[mourip]

  Update on the Focusrite/Audinate DVS on Mac behavioral 'quirks'.
 
Since DVS is an Audinate program they are now 'looking into it' along with Focusrite and Jriver.
 
There are additional behavioral quirks I've been noticing in Media Center that may or may not be related to the Dante network, but I added this additional layer as well just in case they are related.
 
I have no idea how long it will take Audinate to come back with a response.
 
And I also raised the issue about the persistence of the Sample Rate Follow feature on Mac and how it differs from the pc.
They are sending this up the chain of command to see what can be done…
It would be nice if they were able to arrive at a 'set and forget' function instead of having to run RedNet Control all the time…
 
JJ

 
I have a service request in for the Rednet Control issue also and it has been passed along to Focusrite UK.

 

[rb2013]

Don't get hung up on this Dante latency as it is irrelevant imho, for how we use the Rednets.

This Dante latency is only important where multiple Dante chains are used in parallel and need to in-sync.
This Dante latency is the latency between the Dante source device and the Dante receiver device. When using multiple receivers you can imagine how different latencies in each of the chains can have an effect. Dante protocol makes sure all chains remain in sync by applying the longest latency to all the chains.

When using a single chain like we do, it is not too relevant how long a Dante latency is when kept in reasonable margins and it will have no effect on the sound result, except when it becomes too long for the buffer size/sample rate and dropouts will occur. This situation causing dropouts is then a network issue and not so much an issue of DVS vs PCIe-card. I can imagine that with bad network configuration and management you can create dropouts with a PCIe-card as well.

The main features of the PCIe-card is that it supports 128 channels and has 3usec latency, both of which are not particularly useful for us.

Oh not hung up on it at all.  I'm getting extremely low latency with DVS right now.  Using an Intel NIC that cost $50, never considered a RN PCIe - just answering a question someone asked.

 

[rb2013]

  Some very good information here. I will be patiently awaiting your thread on the Dante version of the Burl B2 Bomber DAC and its modifications. I truly believe that it could be the "end-game" DAC until another technology comes along that is even better than Dante, (If that ever happens.) I just find the idea of a simplified audio chain so appealing. Just running three devices, a PC, a DAC, and an amp, but still getting the very best audio reproduction possible.
 
 
 
Thanks for posting this, be sure to let every one know when you find out about the pricing / availability of the Dante equipped B2 Bomber DAC from Sweetwater. I am very curious to find out where the modified Burl B2 fits into "the big list" too. I am hoping it sits right at the top! As for the Burl B2 vs. the Yggy, the overall sound may come down to personal preference, but for me it is no contest because of Dante and the lack of a need for extra devices like Mutec, LiveClock, etc. with the Burl B2.
 
- InsanityOne 

Yes I agree.  Just want to say I compared the BURL with a AES and a SPDIF feed from the RN3/Mutec MC-3+ USB (as reclocker) to the built in Dante connection.  The difference in SQ was pretty significant.
 
To beat my current totl DACs with the RN/Mutec combination - the BURL needs a PS change from SMPS to LPS, and some critical component upgrades.  We are working on trying a dual LPS configuration that would run separate LPS feeds for the digital and analog stages. 
 
The Rednet responds very well to the Antelope OCX clock - as does the BURL but no where near the same degree after the PS and other mods.  In fact, the modded BURL may sound better running on it's internal clocks - the SQ is a bit more focused.  The BURL with 'clean' power is really a major step up in SQ.  This makes sense as the clocks on the Dante and BURL board are being fed much less noise.  These femto clocks are extremely sensitive to noise on the DC and ground plane.

 

[jabbr]

The main disadvantages I see with the Burl for home use are:

- Lack of auto-sensing/auto-changing input rates, it's manual by dial.

- For those who like a DAC/Pre combined unit, the Burl doesn't have volume control.

True on both counts.

With repect to the remark "Lack of auto-sensing/auto-changing input rates, it's manual by dial.", this is not 100% true.

When using an external word clock the Burl B2 will follow the sample rate of the external word clock. This opens opportunities to implement an auto-switching setup using an auto-switching word clock.

 

[rb2013]

With repect to the remark "Lack of auto-sensing/auto-changing input rates, it's manual by dial.", this is not 100% true.

When using an external word clock the Burl B2 will follow the sample rate of the external word clock. This opens opportunities to implement an auto-switching setup using an auto-switching word clock.

How would the ext clock know what SR to change to - if the BURL is not changing it's SR - and then syncing to it?  The BURL has a Wclock input  and output - but as a DAC it needs to be manually switched.  This is different with other DACs.  This I confirmed with the BURL technical people regarding the Dante version.  I suppose you could change the SR on the ext Wclock manually - but that then defeats the autoswitching I suppose. 

 
In any event this auto-switching thing is immaterial to me.  It's the vastly superior SQ of a built in Dante Brooklyn II card to a AES/SPDIF route, that I find most compelling.
 
The known jitter on AES/SPDIF receivers is avoided. Better then I2S.

