Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, matthias said:

 

Maybe the interface (Ravenna, USB) is more important than we think.

 

 

In the pro market, it certainly is.  Using Ravenna for Audio over IP (AoIP), you can use long cable runs during recording sessions and network the devices used in the session.  A big win in that market - which is the main focus of the Merging+Anubis product line.

 

Anubis-Control-Room-or-on-Location-monitoring_WEB.thumb.png.f21c924c45c3186af67d4326dc6bf7d1.png

 

https://www.merging.com/products/interfaces/merging+anubis/monitor

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bmoura said:

In the pro market, it certainly is.  Using Ravenna for Audio over IP (AoIP), you can use long cable runs during recording sessions and network the devices used in the session.  A big win in that market - which is the main focus of the Merging+Anubis product line.

 

Agree,

the question for the "audiophile" customer is if it is convenient to use and if Ravenna offers better SQ than USB for example.

 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, matthias said:

if Ravenna offers better SQ than USB for example.

 

As you know, some potential issues with USB have been discussed at length over the years (8kHz packet noise, signal integrity maybe and others):

 

https://uptoneaudio.com/pages/j-swenson-tech-corner

 

But networked inputs (networked DACs/amps/speakers) essentially require a little computer inside. A nice source of noise/RF, inside the DAC housing...

 

So a lot of care needs to be taken with isolation/shielding etc, especially from the sensitive analogue electronics.

 

So like USB, implementation is everything.

 

Merging aren't new to networked converters/interfaces of course, so I trust they have a lot of know-how / experience / lessons learnt.

 

But if you compare NADAC with Hapi for example (not just comparing price), NADAC's networking components AND the Xilinx FPGA (another nice noise/RF source) are on a separate board to the D-to-A board... I would guess that would be intentional..

 

Generally speaking (not talking about just Merging DACs here) I wouldn't just see a networked input on a DAC and assume that is the best sounding input (assuming it has other digital inputs). Implementation is everything.

 

941974392_image(2).thumb.jpeg.d31f1dfcd2f662da4c0c980a5fcbb66d.jpeg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

Merging aren't new to networked converters of course, so I trust they have a lot of know-how / experience.

But if you compare NADAC with Hapi for example (not just comparing price), NADAC's networking board is a separate board to the D-to-A board... I would guess that would be intentional..

 

AFAIK, the networking board is separate in Hapi as well, as it is in Bricasti, Linn.......etc.

In Anubis there seems to be one board only with the Zman as daughterboard which is of course not the complete networking board.

 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, matthias said:

AFAIK, the networking board is separate in Hapi as well, as it is in Bricasti, Linn.......etc.

 

But I also mentioned the Xilinx FPGA above... on NADAC (see above photo) it is on the networking board. So with NADAC they keep digital and analogue components on separate boards (as much as practicably possible anyway).

 

On Hapi the FPGA (nice noise/RF source) is much closer to the D-to-A stage and on the same board.

 

3 minutes ago, matthias said:

In Anubis there seems to be one board only with the Zman as daughterboard which is of course not the complete networking board.

 

Yep, no doubt a space constraint with Anubis of course.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bmoura said:

 

Merging's CEO explained in this video why they use Ravenna/Ethernet and don't use USB for audio. 

Comments start at 4:00 into the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p6fvS9KhZg

 

 

 

 

Ah yes, but they don't go into technical nitty gritty about USB. They moreso cover the functionality and robustness of ethernet in that video. Good points of course.

 

https://uptoneaudio.com/pages/j-swenson-tech-corner

 

They also don't cover the challenges with networked input in that video but I'm sure some of the technical reasons in NADAC they keep digital and analogue components on separate boards (as much as practicably possible anyway), have to do with trying to isolating/separating the analogue components from noise/RF sources (as much as practicably possible)...

 

Especially both the networking components and Xilinx FPGA, together on a separate board to the D-to-A conversion board...

 

1474459790_image(2).thumb.jpeg.ace71ecb5ec3c3dbc8206daed41e3104.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

But I also mentioned the Xilinx FPGA above... on NADAC (see above photo) it is on the networking board. So with NADAC they keep digital and analogue components on separate boards (as much as practicably possible anyway).

On Hapi the FPGA (nice noise/RF source) is much closer to the D-to-A stage and on the same board.

 

If you look at the back of Hapi you see at the left hand exactly the same digital in/outs as on the green board in the NADAC.

So do not see any superiority of NADAC in comparison to Hapi/Horus, quite the contrary.

 

Matt

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, matthias said:

 

If you look at the back of Hapi you see at the left hand exactly the same digital in/outs as on the green board in the NADAC.

So do not see any superiority of NADAC in comparison to Hapi/Horus quite the contrary.

 

Matt

 

 

But the Xilinx FPGA is on the D-to-A board for Hapi, no?

 

Of course it has to be, the way it's designed to be a bit more modular with slots of Hapi/Horus.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Em2016 said:

 

But the Xilinx FPGA is on the D-to-A board, no?

 

I do not think so, the green board is basically the same as the digital in/out board of Hapi.

The inside of Hapi looks much better than inside of NADAC in my view.

