PS Audio LANRover

[Allan F]

Wow this may be the first thing we ever agreed with each other about!!

 

Yes he does like to boast.

I can live with it as long as it doesn't become a habit.

[Albrecht]

You mean like this 00-00315 - Icron Ranger 2211 - USB 2.0 CAT5e Extender (330 ft)

 

 

Hi,

 

No.

 

This isn't an ASIC device that converts USB to TCP/IP and can be used on a LAN with switches and such....

 

Cheers,

[Albrecht]

Hi,

 

I understand what you mean now. Thanks.......

[ericuco]

Hi,

 

No.

 

This isn't an ASIC device that converts USB to TCP/IP and can be used on a LAN with switches and such....

 

Cheers,

 

More like this: 00-00297 - Icron Ranger 2201 - USB 2.0 CAT5e Extender (330 ft)

[Cormorant]

Another way of looking at it -- The LanRover solution requires two boxes. But using an endpoint device that uses standardized protocols over the network instead of using a sneaky tunneling protocol requires only a single box - the endpoint. Why use two boxes when one will suffice? Particularly when one throws in the major advantages of distributed audio systems.

[Albrecht]

More like this: 00-00297 - Icron Ranger 2201 - USB 2.0 CAT5e Extender (330 ft)

 

Hi,

Sorry, - i should've added in ASIC + Gigabit LAN. Rule of thumb, - if it doesn't say "LAN-Gigabit" it is not converting to TCP/IP protocol.

I've researched the StarTech but Icron does make one also....

 

http://www.amazon.com/StarTech-com-330-Feet-Ethernet-Extender-USB2G4LEXT2/dp/B00HFGQESY?ie=UTF8&psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_sfl_title_1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

 

 

http://www.icron.com/pdf/usb-2-0-rg2304ge-lan-datasheet.pdf

 

 

Good to look at ICron. They are even cheaper than StarTech, - (likely one or the other is the REAL manufacturer). Icron is $427 and... interestingly """ Product is sold as unbranded, turnkey integration, or available for private label.""

[Albrecht]

Another way of looking at it -- The LanRover solution requires two boxes. But using an endpoint device that uses standardized protocols over the network instead of using a sneaky tunneling protocol requires only a single box - the endpoint. Why use two boxes when one will suffice? Particularly when one throws in the major advantages of distributed audio systems.

 

Well the goal in commercial applications isn't networking & linking two computers. The goal is to extend the distance between USB peripheral devices. (Like USB cameras between conference rooms on different floors of large organizations). Take a USB device, (signal), convert it to TCP/IP, - broadcast it as TCP/IP over a great distance, (there are also fiber USB converters), build a new USB signal at the other end, - and plug into the PC.

In audio, the USB DAC is similar to a USB peripheral like a camera. Only it requires so much more, and a much better USB signal. Stripping away the power from the USB, converting the signal to the TCP/IP protocol, - then rebuilding the now isolated, new, USB signal is going to much better even for a short run of USB that normally would carry all of that "pollution" from a computer's USB bus.

[JohnSwenson]

Note that most of the ICRON products are straight extenders, a piece of CAT5e goes between the two boxes. Many of these do say they support isochronous streams so they should support audio. Only the devices that have "LAN" in their part numbers are designed to plug into an existing network and go through switches etc. Of THOSE most specifically say they do not support audio. There just seems to be one device that is a LAN type and supports audio: RG2304GE-LAN. This is an OEM part which is probably what PSA is using.

 

John S.

[Cormorant]

Well the goal in commercial applications isn't networking & linking two computers. The goal is to extend the distance between USB peripheral devices. (Like USB cameras between conference rooms on different floors of large organizations). Take a USB device, (signal), convert it to TCP/IP, - broadcast it as TCP/IP over a great distance, (there are also fiber USB converters), build a new USB signal at the other end, - and plug into the PC.

