FORGETTING the Digital to Analog conversion part, what is BEST Digital source?

[barrows]

15 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

but still, wouldn't it be better to go from ethernet in directly into the d->a circuitry without having to go out usb?

Ultimately I think that yes, Ethernet input DACs have the potential to be great.  The problem is the computing power necessary to receive Ethernet transmissions (especially hi res audio) is much higher than that required to receive USB audio, so with Ethernet you have to have a powerful computer processor in the DAC.  Having this processor produce a ton more noise, and as we have already explained, this is a problem.  You want the most "quiet" from a noise perspective, component internally for audio, so putting a powerful computer processor in there creates more problems.  The only DAC I have heard with direct Ethernet input that sounds really awesome is the very expensive Linn Klimax model, I could live with that one (except for its old school sample rate limitations), but it is way out of my league cost wise.  In the Klimax Linnhouses the Ethernet processor in its own shielded compartment carved out of a solid block of aluminum, this shields it  from interfering with the audio circuitry.  Unfortunately this approach is expensive to implement.

I use an Ethernet renderer in a separate chassis, at some distance from the DAC, to keep processing noise away from the DAC circuitry.

[beerandmusic]

7 minutes ago, barrows said:

Ultimately I think that yes, Ethernet input DACs have the potential to be great.  The problem is the computing power necessary to receive Ethernet transmissions (especially hi res audio) is much higher than that required to receive USB audio, so with Ethernet you have to have a powerful computer processor in the DAC.  Having this processor produce a ton more noise, and as we have already explained, this is a problem.  You want the most "quiet" from a noise perspective, component internally for audio, so putting a powerful computer processor in there creates more problems.  The only DAC I have heard with direct Ethernet input that sounds really awesome is the very expensive Linn Klimax model, I could live with that one (except for its old school sample rate limitations), but it is way out of my league cost wise.  In the Klimax Linnhouses the Ethernet processor in its own shielded compartment carved out of a solid block of aluminum, this shields it  from interfering with the audio circuitry.  Unfortunately this approach is expensive to implement.

I use an Ethernet renderer in a separate chassis, at some distance from the DAC, to keep processing noise away from the DAC circuitry.

 

what about the teac nt503 which has won Japanese awards?  I believe you said before you haven't tried it?  Can the "processor noise" be measured internal to the device, so a professional can tell whether or not the noise is an issue?

 

Or what about the many AVR's or spinners that have ethernet capabilities (e.g. marantz)?

 

Again, i want to keep the analog part out of it for now.

 

[beerandmusic]

8 minutes ago, barrows said:

 

I use an Ethernet renderer in a separate chassis, at some distance from the DAC, to keep processing noise away from the DAC circuitry.

 

Ok, assuming I agree a marantz is not capable of isolating ethernet processor noise from the internal dac, if I buy a NAS renderer, and a sanore (spelling?) with usb out to a dac, can i play that ethernet song from a web browser?

 

[barrows]

28 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

what about the teac nt503 which has won Japanese awards?  I believe you said before you haven't tried it?  Can the "processor noise" be measured internal to the device, so a professional can tell whether or not the noise is an issue?

 

Or what about the many AVR's or spinners that have ethernet capabilities (e.g. marantz)?

 

Again, i want to keep the analog part out of it for now.

What about it?  You cannot keep the analog part out of a DAC, a DAC is an analog component and in the analog section is where most of the problems are going to be manifest.

As to whether or not the processor noise could be measured I do not know the answer to that, but it is probably so.  this is likely a question for an RF engineer, which I am not.  What I do know is that that airborne RF noise mostly scales with processor activity levels, and Ethernet requires much more processor power/activity than receiving USB audio does, hence it cause more noise problems, and a lot of this noise will just be broadcast into the air around the processor, to be picked up by any nearby circuitry.

No product is perfect from these standpoints.  High end audio exists precisely to address these lower level issues; things will still work if you do not address these issues, but they will not sound as good.  Ethenrt is added to most everything in the consumer electronics world now as consumers demand it, that does not mean it is a good idea to do so, nor that these products will produce awesome sound, most consumers do not care about that anyway.

