mansr Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 A naive question here : could someone explain the drawbacks of DLNA which are making Dante and similar technologies from Pro-Audio very desirable to Audiophiles ?Thanks in advance. You can't really compare DLNA to things like Dante and Ravenna. They are not meant to solve the same problems. The main selling points of the pro audio systems are low latency and clock synchronisation, neither of which matters whatsoever for a pure playback situation, audiophile or otherwise. Link to comment
Albrecht Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 A naive question here : could someone explain the drawbacks of DLNA which are making Dante and similar technologies from Pro-Audio very desirable to Audiophiles ?Thanks in advance. As far as I understand it... DLNA supports a wider variety of file types & rates as well as audio and video. It is not designed, for Internet streaming. It uses SSDP protocol, (simple services discovery protocol), which is layer 2 and creates a lot more "back & forth" traffic on the LAN. Dante is a multichannel, audio only protocol, designed to work over layer 3 networks. RAAT by Roon is similar. Cheers, Link to comment
Qhwoeprktiyns Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 Hey Serge, Thank you. I picked that choice for preferred interface because of Ethernet - there was no option for Dante. :-) Professionally, my background is in IT. Audio has been both a hobby and at times I've ventured over into the pro side of things including running sound for a couple of bands, helping to design and build out a sound system for a club, and some mixing/mastering (nothing too elaborate). I think that pro gear is overlooked at times because of some perceptions about it being "too neutral" or I've even heard the argument that it's "ugly to look at." Personally I've found that some pro gear can be every bit as good-sounding as some "consumer" or "audiophile" gear. YMMV, of course, but that's why I tend to have a mix of the two. One example is my DAC. I had bought a Yggrasil last year, thought it sounded fantastic. Having previous owned a Dangerous Source DAC (that had retired a Gungnir), when the Convert-2 became available I picked one up to try. I loved the sound, it was hard to pick between the Yggy and the C2, but I had some USB stability issues with the C2 and ended up sending it back. I then spent the next several months missing the tonality and imaging of the C2 and realized I should have kept it. I re-bought it and sold the Yggy and have zero regrets. Dante came about after getting involved in a thread over on HF about a new DDC (Singxer F-1) as a possible solution to the stability issues I was still having with the internal XMOS-based interface on the C2. The F-1 sounds great, was an improvement over the internal interface, and proved to be completely stable. Problem solved... but this hobby being what it is, I watched the video on the PS Audio LAN Rover, thought about trying the USB over Ethernet solution, then thought, "Why even bother with the USB step - what are the options to take that out of the picture completely and just go over Ethernet?" I had never really delved into the AoE solutions on the pro side, so when I found Dante and started reading up on it, it was intriguing enough to try. My wallet wishes I hadn't, my ears are glad I did. Hahaha. The Focusrite box is pretty expensive and overkill for what I need, but in comparison to the Mutec 3+ and some of the higher end USB DDCs, I guess it's not too far out of the ballpark. Unfortunately there aren't any inexpensive Dante interfaces that use the Audinate Brooklyn II module, even the solutions that use the Ultimo are expensive for what they are - and will only do 96KHz. I've written to Audinate and asked if they would be willing to put together a more DIY-friendly version of their Brooklyn II PDK but haven't heard back yet. -Mike Hi, You therefore compared the F-1 USB (spdif output) interface against the Focusrite box (AES output, I assume), both going into your Convert-2 ? There is a lot going on in the Focusrite, aside for the Ethernet to digital conversion. So what makes you think the gain in SQ is due to the "network" aspect ? Thanks, Link to comment
seeteeyou Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 $39 AVB card http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1024193-REG/hp_e0x95aa_intel_ethernet_i210_t1_gbe.html $99 AVB switch http://www.dsp4you.com/products/avb-oem-series/avb-sw $299 AVB DAC https://www.minidsp.com/products/network-audio/n-dac8 $299 AVB DAC / DDC https://www.xmos.com/buy?product=18334 Link to comment
Kal Rubinson Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 $299 AVB DAC https://www.minidsp.com/products/network-audio/n-dac8 Resolution and sample rate support 24-bit @ 44.1 kHz Kal Rubinson Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile Link to comment