 

Agreed. Tunneling USB over TCP/IP has benefits for some commercial apps and other uses. And like I said, I can even see some decent use scenarios for the LanRover. But not as good as distributed audio solutions for most people.

 

Stripping away the power from the USB, converting the signal to the TCP/IP protocol, - then rebuilding the now isolated, new, USB signal is going to much better even for a short run of USB that normally would carry all of that "pollution" from a computer's USB bus.

 

Agreed. But using a single network addressable endpoint with standardized protocols and compatible distributed audio software will accomplish the same thing with less devices, in a non-proprietary or less-proprietary fashion, and in addition has all the benefits that distributed audio systems provide.

[Albrecht]

Hi,

I hear you...

Yeah... I think that going the NAA route, (if i understand you), is best. Especially for folks who are already on a NAS/NAA system, - like getting a "better" Squeezebox networked endpoint/NAA for the "main audio rig" and running Squeezebox Touch NAAs everywhere else with LMS server...

For people who like Amarra, JRiver, Pure Music, (apps that are "dead men walking)" & want to continue to use them, having an USB "purifier/extender" with their USB DAC eliminates boxes, moves the PC/MAC out of the audio rack... a big win considering that they save TONS of money of replacing computer hard drives, SMPSs, & a score of other "tweaks"

[Cormorant]

Yup, more agreement. I was thinking of the "dead men walking" apps (as you call them) myself. And also the dinosaur monolithic servers as a possible decent use scenario - the LanRover could extend them.

 

NAA route -right. NAA for HQPlayer, but also Squeezebox endpoints, Roon endpoints, DLNA, etc. and whatever standardized protocols come up in the future.

[Superdad]

But using a single network addressable endpoint with standardized protocols and compatible distributed audio software will accomplish the same thing with less devices, in a non-proprietary or less-proprietary fashion, and in addition has all the benefits that distributed audio systems provide.

 

Can you be more specific? Are you referring to DLNA, AES67, or other audio-over-IP set ups? These all have their own issues, chief among them being software player restrictions.

 

The ICRON ExtremeUSB code for their extenders and LAN products is actually quite good--no drivers are required and some of the versions are capable enough (assuming you have a gigabit switch to handle the overhead and QOS) to handle isochronous audio. Despite some misinformation floating out there, none of the competitors come close to what ICRON has done (their whole company is built around this stuff).

 

That said, the endpoint USB output, despite benefiting from galvanic isolation, will still benefit from improved signal integrity, impedance match, voltage regulation, and clocking.

 

BTW, the ICRON/LANRover supports sending to more that one endpoint--even at the same time! So one could have up to 4 DACs with their REX (what the call the receiving endpoint) units (in separate rooms), and the one computer can send to any of them--possibly even more than one at the same time! I say possibly because even ICRON has not tested multiple simultaneous isochronous audio streams. There is the issue of what the host/player computer makes of all this. I mean, can you launch multiple instances of your music player and tell each one to play to a different DAC? The ICRON LEX (the Local End Extender attached to the host computer) will "see" DACs (or mice, whatever) at the ports of multiple REX units, but can you really play a separate stream to each? I am 95% certain you can not play the one same stream to multiple units--the product pairs with MAC addresses.

 

--Alex C.

[Albrecht]

Can you be more specific? Are you referring to DLNA, AES67, or other audio-over-IP set ups? These all have their own issues, chief among them being software player restrictions.

 

BTW, the ICRON/LANRover supports sending to more that one endpoint--even at the same time! So one could have up to 4 DACs with their REX (what the call the receiving endpoint) units (in separate rooms), and the one computer can send to any of them--possibly even more than one at the same time! I say possibly because even ICRON has not tested multiple simultaneous isochronous audio streams. There is the issue of what the host/player computer makes of all this. I mean, can you launch multiple instances of your music player and tell each one to play to a different DAC? The ICRON LEX (the Local End Extender attached to the host computer) will "see" DACs (or mice, whatever) at the ports of multiple REX units, but can you really play a separate stream to each? I am 95% certain you can not play the one same stream to multiple units--the product pairs with MAC addresses.

