What’s inside the Network Player?

[Windows X]

 

Since yesterday’s question in Facebook about USB and Ethernet audio, I found some people are interested in learning about how Network Player works inside. I’m going to use most recent yet affordable product Teac NT503 as a model to explain. Top left is Ethernet board and top middle is USB board.

 

As you can see, there’s Red/White cables in both boards from end of Ethernet board and the front of USB board. Yes, the network board is actually a mini PC board that receives data from network and sends to an audio interface which is USB board in this case.

 

If you put foobar2000 with UPNP plugin connecting to USB DAC and setup your phone to stream music to your computer, your computer will work exactly like that network board. So building a dedicated computer transport outside should have more room for improvements.

 

Source: What's inside the Network Player? | Fidelizer

[Cebolla]

As you can see, there’s Red/White cables in both boards from end of Ethernet board and the front of USB board. Yes, the network board is actually a mini PC board that receives data from network and sends to an audio interface which is USB board in this case.

???

 

The 'USB board' is clearly an input board that contains both the USB-B (USB DAC input) port and the S/PDIF coax & optical input ports. So is outputting digital audio to the main board which is then passed to the internal DAC. It is definitely not inputting any digital audio from the main board, not even from the network.

 

The network audio file data that comes from the on-board network adapter has its own path through the main board, via its audio file decoder and player sections, the resulting digital audio signal being then passed to the internal DAC, via IIS (and not USB)!

[Windows X]

You're right about Network Adapter has its own audio interface controller that doesn't work with USB audio board. I did check UD-503 interior and found USB still have the same kind of wiring so it's not related to USB board after all. My apologies. However, Network adapter card alone can't simply convert network packet data to I2S. It needs audio interface chip to do that.

 

S/PDIF coax & optical input already have input receiver in digital transport board below at bottom right. They don't need to pass data to USB board but ethernet board does. You can search for CS8416 for popular receiver chip for better understanding how S/PDIF decoder works.

 

Some audio network adapters have audio interface controller built-in but I doubt it works better than USB board considering USB board size.

 

Regards,

Windows X

[Audio_ELF]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]23319[/ATTACH]

 

Since yesterday’s question in Facebook about USB and Ethernet audio, I found some people are interested in learning about how Network Player works inside. I’m going to use most recent yet affordable product Teac NT503 as a model to explain. Top left is Ethernet board and top middle is USB board.

 

As you can see, this network board is very big, much bigger than USB board. It has a lot of chips like CPU and controllers inside. Yes, the network board is actually a mini PC board that receives data from network and sends from built-in audio interface to digital receiver board.

 

If you connect DLNA Renderer PC to USB DAC and stream music from your phone, it will work exactly like that network board but use large board USB audio interface instead of tiny chip in network board. So building a dedicated computer transport outside should have more room for improvements.

 

Source: What's inside the Network Player? | Fidelizer

What a load of BS. Talking about little chips and big chips.

 

I question if you have any idea what you are talking about.

 

You are correct that a "network board is actually a mini PC" but thats about as correct as your description goes. The output of such a board is typically i2s. This may be passed to the USB input board but if so it is likely done for switching purposes (most DAC chips will have a single i2s input).

 

You are spreading FUD in an attempt to promote your "method" of using a standard computer which then will need "upgrading' using your software, when by bypassing all the USB in the first place might be a better solution for people.

[Windows X]

What a load of BS. Talking about little chips and big chips.

 

I question if you have any idea what you are talking about.

 

You are correct that a "network board is actually a mini PC" but thats about as correct as your description goes. The output of such a board is typically i2s. This may be passed to the USB input board but if so it is likely done for switching purposes (most DAC chips will have a single i2s input).

 

You are spreading FUD in an attempt to promote your "method" of using a standard computer which then will need "upgrading' using your software, when by bypassing all the USB in the first place might be a better solution for people.

 

USB audio interface isn't a dropping chain. Every computer needs audio interface to convert data to I2S. Just because you don't know what those mini PCs uses for audio interface doesn't mean it's better than USB.

 

Following your logic, even cheap Rasberry PI will perform better than Weiss INT204 because they have I2S output built-in and Weiss uses USB audio chip. That is as crazy as on-board sound card with digital output will sound better than digital output from all RME/Lynx USB audio interfaces.

 

For your information, USB is one of the best audio interface in terms of performance technologies (There's also Firewire, Thunderbolt, PCI/PCIe). XMOS USB can stream 24/192 files at 3ms latency without problems and most built-in audio interfaces in those mini PCs can never do that.

 

Regards,

Windows X

[Audio_ELF]

USB audio interface isn't a dropping chain. Every computer needs audio interface to convert data to I2S. Just because you don't know what those mini PCs uses for audio interface doesn't mean it's better than USB.

