LAN Input DACs

[mayhem13]

No worries Prot. CA isn't the only site to suffer from shameless pandering of snake oil and mysticism.

 

I'm wondering when we'll see an audiophile IP now that the problems of Internet transmission and SQ have been exposed.

[prot]

@tranz

http://www.rockna-audio.com/products/wavedream-net

That may be an interesting device for you ... dont expect it to be cheap though. Btw, these are the easternEu guys who write software for Msb. And this is their own "cheap" version of the MSB Platinum Dac

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/rockna/1.html

[prot]

No worries Prot. CA isn't the only site to suffer from shameless pandering of snake oil and mysticism.

 

I'm wondering when we'll see an audiophile IP now that the problems of Internet transmission and SQ have been exposed.

 

I know it's everywhere, just didnt expect it to be so thick on CA. Oh well ...

 

And I'm pretty sure superdad & co are patenting stuff as we speak Also quite sure that there are already patents for usb-audio cables ... whatever that is

[Jud]

I know it's everywhere, just didnt expect it to be so thick on CA. Oh well ...

 

And I'm pretty sure superdad & co are patenting stuff as we speak

 

The trouble is that you are certainly part of the problem (confusing or misdirecting people who would like better sound at least expense) rather than part of the solution. You're firing away indiscriminately at Superdad, whose products are being designed by John Swenson on the basis of solid engineering and measurement. As nearly as I can tell, the basis for your objections is personal; if it's not, please tell us what measurements you've performed or design experience you have to say John doesn't know what he's doing. And if you don't have these, why would you be trying to steer your fellow hobbyists away from a potentially beneficial solution?

[tranz]

@tranz

http://www.rockna-audio.com/products/wavedream-net

That may be an interesting device for you ... dont expect it to be cheap though. Btw, these are the easternEu guys who write software for Msb. And this is their own "cheap" version of the MSB Platinum Dac

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/rockna/1.html

 

Thanks Prot, I will check out the links.

 

Regarding the snake oil comment, I give the benefit of the doubt to most on the forum. It seems more of a hobby, fixing a very specific problem or improving upon something, rather than a mass market / high revenue product. It would not surprise me if an electrical/computer engineer would make far more money working in semiconductor/high tech/defense industries as opposed to trying to persuade a tiny group to buy their 'snake oil' on this forum.

 

Now, granted, for some it is not a problem that needs solving, others cannot hear the improvement (whether due to ears or equipment - again no judgement, just reality) or care enough about the difference a tweak provides.

 

I guess I have never really understood the animosity or outright dismissal of some if they have a different audio experience.

 

If digital audio playback had been solved and everyone had the same hearing, preferences or sensitivities we would all be using the same box.

 

Cheers

[mayhem13]

 

 

 

Now, granted, for some it is not a problem that needs solving, others cannot hear the improvement (whether due to ears or equipment - again no judgement, just reality) or care enough about the difference a tweak provides.

 

I guess I have never really understood the animosity or outright dismissal of some if they have a different audio experience.

 

If digital audio playback had been solved and everyone had the same hearing, preferences or sensitivities we would all be using the same box.

 

Cheers

 

You got it sir!.....we suffer from a firm footing in reality.

 

Sadly, there's not much farther for two channel audio to go and with that, useful development is stalling. Functionality SHOULD be the prime goal of developers but it's far easier for some to nonsensical swill instead. Instead we get another format war and PONO.

When will people realize it's all about what they can sell us instead of what we need.

[MikeJazz]

Still Ethernet packets, just pairing the two (through any 100Mbps or greater Ethernet switch) using MAC addresses instead of IP addresses. John has written code that breaks apart the USB stack in a certain spot, converts to Ethernet, then picks up part of the protocol again at the other end. One of the cool things is all the code he has ripped out (of the XMOS USB 2.0 reference source code) in the process.

 

And again, a big part of the SQ is not having the whole UPnP/DLNA model in the way. BTW, both the PS Audio Bridge and the MSB LAN modules are UPnP/DLNA renderers, with all the complexity and s/w issues that come with it--just take a look at the big boards with processors. With our USB>Ethernet Audio Bridge, the DAC end board will have just a tiny Ethernet PHY chip, an XMOS chip (and clock for it and the PHY), a couple of small logic chips, low noise voltage regulators and some isolators. Will probably be about 40mm square.

 

Superdad, can you confirm that your solution requires that the source computer has to be on all the time?

 

One of the great things of Linn implementation of UPnP AV, is that it's based on a local (on the player) playlist. We can disconnect at any point the control point hardware (say, my iPAD power just went down) and I can just connect from another control point (saw my pc running kazoo) and edit and control the same playlist.

 

From a end-user practicality point-of-view and "system-design", any solution should be network enabled to benefit from flexibility (playlist management, access from any control point, and access several sources in the same playlist).

