AUDIO over IP - REDNET 3 & 16 Review. AES67 Sets A New Standard for Computer Audio

[Iving]

btw my "circumstances" have revolved such that now, being an online trader, I have more vinyl records than I could ever listen to
but whereas once for a quick thrill I chucked on a vinyl track
now i am more likely to click on a mouse
c'est la vie
what's left of it anyway

 

[motberg]

  [What kind of cosmic coincidence is that - that the vinyl era 1956-1980 matches exactly the era of revolutionary and worthwhile non-classical music]

Well said.....  +1

 

[Iving]

  Well said.....  +1

 
Of course Joe Bussard would say something very similar about the 78 phonograph disc record/shellac era say 1900-1956. If your poison is jazz and blues you might agree. "Desperate Man Blues" is the most delightful and engaging music-documentary film I have seen. Joe Bussard is 80 - same age as my father. Perhaps it's a generation thing. I don't care to speculate too long on what Joe Bussard would make of AOIP. Don't care either to imagine future generations reminiscing on the digital era. But I speak for myself only. Of course.

 

[rb2013]

 
Agree. Most in the audio industry recommend a similar budget for DAC/Amplifier/Speakers. Yes there are some great budget DACs, some great book shelf type speakers, but getting it too far out of wack is just bonkers. It also applies to HP as well IMO. I don't believe a very fast and revealing headphone will be relaxed listening with a 300 USD DAC for example.

Well said - I agree.  There are a few giant killers in the HP amp arena in my experience, but with speakers as with HPs there are boundaries.  The new ELAC speakers are getting rave reviews and are very reasonably priced.  But $75?  No the B6 bookshelf's are $280 and the floorstanding F6 $380.  If I were starting out I would try a pair.
 
On this thread we are talking sota digital audio - with AOIP chains in the $3-$4K region.  So to hear the differences of what this new new audio tech can do will require better gear.

 

[rb2013]

I think JJ means the difference is significant that even cheapo (albeit decent near field for the price) speakers benefit from the focusrite.

@rb2013 how's the Burl B2 Dante stock vs Rednet /your dac? I'm thinking maybe I keep my rednet and up my amp/dac. But if the B2 Dante is good stock maybe I consider it more.

Progressing very nicely.  So far the BURL is a major step ahead - although lacking a bit of the tonal richness (euphonics?) of my heavily modded tubed DAC60.  We're working on adding a digital output - so I can compare the BURL as a DAC to the DAC60 DAC by SPDIF.  This is very tricky to do.  Would have been great for BURL to have added a digital out to their DAC.  The BURL uses no output coupling capacitors or transformers - but custom made discrete class A opamps.
 

  Originally Posted by Soundsgoodtome /img/forum/go_quote.gif

I think JJ means the difference is significant that even cheapo (albeit decent near field for the price) speakers benefit from the focusrite.
 
 
Yes to both of these.
 
And that when a well executed source is delivered with precision, it's as important as the HP's or speakers, perhaps even more so.
 
As in GIGO!
 
JJ

GIGO - well that we can agree on.

 

[rb2013]

I got excited reading about AOIP solutions. However, it seems my Chord Dave dont benefit from as its completely isolated from USB jitter. Secondly, Dave dont seems to benefit from a external clocks(master clock/word clock). Both issued been address by Chord Dave internal design.

Can you guys shed some lights on it?

trial and return is not an option as i live in Asia.

The DAVE is a masterpiece of engineering- congrats on getting it.  It has a very good USB section, but also excellent SPDIF inputs.  Some how Chord is able to get 384k on the SPDIF input to work.  I still think that the AOIP would be superior - and that has to do with eliminating  USB 'Packet ' noise - which can cross even GI isolation (see John Swenson's explaination of USB Packet noise and modulation in the data signal).
 

 
Seems as though any USB feed / input is compromised regardless of the design, as USB has unavoidable problems such as jitter induced latency, noise amongst others. I fancy giving Rednet a go to see what all the fuss is about, but it does sound promising. Some of the 25K+ DAC are now offering Ethernet input so they have recognised the bottlenecks. Having said all that, I have got USB better than any CDP I have tried, so all good IMO. Bring it on.

