay, and it does a whole lot more than just audio. Please see: https://www.apple.com/ios/carplay/

 

So far, 29 auto manufacturers have signed up and are designing CarPlay into their systems. Plus two of the largest aftermarket car entertainment brands have already launched head units with CarPlay:

 

Pioneer: Pioneer CarPlay

Alpine: Alpine Electronics of America, Inc.

 

JVC, Kenwood, and Clarion will be following shortly.

Link to comment

No it's not... It at least this was not relevant to what Miska was saying!

 

AirPlay in the car is called CarPlay, and it does a whole lot more than just audio. Please see: https://www.apple.com/ios/carplay/

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment
Also adoption rate is a misnomer ... UPnP was ahead of its time in some ways (which maybe why it has such problems) and no one was interested at the time.

 

UPnP AV was both complex and vague standard, so many of the devices couldn't really interoperate (exactly like SIP for VoIP). Plus it has some brain dead choices like using HTTP for streaming which you for example cannot seek without making a new GET-request. Then there needed to be DLNA organization with plug-fests to ensure some level of IOP. Too bad the big companies drove the DLNA spec so it mandates expensive codec licenses, etc. while still being restricted to non-audiophile content formats.

 

For example when you seek with AirPlay it happens completely different way than with UPnP AV...

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...