 

Its seems that your solution will not fully deliver on this premise, maybe because you believe that by doing it your way you will achieve more sound quality??

[Miska]

One of the great things of Linn implementation of UPnP AV, is that it's based on a local (on the player) playlist. We can disconnect at any point the control point hardware (say, my iPAD power just went down) and I can just connect from another control point (saw my pc running kazoo) and edit and control the same playlist.

 

From a end-user practicality point-of-view and "system-design", any solution should be network enabled to benefit from flexibility (playlist management, access from any control point, and access several sources in the same playlist).

 

This doesn't mean that the DAC would need to be locally connected to the renderer. I can run HQPlayer Embedded as UPnP renderer with all the upsampling and everyhing, placed somewhere outside of listening room, and still send the audio to a networked DAC instead of playing to a locally connected DAC. Network is just in many ways better connection for the DAC than USB.

 

UPnP AV Renderer is just a headless player software with detached GUI. UPnP AV Media Server is just a glorified web server.

 

From my perspective, one of the major problems of UPnP is precisely that it is based on playlists and individual tracks. (in addition to use of HTTP protocol which is unsuitable for the purpose it is used for)

[johann]

Miska, what do you mean with Networked DAC?

[prot]

Superdad, can you confirm that your solution requires that the source computer has to be on all the time?

From my +10 years of IT exp I can confirm that "source computers" have to be on in order to work

 

One of the great things of Linn implementation of UPnP AV, is that it's based on a local (on the player) playlist. We can disconnect at any point the control point hardware (say, my iPAD power just went down) and I can just connect from another control point (saw my pc running kazoo) and edit and control the same playlist.

 

..,

 

not so sure what do you think is so special about Linn's impl ... my 'poor' marantz avr does the same: no matter what control device you use, there is a single playlist on the renderer.

[prot]

Thanks Prot, I will check out the links.

 

Regarding the snake oil comment, I give the benefit of the doubt to most on the forum. It seems more of a hobby, fixing a very specific problem or improving upon something, rather than a mass market / high revenue product. It would not surprise me if an electrical/computer engineer would make far more money working in semiconductor/high tech/defense industries as opposed to trying to persuade a tiny group to buy their 'snake oil' on this forum.

 

Now, granted, for some it is not a problem that needs solving, others cannot hear the improvement (whether due to ears or equipment - again no judgement, just reality) or care enough about the difference a tweak provides.

 

I guess I have never really understood the animosity or outright dismissal of some if they have a different audio experience.

 

If digital audio playback had been solved and everyone had the same hearing, preferences or sensitivities we would all be using the same box.

 

Cheers

 

My snakeoil comment about msb's renderer refers only to the price ... I'm sure the device works fine and I have nothing against devs and audio companies making money ... but selling a $50 pi-like device for $2000 is just too much.

[prot]

@jud

Your unconditional fan-love is admirable and I just cant have enough of it ... but sometimes ppl are happy without reading so much about that in every thread ... and guess what, most ppl can actually read my msges and form their own oppinions.

[4est]

What a hoot! Your solution to noise it to radiate it wirelessly via antenna!

Wireless, properly implemented, it the most isolating form of connectivity there is.

 

I've read the thread and still unsure what problem is actually being solved.

[Jud]

You got it sir!.....we suffer from a firm footing in reality.

 

Sadly, there's not much farther for two channel audio to go and with that, useful development is stalling. Functionality SHOULD be the prime goal of developers but it's far easier for some to nonsensical swill instead. Instead we get another format war and PONO.

When will people realize it's all about what they can sell us instead of what we need.

 

As Bobby Zimmerman said years ago, "Your debutante just knows what you need - but I know what you want!"

 

None of us here, with the possible exceptions of farmers growing food crops or those employed by municipal waterworks or in well-digging, is making money selling people something they vitally need in order to live. And even in the narrow world of audio, we differ about what we want. You've said before you feel streaming solutions will take over the market (and that may well be true); I personally haven't found a streaming service I'm satisfied with, so currently during my two hours of daily commuting I'm often enjoying the sounds coming from my Pono Player. "Nonsensical swill" to you, to me hearing Simon and Garfunkle's "Scarborough Fair/Canticle" and being amazed anything recorded nearly 50 years ago can sound that great.

 

Meanwhile, the important thing is that I'm sure you are enjoying your music, as I'm enjoying mine.

 

(P.S. Apologies for the momentary OT - anything going on these days re the desktop speaker project? Don't envy you, the replies you got to your question about what folks wanted from a desktop system were all over the map.)

[Jud]

@jud

Your unconditional fan-love is admirable and I just cant have enough of it ... but sometimes ppl are happy without reading so much about that in every thread ... and guess what, most ppl can actually read my msges and form their own oppinions.