[beerandmusic]

16 minutes ago, barrows said:

What about it?  You cannot keep the analog part out of a DAC, a DAC is an analog component and in the analog section is where most of the problems are going to be manifest.

 

Yes, i understand the analog part is the most important part and it is very debatable as to which dacs sound better and why.  I do not want to debate what dacs sound better, or which have better conversion.  For the topic of this discussion, i am ONLY looking to determine if the digital bits can be accurately presented to the dac in most/all cases or not.

 

[beerandmusic]

16 minutes ago, barrows said:

 Ethenrt is added to most everything in the consumer electronics world now as consumers demand it, that does not mean it is a good idea to do so, nor that these products will produce awesome sound, most consumers do not care about that anyway.

 

So are you here suggesting a hardware device with no ethernet circuitry is capable of producing better SQ?  E.g. a usb only dac will sound better than an ethernet only dac, if implemented properly by same best designer of both usb & enet...(obviously hypothetical)?

 

[barrows]

3 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

So are you here suggesting a hardware device with no ethernet circuitry is capable of producing better SQ?  E.g. a usb only dac will sound better than an ethernet only dac, if implemented properly by same best designer of both usb & enet...(obviously hypothetical)?

What I am saying is that with the very best implementation possible i like the idea of an Ethernet input DAC, but making it really good is very difficult and will be expensive.  What does the Linn Klimax which I reference go for, $20K or something like that.  But I cannot afford a Linn Klimax, even for DIY a chassis like Linn uses would be around $2K plus finishing costs. It is far more cost effective to have a good USB DAC, fed by an external Ethernet renderer, where by having the Ethernet stuff in a separate chassis, at some distance from the DAC, the noise problem is much reduced.

So, if you wan to get an Ethernet DAC, and have decided to spend much more money, and can live without DSD or sample rates above 192 PCM, get the Klimax and be happy.

[marce]

All this is covered by EMC engineering and testing, nothing special. How much noise comes out of your computer is measured and covered by CE FCC etc. 

PC load processing Ethernet or USB is not that different, both interfaces have transceivers that handle the bones of the data transfer... Be it an a PC or an audiophile server, both being digital by nature will have some noise present (with or without SMPS's as the main supply) called simultaneous switching noise (we have to study and look at this stuff for doing really quiet systems).

What worries me is that audiophile DACs cannot handle this noise, a bit worrying that considering the levels they can achieve with sound cards plugged into the computers motherboard...

[beerandmusic]

10 minutes ago, marce said:

All this is covered by EMC engineering and testing, nothing special. How much noise comes out of your computer is measured and covered by CE FCC etc. 

PC load processing Ethernet or USB is not that different, both interfaces have transceivers that handle the bones of the data transfer... Be it an a PC or an audiophile server, both being digital by nature will have some noise present (with or without SMPS's as the main supply) called simultaneous switching noise (we have to study and look at this stuff for doing really quiet systems).

What worries me is that audiophile DACs cannot handle this noise, a bit worrying that considering the levels they can achieve with sound cards plugged into the computers motherboard...

 

Thanks for the info...can you expand on htis a little...

>>>What worries me is that audiophile DACs cannot handle this noise, a bit worrying that considering the levels they can achieve with sound cards plugged into the computers motherboard...

 

Are you saying that you think sound cards plugged into a motherboard seem to handle noise better than many current dacs on the market...or did i misunderstand your statement?

 

[beerandmusic]

51 minutes ago, barrows said:

It is far more cost effective to have a good USB DAC, fed by an external Ethernet renderer, where by having the Ethernet stuff in a separate chassis, at some distance from the DAC, the noise problem is much reduced.

 

1. When you say "fed by an external ethernet renderer"

would a Synology NAS serve that purpose well?

 

2. and "at some distance" from the DAC, what would you recommend?  Don't they normally recommend short usb cables?  3',  6', longer?

 

P.S.  I do highly regard your input, so please don't think that just because I am questioning you a lot, that I do not trust you... (wink)

[barrows]

1.  A NAS would be for storage.  The approach of using a renderer allows any commercial computer gear to be well away from the audio system.  I prefer to keep the computer gear in another room, far from the audio system, and then have just the high end renderer cost to the system.  The renderer is like what our company makes (the Rendu products), or competing products like the Auralic Aries, etc.

