Not enough on streaming.

[realhifi]

There seems to be a big focus on direct wired computers here.

Networked NAS seems to be the future and I'm wondering where all the chatter is on that direction of computer audio.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi dhe - I don't think there is a single future product type that will eliminate all others. Network based audio is really nice and certainly has a large role to play in the future of high end sound. The lack of discussion about network based audio likely reflects the lack of products on the market.

 

There have been a few really good discussions around here about network based solutions. If you want to discuss them I encourage you to keep posting :~)

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

I keep seeing comments and threads on networked audio float by, so I know they're happening.

 

While not intending to be exhaustive or authoritative, I can say that there seems to be a general feeling among those who've done the comparisons that a better sound quality can be had with a directly connected system over a networked solution.

 

[matan]

Hi,

 

I concur with Chris on this one. The differences between implementations far outweigh the differences between topologies. I really wouldn't get hung-up about one approach being the panacea that triumphs all others; rather, I'd diligently seek something that works well for you and in your system.

 

Perhaps designers are less experienced (or under-budgeted) to explore ways to improve Ethernet streaming. Ethernet poses a different set of challenges beyond the 'traditional' ones related to direct (synchronous) connection and for which there is a large body of experience and documentation. For example, in addition to the physical interface, Ethernet streaming is susceptible to delays introduced by common network switches as they typically use a technique called "store and forward" which means the switch adds a layer of data buffering between source and destination endpoints. There are ways around this, of course, but that's a whole new can of worms and is not universally compatible.

 

There are, of course, aspects that are universally important: clean stable power, isolation, RF immunity, and jitter minimization. Those should really be your starting points when you evaluate one option over another. Your ears should be the arbiter.

 

For example, I evaluated a few approaches when designing my music server. Having the Ethernet stack chipset very close to the DAC didn't end up as a favorable option for sound quality, so direct steaming was out. The topology we eventually settled on was a hybrid approach where one box streams (over a dedicated fiber-optic link and protocol) to another, with the second box then sending AES/EBU to the DAC. In general, isolating the audio storage and metadata database from the DAC is helpful, as is having the least amount of computational power as far away from the DAC and clock. Of course, these two are somewhat mutually opposed –- welcome to the world of audio, my friend, where everything matters and everything is a compromise :-).

 

Best,

 

Matan

 

p.s. I hope to see you at CES; who is going?

 

[realhifi]

"For example, I evaluated a few approaches when designing my music server. Having the Ethernet stack chipset very close to the DAC didn't end up as a favorable option for sound quality, so direct steaming was out. The topology we eventually settled on was a hybrid approach where one box streams (over a dedicated fiber-optic link and protocol) to another, with the second box then sending AES/EBU to the DAC. In general, isolating the audio storage and metadata database from the DAC is helpful, as is having the least amount of computational power as far away from the DAC and clock. Of course, these two are somewhat mutually opposed –- welcome to the world of audio, my friend, where everything matters and everything is a compromise :-)."

 

That doesn't sound too far off base at all. I see that Naim and Rotel have adopted streaming technology as their base fro which to work with digital files. Naim has gone so far as to seperate the streaming from the ripping and server portion but have the dac in the same box as the streamer.

Is your first box a dedicated ripper? Is it then connected to the rest of your network?

 

[realhifi]

Is that because there is simply not many networked high end products yet or because direct connection is thought of as a better way to do digital?

 

[matan]

 

Is your first box a dedicated ripper? Is it then connected to the rest of your network?

 

 

The first box has the hard drives with the audio files, the database, and the network I/O for both your home LAN and the remote controls. It also has a fiber connection to the 2nd box. The 2nd box has a custom operating system in firmware that streams data from the fiber network connection and sends it to the DAC as AES/EBU with minimal jitter and interference. CDs can be ripped (or music otherwise transferred) from a Mac/PC or from a dedicated ripping device over the home LAN to the first box.

 

 

Is that because there is simply not many networked high end products yet or because direct connection is thought of as a better way to do digital?

 

 

It's probably a combination of both; there are less streamers and less experience with them. I'm not of the elk that thinks that one approach is better than the others, so I can't say that a direct connection is always better. The hybrid stream/direct connection worked best for me; that doesn't mean it's universally so.

 

Matan