mhamel Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Hi, You therefore compared the F-1 USB (spdif output) interface against the Focusrite box (AES output, I assume), both going into your Convert-2 ? There is a lot going on in the Focusrite, aside for the Ethernet to digital conversion. So what makes you think the gain in SQ is due to the "network" aspect ? Thanks, That's a good question, one that I think would take far more analysis that it sounding better to narrow down to any particular point in the PC->DVS->Ethernet->Focusrite->DAC chain where the improvement is heard. I definitely hear an improvement, and that can be coming from any piece or pieces of the device chain. I also know I heard differences when using the clock in my Convert-2 as the master clock for the Dante network, which to my ears were improvements, so that factors in as well. It would be interesting to be able to compare a different bridge from Dante to AES, and devices using the different models of Dante interfaces (Ultimo, Brooklyn, Brooklyn II) as well as against other Audio over IP technologies. For me, (and understanding that everyone's situation/systems are different) I didn't want to get involved in all of the various tweaks and add-ons that seem to come along with USB solutions. While I haven't moved the connection to a switch yet, it's also helpful to me that I'll be able to route audio from multiple different computers over the network to my DAC without having to run addition cables and switch or plug/re-plug things to use them. I jumped into this as much out of curiosity to explore the technology as anything. If the sound quality had been on the same level as the F-1 I would have most likely still kept it, though it would have been harder to justify the additional cost. So far, the others that I am aware of that have made this jump have reported similar results and improvements in sound, including similar descriptions of the changes, and while everyone's mileage may vary, and it's still just a small sampling of users, it's encouraging to see that my own experience here hasn't been unique. Link to comment
Astralark Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Are there any DACS that can accept a "direct" Ethernet input using the usual Ethernet connector and not via an on board DLNA renderer etc? Would there be any advantage to this over SPdif or USB and if examples exist could a PC or other source be connected directly to such a DAC via Ethernet cable? The very best Merging NADAC. Their ethernet input is far superior solution to USB interfaces. Link to comment
Panelhead Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 I think Thunderbolt and even FireWire are better solutions. Just not as many choices. 2012 Mac Mini, i5 - 2.5 GHz, 16 GB RAM. SSD, PM/PV software, Focusrite Clarett 4Pre 4 channel interface. Daysequerra M4.0X Broadcast monitor., My_Ref Evolution rev a , Klipsch La Scala II, Blue Sky Sub 12 Clarett used as ADC for vinyl rips. Corning Optical Thunderbolt cable used to connect computer to 4Pre. Dac fed by iFi iPower and Noise Trapper isolation transformer. Link to comment
Astralark Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 The problem is there is no audiophile grade thunderbolt DAC (except pro audio brands) and Firewire is quite old-fashion. Link to comment
Qhwoeprktiyns Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 It is encouraging, and has gotten many of us curious and interested. The simplicity and flexibility is also very appealing, but not so much the cost (at least for me). So far, it seems others have reached the same conclusion using the same focusrite gear. Let's see what new products come out in the near future. Link to comment
speshal Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Not sure if I'm allowed to answer, but I think I can. We (Musica Pristina) sell a Roon Ready DAC with an isolated (internal transformer galvanic isolation up to 4kv) Ethernet input. It's the Virtuoso Network DAC. There's Roon's RAAT protocol pulling in audio data, then we clock it and pass i2s to our DAC board. No UPnP, no DLNA. Your product looks interesting, but I must've missed your room at Newport. It says you were demoing with Vapor Audio, but I don't recall any room with Vapor speakers. Anyway, nice article on your site about why 16/44 sounds better than higher Rez recordings in many instances. I agree totally. So many audiophiles are actually paying more money for lower quality. One question about your Ethernet DAC, how much advantage do you notice if any, with an Ethernet input versus other options? Is there anyway to do wireless with comparable sound quality? At some point, convenience overtakes micro improvements in sound quality for many audiophiles. Link to comment
Bromo33333 Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 However, I've not come across a "dedicated" DAC with ethernet input. The Plinius Tiki is a Ethernet based DAC. IN fact, it's only input is Ethernet. Sounds good, too. -- Audio System: Mac Mini (w/Roon) -> USB -> NAD Masters M51 -> Ayre K-5xeMP -> Ayre V-5xe -> Thiel CS3.7's Link to comment
