[jabbr]

Thanks!

Thunderbolt (3) awaits - not directly relevant to AOIP.

I have abandoned UPnP altogether, There is no doubt that playing direct is best.

You know how one thing leads to another. If I were starting from scratch I wouldn't change anything (except the blood, sweat and tears). The rest of the system is:
| Blue Jeans Cat 6 ethernet cable (40') | Focusrite RedNet D16 AES digital interface | van den Hul AES-EBU 110 Ohm Professional Halogen Free cable (0.8m) | Dangerous Convert-2 DAC [Word Clock Out to Focusrite RedNet D16 AES via Pro Co Premium Canare cable (3')] | Bespoke Achtung Audio Silver XLR/RCA "Pin 3 Floating" interconnects (1.2m) | Linn AV 5103 System Controller | Linn Silver interconnects (1.2m) | 2 x stereo Quad 909 power amps with identical DADA revisions | vertically bi-amping via Linn LK400 (c. 3m) | Snell Type A III (woofers restored Dave Smith, Romford July 2011; mid-ranges restored Paul Seago, Great Yarmouth July 2016)

foobar - and only foobar (192k courtesy of Sox). With this PC I can set the foobar output buffer to minimum and it will do anything I ask instantly - no hiccoughs.

Other settings:
DVS:
       Dante Latency: 4ms
       ASIO Buffer: 32
       ASIO Encoding: 32 bits
       ASIO Latency: 1ms
RedNet Control:
       SR: 192000
       ASIO Buffer: 32
Dante Controller:
       SP3 Device Config
              Sample Rate: 192k
              Encoding: PCM 32
       D16 Device Config
              Sample Rate: 192k
              Latency - 250us (150us is greyed out)

It's no derailment at all for you to ask. We are milking AOIP. All the digital harshness has gone. There is *no* fatigue. The sound is beautifully warm, and it hasn't "burned in" at all.

I notice all electrical wiring between PC and Rednet.
A known fact is that cat cable connections are not immune to transfering electrical noise. Just look at the improvements to be had by using GISO GB isolators.
So I guess the new PC is electrically less noisy than your old laptops, but that shouldn't be much of a revelation.

Should try fiber media converters and see if things improve even further.

 

[astrostar59]

Rb2013
 
REDNET 3/Cerious Graphene/Mutec 3+ USB (SPDIF)/Antelope OCX (RN wClock)
 
Please could you explain the parts in this chain and how it would hook up to a Mac for example? I am thinking I need to enthernet out to the Rednet, then the Mutec has SPDIF out?
 
What is the total cost of this chain? I think my rough tally is about 4K Euros.
 
Another question, how do you connect the Rednet to the Mutec, via USB or BNC?

 

[gldgate]

  How great would it be if AOIP leveled the playing field somewhat and allowed us to focus more on downstream components (speakers, amps, pres) that actually played the music like the "old" days???!!  I miss those days.....

 
I kind of miss those days too. Spending time thinking about your next pair of speakers is probably a better relative investment than worrying about which USB decrapifiers you need.

 

[rb2013]

  Rb2013
 
REDNET 3/Cerious Graphene/Mutec 3+ USB (SPDIF)/Antelope OCX (RN wClock)
 
Please could you explain the parts in this chain and how it would hook up to a Mac for example? I am thinking I need to enthernet out to the Rednet, then the Mutec has SPDIF out?
 
What is the total cost of this chain? I think my rough tally is about 4K Euros.
 
Another question, how do you connect the Rednet to the Mutec, via USB or BNC?

Sure - Cat 6 Ethernet from my PC Intel NIC card to the Rednet3, then DB25 to AES cable for the Rednet 3 out to the Mutec  input (Mutec as AES reclocker)>Mutec SPDIF to DAC (very, very good results with the Synergistic Research Element Copper (silver bullet) digital fed by a SR Galileo - next best Audience AU 24 SE - very far back the Audio Sens Silver Statement).  The Antelope OCX by Oyaide BNC to Rednet WClock input.
 