 

[Clemmaster]

The Focusrite 4Pre is at the same price, with dual Thunderbolt and a ****-ton of analog I/O (+ the Dante, of course).
 
Was very interested in this one, but feel like paying for a ton of extra I don't need.
If only the Burl had volume control...

 

[jabbr]

With repect to the remark "Lack of auto-sensing/auto-changing input rates, it's manual by dial.", this is not 100% true.


When using an external word clock the Burl B2 will follow the sample rate of the external word clock. This opens opportunities to implement an auto-switching setup using an auto-switching word clock.

How would the ext clock know what SR to change to - if the BURL is not changing it's SR - and then syncing to it?  The BURL has a Wclock input  and output - but as a DAC it needs to be manually switched.  This is different with other DACs.  This I confirmed with the BURL technical people regarding the Dante version.  I suppose you could change the SR on the ext Wclock manually - but that then defeats the autoswitching I suppose. 

In any event this auto-switching thing is immaterial to me.  It's the vastly superior SQ of a built in Dante Brooklyn II card to a AES/SPDIF route, that I find most compelling.

The known jitter on AES/SPDIF receivers is avoided. Better then I2S.

The 'trick' would be using the fact that it is all AOIP. One could set up a parallel chain with a second Dante device purely for detecting the SR and use the output of that as a signal into the auto-switching Word Clock to select the right SR and use that word clock as external word clock into the Burl B2.

I didn't say it is a 'neat' or cheap solution But as I may be looking to buy a new DAC anyhow and am in the possesion of both a D16 and CC1, it is a setup I could try at some point.


But for me the main issue with the Burl B2 is that its output signal is a very high Pro-level output, while I have an extremely sensitive consumer level Pre-amp. I would likely need about 30dB attenuation to match the two. And what would that mean for the sound quality?? An expensive trial !!

 

[jazzfan]

It is not a Focusrite issue but an Yggy issue.
Schiit used off-spec SPDIF connectors (50 Ohm instead of 75 Ohm) for a batch of Yggy's. You should send your Yggy back to Schiit and have it fixed.

 
Yes, you're correct. There was an issue with the Yggy's BNC connectors, and I still haven't sent my Yggy back yet since I've not had a need to use BNC.
 
The issue I'm experiencing, however, is with S/PDIF from the RCA output of the RN3. My Yggy refuses to recognize the signal from the RN3 via RCA coax. I also tested sending S/PDIF via RCA coax from the RN3 to two other DACs, an iFi micro iDSD and a Benchmark DAC1Pre. Both DACs worked which suggests the issue is related to the Yggy's ability to handle the S/PDIF data stream from the RN3.
 
To further test the Yggy's S/PDIF RCA input, I sent a S/PDIF signal from the iFi micro iDSD and this worked as well. So the Yggy's S/PDIF RCA input appears to be functional given an acceptable signal.
 

   
 
Just to point out that atomicbob's interesting findings (red cells in quoted post) re RedNet/Yggy failure (ostensibly because of obedience to a Copy Prohibited flag) via spdif *RCA/Coax* and BNC (not AES/XLR which is unaffected) got confounded with the eventual discovery that the spdif *RCA/Coax* input (not AES/XLR and don't know about BNC) of my new Yggy was faulty per se (and it got returned - I now use a Convert-2 like @mhamel). gldgate also experienced RedNet/Yggy failure via RCA presumably without the same fault; however, I'm not sure to what extent we established that Yggy always baulks at RedNet via RCA/BNC - since **Focusrite benchtested with a demo Yggy via RCA (not my faulty one) and asserted firmly that it worked**. (This being so it is unlikely that Focusrite will pursue the *putative* Yggy communication failure with any vigour at all.)

 
I believe the issue I'm seeing is in line with the issue surfaced by atomicbob because of the results of my tests as described in my response to jabbr.  If Focusrite decides not take action, I'll need to turn to Schiit for resolution of this problem.

 

[rb2013]

The 'trick' would be using the fact that it is all AOIP. One could set up a parallel chain with a second Dante device purely for detecting the SR and use the output of that as a signal into the auto-switching Word Clock to select the right SR and use that word clock as external word clock into the Burl B2.

I didn't say it is a 'neat' or cheap solution

But as I may be looking to buy a new DAC anyhow and am in the possesion of both a D16 and CC1, it is a setup I could try at some point.


But for me the main issue with the Burl B2 is that its output signal is a very high Pro-level output, while I have an extremely sensitive consumer level Pre-amp. I would likely need about 30dB attenuation to match the two. And what would that mean for the sound quality?? An expensive trial !!

I think you are right with the new Dante Control release - have not tried it.  Funny in the BURL manual they don't show how the B2 DAC would act as the master with an ext clock.  They just show it as Slave to the B2 ADC with the ext clock - but then say all the devices must be set to the same SR in the Dante Control.  Generally in a studio setup the DAW would be the master and all other deviced slaved to it.
 
Your pre-amp situation is rather unique.  Maybe time for a different one?