 

--Alex C.

 

I was wondering that too. Very interesting, and it would be MIGHTY if one could have one "Sender" and two or more receivers "receiving" different "songs."

[Cormorant]

Can you be more specific? Are you referring to DLNA, AES67, or other audio-over-IP set ups? These all have their own issues, chief among them being software player restrictions.

 

RAAT, for instance.

[genjamon]

Can you be more specific? Are you referring to DLNA, AES67, or other audio-over-IP set ups? These all have their own issues, chief among them being software player restrictions.

 

The ICRON ExtremeUSB code for their extenders and LAN products is actually quite good--no drivers are required and some of the versions are capable enough (assuming you have a gigabit switch to handle the overhead and QOS) to handle isochronous audio. Despite some misinformation floating out there, none of the competitors come close to what ICRON has done (their whole company is built around this stuff).

 

That said, the endpoint USB output, despite benefiting from galvanic isolation, will still benefit from improved signal integrity, impedance match, voltage regulation, and clocking.

 

 

Right. So, I already use an Auralic Aries being fed via Wifi from my router, with my Mac Mini connected to the router via Ethernet running Minimserver as my server source of music files. This is basically accomplishing the same thing as this whole line of products. Yet, the clocking, noise, and jitter aspects of the Aries output via USB, USB cable into my DAC, signal integrity, etc still has a LONG way to go to address the inherent problems of USB audio. I find that the REGEN, Wyred Recovery, Intona have all made substantial differences between Aries and DAC. At this point, it seems to me like you'd still need to explore these issues with these Icron products. After all, the Icron receiver unit would need some clean LPS, and even then the clocking may not be very high quality from an audiophile standpoint.

 

But even so, I'm concerned about the way Paul McGowan framed things in his video - comparing the new device to the AQ Jitterbug and Regen - when they're COMPLETELY different functions.

 

Those of us already using products like Aries, microRendu, etc - this type of product would be pretty redundant. Am I right?

[Priaptor]

I can live with it as long as it doesn't become a habit.

 

So I think it is safe to say that neither of us will support Paul McGowan if he is nominated for SCOTUS?

[Allan F]

So I think it is safe to say that neither of us will support Paul McGowan if he is nominated for SCOTUS?

Yes, that is safe or fair to say; either will do. Not that he was on anyone's radar.

[audio.bill]

I contacted Paul McGowan at PS Audio to ask about speculation that the LANRover was possibly one of the existing products previously mentioned on this thread. His response is being posted here for reference with his permission.

 

"No, it is not an existing product though it is made by an existing company using similar technology. The LANRover is custom built for us."

[ginetto61]

... I find that the REGEN, Wyred Recovery, Intona have all made substantial differences between Aries and DAC ....

 

Hi ! sorry if i jump in.

May i ask:

1) which dac are you using ?

2) are you using all the three devices (i.e. REGEN, Wyred Recovery, Intona) in series or you have ended with a specific solution ?

Thanks a lot, gino

[Bill Leebens]

I contacted Paul McGowan at PS Audio to ask about speculation that the LANRover was possibly one of the existing products previously mentioned on this thread. His response is being posted here for reference with his permission.

 

"No, it is not an existing product though it is made by an existing company using similar technology. The LANRover is custom built for us."

 

 

LANRover is built for us, to our spec. We thought it was pointless to try and reinvent the wheel, and went to a leader in the field who has already spent millions in development.

 

Please note: this is NOT an off-the-shelf unit. It is built to our spec, utilizing a number of changes designed to improve audio performance.

 

That's all I'm going to say right now. When we approach release, we'll bring out more details and full application notes.

 

Capiche?

 

Bill Leebens

[genjamon]

Hi ! sorry if i jump in.

May i ask:

1) which dac are you using ?

