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

[rb2013]

  I've been following this discussion for a while and it's been very interesting...If I may take a step back for a moment and look at the wider picture though. I'm just an amateur without the expertise or access to hardware that some of you have. It seems to me there's a few trends in audiophile computer audio recently, with people claiming benefits but going in different directions, but not so easy to incorporate them all....
 
1. Isolation/Reclocking of USB transmission - isolating the noise from the source/player hardware up to the DAC.
 
- On direct USB, such as Uptone Regen, Intona, etc
- Via USB Interfaces such as Gustard, Singxer F1/SU1, Mutec MC3+USB etc
 
2. Moving from USB to network/IP transmission:
- Via the network using player-specific protocols like HQPlayer NAA, Roon RAAT etc into small Linux boxes such as uRendu, SonicOrbiter, RoonReady devices.
- Via the network using OS-wide virtual soundcards such as in the Dante system and Focusrite Rednet, Ravenna, AVB, AES67.
 
3. Upsampling material to high DSD data rates
- HQPlayer, Audirvana, etc fed to DSD capable DACS at high rates like DSD256/512.
 
4. As a Mac user, many of these high-rate DSD DACs aren't accessible at those rates because of the need for DoP.
 
5. DSP/Room correction can bring significant benefits, but combining it as software with some of the above methods can bring a bunch of compatibility issues, and the available hardware such as MiniDSP restricts data rates, as well as difficulties combining with DSD.
 
So there's a lot of interesting methods being used, but it strikes me as difficult to combine them and some of them are incompatible with each other...
 
A. "Professional" DAC equipment seems to shy away from anything higher than 192khz, in many cases 96khz, and doesn't seem concerned much by DSD compatibility or high DSD rates
 
B. "Professional" network protocols such as Dante/Rednet of which there's been some very strong positive comments recently also limit the rates.
 
C. Methods that do allow high-rate upsampling and network transmission such as HQPlayer NAA require you to be locked into that particular player (or via Roon), and the endpoints such as those NAA-compatible like the uRendu bring you back to a USB connection to the DAC.
 
D. Connection methods that don't use USB such as AES, Toslink, SPDIF, with the exception of i2s that is still fairly rare externally, always seem to restrict the data rate.
 
Given the bandwidth of Gigabit ethernet, it would seem it is easily capable of higher rates than 24bit/192khz. These Dante devices can do dozens of channels simultaneously, but restrict a single channel's rate. In an ideal world we'd have some type of network endpoint that could receive very high rate PCM and DSD material across a LAN via ethernet, outputting to i2s then to DAC, I guess also with USB, AES, SPDIF options for compatibility, but that wasn't locked to a specific player such as HQPlayer and was system-wide.
Or that was built-in to the DAC so that the path from the network input to the DAC chip didn't involve an intermediate interface such as USB. Something like the Burl B2 Bomber DAC probably seems closest in the sense that you have a systemwide virtual Dante soundcard, going over the network to a network input inside a DAC. But it's limited to 192khz. Or the uRendu that allows high data rate over the network but then connects to the DAC via USB. It seems you can't have everything.... yet.
 
Like I say, I'm just an amateur with an interest in all this, and I have none of this hardware to use or try personally, and have limited budget. I just wonder what people's thoughts are on how best to try and combine some of these methods, or if that isn't possible then which to prioritise over others and which gives the most benefits.

Good points - actually the NADAC is the closest to your quest - for ethernet only ultra high resolution and DSD support - and a direct feed straight to the DAC.  It uses AES67 Ravenna (please read the beginning of this thread).
 
But remember 99.9% of music is only available on Redbook.  Unless you off the beaten trail stuff - anything mainstrean - even jazz is very hard to find in native DSD.
 
Now since Redbook WAV files are 16 bit/44k - upsampling to 24 bit 192k is quite a step up.  But it's not just sample rates that make for good SQ.  If so this little DAC I own would be killer.  And it's not: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Musiland-Monitor-03-US-Dragon-32Bit-384KHz-ASIO-USB3-0-Sound-card-DAC-PCM1798-/151608262311?hash=item234c8e7ea7:g:xf8AAOSwBahU9hUR
 
In fact many say one of the very best DAC's for SQ ever made was the 16/44k only Zanden 5000 DAC.  So it comes down to design - yes the NADAC does 384k and DSD254 natively but does the rest of it's design hold water?  It should for $10k
 
What the REDNET 3 and 16d allow with DANTE is getting USB out of the picture completely  - this is apparently extremely important for a whole host of reasons - that all this USB isolation schemes and other gizmos like reclokers try to fix.  It's not a hopeless cause - but reallya Rube Goldbrick way for going about things.  Use a inherently flawed system not designed for this purpose - then go crazy try to fix it.
 