 

If seeking out the work and writing of engineers like John Swenson, Keith Johnson, Charles Hansen, Gordon Rankin, etc., is "unconditional fan-love," yep, guilty.

 

As you say, people can form their own opinions, so that's enough from me on your messages.

[prot]

If seeking out the work and writing of engineers like John Swenson, Keith Johnson, Charles Hansen, Gordon Rankin, etc., is "unconditional fan-love," yep, guilty.

 

As you say, people can form their own opinions, so that's enough from me on your messages.

 

It's so cute when you get all shy and pretend I'm not the love of your life

Come on admit it! Why else would you follow me on every thread and post angry, unrelated jabs when I do not speak to you?

 

P.S.

still think you should post your love less often.

[tranz]

Superdad, can you confirm that your solution requires that the source computer has to be on all the time?

 

One of the great things of Linn implementation of UPnP AV, is that it's based on a local (on the player) playlist. We can disconnect at any point the control point hardware (say, my iPAD power just went down) and I can just connect from another control point (saw my pc running kazoo) and edit and control the same playlist.

 

From a end-user practicality point-of-view and "system-design", any solution should be network enabled to benefit from flexibility (playlist management, access from any control point, and access several sources in the same playlist).

 

Its seems that your solution will not fully deliver on this premise, maybe because you believe that by doing it your way you will achieve more sound quality??

 

Hi MikeJazz,

 

That is Linn's OHMedia addition which really does make UPnP so much better. From fellow CAers I learnt about BubbleUPnP server, which will make any UPnP renderer OHMedia compatible. This way I am able to use Kazoo and Lumin, and even Lightning DS becomes more user friendly.

 

Cheers

[tranz]

My snakeoil comment about msb's renderer refers only to the price ... I'm sure the device works fine and I have nothing against devs and audio companies making money ... but selling a $50 pi-like device for $2000 is just too much.

 

Hi Prot,

 

Ok, so it is more a price problem. Did not know it was that much, but then again their DACs are pricey.

 

I was hoping you had listened to it.

 

Although including time, design effort, prototyping, testing, coding, etc. included I would be surprised if it only costs $50 to produce. Not to mention it being a low volume item.

 

Cheers

[MikeJazz]

From my +10 years of IT exp I can confirm that "source computers" have to be on in order to work

Impressive!

 

Sorry if did not make myself clear.

I have a genuine question for superdad specifically, because what it seems to me is:

- he's not using DLNA/UPnP (that is a 3 way affair, server, renderer and control point) - that is very clear...

- he's proposing a source-to-player system, so it seems to me a two party (not so clear).

 

In this situation, it seems to me that the flexibility of one playlist/several controls and renderer independence of control point (control point can be shut-down anytime and does not impact the network data flow and play) is not obtainable, but I am specifically addressing Superdad, go get this confirmation, since he is the designer...

 

 

 

not so sure what do you think is so special about Linn's impl ... my 'poor' marantz avr does the same: no matter what control device you use, there is a single playlist on the renderer.

 

"so special" is your editing. I was mentioning Linn because it's my own experience.

Special or not, there are very nice features that just work, and that many other DLNA/UPnP just miss, even after many years of investing (thinking ps audio here)...

 

Linn does itin fact for many years...

Mainstream vendors arrived later at this game, most of them much later!

 

But of course there are several alternatives...thanks to pointing to marantz...

 

Prot, please noticed how I have not commented on your petulance!

You can go back to demonstrate your +10 years of IT skill. But please, do not forget to also acquire the so-called "soft skills"!

[prot]

@mikejazz

I just took exception to you praising Linn for something that I consider a non-feature. The playlist is usually on the server/player side. My foobar+remote works so, xbmc+remote does that too and I'm sure there are many others. A control point, remoteapp or whatever you wanna call it is normally a stateless-device...pretty much by definition.

Good luck with superdad's superdevice.

 

And of course a very happy new year with the best sound.

[John G]

Came to this thread looking for an upgrade/replacement for a Western Digital TV Play, which I'm using as a renderer with JRMC to feed some in-ceiling speakers through an A-Bus audio distribution system I acquired along with my spouse. The TV Play gizmo does everything described in the initial post (Ethernet from NAS>line-level RCA analog audio) and presumably has a DAC, however primitive, within its $65 guts.

 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2416400,00.asp

 

Considering the music's destination, I'm not too interested in mid-four-figure replacement devices. I am surprised at how complicated it is to render networked audio files, and how few one-box solutions are available. You'd think a lot of people would want to do this.

[prot]

Came to this thread looking for an upgrade/replacement for a Western Digital TV Play, which I'm using as a renderer with JRMC to feed some in-ceiling speakers through an A-Bus audio distribution system I acquired along with my spouse. The TV Play gizmo does everything described in the initial post (Ethernet from NAS>line-level RCA analog audio) and presumably has a DAC, however primitive, within its $65 guts.