 

2.  I just mean on another shelf on a rack.  As with all audio gear, a little spacing between components is not a bad idea.

[mansr]

3 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

1. Usb has 5v bus noise issues but no jitter issues, or does USB have both noise AND jitter issues, it's just the jitter for usb isn't as bad as HDMI & S/PDIF?

USB audio has rate control, so jitter is entirely dependent on the local clock. Some DACs have good clocks, some bad.

 

3 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

2. HDMI & S/pdif have jitter issues but no 5v bus noise?

Those don't supply power. Since they lack rate control, the DAC clock has to be synchronised with the source, and this tends to add a bit of jitter. How much depends on the implementation.

 

3 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

3. 1s and 0s are 100% accurate in either case?

Absolutely.

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, barrows said:

1.  A NAS would be for storage.  The approach of using a renderer allows any commercial computer gear to be well away from the audio system.  I prefer to keep the computer gear in another room, far from the audio system, and then have just the high end renderer cost to the system.  The renderer is like what our company makes (the Rendu products), or competing products like the Auralic Aries, etc.

 

2.  I just mean on another shelf on a rack.  As with all audio gear, a little spacing between components is not a bad idea.

If i am remembering right, the aurendar products require APPLE?  I don't do apple at all, i prefer not to have to use an android smartphone either.  I want to use windows based pc to control (preferably a web browser).  Will your products allow that?

When you say renderer, you are referring to a DLNA renderer, correct?

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

USB audio has rate control, so jitter is entirely dependent on the local clock. Some DACs have good clocks, some bad.

 

Those don't supply power. Since they lack rate control, the DAC clock has to be synchronised with the source, and this tends to add a bit of jitter. How much depends on the implementation.

 

Absolutely.

Ok, thanks for this information. 

So assuming a DAC has a "good clock", and that it has usb galvanic isolation, then as far as the digital circuitry goes, it "should" be able to accurately present the binary 1's and 0's to the d-a circuitry, and USB should NOT be an issue regardless of the cable, the pc, or whatever services are running on the pc, correct?

[fas42]

As marce points out, it's a trivial exercise maintaining the integrity of the the recording as digital data, especially these days - and even if it's a bit wrong, , it won't do "terrible damage" to the SQ ... the real question that should be asked is, which digital source, at the current moment, is most likely to cause the least grief with the analogue side of the system because of noise and interference issues?

[wwaldmanfan]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

As marce points out, it's a trivial exercise maintaining the integrity of the the recording as digital data, especially these days - and even if it's a bit wrong, , it won't do "terrible damage" to the SQ ... the real question that should be asked is, which digital source, at the current moment, is most likely to cause the least grief with the analogue side of the system because of noise and interference issues?

 

What noise and interference issues? My system sound clear. It does, however, expose flaws in poorly mastered recordings. A few percent of my albums are recorded and reproduced well enough to sound quite excellent. I evaluate my system's SQ accordingly.

[beerandmusic]

3 minutes ago, wwaldmanfan said:

 

What noise and interference issues? My system sound clear. It does, however, expose flaws in poorly mastered recordings. A few percent of my albums are recorded and reproduced well enough to sound quite excellent. I evaluate my system's SQ accordingly.

if noise wasn't an issue, then there would be no need for "usb toys" or special cables.

It is stated that there is zero issue with the transfer of the digital file.

I don't need a special cable to copy a bit perfect file to an external hard drive via the usb port.

The dacs should be able to implement a way to receive the file perfectly regardless of the cable and discard the noise...so that all is left is the designer's method of guestimating the analog out.

[wwaldmanfan]

7 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

if noise wasn't an issue, then there would be no need for "usb toys" or special cables.

It is stated that there is zero issue with the transfer of the digital file.

I don't need a special cable to copy a bit perfect file to an external hard drive via the usb port.

The dacs should be able to implement a way to receive the file perfectly regardless of the cable and discard the noise...so that all is left is the designer's method of guestimating the analog out.

 

It's fun to come in here and participate, but the level to which some take this is well beyond my comcerns, or even my comprehension.