Why should Focusrite Audinate try for higher rates?  For what purpose?  They output to SPDIF or AES - both limited to 192k input for most DACs.  The RD3 can handle 32 bit so that limit is quite high.  And my tubed DAC can as well.  I have many archived LPs at that rate that play fine.
 
So here we are combing a few of these trends in one system - Redbook upsampled to 192k through the REDNET 3 into a tube DAC using SPDIF - and the results are outstanding.  I do not want to be tied down or captured to any one player - that should be open and left to the user. 
 
That HQPlayer chooses to make their player prop to their NAA is not my problem

 

[rb2013]

  To  occamsrazor:
 
Excellent synopsis of a long, exciting, and techical thread. I am sure that Rob will weigh in but I think that you have basically answered your own questions.
 
It seems to me that currently there is no cheap solution for either an advanced USB "chain" or a cutting edge ethernet solution. And in either case no way to pull DSD out of it.
 
Personally I would rather have perfected Redbook which has nearly unlimited acclaimed performances than to build for DSD. I had both a Vega DAC and also a Wyred4Sound DSD DAC for a while and never could really get behind either the DSD sound or it's unreasonable media cost. Possibly listening through Saber chips turned me off.
 
Right now I am using a Mutec USB DDC with AES to my Schitt Iggy and I find the sound to be wonderful. Having said this I too think that ethernet is the way to go and am looking at the current REDNet devices as an interim step up while waiting for a more dedicated(and cheaper) audiophile device to appear.
 
I would say that based upon Rob's, and others, pioneering findings that on a budget the F1 might be your best bet. You can always pile on USB tweaking devices to incrementally build up the SQ however as you do that you will be heading toward the magic $1000 where you find Mutec and REDNet waiting.
 
What ever you choose things are moving so fast that in a year it will all look different. Heck, in reading this thread things have changed in two weeks!

Do get lost in a sampling rate race - there is so little media truly at these ultra high rates to even consider.  As a few Hi-Fi rags have shown most 'Hi Res' downloads of current and past favorites are just upsampled Redbook and then sold at a super premium.  What a rip off.
 
I did my own test - down loading Cat Steven's 'Tea for the Tillerman' the super high res (192k) sounded no different then my Redbook WAV files upsampled  by Foobar /SoX.  $24.98 - my a@@!!!
 
Today just a download of a 16/44k is considered 'High Res' - there is very little offered above 24/96 of new stuff or old.  In fact there are way more LPs of new music and artists - those I buy and digitalize at 32/176k.  They are sometimes better then the CD - some times not.  It's hard to do a good quiet pressing.

 

[rb2013]

   
Interesting thoughts, thank you... and agree with the perfecting Redbook idea to some extent. I think one of the things that prevented interest in DSD was the level of media availability. What I am seeing more, at least on these forums, isn't people playing actual DSD material so much as claiming advantages of playing Redbook upsampled to DSD. This is what appears to be behind the increasing interest in high DSD-rate DACs such as the T+A DAC 8 DSD, iFi Micro DSD etc.
 
What I'd love to see is a one-box solution like the Singxer SU-1 but with some type of Ethernet input... how great might that be?
 
Since I wrote that post have been doing some more reading and have noticed one other option for Dante. Bear in mind this is just from reading no experience whatsoever!. Rather than the Rednet dedicated hardware, I am wondering about a small PC with Dante input and i2s output. From what I've been reading the Dante DVS or Via software available on Mac/Windows could be used as a Dante "input" as well as "output". As there's no Linux version of Dante, it would need to run Windows. I wonder if there are any single-board small computers (like Raspberry Pi, Odroid, Beaglebone etc) that can A) Run Windows and B) Have i2s output.
 
https://www.audinate.com/products/software/dante-via
 
So you have a small PC running Windows and Dante Via as a receiver over ethernet connecting to the main Mac/PC that's also running Dante Via as sender. Then that small PC Dante "receiver" outputs the audio over i2s to a DAC with i2s input. I don't know much about i2s output hardware options but one might be something like this:
 
http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/pinkfaun_i2s_bridge_e.html
http://www.modelpromo.nl/PinkFaun_I2S_Bridge.htm
 
That of course doesn't get around the high-rate DSD issues, but might be an interesting and possibly cheaper way to add Dante connectivity to a DAC instead of something like the Rednet.