occamsrazor Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 There's also the Burl B2 Bomber DAC that has Ethernet input of the Dante/AES67 variety.... Mac Mini > RME ADI-2 DAC > Hypex Ncore monoblocks > ATC SCM-11 speakers & C1 subwoofer Link to comment
mac_and_dac Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 A more likely approach would use standard IP networking with either TCP or UDP. It's certainly possible to build a device that simply accepts audio data thrown at a UDP or TCP port. Would UDP work? I thought UDP (unlike TCP) doesn't re-send lost or corrupted datagrams. This can be tolerated on Skype but is less tolerable for hifi. Front End: Neet Airstream Digital Processing: Chord Hugo M-Scaler DAC: Chord Dave Amplification: Cyrus Mono x300 Signatures Speakers: Kudos Titan T88 Link to comment
mansr Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 Would UDP work? I thought UDP (unlike TCP) doesn't re-send lost or corrupted datagrams. This can be tolerated on Skype but is less tolerable for hifi. Data corruption or packet loss is incredibly rare in a normal home network. Link to comment
MikeJazz Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 The Plinius Tiki is a Ethernet based DAC. IN fact, it's only input is Ethernet. Sounds good, too. recently the esoteric n-05 appeared. Looking forward to some feedback. http://www.computeraudiophile.com/members/mikejazz/ funded this campain: http://igg.me/at/geekpulseaudio/x/5216671 Link to comment
jabbr Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 The PS Audio uses UPnP/DLNA. The Moon Audio website is vague about protocols, but it appears to be something similar as well. The Merging device uses Ravenna/AES67 which is a lot more than a "direct" input as requested by the OP. The trouble here is that the question isn't well defined. The most "direct" Ethernet input would use a dedicated NIC on a computer connected directly to the DAC and send something like S/PDIF data wrapped in Ethernet frames. I doubt such a device exists, at least not on the mass market. A more likely approach would use standard IP networking with either TCP or UDP. It's certainly possible to build a device that simply accepts audio data thrown at a UDP or TCP port. Again, I've never heard of such a thing. Every DAC-type device I've come across with an Ethernet input uses some fairly elaborate high-level protocol like DLNA. Maybe there's a market for something simpler. It could be as easy as providing a virtual soundcard driver/app for an Ethernet enabled device. One can look at any of the ARM boards which provide I2S output as a model for Ethernet in (TCP/IP) -> conversion/fifo -> I2S/DSD out. I imagine we will see a number of devices implemented that way in the upcoming product cycles. Ravenna/AES67 too but either way you'd need to install a virtual soundcard and unless the Ravenna/AES67 input modules become cheaper, they are likely to be limited to higher end. If you just stream the data over Ethernet, the protocol can be *very* simple. R1200CL 1 Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
Superdad Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Ravenna/AES67 too but either way you'd need to install a virtual soundcard and unless the Ravenna/AES67 input modules become cheaper, they are likely to be limited to higher end. If you just stream the data over Ethernet, the protocol can be *very* simple. As discussed elsewhere--and I have been a broken record on the issue for several years--adoption of AES67/Ravenna (or other possible audio over Ethernet protocols) very much depends upon the availability (sponsored or free license) of virtual sound card software. It needs to be kept current through operating system updates, should be available on Windows, OS X, and Linux, and should be capable of handling 24/384 and DSD. It also is important that it operate at a low enough level such that it does not impose any sonic signature (I have tried some VSC s/w such as Airfoil which situates itself too high and the resulting SQ was terrible). Recently, at this post in the http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/focusrite-rednet-28878/index10.html#post560026 thread, Mr. Brulhart of Merging Technologies addressed my question/suggestion that Merging consider going beyond only offering a free license to the 44/48-limited OS X version of their Core Audio AES67 VSC. His reply indicated that they may indeed begin offering OEMs hardware (modules) and VSC software for Ravenna. The latter is easily the biggest news for the long-delayed promise of broad market of Ethernet-input DACs. Though the time-frame and whether the s/w will be tied just to their OEM modules (and the price of such modules) are still unknowns. So if people are looking for something in Ethernet audio to hold their breath about, I think the above is it. Because there is no sign that AES67/Ravenna support is ever going to woven directly into future Windows or OS X versions (it's 2016 and Microsoft still does not include UAC2 support in Windows 10!). Cheers, --Alex C. R1200CL 1 UpTone Audio LLC Link to comment