The Rednet 3 is $1K + Mutec $1.1K + OCX (I bought used for $650)Better the new Live Clock $900=$3K  add in another $500 for top digital cables (used prices) + $750 for power chords (if you can find CT Graphenes for that price - good luck). 
 
Yeah about $4300.  Or using a BURL B2B DAC - just add a $250 Dante Brooklyn II card.  No need for the Mutec, Rednet, or digital cables.  Only one power cord as well.  The OCXO clock is optional - after modding to remove the BURL SMPS and running it on a LPS.
 
BTW the Rednet, Mutec and Antelope all use SMPS's.  See Uptone's Alex Crespi's excellent post on my XU208 thread on SMPS issues.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/803111/xmos-xu208-usb-bridges-the-latest-gen-has-arrived/3570#post_12883888

 

[motberg]

   
I kind of miss those days too. Spending time thinking about your next pair of speakers is probably a better relative investment than worrying about which USB decrapifiers you need.

That would be the conventional wisdom, but I am not so sure any more... being able to tweak the source to better match current competent speakers may be money as well spent as upgrading the speakers themselves..
In my case, my speakers bout maybe 7 years ago were fairly well reviewed... but when I first got them I was sure they would be gone within a couple years max...
but now I am just shocked at how nice they sound and favorably compare to most of what heard at a recent audio show.
 
I am still speaker shopping - and to me currently speakers a higher priority than going AOIP (mostly due to I do not need/desire SPDIF conversion) - but with my seriously improved source I know I need be very careful that the speaker investment will in fact be an upgrade..
 
Also these investments in the source will maintain their value and contribute to everything downstream.. even if they get outdated every few months..jejejeje..
also I would think the AOIP gear will hold its resale value due to the additional large project studio market  

 

[rb2013]

  How great would it be if AOIP leveled the playing field somewhat and allowed us to focus more on downstream components (speakers, amps, pres) that actually played the music like the "old" days???!!  I miss those days.....

When I started this USB DDC rolling escapade many, many years ago - started with a lowly M2Tech Hiface 1 - I had no idea it would have led to this.  Even when I had the M2Tech - my main computer interface was a fire face 1394b RME FF800.  It was better, much better.  Ditched the RME when I got the EVO + LPS.
 
I was an analog lunatic for decades - ending up with a near sota analog rig - digital was crap in comparison.  I mean really expensive CD players I had (Meridan, Krell, Levinson) it was a joke.  About 12 years ago began the computer music server path, still not competitive, fast forward to today - not a joke any more.  Right around the time I finished the Uber USB chain with the F-1 and Startech GB LAN USB extender - I declared DIGITAL the winner!  Yes it was better then the best analog I could muster - with just my Dynavector XV1S costing more then the whole insane USB chain.
 
That led to the next leap past near sota analog - this AOIP stuff.
 
As I've said many times on this thread and my other XU208 thread - never in a million years would have expected these USB gizmos and the whole PC to DAC chain to make such a major SQ difference.  It really still is shocking to me - in good way...

 

 

[rb2013]

 
That would be the conventional wisdom, but I am not so sure any more... being able to tweak the source to better match current competent speakers may be money as well spent as upgrading the speakers themselves..
In my case, my speakers bout maybe 7 years ago were fairly well reviewed... but when I first got them I was sure they would be gone within a couple years max...
but now I am just shocked at how nice they sound and favorably compare to most of what heard at a recent audio show.
 
I am still speaker shopping - and to me currently speakers a higher priority than going AOIP (mostly due to I do not need/desire SPDIF conversion) - but with my seriously improved source I know I need be very careful that the speaker investment will in fact be an upgrade..
 
Also these investments in the source will maintain their value and contribute to everything downstream.. even if they get outdated every few months..jejejeje..
also I would think the AOIP gear will hold its resale value due to the additional large project studio market  

Well said - I went from these:


To these:


And couldn't be happier...from $30k Talon Firebirds to $800 Maggie 1.6QR's.
 