I didn't say it was better because it used i2s. But neither is it worse! And it almost certainly doesn't just output to the USB interface (although there are "audio computers" which do this - the Bryston BDP and Meridian Sooloos being two which interface a standard motherboard to a bespoke USB interface internally.

 

Your "article" deliberately (in my opinion) just adds confusion while promoting what you feel is best and also benefits your sales by promoting!

 

Following your logic, even cheap Rasberry PI will perform better than Weiss INT204 because they have I2S output built-in and Weiss uses USB audio chip. That is as crazy as on-board sound card with digital output will sound better than digital output from all RME/Lynx USB audio interfaces.

No; it's just another alternative. And the Weiss INT204 has to do multiple conversions. Every interface has the potential the devil is in the details. I had this argument (albeit the other way round) with another individual who promotes "one true way" of computer to DAC interface in the past.

 

For your information, USB is one of the best audio interface in terms of performance technologies (There's also Firewire, Thunderbolt, PCI/PCIe). XMOS USB can stream 24/192 files at 3ms latency without problems and most built-in audio interfaces in those mini PCs can never do that.

That's a debatable assertion. If it's so good why (as other people observe) do so many people find the need for bespoke PCIe USB cards, "reclockers" and "purifiers" such as iFi and Uptone sell, bespok cabling etc? The latency and bit rate offered is just a straw man's argument.

 

Again it's all in the implementation!

 

Eloise

[Windows X]

First of all, let's get this matter into concrete discussion. Now the our discussion is losing its direction for the argument's sake.

 

At first, you proposed the solution of bypassing USB connection may get better result. That could cause misunderstandings about how audio interface works so I explained that every computer needs audio interface in some forms to convert to I2S. And I only warned you about putting audio interface inside mini PC doesn't mean it'll be better than using USB audio input. That's all.

 

Second, you judged me as Windows software manufacturer and read this article with biases. I never once mention my software or Windows operating system in this thread. I only explain how network player works and how putting dedicated PC outside can have more potentials of improvements. It can even be OS X or Linux.

 

I wrote this article because of some questions I found from social feeds to share my knowledge. But I understand that I can't help being judged because I'm also doing business in this field after all.

 

Dedicated USB port is better than on board because they provide better implementation of USB over there. Things like reclockers and purifiers are one of proposed solutions that may or not may work depending on the individuals. They are tweaks after all.

 

To remind you, since we all agree that network board is actually a mini PC inside, won't it get better to make dedicated PC to work with DAC from outside like upgrading CD Player to CD Transport + DAC?

 

Regards,

Windows X

[Cebolla]

since we all agree that network board is actually a mini PC inside, won't it get better to make dedicated PC to work with DAC from outside like upgrading CD Player to CD Transport + DAC?

Only you are insisting on calling it a 'mini PC', so no, not everyone. You are also implying that all the network audio players contain one, not just the Teac NT503. Whereas the reality is that they could just as likely (if not more likely) be using a dedicated network media processor with a built-in customised fast audio engine and I2S out. So certainly not the jack of all trades and bloated 'mini PC' that you say all these devices contain.

[Windows X]

Only you are insisting on calling it a 'mini PC', so no, not everyone. You are also implying that all the network audio players contain one, not just the Teac NT503. Whereas the reality is that they could just as likely (if not more likely) be using a dedicated network media processor with a built-in customised fast audio engine and I2S out. So certainly not the jack of all trades and bloated 'mini PC' that you say all these devices contain.

 

I haven't seen any equipment implementing such thing like network media processor yet. The most possible case would be to write the fully FPGA network player but no one made that yet. Even dCS who's one of most specialized in FPGA DAC uses mini PC as uPNP Renderer implementation in Rossini product too.

 

Regards,

Windows X

[Cebolla]

The Pioneer network audio players use the BridgeCo DM860 networked media processor:

http://www.hifi-review.net/218-pioneer-n-50.html

[Windows X]

The Pioneer network audio players use the BridgeCo DM860 networked media processor:

Pioneer N-50 Network player review, test

 

And that networked media processor has IDE connection for HDD/CDROM and SD card interface with ethernet port and stuff. It's not a chipset designed for audio interface application that simply receives data and convert to I2S in FPGA like XMOS. Current streaming audio relies on uPNP model that requires a mini PC to act as uPNP renderer, whether you put it inside or outside the DAC.

 

Regards,

Windows X

[Audio_ELF]

Even dCS who's one of most specialized in FPGA DAC uses mini PC as uPNP Renderer implementation in Rossini product too.

