[ccschua]

  My REDNet D16 came today and I tore into it. Sweetwater is great to work with, from ordering to answering questions.
 
I have been an network engineer for about 20 years but found setting this up quite tricky. To be fair I was running Windows 2012r2 server with Audiophile Optimizer in Core mode so that might have contributed to my issues. I went back to GUI mode, uninstalled AO, and was able to install the utilities and the virtual soundcard that uses ASIO. After too much time and a call to Sweetwater and to Focusrite I was able to get sound. BTW. trying to reeable OA killed the output. I either need to experiement with it or it might not even be necessary now.
 
 
I will put more time into it tomorrow and also comment more on sound quality. So far it sounds clearer and more tonally accurate, basically more refined, than my Mutec USB.
 
If anyone has tips for the settings I am all ears!

 
i would be interested to find out, either all this acrobatic software and hardware is out of windows now with the rednet. was having a tough time trying to run fidelizer, AO and jplay.

 

[prot]

I would throw you some flowers...if you had mentioned AES67 and the REDNET gear.  You get one daisy for the NADAC.

The bouquet goes to Mike.

PS Last I heard you were using a PUC 2 USB and proud of it

Not the flowers kind but many thx nevertheless

Nadac, rednet, etc are just sample devices. I shouldnt have even mentioned the nadac (which incidentally started the whole "aoip" thing) .. a smart guy recognizes the merits of a good idea without a readymade device that hits him in the head
Like those CA threads that you like to quote so much .. where me and a very few others were asking for an ethernet2iis board many years ago .. and most "bystanders" thought we were some sort of halucinating idiots .
Rednet&co arent even there yet. But the small diyhink eth2iis board that'll make any Dac a network device is not that far off. By 2020 almost everyone would look at the Usb as the awfull mistake it was. And there isnt even anything wrong with Usb, it's just that:
1. most Dac builders dont understand computers and miserably failed at isolating/buffering their Dacs
2. most audiophiles dont understand computers either and their devices are full of all sorts of sw and hw bloat and noise.

And yes, I still use and like my Puc2. And I'm still happy that I never went crazy with those expensive & useless Usb 'accessories'. Nononsense Usb cable + nononsense lipo akku + ebay puc = excellent sound for about €200 ... whats not to like?

 

[occamsrazor]

Rednet&co arent even there yet. But the small diyhink eth2iis board that'll make any Dac a network device is not that far off.

Genuinely interested, but raises some questions...

- What protocol would such a DIY board use? Dante requires significant licensing costs doesn't it? If not Dante then does any other protocol such as AES67 have a virtual sound card that actually exists?

- is there any actual signs or plans for such a device from DIYINHK or Singxer etc?

PS - would love for it to happen...

 

[Acrobat77]

 
It's called Pull-Up or Pull-Down - it's used to align the clock with others on a DAW LAN.

Thank you rb2013. This makes sense. I almost was afraid it would be some standard deviation but fortunately this is not the case.
 
I see you've looked into the MC-3+/MC-3+ USB differences some more, great! Just wrote about them to let you guys know they're not the same and so to avoid possibly dissapointing results after using/testing the USB one first.

 

[mourip]

  What size is your switch - 100MB?
 
Try adjusting the Bit rate and latency in the DVS and match it to the REDNET device in Controller.  Mine sounds best with 4ms, 32 Bit and in REDNET Controller - under your PC - using 'device config' you can set the bit rate to match DVS and change SR.
 

 
Thanks for replying. My switch is a Cisco 8 port 1G which is not managed however my PC is connected directly to the first ethernet port on the D16 with the REDNet supplied cable. Another cable connects the second port on the D16 to the hub. This conveniently allows a direct connect and still gets me LAN access as the D16 can work as a hub depending on a config choice.
 
I do have the bit rate on both the PC and the D16 set to the same. Works fine at 96K with Redbook but not with higher bit rate files. Same when set for 192K.
 
I suspect that changing the latency setting might be the key due to the increase speed needed for the hi-res files.
 
Will play with it today....
 
Regarding using the Mutec USB with it as a re-clocker. I will give that a spin once I am happy with the basic settings...

 

[rb2013]

   
i would be interested to find out, either all this acrobatic software and hardware is out of windows now with the rednet. was having a tough time trying to run fidelizer, AO and jplay.