One and a half Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 The problem is there is no audiophile grade thunderbolt DAC (except pro audio brands) and Firewire is quite old-fashion. Both of which have limited cable length for both audiophile and pro markets are not expandable. The computer is best a long distance away from the DAC, and Ethernet provides this distance. Dante approach may be easy, but it has no DSD support nor auto sampling systems, for my personal use is not going to happen. The way around an audio protocol over Ethernet is a coding and decoding system that's routable over a network, as the Lanrover aka Icron. This isn't a bad compromise since it maintains the distance as described, without the need of special software or sample and protocol restrictions. Ethernet as a medium ticks all the right boxes, but where's the leader or killer app? Audio has no clear leader in technology where others can follow or improve upon. It's like herding cats, in every direction there's an idea and hardly any consensus. AS Profile Equipment List Say NO to MQA Link to comment
MemoryPlayer Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 I changed my library from a WD USB Portable HD to an Apple Time Capsule and the sound is much better now. I'm using the Apple Time Capsule with ethernet cable, a thunderbolt to ethernet adapter and wifi disabled... The same USB WD HD connected to the USB input of the Apple Time Capsule sounds better also, who can explain that? Link to comment
Superdad Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 I changed my library from a WD USB Portable HD to an Apple Time Capsule and the sound is much better now. I'm using the Apple Time Capsule with ethernet cable, a thunderbolt to ethernet adapter and wifi disabled... The same USB WD HD connected to the USB input of the Apple Time Capsule sounds better also, who can explain that? No surprise at all. In much of computer audio key variables for SQ are the active hardware and software interfaces and processes of the DAC-connected computer. And for music storage, a USB drive directly connected to the USB DAC-connected computer is easily the worst in the ranking of possibilities. And Ethernet happens to be about the best. Perhaps you will enjoy these three report threads I started long ago (the first and third ones are most relevant to you, but the second one was part of the journey way back then): http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f27-uptone-audio-sponsored/my-deep-dive-media-storage-interfaces-musical-differences-heard-between-chipsets-firewire-400-800-universal-serial-bus-industry-standard-cables-connectors-and-communications-protocols-between-computers-and-electronic-devices-sata-flash-drives-sd-cards-and-network-shares-warning-may-cause-seizures-dbt-crowd-and-flat-earth-naysayers-18108/ http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f27-uptone-audio-sponsored/attention-current-mac-mini-users-boot-mavericks-sd-card-load-ramdisk-dismount-your-internal-sata-drives-and-pour-drink-musicians-walking-out-your-speakers-18159/ http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f27-uptone-audio-sponsored/uh-oh-i-beat-my-sd-card-trick%3B-bypass-your-ethernet-switch-and-make-your-external-drives-sound-close-ram-disk-using-apple-thunderbolt-ethernet-adaptor-and-second-network-connection-18475/ UpTone Audio LLC Link to comment
MemoryPlayer Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 No surprise at all. In much of computer audio key variables for SQ are the active hardware and software interfaces and processes of the DAC-connected computer. And for music storage, a USB drive directly connected to the USB DAC-connected computer is easily the worst in the ranking of possibilities. And Ethernet happens to be about the best. Perhaps you will enjoy these three report threads I started long ago (the first and third ones are most relevant to you, but the second one was part of the journey way back then)... Thank you Alex, our great Superdad! Link to comment
matthias Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 I changed my library from a WD USB Portable HD to an Apple Time Capsule and the sound is much better now. I'm using the Apple Time Capsule with ethernet cable, a thunderbolt to ethernet adapter and wifi disabled... The same USB WD HD connected to the USB input of the Apple Time Capsule sounds better also, who can explain that? MemoryPlayer, thanks for sharing, very interesting. Please elaborate further how the Time Capsule is integrated in your complete set-up. Matt "I want to know why the musicians are on stage, not where". (John Farlowe) Link to comment
bmoura Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 The very best Merging NADAC. Their ethernet input is far superior solution to USB interfaces. The NADAC from Merging Technologies uses Ethernet input and Ravenna. And it is an excellent DAC as you say. MERGING+NADAC | HOME Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now