Yes  - but most DAC manufacturers like MSB implement a 'Render' solution or DNLA/UpNP.  With the MSB one is able to use any audio player.  But it's not AES67 AOIP.
http://www.msbtech.com/products/serverComp.php?Page=dac5home
 
USB can get very good with enough effort - better then any spinner I have herad as well.  AOIP is beyond that.

 

[rb2013]

http://www.head-fi.org/t/766517/chord-electronics-dave/3390

Please refer to post 3395 for reference.

Chord Dave has no word clock input.

I would love to try out the combo AOIP/10M OCXO clock/Antelope liveclock/3xMutec spdif reclock if it gets me close to the ultimate vinyl/tape sound.

It has been lacking comparison on how AOIP as the ultimate digital solution stack up against the Vinyl/tape sound.

You haven't read my many posts in comparing near sota analog to my uber USB chain or AOIP.
 
I have posted this here many times - my old $30K (not bragging - just giving a crude measure of my analog rig) has finally been surpassed by computer audio.  My ultimate analog system took over a decade of equipment rolling to 'perfect'.  The computer digital source much longer - but after 14 yrs finally did it.  Sold off all my analog gear (but keeping my LPs as I expect they will appreciate in value).
 
Analog rig VPI Super Scout Master Signature/Dynavector XV1S (Benz Ebony LP)/Nordost Valhalla tonearm cabling and IC's/Bent Audio Silver Step up transformers/CJ tubed Phono Pre (NOS Seimens CCa's)/CJ Art 2 Pre....

 

[rb2013]

   
My RedNet setup is not what you describe as "the ultimate digital solution" [we are not all agreed and anyway we are not there yet!], but see this post for a head start: http://www.head-fi.org/t/806827/audio-over-ip-rednet-3-16-review-aes67-sets-a-new-standard-for-computer-audio/1170#post_12743564. A recent PC upgrade catapulted the RedNet/Dangerous Convert-2 score from 8 to 9 (see recent post).
 
All that said, I still believe - imho - but I will attest to the end - there is something about vinyl that never will be beaten - a certain kind of analogue experience that digits will never wholly replace. My comparative scores (6 for LP12/Ittok/Troika vs. 8 or 9 for RedNet/Convert-2 depending on PC) are "satisfaction" scores - subjective of course.
 
A spend-for-spend comparison is what is needed - How does 5k spent before the pre-amp - analogue vs. AOIP compare? That requires 10k on those sources alone. I haven't been able to do that. No-one to my knowledge has come close either. Not in this thread anyway.
 
I do think it a possible error to think you can *replace* vinyl with AOIP. You cannot undo history. You cannot insert something else for the nostalgic inheritance of 1956-1980. It's just not possible. But if you go for it - send me a PM with first refusal on your records.

Love those LP12's - Mine had a few mods, then a had a Rega P9, then the VPI, etc...  It's the cartridges that make the most difference in my experience (assuming your table and arm can track and align them properly).  Most of the better cartridges need precise VTA and rake angles to sound best.  With trying many the Dynavector XV1S came out on top for realism - the Benz Ebony LP for lushness.  But these are both north of $5K and do wear out.  Ugg!
 
I had a very hard time giving up my occasional LP system - Orotofon 2M Black.  But finally did, after I realized I had not spun a disk in 6 months. 
 
I can totally understand the nostalgia of spinning LPs. though.
 
Having digitalized my LP collection at 32/176k helped (on my VPI/Dyna rig).  Now these WAV files sound superb!  And are just a click away - playlists full of them! 
 
Love computer audio.

 

[hieukm]

You haven't read my many posts in comparing near sota analog to my uber USB chain or AOIP.

I have posted this here many times - my old $30K (not bragging - just giving a crude measure of my analog rig) has finally been surpassed by computer audio.  My ultimate analog system took over a decade of equipment rolling to 'perfect'.  The computer digital source much longer - but after 14 yrs finally did it.  Sold off all my analog gear (but keeping my LPs as I expect they will appreciate in value).

Analog rig VPI Super Scout Master Signature/Dynavector XV1S (Benz Ebony LP)/Nordost Valhalla tonearm cabling and IC's/Bent Audio Silver Step up transformers/CJ tubed Phono Pre (NOS Seimens CCa's)/CJ Art 2 Pre....