I believe all those were designed to min the devices running on the USB bus - as well as execution priority.  But also shut down apps and processes unnecessay - critical with the older generation CPUs.  These new iCore7 Haswell, Broadwell and now Skylake have so much power - and on board L2 memory - not so much of an issue.  Take my inexpensive iCore 4790 -
8M Cache memory, 4 cores, 8 threads, 3.6Ghz, etc...
 
My old machine was a Quad Core Q6600:
 
 
CPU Mark Relative to Top 10 Common CPUs
As of 10th of June 2016 - Higher results represent better performance

Intel Core i7-4790K @ 4.00GHz​	11,202 ​
Intel Core i7-4770K @ 3.50GHz​	10,147 ​
Intel Core i7-4790 @ 3.60GHz​	10,016 ​
Intel Core i7-4770 @ 3.40GHz​	9,822 ​
Intel Core i7-3770K @ 3.50GHz​	9,568 ​
Intel Core i7-3770 @ 3.40GHz​	9,338 ​
AMD FX-8350 Eight-Core​	8,947 ​
Intel Core i5-3570K @ 3.40GHz​	7,141 ​
Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.30GHz​	6,452 ​
AMD FX-6300 Six-Core​	6,341 ​
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.40GHz​	2,988 ​
PassMark Software © 2008-2016​	​

 

[rb2013]

Not the flowers kind but many thx nevertheless

Nadac, rednet, etc are just sample devices. I shouldnt have even mentioned the nadac (which incidentally started the whole "aoip" thing) .. a smart guy recognizes the merits of a good idea without a readymade device that hits him in the head

Like those CA threads that you like to quote so much .. where me and a very few others were asking for an ethernet2iis board many years ago .. and most "bystanders" thought we were some sort of halucinating idiots

.
Rednet&co arent even there yet. But the small diyhink eth2iis board that'll make any Dac a network device is not that far off. By 2020 almost everyone would look at the Usb as the awfull mistake it was. And there isnt even anything wrong with Usb, it's just that:
1. most Dac builders dont understand computers and miserably failed at isolating/buffering their Dacs
2. most audiophiles dont understand computers either and their devices are full of all sorts of sw and hw bloat and noise.

And yes, I still use and like my Puc2. And I'm still happy that I never went crazy with those expensive & useless Usb 'accessories'. Nononsense Usb cable + nononsense lipo akku + ebay puc = excellent sound for about €200 ... whats not to like?

Well what actually got it started was Paul McGowen's video on Youtube about the upcoming PS Audio LANRover - that lead to me trying the ICRON/Startech GB LAN Iso USB extender (with great effect) - then the thinking naturally progressed to why did inserting a LAN ethernet in between a USB chain improve the SQ so much - do how about just getting rid of the USB completely!
 
But I do give you credit for the foresight and knowledge on AoIP.  So cheers to that!
 
Well the full PUC2 is not 'cheap' and as for all those gizmos and switches - they sure work - listening to the right now.  For a host of reasons some folks will stay with USB - and a little $179 board like the F-1 and a good LPS power source like the $80 TeraDak X1 - will still be considered a great low cost solution.
 
But I though you and OP where heading down Raspberry Pie lane...hum I seem to remember you were in a whole lot of stir about that - seems to have died down a bit.

 

 

[rb2013]

Genuinely interested, but raises some questions...

- What protocol would such a DIY board use? Dante requires significant licensing costs doesn't it? If not Dante then does any other protocol such as AES67 have a virtual sound card that actually exists?

- is there any actual signs or plans for such a device from DIYINHK or Singxer etc?

PS - would love for it to happen...

Well dreams and schemes will always be there - and great for that.
 
But we need a real live in the flesh box (or at least a board) that is a turn key process - that is buy>open box>install s/w h/w>play beautiful music
 
No soldering or circuit redesign required.
 
So fortunate we have it now!  And it really works - to say the least.

 

[rb2013]

 
Thank you rb2013. This makes sense. I almost was afraid it would be some standard deviation but fortunately this is not the case.
 
I see you've looked into the MC-3+/MC-3+ USB differences some more, great! Just wrote about them to let you guys know they're not the same and so to avoid possibly dissapointing results after using/testing the USB one first.

Thanks for that!  Saved me a whole lot of money.  I knew of that thread - but had not read it through.  My bad.
 
I had the Mutec MC-3+ USB and it did improve things with my APL DAC - but not a $1000 worth.  I may try a few other tweeks like a $28 Intel NIC card or maybe some other low cost CAT6 cables.  But at least for now I can think of anything.
 