The imaging, detail, focus, tonality, transparency, and sound staging is the most realistic I have ever heard.  Truly in the room life sized and like - presence.
The money spent upstream made that possible - the Maggies were able to use that 'information' to do magic - pretty amazing speakers.  I've had them for 6 years and they still impress me.
 
PS and with the added bass depth and focus with AOIP - the Velodyne sub was no longer needed - it's gone.

 

[johnjen]

 
Thanks for the info - very interesting..
regarding "separation signal's data and timing that is being sent from the 'source' to the dac" .. if I understand correctly, just using a SPDIF connection would recombine the data and timing, so maybe the preferred D16 usage would be to include the wordclock out to the DAC via BNC ?
If so, then it seems maybe for audiophiles AOIP to i2S via card or box, (or direct to DAC) would be technically a benefit by eliminating the SPDIF conversion?

To be a bit more precise…
It really isn't that the timing and signal data are separated, but that the ethernet protocol doesn't use the timing info from the data stream itself, rather it uses it's own clock to 're-time' the data itself and ignores the timing from the incoming data stream altogether.
This is then passed along to the digital audio converter (AES, SPDIF, USB Toslink, etc.) which then feeds the dac.
 
I chose the word separated in my previous post because it was 'easier' to try and explain and to help provide more contrast to these 2 critical aspects.
 
This method of handling these 2 portions (timing and the data itself) of the data stream, is in contrast to both SPDIF and USB which rely upon the 'embedded' timing of the data stream itself, which is a major source of additional jitter among other variables and are problematic.
 
And if the output of this data stream (from the ethernet data path) is passed along using either AES or I2s, then the data and timing info remain separate as they are used by the dac.
 
These 2 protocols (SPDIF & USB) are the 'consumer' versions of the method of passing the audio data to the dac, where as AES is a 'pro audio' (meaning more robust) and I2s is a variant of HDMI (or is it visa versa?) which has not been formalized into a set structure (pinout and signal definitions) that all who use it agree upon.
 
I2s is potentially 'better' but really is best for use with short cable runs and is mostly an internal digital signal pathway to the main digital signal bus.
 
An example, if a Audinate brooklyn card (or similar) were located inside a dac and fed an ethernet signal and it's output fed the dac via I2s, it could be the ideal means to get the digital signal from the source (computer) directly to the dac with minimal signal processing in between.
And assuming the word clock in the dac was 'good enough' (or could be externally supplied) this would be a single solution dac instead of several digital boxes between the source and the dac itself.
 
JJ

 

[johnjen]

   
I kind of miss those days too. Spending time thinking about your next pair of speakers is probably a better relative investment than worrying about which USB decrapifiers you need.

As a point of contrast.
 
The general consensus is to dump Big $$$$ into the speakers and build up the electronics as a secondary means of attaining 'Better'.
 
My current setup is ≈ 10K$ of electronics driving ≈ $75 speakers and I am hearing the SQ improve considerably as the signal source feeding them is steadily refined and improved and in multiple ways.
 
Now granted this is a near field setup and I don't expect speakers to match what my 800's provide.
Even so this approach kinda blows the 'old conventional wisdom' away, in that if/when I do get 'better' speakers the signal fed them will be already tweaked and thus they will tend to perform closer to their true potential.
 
IOW if the signal feeding speakers (or HP's) is tweako then that signal CAN be delivered and the acoustic results will be all the more 'faithfully' to the original signal.
 
Just another approach to consider.
 
JJ

 

[jabbr]

As a point of contrast.

The general consensus is to dump Big $$$$ into the speakers and build up the electronics as a secondary means of attaining 'Better'.

My current setup is ≈ 10K$ of electronics driving ≈ $75 speakers and I am hearing the SQ improve considerably as the signal source feeding them is steadily refined and improved and in multiple ways.

Now granted this is a near field setup and I don't expect speakers to match what my 800's provide.
Even so this approach kinda blows the 'old conventional wisdom' away, in that if/when I do get 'better' speakers the signal fed them will be already tweaked and thus they will tend to perform closer to their true potential.

IOW if the signal feeding speakers (or HP's) is tweako then that signal CAN be delivered and the acoustic results will be all the more 'faithfully' to the original signal.