Those are good points:
 
DSD has it's own issues (out of band noise - think S-D DAC)
Here is a good read on DSD versus high rate PCM:
http://www.merging.com/uploads/assets/Merging_pdfs/dxd_Resolution_v3.5.pdf

 

[jabbr]

   
Honestly? I think this is marketing hype. Ethernet connections using USP cables are already transformer coupled on all connected pins by design, AES should also be transformer coupled by design.
 
So in connecting the PC to the Rednet box, then out through AES, you have isolation at multiple points without adding any special additional hardware.
 
PC -> Transformer -> RJ45 -> Ethernet Cable -> RJ45 -> Transformer -> RedNet Interface -> Transformer -> AES -> Transformer -> DAC.
 
Everything is encapsulated in packets on the Ethernet network, with built-in error checking and re-transmits. You can easily monitor the network connection to determine if there is any packet loss or errors in the data stream, in which case it is most likely a faulty cable, NIC card or other hardware issue causing the problem, not interference. If there is noise somewhere in the connection that injects data into the packet, the checksum will fail and it will be re-transmitted. With the relatively small amounts of data we're talking about, it isn't even remotely coming close to hitting performance barriers of the network - especially if you are connecting directly from the PC to the Rednet box.
 
I know I'll probable hear something along the lines of "It's audio, it's different" for saying what I'm about to say, but the reality is, the underlying network infrastructure and protocols do not care what the data is. They are designed to assure it gets from point A to point B without errors.
 
I work in IT, specializing in enterprise storage. We have storage racks in extremely busy data centers running 40 gigabit Ethernet connections across 4x 10Gbe using Cat 6a cables under the floor in data centers that have potential levels of electrical interference you would never even begin to see in a home environment. Even within the rack, you're talking about a rack switch for the management interfaces, two or more storage controllers, which are high end servers with 1.5TB of RAM and 32-64 CPU cores, then 8 disk shelves with 24x drives in each... over 1.5PB of raw storage in a rack. Multiple power supplies in each box, lots of cabling. Not an audiophile power conditioner, cable or other gadget in sight. Noisy, high speed/high volume fans all over the place. Yet these things can run for months at a time between maintenance windows or reboots, flat-out, pushing even the 40 gig network connection to it's limit, serving thousands of client machines... with zero packet loss or network errors.
 
I'm not saying there aren't potential ways to improve what gets from the PC to the DAC, not getting into clocking or anything like that. From a pure data integrity standpoint, talking about the data that the PC sends across the network - if all of your hardware and connections are good, if you're using a well built cable that meets or exceeds spec (like the BJC cables) the data you feed into the network is going to be *exactly* the data that arrives at the Rednet box, and no isolation device is going to change that.

 
Mike
 
Thank you for your elaborate answer. I surmised that you were from a data processing IT-background. I am too, so I recognised your viewpoints though I don't think that's all there is to it.
 
I see you build your argument around bit-perfectness of the datatransmission.
I think that in digital audio that's not what it is about when talking about Sound Quality. Nowadays every player is bitperfect and every network is zero-loss (with possible exception of RealTime processing, but than that's the decision of the receiver to have data not resent).
 
For sound quality it is about the analogue electric characteristics of signal chains and signal processing, or as I say it's not about the bits. I won't go into such a discussion on this thread as it will derail this thread. On other fora I have talked with people who are into design and building of digital signal processing devices, so have learned there is more to it than just 'bits'.
 
Regarding the LAN-isolator and the Acousence firm, I know from experience it is not a marketing hype, at least not when using a USB chain after the PC connected to the LAN. I have my own ears to vouch for.
Measurements have been made (and were available on the internet, can't find them now though) showing a very much reduced noise level on the output signal of the LAN isolator. Also medical environments require low noise levels on otherwise digital networked connections. This gear is very sensitive and they use LAN-isolators as well. So default isolation on LAN-connections isn't always enough.
So yes, there is inbuilt transformer coupled interface, but apparently there are better and worse designs of isolators for different purposes.
With data processing in regular IT-companies, it only matters the transport is bitperfect and no data is lost.
With analogue signal processing fed with digital data connections I think it is very different and there it relies very much on the analogue characteristics of the incoming digital signal and analogue effects of the digital and/or d/a processing that follows it.
Just a different PoV on my side
 
These are measurements from another LAN-isolator comparing direct LAN connection, medical isolator and this japanese isolator (and I like the Acousence isolator better than this japanese one. I tried them both):
 

Comparison of the common node noise inflow reduction effect by RLI-1
As it is difficult to compare measurement data on the same scale, C is showed relative to B by extrapolation,
i.e. A:B and C are indicated in the same scale.
 