 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, matthias said:

I do not think so, the green board is basically the same as the digital in/out board of Hapi.

The inside of Hapi looks much better than inside of NADAC in my view.

 

Matt

 

You sent me a photo of Hapi DA8P board. I can see the Xilinx FPGA on the board 🙂

 

Check out NADAC below. Xilinx FPGA is together with networking components. D-to-A board is separate. More space and more budget to do so of course.

 

2059097468_image(2).thumb.jpeg.4b41d84ad1dace3e43fa003afb8fd0fa.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

You sent me a photo of Hapi DA8P board. I can see the Xilinx FPGA on the board 🙂

 

You can use the Xilinx for different tasks, maybe there is one on the digital in/out board and one on the DAC board

There are no analog outputs on the green board, so it is no DAC board..

 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, matthias said:

You can use the Xilinx for different tasks, maybe there is one on the digital in/out board and one on the DAC board.

 

Matt

 

Sure we are all guessing here.

 

My only point was regarding your comment "if Ravenna offers better SQ than USB for example."

 

 

Ethernet doesn't make it automatically better SQ... I'm sure @Miska will confirm that a poorly implemented network interface can measure worse than RME ADI-2 DAC, the latter which doesn't seem to have any of the normally discussed USB issues...

 

So my only point is, implementation matters even with networked interface...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an example: there is a high end DAC who's networking card is powered by the same power supply that powers the analogue section of the DAC.. so there is no isolation between the networking card/board and the analogue section..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Em2016 said:

So my only point is, implementation matters even with networked interface...

 

Absolutely.

You pay in most cases a premium for Ethernet in comparison to USB, in the case of Bricasti it is 1k.

I can imagine that Ravenna is superior to Ethernet UPnP/DLNA.

 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, matthias said:

You pay in most cases a premium for Ethernet in comparison to USB, in the case of Bricasti it is 1k.

 

As an example: there is a high end DAC who's networking card is powered by the same power supply that powers the analogue section of the DAC.. so there is no isolation between the networking card/board and the analogue section..

 

It's not Bricasti that I'm talking about and I won't mention which DAC, out of respect for the manufacturer.

 

In this case, I don't know if this premium for network input results in better SQ than the DAC's USB input...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

In this case, I don't know if this premium for network input results in better SQ than the DAC's USB input...

 

 Certainly not.

Therefore it makes sense to compare SQ of devices in the same price range but with different interfaces like Anubis vs. Holo Spring2.

 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, matthias said:

 

 Certainly not.

Therefore it makes sense to compare SQ of devices in the same price range but with different interfaces like Anubis vs. Holo Spring2.

 

Matt

 

And in this example I give above, it has nothing to do with Ravenna/UPnP/RAAT or whatever protocol. It’s to do with layout design...

 

Which is also why I shared the NADAC example. But of course there is more space and budget with NADAC to separate digital and analogue components (as much as practicablly possible anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

Which is also why I shared the NADAC example.

 

Because recording engineers like @tailspn are much closer to the source than audiophiles, their equipment should be at least as good as the gear of audiophiles. So I do not believe that NADAC is better than HAPI/HORUS.

 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

If you want to compare interfaces, it would be better to use something that has both Ethernet and USB to the same DAC. If you compare Anubis and Spring you are certainly comparing mostly other things than the way you connect a DAC. The two have very very few things in common.

 

 

That is absolutely right, but when I want to spend 2k I can compare both and buy what sounds better to me.

 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, matthias said:

 

Because recording engineers like @tailspn are much closer to the source than audiophiles, their equipment should be at least as good as the gear of audiophiles. So I do not believe that NADAC is better than HAPI/HORUS.

 

Matt

 

But haven’t you concluded that Anubis Premium  is worse the Hapi Premium, by comparing dynamic range specs?

 

NADAC’s stereo dynamic range: 

  • Stereo dynamic range: 130 dB(A)

 

You need to be consistent if cherry picking spec numbers! 😉

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

But haven’t you concluded that Anubis Premium  is worse the Hapi Premium, by comparing dynamic range specs?

 

NADAC’s stereo dynamic range: 

  • Stereo dynamic range: 130 dB(A)

 

You need to be consistent if cherry picking spec numbers! 😉

 

 

Anubis and Hapi are both professional products, Hapi has better DAC specs.

The DAC chip in DA8P is much better than the DAC chip in NADAC.

Where I am not consistent?

 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, matthias said:

Where I am not consistent?

 

“It is a pity that the DAC in Anubis (ES9026Pro vs. ES9028Pro) has 4dB to 6dB lower specs than the DA8P card in Hapi.”

 

The DAC chip in DA8P is much better than the DAC chip in NADAC.

 

But...

 

NADAC’s stereo dynamic range: 

  • Stereo dynamic range: 130 dB(A)

 

 

So if you're going to conclude Hapi is better than Anubis on dynamic range specs... why ignore NADAC which beats both in this spec right, even with it's old crappy ESS chip ? This is what I mean by being consistent with cherry pick spec numbers.

 

Is it possible that overall implementation/design is more important than just the model of DAC chip used?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...