Just another approach to consider.

JJ

I would say that is grossly out of balance.

Your electronics will never be able to offer the quality that your speakers are probably capable of. It explains also why every change in your electronics is an improvement, which will probably continue to be so, until your electronics match the level of the speakers.

It is one possible approach, but I would say that much of the invested capital could be more effectively spend on better quality electronics and bring more balance into the whole setup.

In the end it is still "garbage in = garbage out" and IMHO best value for money comes from a balanced system with best quality source you can get and work from that down the chain; the "source first" approach.

 

[johnjen]

I would say that is grossly out of balance.

Your electronics will never be able to offer the quality that your speakers are probably capable of. It explains also why every change in your electronics is an improvement, which will probably continue to be so, until your electronics match the level of the speakers.

It is one possible approach, but I would say that much of the invested capital could be more effectively spend on better quality electronics and bring more balance into the whole setup.

In the end it is still "garbage in = garbage out" and IMHO best value for money comes from a balanced system with best quality source you can get and work from that down the chain; the "source first" approach.

Um, I use my 800's as the arbiter of what is better, not the speakers.
And my electronics are quite nice actually and I do rather enjoy this system.
 
But they are after all ≈$75 speakers so I don't expect them to keep up, and true to form they don't even come close.
 
But my point was that the degree of improvement that both of us have noticed is, as the system that feeds both the headphones and speakers steps up, the speakers reflect these changes and in surprising ways.
 
Despite the fact that they are ≈$75 speakers.
In fact they are connected to my ROK amp using $125 speaker cables.
 
This tells me that these Dayton $40/pair + my mods ($30 for tweeters and better caps) actually do have scaleability and far more than I would ever have suspected.
 
JJ

 

[jabbr]

  ...
 
But they are after all ≈$75 speakers so I don't expect them to keep up, and true to form they don't even come close.
 
...
 
JJ

JJ
 
Do you really mean $75 speakers or $75k speakers?
I read $75k speakers, so I'm sorry if I misread that.
 
Cheers

 

[johnjen]

Not a problem. 

 
I figured there was a misreading or sumpt'n.  

 
$75 for the pair…
 
Dayton B652's
https://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-b652-6-1-2-2-way-bookshelf-speaker-pair--300-652
 
I can't even imagine how they can make the drivers cost so little.
 
JJ

 

[astrostar59]

 
When I started this USB DDC rolling escapade many, many years ago - started with a lowly M2Tech Hiface 1 - I had no idea it would have led to this.  Even when I had the M2Tech - my main computer interface was a fire face 1394b RME FF800.  It was better, much better.  Ditched the RME when I got the EVO + LPS.
 

Ok this is getting interesting. Can I ask (having only enough money for one box at 1K, I have at the moment the EVO full stack and LPS x 2, one for the clock, one for the EVO. I also use a Mac Mini tweaked up with 12V DC supply board and using Audirvana+ Async / Direct mode into a 25K DAC via SPDIF.
 
I was thinking the Mutec MC-3 + USB would be better than my EVO stack on it's own, but I read 2 reviews and they are real close,. no big deal. And TBH I don't dig the fact the Mutec is using USB power to drive the XIMOS chip board.
 
So can I use the Rednet ethernet switch from a Mac Mini and feed my DAC from the Rednet with SPDIF out, and not have to buy the Mutec as well? If yes, would the Rednet on it's own beat the EVO stack by some margin?
 
BTW I use the TotalDAC USB cable/filter and it elevated the EVO still further i.e. smoother in the treble for example.
 
Thanks in advance.

 

[mourip]

 
That would be the conventional wisdom, but I am not so sure any more... being able to tweak the source to better match current competent speakers may be money as well spent as upgrading the speakers themselves..

 
+1
 
Almost all of my efforts this past year have been on my front end including the DAC. Luckily the rest of my equipment has been able to pass on these changes well. I use a pair of Omega Alnico single driver floor-standers and they just keep scaling up with the ever cleaner front end...