Source: https://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/pcaudio/lan_isolator.html
 
 
Acousence is not a hardware manufacturer perse, they are a music production company specialised in high resolution digital recordings and they developed these isolators for use in their own studios. With good results apparently and they decided to sell them to the general public. It is not a product they depended on as it was not their core business.
 
Again I think the answer must come from trying it myself.
Probably need another 2 weeks to get a Rednet (if I can make the jump )
 
 
Cheers

 

[mtoc]

OP, tell us something about different CAT on this rednet...?

 

[ciphercomplete]

So I went ahead and ordered a Rednet D16.  We will see how this goes.

 

[Muziqboy]

  So I went ahead and ordered a Rednet D16.  We will see how this goes.

I think your in for a big surprise!

 

[cursto]

Hello,
I have a Rednet 3 on the way! I have been reading on how to incorporate this box into my current rig.
Do I need to purchase and install the Dante Virtual Soundcard to be able to use the Rednet 3? I have installed the controller software from Audinate's website. Sort of confusing with all the options available.
Thanks in advance. 

 

[mhamel]

  Hello,
I have a Rednet 3 on the way! I have been reading on how to incorporate this box into my current rig.
Do I need to purchase and install the Dante Virtual Soundcard to be able to use the Rednet 3? I have installed the controller software from Audinate's website. Sort of confusing with all the options available.
Thanks in advance. 

 
Yes, you need Dante Virtual Soundcard. You can get the trial license to start, and then upgrade it to the full license later. I know my Rednet D16 came with a free DVS license, I'm not sure if the Rednet 3 does or not. In addition, Audinate has a 25% off sale on the licenses for DVS and Dante Via right now.

 

[rb2013]

   
Mike
 
Thank you for your elaborate answer. I surmised that you were from a data processing IT-background. I am too, so I recognised your viewpoints though I don't think that's all there is to it.
 
I see you build your argument around bit-perfectness of the datatransmission.
I think that in digital audio that's not what it is about when talking about Sound Quality. Nowadays every player is bitperfect and every network is zero-loss (with possible exception of RealTime processing, but than that's the decision of the receiver to have data not resent).
 
For sound quality it is about the analogue electric characteristics of signal chains and signal processing, or as I say it's not about the bits. I won't go into such a discussion on this thread as it will derail this thread. On other fora I have talked with people who are into design and building of digital signal processing devices, so have learned there is more to it than just 'bits'.
 
Regarding the LAN-isolator and the Acousence firm, I know from experience it is not a marketing hype, at least not when using a USB chain after the PC connected to the LAN. I have my own ears to vouch for.
Measurements have been made (and were available on the internet, can't find them now though) showing a very much reduced noise level on the output signal of the LAN isolator. Also medical environments require low noise levels on otherwise digital networked connections. This gear is very sensitive and they use LAN-isolators as well. So default isolation on LAN-connections isn't always enough.
So yes, there is inbuilt transformer coupled interface, but apparently there are better and worse designs of isolators for different purposes.
With data processing in regular IT-companies, it only matters the transport is bitperfect and no data is lost.
With analogue signal processing fed with digital data connections I think it is very different and there it relies very much on the analogue characteristics of the incoming digital signal and analogue effects of the digital and/or d/a processing that follows it.
Just a different PoV on my side
 
These are measurements from another LAN-isolator comparing direct LAN connection, medical isolator and this japanese isolator (and I like the Acousence isolator better than this japanese one. I tried them both):
 
Source: https://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/pcaudio/lan_isolator.html
 
 
Acousence is not a hardware manufacturer perse, they are a music production company specialised in high resolution digital recordings and they developed these isolators for use in their own studios. With good results apparently and they decided to sell them to the general public. It is not a product they depended on as it was not their core business.
 
Again I think the answer must come from trying it myself.
Probably need another 2 weeks to get a Rednet (if I can make the jump )
 
 
Cheers

This is interesting.  I guess using a LAN to galvanicaly isolate USB - is different then straight AES67 LAN Dante - for audio.
 
You're comparing this chain: PC>USB>LAN>ISOLATOR>LAN>USB>DDC/DAC
 
to this:
 
PC>LAN>DDC/DAC
 
Apples and Oranges.  With the ICRON/Startech GB LAN Iso USB extender in my USB chain - adding galvanic isolation (and working wonders).  I noted very distinct SQ changes with different CAT cable.
 