 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2416400,00.asp

 

Considering the music's destination, I'm not too interested in mid-four-figure replacement devices. I am surprised at how complicated it is to render networked audio files, and how few one-box solutions are available. You'd think a lot of people would want to do this.

 

It's not that hard ... any PC is a onebox solution... you install openelec, buy a $20 mce remote and that's it ... e.g. use intel nuc or a small zotac or any small atom-pc.

Or you use an oppo player with usb-hdd...

Or an Avr with usb-hdd...

Or something like a popcorn-hour device...

Literally millions of solutions

[Superdad]

Superdad, can you confirm that your solution requires that the source computer has to be on all the time?

 

Yes, it does. Here is how it will be used:

 

a) The computer (anywhere in the house, and playing any locally stored, network stored, or web streamed files) gets a small dongle (about the size of your thumb) plugged into its USB port. An Ethernet cable--yes, a second one separate from the one already connecting your computer to your LAN--runs from the dongle to your Ethernet switch/router, or if you want, could run directly to your DAC.

 

b) The dongle looks like an async-USB2.0 XMOS-based 32/384 (and DSD128 via DoP) sound card--because that is what it is! Just as always for XMOS, no drivers needed under OS X, licensed Thesycon drivers provided for Windows. So just like with any USB-connected DAC, you can use ANY player s/w you like, and ALL streaming services, web browser, whatever can send audio out through it.

 

c) At your audio system end--anywhere else on the same LAN (can't cross Ethernet bridges without some special configuring) a DAC with another tiny module (consisting of Ethernet PHY, another XMOS chip, clock for those, ultra-low noise regulators, and special format isolators) pairs with the dongle via MAC address and not via IP address (we did not want to have to include a web page into the device for setting IP address, etc.--keeping it totally simple). This module (which can include a USB input if the DAC licensee wants that as well) accepts the master clock from the DAC and outputs to the DAC's main board a special format signal (sorry, important part of secret sauce, having broad implications for future), where it is received by isolators, run through a flip-flop and finally results in a I2S signal for the DAC.

 

d) Remote control of the user's chosen player s/w (since keeping the computer in a separate room is a typical application) can be via whatever of the many available means the user chooses. Anything from tablet/phone remote app (Apple's Remote app is fine on iOS if one is just using iTunes), to screen sharing/VNC, to whatever is available specifically for chosen player s/w.

We are staying out of the software business. The whole idea is to offer 99% compatibility with whatever s/w you use, and to not have any s/w support headaches.

And no, it is not multi-room, multi-channel, or anything fancier than what I have stated.

 

I hope you can all see how the UpTone/Swenson USB>Ethernet Audio Bridge solution will be very different from DLNA or other server/renderer models. There is no OS, no big giant processing chips, no s/w system, etc. We are just breaking apart the USB stack, putting the data into an Ethernet packet stream, receiving at the other end and finishing the USB protocol (not nearly as simple as I make it sound; lots of serious code written). And of course, this being a John Swenson affair, isolating, clocking (from DAC master clock), and PS regulation are all state-of-the-art. We, and our prospective OEM licensees, will be carefully comparing SQ of the Ethernet link to USB (both on the same DAC-side module, and versus the client's existing USB input). If it is a winner, then 2015 will be a very big and busy year for us.

 

To make this post the last word for a while about what is still a work in progress, let me preempt the obvious question about broader availability: After we get a few OEM licensees under our belt, we intend to offer a DIY version that capable users can install in their DACs in much the same way as they do with a typical USB>I2S board. Such a kit version will most likely include USB input in addition to the Ethernet (why not? the XMOS is there; just needs another PHY chip and a USB jack), and low jitter/phase-noise audio clocks--while still offering the line in to run from DAC master clock. And of course our required USB>Ethernet dongle will be included for the computer end (I guess if someone wanted our board set just for the USB input we would knock something off the price to omit the dongle from the kit).

A stand-alone, external box retail version does not make sense (unless we output I2S), but we have some radically different other ideas for when we get there--a long way down the road.

 

Thanks all for the interest. But please, no more questions on this for a while. We must first get it out there and prove the concept.

 

HAPPY NEW YEAR,

--Alex C.

[johann]

So what was wrong with using IP forcing you to write your own protocol on top of Ethernet?

[Superdad]

So what was wrong with using IP forcing you to write your own protocol on top of Ethernet?

 

I think you are missing the point, which is my desire (since 2005 in fact) for a computer to see an Ethernet port as a sound card so ANY s/w can be used. I think the open source netJack might have had the bones for that, but the DAC side was still an issue and there were other problems with that.

 

If you referring to our not needing to pair using IP addresses (just using the unique MAC address that every EN device has), that was simple and is not what necessitated the need for breaking apart the USB stack and inserting a signaling protocol.