2) are you using all the three devices (i.e. REGEN, Wyred Recovery, Intona) in series or you have ended with a specific solution ?

Thanks a lot, gino

 

I have both Regen and Recovery still, and both make a difference. I don't use them simultaneously. I had the Intona, but sold it. I used it both in a chain with the Regen, and on its own.

 

I have a Lampizator Big7 DAC.

 

I've played with this stuff a lot over the past six months - including a whole range of USB cables - Curious, Dana, Elijah, and a range of DIY, in addition to my older Mike Galusha and dB Audio Essential cables that I was using for the past several years. This in addition to having used the AQVOX 5V power trick since 2011 or so. USB cables and the quality of the USB/digital supply is the last major link for me to be upgrading in my system. Everything else has been replaced with major upgrades in the past two years, including a lot of NOS and high end tubes, heavy investment in power cabling/conditioning, and even equipment footers. So, you could say my system is highly sensitive to even minor changes at this point.

 

In my experience these past six months, you can really go around in circles with these digital tweaks. They definitely make differences, but can be very context specific as to what might be a better synergy. For instance, the Curious cables are very warm and engaging, but they completely collapsed the soundstage in my system, and didn't have the bass or highs refinement of some other solutions. But the midrange is magic. They are a perfect complement to an overly analytical or incisive system, or one that has some issues with digital hash/noise going on. Very engaging sound. But not very transparent in my opinion.

 

Regen is really great at cleaning up the sound, but I have found over time that it seems to shift the timbre of the sound in ways that are fatiguing over time. The Recovery does not do so.

 

Intona was amazing at first, but over time I found it was not as resolving and definitely had a sound of its own. But it made me a believer in galvanic isolation for sure.

 

At this point, I'm definitely paying attention and waiting to see what kinds of new products are being developed by everyone in this quickly evolving field. I suspect within the coming months to a year there will be a range of USB products that do it all. In the meantime, I'm happy with the Recovery and refining my DIY USB cables to do the best of transparency and tonal engagement/warmth among the commercial cables I've tried. I might have it licked, but still need to make a second link, as I have yet to hear a full loom both before and after the Recovery.

 

Of course, then I'll also need to go back and re-try the Regen, as maybe it was the USB cables all along that were creating the effect I have disliked with the Regen. That's what I mean by these tweaks being things you can go around in circles on. Several times I have attributed sonics to a cable or USB device when that sonic effect went away when I swapped something small in a different place in the system. It can be very confusing and somewhat infuriating at times, difficult to figure out what exactly is causing what. It's a system after all.

[Superdad]

I might have it licked...

 

Well audio and music are a matter of taste, but do be careful when licking your components and cables! Though I guess that the Audioquest Coffee and Cinnamon cables taste nice.

[genjamon]

Well audio and music are a matter of taste, but do be careful when licking your components and cables! Though I guess that the Audioquest Coffee and Cinnamon cables taste nice.

 

Sage advice... though I have tended not to buy USB cables based on their described flavor - too much adulteration in processed foods

[master]

But it made me a believer in galvanic isolation for sure.

 

Big believer too... especially since i started wireless streaming from the NAS and Raspberry Pi.

 

Perhaps you should give that a try instead of all the cable mix 'n' match?

[Allan F]

For instance, the Curious cables are very warm and engaging, but they completely collapsed the soundstage in my system, and didn't have the bass or highs refinement of some other solutions. But the midrange is magic. They are a perfect complement to an overly analytical or incisive system, or one that has some issues with digital hash/noise going on. Very engaging sound. But not very transparent in my opinion.

While I have no reason to doubt your report of how the Curious cables performed in your system, I believe that your extrapolation of your experience to suggest where they "are a perfect complement" may be quite inaccurate. My system is neither overly analytical or incisive, nor does it have issues with digital hash/noise, yet the Curious cables sound very transparent, provide excellent resolution of both bass and 'highs' and are not lacking for soundstage. I do agree, however, that the results obtained may well be system dependent.