 

When I think that I started with a $150 component system 50 years ago, with a Garrard, a little Lafayette stereo amp, and Lafaytte "Criterion" bookshelf speakers, and how much I enjoyed that, I never let shortcomings in my current system make me unhappy, or induce nervosa.

[kumakuma]

39 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

if noise wasn't an issue, then there would be no need for "usb toys" or special cables.

 

As far as I can tell, the connection between lower noise and improved SQ is theoretical at best. I don't know anyone who can hear the kind of noise being discussed in this thread.

[sandyk]

43 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

if noise wasn't an issue, then there would be no need for "usb toys" or special cables.

 

Exactly !

[barrows]

2 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

The dacs should be able to implement a way to receive the file perfectly regardless of the cable and discard the noise...so that all is left is the designer's method of guestimating the analog out.

Yes, that would be nice, but noise is everywhere.  Data integrity is not a problem, noise is.  Noise is not so easily "discarded".

A renderer is generally capable of DLNA, but that is just one way (the most common) of transferring audio files over Ethernet.  If you use DLNA, you can use an android tablet or phone as the control app, these are independent of the hardware in use (Renderer, like Sonore Rendu or Auralic Aries as examples).  A typical renderer set up looks like this:  There are multiple control apps to choose from.

 

NAS-Ethernet cable-Router- Ethernet cable-Renderer-USB cable-DAC, with a control app on a tablet or phone communicating via WiFi.

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, wwaldmanfan said:

 

What noise and interference issues? My system sound clear. It does, however, expose flaws in poorly mastered recordings. A few percent of my albums are recorded and reproduced well enough to sound quite excellent. I evaluate my system's SQ accordingly.

 

my understanding is that the noise affects SQ in fairly subtle ways, before you would hear it as noise per se

[beerandmusic]

32 minutes ago, barrows said:

Yes, that would be nice, but noise is everywhere.  Data integrity is not a problem, noise is.  Noise is not so easily "discarded".

A renderer is generally capable of DLNA, but that is just one way (the most common) of transferring audio files over Ethernet.  If you use DLNA, you can use an android tablet or phone as the control app, these are independent of the hardware in use (Renderer, like Sonore Rendu or Auralic Aries as examples).  A typical renderer set up looks like this:  There are multiple control apps to choose from.

 

NAS-Ethernet cable-Router- Ethernet cable-Renderer-USB cable-DAC, with a control app on a tablet or phone communicating via WiFi.

yea, i don't want to have to use a phone...i suppose i could aways use jriver, upplay, foobar on windows....i am basically doing the same thing as the renderer in your example but using a sony bluray player as the renderer with bluray coax out to dac....sounds decent.

[beerandmusic]

35 minutes ago, barrows said:

Yes, that would be nice, but noise is everywhere.  Data integrity is not a problem, noise is.  Noise is not so easily "discarded".

 

schiit's marketing says the eitr does it, and i thought galvanically isolated dacs do as well?

[beerandmusic]

7 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

yea, i don't want to have to use a phone...i suppose i could aways use jriver, upplay, foobar on windows....i am basically doing the same thing as the renderer in your example but using a sony bluray player as the renderer with bluray coax out to dac....sounds decent.

 

39 minutes ago, barrows said:

Yes, that would be nice, but noise is everywhere.  Data integrity is not a problem, noise is.  Noise is not so easily "discarded".

A renderer is generally capable of DLNA, but that is just one way (the most common) of transferring audio files over Ethernet.  If you use DLNA, you can use an android tablet or phone as the control app, these are independent of the hardware in use (Renderer, like Sonore Rendu or Auralic Aries as examples).  A typical renderer set up looks like this:  There are multiple control apps to choose from.

 

NAS-Ethernet cable-Router- Ethernet cable-Renderer-USB cable-DAC, with a control app on a tablet or phone communicating via WiFi.

 

You say not to have ethernet in same box as dac because of noise...

What are your thoughts on the PS Audio Direct Stream?

I think this checks all my boxes but ability to play from windows ap or web browser, and it has the ethernet and dac in same box and gets awards?

 

Thoughts?

 

A little out of my range, but it may be something for me to shoot for?

 

http://www.psaudio.com/products/directstream-junior/