Jump to content

davide256

  • Content Count

    3672
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About davide256

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Virginia

Recent Profile Visitors

15334 profile views
  1. Sounds more like a test of what makes the RME sound best than a test of the sources.
  2. If being un-tethered is your thing Kef's wireless LS50 system is quite popular, a jack of all trades for wireless connectivity https://us.kef.com/ls50-wireless-2.html
  3. hmm, what's immediately impressive is added grunt factor in the bass. Need to digest improvements for a while but even with an older DAC like the Metrum Octave I the Iris is doing good things vs a Schiit Eitr DDC.
  4. Basically Euphony is like JRiver was like originally.. designed to play to physically connected devices. Solutions like Roon don't have this issue because they were built for network play (latency). Proper flow control logic is universal, so whatever is discovered with HQPlayer should be applicable to whats missing/weak with UPNP. Whats baffling me is why some Qobuz songs in Stylus are 1 second shorter in song length as buffered using UPNP at an Oppo 103, causing premature song termination. An example would be the sound track to Star Trek - Nemesis, happens on tracks of
  5. They do, but with a good PS for the MZ2 that 1 watt class A can be pretty nice if you avoid Mahler and Fender bass guitar 😁 I have discovered that as a pre the MZ2 was throttling dynamics, I've put the Hafler back into the system with a passive pre, the Hafler is far better without the MZ2 as pre. The problem with maggies is they are so transparent and current hungry it can be easy to hate your electronics.
  6. The Iris arrived today. Hopefully it will be far better than the Schiit Eitr and the Chord Mojo USB implementations I have on hand. Will see
  7. Part of my prior day job used to be parsing feature enhancement requests from fortune 500 companies to add global router support for things in RFC's that weren't enabled... a balancing job of what's the benefit vs whats the hit to network performance/cost of hardware upgrades. So yes, theres a lot in the IP RFC's, some of which has nothing to do with audio file transfers and some of it is unfriendly to applications that need real time performance. You don't use/enable timing data at the IP protocol level. That's a DTE function, part of your data format/protocol before an
  8. Theres a lot going on in IP protocol stack and streamer GUI that doesn't need to be in a DAC interface. As long is it buffers correctly to avoid signal interruption and timing integrity loss I'm good with whatever standard could be evolved to work with an IP server audio application.
  9. Streaming SW = multi volume encyclopedia of functionality RAAT, UPNP = network transport, 1 volume of Streaming SW functionality, not hardware specific I don't want to see IP application complexity /overhead dragging down a virtual point to point connection, making DAC designers step outside their black box. For the DAC designer this should be a firmware chip managing an Ethernet port that behaves to them with data flow logic similar to Toslink/coax/USB and where the distant end uses a device driver designed for WAN connection handshake and data flow to their DAC Ethernet chip
  10. You don't need streaming software to feed a DAC data. You just need a layer above Ethernet that preserves and enhances the data handling logic provided in the local connection protocols of Toslink and coax. Since you could be streaming between a server in Australia and a DAC in the US, this would likely be a standardized device driver functioning at the IP level (network DAC) in a streamer sending data out its wired or fiber Ethernet port, also would likely require pairing like Bluetooth does to verify endpoint DAC is compatible Both ends would have to have bigger window suppor
  11. I don't think you will get useable data out of this but it would be a good practice run to develop/standardize user experience questions, try to make sure everyone covers the same territory in comparative results. The areas that stand out to me 1) treble tone color completeness 2) mid range tone color completeness 3) bass tone color/texture ( bass becomes felt as well as heard) completeness 4) transient attack/decay 5) dynamic range 6) resolution of massed playing instruments, ie full string section playing a theme all at same time is more challenging
  12. It sucks that we don't have an optical ethernet DAC standard implemented supporting rates up to 512 DSD. Being able to stream audio over optical ethernet out direct to any DAC would be my best of all possible worlds... but not if that requires streamer integrated with the DAC because streamer software obsolesces
  13. I stated earlier the valid way to test, a classic A-B blind test.. your test is the equivalent of hearsay... the testers aren't in the room to observe first hand anything that your test method is not capturing "Best practices approach would be to take another cable with similar length, similar A-B ends to the Lush 2, wrap them with like covering, label 1 X, the other Y and send to a series of reviewers to serially provide feedback on a standard form. 5 would probably be enough for directionally correct results if you insured all had good systems, much larger sample required i
×
×
  • Create New...