Maybe one of these ethernet noise filters? Optical Fiber?
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/sotm2/2.html

 

[rb2013]

   
Thanks for replying. My switch is a Cisco 8 port 1G which is not managed however my PC is connected directly to the first ethernet port on the D16 with the REDNet supplied cable. Another cable connects the second port on the D16 to the hub. This conveniently allows a direct connect and still gets me LAN access as the D16 can work as a hub depending on a config choice.
 
I do have the bit rate on both the PC and the D16 set to the same. Works fine at 96K with Redbook but not with higher bit rate files. Same when set for 192K.
 
I suspect that changing the latency setting might be the key due to the increase speed needed for the hi-res files.
 
Will play with it today....
 
Regarding using the Mutec USB with it as a re-clocker. I will give that a spin once I am happy with the basic settings...

I have mine set for the lowest latency possible 150us in the Dante Controller and have no issue with 192k files.  Foobar set to it's lower latency of 50ms.
 

 

[occamsrazor]

 
Well dreams and schemes will always be there - and great for that.
 
But we need a real live in the flesh box (or at least a board) that is a turn key process - that is buy>open box>install s/w h/w>play beautiful music
 
No soldering or circuit redesign required.
 
So fortunate we have it now!  And it really works - to say the least.

 
For dreams and schemes, some overrall thoughts.... Firstly, Wikipedia has a nice comparison of all the different protocols here:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_network_protocols
 
It seems to me that if we are looking for the optimum network interface to high-quality DACs, it doesn't make sense to adopt an interface that artificially limits the sample rate. Long-term, given that gigabit ethernet can easily cope with higher rates, it would be optimum (here comes the dreams!) to have something that can cope with the common capabilities of modern DAC chips i.e. higher PCM rates and also DSD capability.
 
At the moment, and speaking only in terms of technical capabilities, it seems to me that Ravenna has the edge with its 384khz PCM and DSD256 capability, as well as being an open standard. Dante is close behind with 192khz and no DSD but with the big advantage of a working virtual soundcard, while AES67 appears (maybe I am wrong) limited to 96khz, and AVB suffers from needing special switches.
 
But when we come to the availability of products, Dante certainly seems to have the edge with a much wider array of interface hardware. The Merging NADAC/Hapi etc get super reviews, but the NADAC is not very affordable and I don't see anyone else making Ravenna DACs. Therefore Dante seems to have a much higher level of adoption, although the only DAC with inbuilt Dante so far seems to be the Burl B2 Bomber (are there others?).
 
So yes... when it comes to real existing "live in the flesh" boxes, Dante interfaces such as Rednet do seem to the best overrall current solution, unless your needs and wallet find something from Merging. I'm guessing a lot of this comes down to Audinate having provided an easy way for companies to implement the technology, even while they have to pay licensing fees for a non-open technology. While Ravenna and AES67 are more open, perhaps the adoption has been hindered by easy drop-in solutions for 2rd party companies.
 
But I do wonder if long-term and in terms of the actual technology, Dante is actually the best choice.... (now we are back to dreaming!)

 

[rb2013]

Anybody here anything about this?
 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Acoustic-Revive-RR-777-Ultra-Low-Frequency-Schumann-Wave-Generator-Free-Ship-/111931217341?hash=item1a0f9ed5bd:g:sjwAAOxykmZTME7T
 
http://www.stereotimes.com/acc091812.shtml

 

[rb2013]

   
For dreams and schemes, some overrall thoughts.... Firstly, Wikipedia has a nice comparison of all the different protocols here:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_network_protocols
 
It seems to me that if we are looking for the optimum network interface to high-quality DACs, it doesn't make sense to adopt an interface that artificially limits the sample rate. Long-term, given that gigabit ethernet can easily cope with higher rates, it would be optimum (here comes the dreams!) to have something that can cope with the common capabilities of modern DAC chips i.e. higher PCM rates and also DSD capability.
 
At the moment, and speaking only in terms of technical capabilities, it seems to me that Ravenna has the edge with its 384khz PCM and DSD256 capability, as well as being an open standard. Dante is close behind with 192khz and no DSD but with the big advantage of a working virtual soundcard, while AES67 appears (maybe I am wrong) limited to 96khz, and AVB suffers from needing special switches.
 
But when we come to the availability of products, Dante certainly seems to have the edge with a much wider array of interface hardware. The Merging NADAC/Hapi etc get super reviews, but the NADAC is not very affordable and I don't see anyone else making Ravenna DACs. Therefore Dante seems to have a much higher level of adoption, although the only DAC with inbuilt Dante so far seems to be the Burl B2 Bomber (are there others?).
 