With the REDNET 3 - none on the best couple of cables I have.
 
So in the first case you are talking a much more complex chain - with many conversions going on, along with all of USB's impedance, packet noise, galvanic ground issues, data and power interactions, etc...  Also note that USB is using a non-error correction Asyn scheme to hotwire the data stream throughput.  Regular USB 2.0 could not handle a 192k audio stream without issue - I tried - in the old days before USB audio Asyn 2.0 the  limit was 96k. 
 
http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Intro/SQ/USB_SPDIF.htm

Jitter

The send rate of the SPDIF bus is used to generate the sample rate.
SPDIF is real time; any fluctuation in the clock of the sender translates into input jitter.
 
USB in isochronous mode (used for audio) runs at a fixed rate.
Frames are send to the receiver.
These frames contain a variable amount of data.
USB is quasi real time as the data is send in discrete packages with the frame rate of the bus (12 MHz or 480 MHz ) but the total amount of data send is proportional to the sample rate.
 
In adaptive mode the sample rate is guessed from the rate the data is pouring in.
The DAC has to adapt its speed to the sender to avoid buffer over/under run.
In asynchronous mode the DAC tells the PC how many data to send.
This allows for using a fixed clock at the DAC.
By design asynchronous USB allows for an implementation with a very low intrinsic jitter.

Error correction

Both protocols are unidirectional, the sender starts sending and when an error occurs, no retry is possible.
Isochronous USB does have an error detection mechanism (CRC), but no retry or guarantee of delivery.

 
So here we are not talking bitperfect - with lost packets (and no error correction).  With USB you also have signal integrity issues - and schemes put in place to try and ameliorate them.  As John Swenson has pointed out - the AGC (automatic gain control) in the USB receiver with react to varying SI - and it's actions produce packet noise in the 8K region.  Like the old DC Servor CD player laser tracking  - this AGC reactivity feeds  noise back through the PG plane to contaminate the power supply feeding the clocks. 
 
USB is wrong with issues.  Throwing a LAN in between helps with some of them - but many gremlins are still there.
 
A very different with AOIP and the Dante implementation.

 

[jabbr]

This is interesting.  I guess using a LAN to galvanicaly isolate USB - is different then straight AES67 LAN Dante - for audio.

You're comparing this chain: PC>USB>LAN>ISOLATOR>LAN>USB>DDC/DAC

to this:

PC>LAN>DDC/DAC

Apples and Oranges.  With the ICRON/Startech GB LAN Iso USB extender in my USB chain - adding galvanic isolation (and working wonders).  I noted very distinct SQ changes with different CAT cable.

With the REDNET 3 - none on the best couple of cables I have.

 ....

No, not quite.
What I now have is the following chain:
NAS--> LAN (over few switches) -->GISO LAN Isolator --> PC --> USB/SPDIF --> DAC

In this chain it is quite noticeable if the LAN isolator is present or not. With the GISO GB to positive effect (with the japanes isolator, hmmm ... open for discussion).

The diagrams showing the common mode noise levels are:
A. LAN--> measurement tool
B+C. LAN--> medical lan isolator --> measurement tool
D. LAN --> japanese lan isolator --> measurement tool

and you can see that though in all cases some for of galvanic isolation is present, there are significant differences in noise levels measured. And I do think these noise levels do matter for analogue devices that are connected (directly or indirectly).

I have nearly made up my mind to try a RedNet after I come back from a trip coming week, and I can try for myself.

First thing to see however will be if the Rednet is as capable as the Mqn + KS + USB-device chain in sound quality.
If it is, I will try options like with or without LAN isolator, reclocker, AES or SPDIF, etc.
If it is not, it will go back.

Cheers

 

[rb2013]

No, not quite.
What I now have is the following chain:
NAS--> LAN (over few switches) -->GISO LAN Isolator --> PC --> USB/SPDIF --> DAC

In this chain it is quite noticeable if the LAN isolator is present or not. With the GISO GB to positive effect (with the japanes isolator, hmmm ... open for discussion).

The diagrams showing the common mode noise levels are:
A. LAN--> measurement tool
B+C. LAN--> medical lan isolator --> measurement tool
D. LAN --> japanese lan isolator --> measurement tool

and you can see that though in all cases some for of galvanic isolation is present, there are significant differences in noise levels measured. And I do think these noise levels do matter for connected analogue devices that are connected (directly or indirectly).

I have nearly made up my mind to try a RedNet after I come back from a trip coming week, and I can try for myself.