 

[jabbr]

....
Your pre-amp situation is rather unique.  Maybe time for a different one?

That would also require a new power amp because that relies on certain frequency 'filtering' performed by the pre-amp, and would make obsolete 3 power supplies to the power-/pre-amp combo. Costs: ca £22,000
Bit expensive just to change a pre-amp and BTW I love its sound

So thanks for the suggestion, but no thanks

 

[Iving]

Originally Posted by jazzfan /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
My Yggy refuses to recognize the signal from the RN3 via RCA coax ... To further test the Yggy's S/PDIF RCA input, I sent a S/PDIF signal from the iFi micro iDSD and this worked as well. So the Yggy's S/PDIF RCA input appears to be functional given an acceptable signal.

 
Yes - it would appear that the RCA/Coax input to your Yggy is not faulty per se. Your problem is like gldgate's and seems to be explained by atomicbob's analyses; i.e, the Yggy (unlike the Gungnir) baulks at (or respects) the Copy Prohibited flag (unlike a number of "unfussy" DACs as can be determined reading the whole thread and from other user experiences). The caveat is Focusrite's very firm and repeated assertion that a demo Yggy works fine with a D16 AES via RCA/Coax on the bench. So there is a conundrum.
 
Quote:

If Focusrite decides not take action, I'll need to turn to Schiit for resolution of this problem.

 
I dare say Focusrite will not decide not to take action! Good luck with Schiit.

 

[InsanityOne]

 
Yes I agree.  Just want to say I compared the BURL with a AES and a SPDIF feed from the RN3/Mutec MC-3+ USB (as reclocker) to the built in Dante connection.  The difference in SQ was pretty significant.
 
To beat my current totl DACs with the RN/Mutec combination - the BURL needs a PS change from SMPS to LPS, and some critical component upgrades.  We are working on trying a dual LPS configuration that would run separate LPS feeds for the digital and analog stages. 
 
The Rednet responds very well to the Antelope OCX clock - as does the BURL but no where near the same degree after the PS and other mods.  In fact, the modded BURL may sound better running on it's internal clocks - the SQ is a bit more focused.  The BURL with 'clean' power is really a major step up in SQ.  This makes sense as the clocks on the Dante and BURL board are being fed much less noise.  These femto clocks are extremely sensitive to noise on the DC and ground plane.

 
Another good set of information here:
 

• Wow that is very impressive to hear that a modified (or was this pre-modification?) Burl B2 was able to beat out an RN3 + Mutec MC-3+ Chain, but the less connections the better, so I am not surprised one bit by this outcome. 
• Would the Burl B2 still require an SMPS to LPS (or dual, separate LPS) if you used it (un-modded) in conjunction with an upgraded power cable and a PS Audio P3 or a similar regeneration product? Or is it truly how the power is delivered / transported once inside of the B2 that makes a difference?
• During my research on the Burl B2 I have discovered that it has absolutely zero capacitors or transformers. So, that does not leave many easy "critical parts" to upgrade. I would assume that you upgraded the fuse, but what other parts are lacking within the B2?
• I find it very interesting that you think the B2 sounds better (or very close to the same) without the use of an "upgraded" external WCLK. That is another very significant cost savings versus a RedNet / Mutec chain.

 
Thanks again for your very insightful comments!
 
- InsanityOne 

 

[joelha]

This is a question I've wanted to ask for a while.

I've read that one of the issues with traditional digital audio playback (PC’s and cd players for example) is that the data is processed in real time, not allowing for corrections. Typically computers, when they detect that a packet isn’t accurate, go back and get the packet again until it gets the correct data.

Is one of the benefits of using Dante/Focusrite products that we’re now getting the same “go back and get the correct data packet” benefits of general computing?

In addition to great electrical isolation, is that one of the reasons the sound of this system is so good?

I’m not a technical guy (which to some might be obvious by now), so please do correct anything I’ve mis-stated.

Thanks,

Joel

 

[rb2013]

This is a question I've wanted to ask for a while.

I've read that one of the issues with traditional digital audio playback (PC’s and cd players for example) is that the data is processed in real time, not allowing for corrections. Typically computers, when they detect that a packet isn’t accurate, go back and get the packet again until it gets the correct data.

Is one of the benefits of using Dante/Focusrite products that we’re now getting the same “go back and get the correct data packet” benefits of general computing?

In addition to great electrical isolation, is that one of the reasons the sound of this system is so good?

I’m not a technical guy (which to some might be obvious by now), so please do correct anything I’ve mis-stated.

Thanks,

Joel

Yes the IP protocol, I believe called RTP does have error correction. Unlike some USB audio protocols. And yes AOIP offers Ethernet's inherent galvanic isolation.

 

[joelha]

Yes the IP protocol, I believe called RTP does have error correction. Unlike some USB audio protocols. And yes AOIP offers Ethernet's inherent galvanic isolation.

Thanks Rob.

So I have to wonder how much of what we're all hearing is due to error correction?

I ask because in the past, I've seen how different ethernet cables and even ethernet to optical devices can improve the sound.

Joel