You speak of using a "Mini PC" (which is a bad description IMO) as an insult though. When its not. Using a processor such as XMOS may be as bad for interference as a custom designed ARM based processor (such as the BridgeCo mentioned). You do realise that some XMOS xCore interfaces contain ARM cores don't you?

 

Now if you could completely isolate the PC from the DAC using USB then you may be onto something, but as is shown by the need for / use of products like your Fidelizer and hardware products such as Regen that is clearly not true. Everything you do to the computer is affecting the DAC (at least that is the "claim" which these products rely on).

 

So if you start with a custom designed hardware, then you can eliminate a lot of the potential problems which need these "band-aid" corrections.

[Paul R]

And that networked media processor has IDE connection for HDD/CDROM and SD card interface with ethernet port and stuff. It's not a chipset designed for audio interface application that simply receives data and convert to I2S in FPGA like XMOS. Current streaming audio relies on uPNP model that requires a mini PC to act as uPNP renderer, whether you put it inside or outside the DAC.

 

Regards,

Windows X

 

Oh, for heavens sake - one can always use a nice DAC like a DirectStream DAC from PS Audio - or one of the configuration that can accept input directly from the network, such as those containing a PerfectWave Bridge (II). PS Audio is not the only company doing this.

 

 

-Paul

[Cebolla]

Even dCS who's one of most specialized in FPGA DAC uses mini PC as uPNP Renderer implementation in Rossini product too.

You speak of using a "Mini PC" (which is a bad description IMO) as an insult though.

Yes, it was the OP's somewhat derogatory use of the term 'mini PC', equating it to a Windows machine running music player software with UPnP renderer functions and doubtless in dire need of the optimisation provided by the OP's own software, that I was objecting to, ie:

Yes, the network board is actually a mini PC board that receives data from network and sends to an audio interface which is USB board in this case.

 

If you put foobar2000 with UPNP plugin connecting to USB DAC and setup your phone to stream music to your computer, your computer will work exactly like that network board.

[Windows X]

I only suggested mini PC as there's a computer inside so building dedicated computer outside should have more merits.

 

There's nothing about right or wrong if you agree or disagree. It's just a discussion of opinions. Opinion is yours alone. Forcing everyone else to be right or wrong with you is BS.

 

For one last time, please refrain from mentioning Fidelizer. There's nothing related to my products in this discussion. I apologize if you find mini PC term offensive in case of being insensitive. I don't feel like we'll gain anything constructive to continue so I'll stop here.

 

Regards,

Windows X

[Audio_ELF]

I only suggested mini PC as there's a computer inside so building dedicated computer outside should have more merits.

Perhaps we can agree that it is a computer but "PC" at least implies a specific meaning which is not true in this case. Perhaps you could explain why "building a dedicated computer outside" is an advantage?

 

[quite]There's nothing about right or wrong if you agree or disagree. It's just a discussion of opinions. Opinion is yours alone. Forcing everyone else to be right or wrong with you is BS.

Then perhaps you need to think how you write things. Declaring an article "What's inside the Network Player" reads to me like you are speaking for "facts" not opinions.

 

For one last time, please refrain from mentioning Fidelizer. There's nothing related to my products in this discussion. I apologize if you find mini PC term offensive in case of being insensitive. I don't feel like we'll gain anything constructive to continue so I'll stop here.

You mentioned Fidelizer first by your link to your website. And everything you post links to Fidelizer.

 

It's not that "mini PC" is offencive. It's completely inaccurate. PC means https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer and as Wikipedia describes it refers to a "general purpose computer". In the case of something inside a network streamer this is obviously not true. The correct term you are looking for may be SBC (single board computer); though that typically would be reserved for an off the shelf solution such as Raspberry Pi or BeagleBone.

[Windows X]

First, my article is about facts. There's mini computer in there and I want to discuss about potentials to make it better outside because there's more space and stuff to fill in than a single board inside DAC.

 

Second, you proposed bypassing all the USB in the first place might be a better solution for people. That's your opinion and we were debating whether it's true or not. At least that was I believed.

 

You called my article BS. That's given. And you told me calling Mini PC is an insult? I won't continue arguing with people who can't show respect yet demand to treat him right. I hope you'll reflect upon your actions for the future communication with others.

 

Regards,

Windows X

[ringenesherre]

You are a bad loser. Those two called out your blatant marketing attempt for what it is: unsubstantiated bullshit.

 

Take it like a man and stop whining :-)

[Paul R]

You are a bad loser. Those two called out your blatant marketing attempt for what it is: unsubstantiated bullshit.

 

Take it like a man and stop whining :-)

 

(grin) That does sort of get right to the important part of the discussion doesn't it?

 

-Paul