First thing to see however will be if the Rednet is as capable as the Mqn + KS + USB-device chain in sound quality.
If it is, I will try options like with or without LAN isolator, reclocker, AES or SPDIF, etc.
If it is not, it will go back.

Cheers

Since you represent the MQN player, and you like it with KS (and the DANTE only does ASIO) - I think that needs disclosing, as it appears to be a conflict.  And may bias your view point.

 

[jabbr]

Since you represent the MQN player, and you like it with KS (and the DANTE only does ASIO) - I think that needs disclosing, as it appears to be a conflict.  And may bias your view point.

Hi Rob I don't quite follow you.
What do you mean by "I think that needs disclosing"?

I am a user of Mqn for nearly 2 (?) years now and find it the best player around, and I regularly try all the new ones.
MQn is my 'touchstone' for measuring other players.

I know Dante DVS doesn't support KS but only ASIO, so I will have to use a different player.
Using Mqn with a LAN solution is pointless IMHO because it is optimised for the direct effect it has on SQ because of how it uses the KS-driver and CPU instruction set to feed the USB device with absolute minimum latency and minimum CPU activity.
In the case of Rednet Dante, I consider the Rednet device to be the actual renderer and not so much the PC anymore. Or at least I hope that it will turn out like that, that the PC is fully asynchronous to the Rednet proces with regard to building the audio signal backup again. And I hope it is electrically fully isolated from the Rednet though I think the network environment itself may still have some influence (hence my references to the isolators).

As I said I will probably try one to fullfil my curiosity.

Cheers

 

[mhamel]

No, not quite.
What I now have is the following chain:
NAS--> LAN (over few switches) -->GISO LAN Isolator --> PC --> USB/SPDIF --> DAC

In this chain it is quite noticeable if the LAN isolator is present or not. With the GISO GB to positive effect (with the japanes isolator, hmmm ... open for discussion).

The diagrams showing the common mode noise levels are:
A. LAN--> measurement tool
B+C. LAN--> medical lan isolator --> measurement tool
D. LAN --> japanese lan isolator --> measurement tool

and you can see that though in all cases some for of galvanic isolation is present, there are significant differences in noise levels measured. And I do think these noise levels do matter for analogue devices that are connected (directly or indirectly).

I have nearly made up my mind to try a RedNet after I come back from a trip coming week, and I can try for myself.

First thing to see however will be if the Rednet is as capable as the Mqn + KS + USB-device chain in sound quality.
If it is, I will try options like with or without LAN isolator, reclocker, AES or SPDIF, etc.
If it is not, it will go back.

Cheers

 
I'm interested in hearing how this goes. I would also be interested in seeing if you encounter the same results through switches as you do with a direct connection between the source and the Rednet box.
 
Are you using UTP, STP or a combination of both in the path you have now?
 
Do you know if there's a higher resolution image of that graph you posted? It looks like those were all measured at different frequencies, which may not be a valid comparison. I'm not discounting that you've heard differences, just trying to see exactly what they're measuring and how it relates.
 
My background isn't just on the IT side of things, it is also on the audio side (as a hobbyist and a bit on the pro side)... so my views tend to come from a mix of measurements/data and subjective listening. No matter how good or bad it measures, no matter how many tweaks are involved (be they real or placebo) the important things (to me) are enjoying the journey, the sound and even more so not losing sight of why I got into all of this 35+ years ago... my love of music.
 
  -Mike

 

[sbgk]

Hi Rob I don't quite follow you.
What do you mean by "I think that needs disclosing"?

I am a user of Mqn for nearly 2 (?) years now and find it the best player around, and I regularly try all the new ones.
MQn is my 'touchstone' for measuring other players.

I know Dante DVS doesn't support KS but only ASIO, so I will have to use a different player.
Using Mqn with a LAN solution is pointless IMHO because it is optimised for the direct effect it has on SQ because of how it uses the KS-driver and CPU instruction set to feed the USB device with absolute minimum latency and minimum CPU activity.
In the case of Rednet Dante, I consider the Rednet device to be the actual renderer and not so much the PC anymore. Or at least I hope that it will turn out like that, that the PC is fully asynchronous to the Rednet proces with regard to building the audio signal backup again. And I hope it is electrically fully isolated from the Rednet though I think the network environment itself may still have some influence (hence my references to the isolators).

As I said I will probably try one to fullfil my curiosity.

Cheers

I'm also interested to hear if the player no longer makes a difference and how good the Dante solution is in comparison.