So yes... when it comes to real existing "live in the flesh" boxes, Dante interfaces such as Rednet do seem to the best overrall current solution, unless your needs and wallet find something from Merging. I'm guessing a lot of this comes down to Audinate having provided an easy way for companies to implement the technology, even while they have to pay licensing fees for a non-open technology. While Ravenna and AES67 are more open, perhaps the adoption has been hindered by easy drop-in solutions for 2rd party companies.
 
But I do wonder if long-term and in terms of the actual technology, Dante is actually the best choice.... (now we are back to dreaming!)

Well I think you nailed it  - but for me the ability to use any DAC and and player is key.  After owning God know how many DACs - I have become a huge tube DAC fan (and not the opamp with a tube buffer kind).  So to get the signal to those DACs it's good old SPDIF.  With it's general limit (Chord with the DAVE has breached that to do 384k) of 192k - that limit in the current Dante system is no problem for me.  The biggie as you suggest is the open Dante ASIO and the easy and cheap DVS.
 
For the Pro guys - many who are still running 44k as multiple tracks - 192k is way overkill - 384k unthinkable.  So it's pretty unlikely - unless Audinate see a market in consumer audio (and wishes to play more there - at the very high end) - it's unlikely that they will go beyond that.
 
Now as I have pointed out numerous times AES67 is not an operational std - but an interoperability std.  Dante and Ravenna are they're own protocols - but can work well together.
 
This to me is an ideal state - a general unified set of IP communication protocols - yet with out the shackles of a Sony-Philips Oligarchy strict control (SP of SPDIF) stifling innovation and advancement.  Especially once they lost interest.  Imagine if Sony had put 1/10th the effort they did in SACD/DSD - into a better transport/DAC interface - but backward compatible to SPDIF/AES.  They would be a dominant position today - versus a bit player.
 
Dante is gaining so much ground - since it is a simpler matter to implement then Ravenna - that is building from the ground up a PC interface, either s/w or h/w.  That's a big job.
Of course their is another AOIP DAC - the REDNET 1 - but who cares when you can use any DAC you chose.
 
Now I suppose if Roon licensed RATT -separate from their player - that could be a factor.  I don't see that happening though
 
Additionally, with AES67 - TB3 and even a new USB 3.1 can play.  AOIP for all! 
 
PS I guess the BTL is the amazing SQ of the Dante RD3/16 - even at a draw with the best of USB - it would be a winner for simplicity sake.  But the dramatic SQ leap is well - as they say 'a deal maker'.

 

[occamsrazor]

  Well I think you nailed it  - but for me the ability to use any DAC and and player is key.

 
Agree with what you say generally but particularly this bit. What has put me off about some of the "audiophile" ethernet protocols such as Roon and uRendu is exactly that.... being forced to use a certain player or playing method, therefore using something like a virtual soundcard like DVS that operates at a system-wide level is very attractive.
 
I could live with 24/192 despite my previously-mentioned reservations, but still hoping someone comes out with a smaller, cheaper 2-channel equivalent of the Rednet 3 or 16. Either that or a DAC with inbuilt Dante like the Burl. But I suspect I may be waiting for a while

 

[mhamel]

   
Agree with what you say generally but particularly this bit. What has put me off about some of the "audiophile" ethernet protocols such as Roon and uRendu is exactly that.... being forced to use a certain player or playing method, therefore using something like a virtual soundcard like DVS that operates at a system-wide level is very attractive.
 
I could live with 24/192 despite my previously-mentioned reservations, but still hoping someone comes out with a smaller, cheaper 2-channel equivalent of the Rednet 3 or 16. Either that or a DAC with inbuilt Dante like the Burl. But I suspect I may be waiting for a while

 
I mentioned it to Dangerous Music, too. It would be a killer add on for their Convert-2 and Convert-8 DACs. 
 
For me it comes down to sound quality for the majority of the content that is available now/that I own, and 192KHz more than covers it. It also comes down to what's available now in terms of the solution itself. Audinate's implementation may or may not be the "best" audio over IP solution, but it's here now, has enough of an adoption where I don't worry that it'll be gone tomorrow and not only works, but sounds amazing to me. Getting rid of USB is a nice bonus.
 
I also feel like if I just wait for the next step, I'll always be waiting for the next bigger thing to come along... I jumped in now, am thoroughly enjoying the result and I'll re-examine as the future brings new developments. Everyone's situation/preferences are different, this just happened to work well for me.