As my Chord Dave dont support external clock and Rob Watts even go as far to say that external clock may be detrimental, i am very much in doubt of my intended setup of the following:

Cybershaft premium 10M clock + Antelope liveclock/Grim cc1 + Rednet+ 2 or 3 Mutec USB

(I cant do trial as i live in Asia)

I think i will wait some more time for someone with higher end DAC to chime in with their experience. Meanwhile i will go deal with other disadvantages of computer as source such as EMI/RF and AC noise outside/within circuits.

Yes my aim is to match analog source. I dont use the word replacing as i never intend to use analogue due to my sweaty palm condition.

 

[rb2013]

As my Chord Dave dont support external clock and Rob Watts even go as far to say that external clock may be detrimental, i am very much in doubt of my intended setup of the following:

Cybershaft premium 10M clock + Antelope liveclock/Grim cc1 + Rednet+ 2 or 3 Mutec USB

(I cant do trial as i live in Asia)

I think i will wait some more time for someone with higher end DAC to chime in with their experience. Meanwhile i will go deal with other disadvantages of computer as source such as EMI/RF and AC noise outside/within circuits.

Yes my aim is to match analog source. I dont use the word replacing as i never intend to use analogue due to my sweaty palm condition.

I'd try just the Rednet 3 to hear what it can do with the DAVE.

You might just be pleasantly surprised.

 

[occamsrazor]

  The BURL uses no output coupling capacitors or transformers - but custom made discrete class A opamps.

 
I'm interested in the Burl and have read this before. Can you explain the significance of this to a relative newbie? Thanks.....

 

[occamsrazor]

I really think when talking ultimate stuff, it should be considered to remove the SPDIF/AES conversion from the primary path to the DAC.. I understand that SPDIF/AES allows flexibility, backward compatibility, and may be a requirement for a studio environment, but with CA changing so rapidly I think it is OK to think a little outside the box and more along the direct AOIP->i2S idea, that would still allow compatibility with most current DAC chips (iiuc). Lots of DIY folks swap USB input modules in their DAC's, i.e.: XMOS for Amanero, etc..

 
Yes I very much agree with this. SPDIF/AES is certainly required for backwards compatibility but really going forward there is no reason to limit data transmission rates because the connection dictates it. Not sure if i2s is really optimal given the cable length requirements, but as it stands it's probably the best interconnect method currently available. A 2-channel Dante box with AES/SPDIF AND i2s output would really be a game-changer, as increasing numbers DACs are having i2s inputs.

 

[rb2013]

   
I'm interested in the Burl and have read this before. Can you explain the significance of this to a relative newbie? Thanks.....

Well opamps have inherent strengths and weaknesses - one of their strengths they allow a direct signal path - avoiding the need for capacitors in the path.  Generally their weakness is in the production of the IC version.  But as Burson has shown with their discrete opamp designs  - a discrete class A opamp can sound very, very good.  Depending on design even 'analog' in tonal warmth and richness.  This is what BURL is said to have achieved in a few reviews.  I can confirm they have done an excellent job.
 

   
Yes I very much agree with this. SPDIF/AES is certainly required for backwards compatibility but really going forward there is no reason to limit data transmission rates because the connection dictates it. Not sure if i2s is really optimal given the cable length requirements, but as it stands it's probably the best interconnect method currently available. A 2-channel Dante box with AES/SPDIF AND i2s output would really be a game-changer, as increasing numbers DACs are having i2s inputs.

The third option is to build the Dante AOIP socket (Mini PCI) right on the DAC board - even no i2s needed.  The Dante Brookyln II card just slots right in.
 
My hope is this becomes the std for most DACs going forward...at least the Dante socket.

 

[motberg]

For some reason, I thought that the i2S standard was what was required for most of the DAC chips for input.. either internally or externally..
I wonder if the data format coming off the Dante card is more difficult to work with than something like the i2S coming off a Raspberry or those XMOS project cards..

 

[rb2013]

  For some reason, I thought that the i2S standard was what was required for most of the DAC chips for input.. either internally or externally..
I wonder if the data format coming off the Dante card is more difficult to work with than something like the i2S coming off a Raspberry or those XMOS project cards..

Dante does support i2s natively. 
 

1. Digital Audio Formats

   TDM, I2S

2. Flexible Interface Support — SPI, I2C, RS232 and configurable GPIO

  But with a board level socket - no internal cable is required.