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

[joelha]

  Why do you need to upsample? If you have an R-2R you are better plying bit-prefect. If you have a DS DAC it will be up sampling anyway in the DAC. I fail to see what is being achieved by up sampling on your PC?
 
Back to your latency issue, do you use a switch or another router in the chain or are you PC - Rednet - DAC via SPDIF? I guess you are on 1000BaseT and used their cable?
I had some confusion setting mine up and Sweetwater sent me a remote app, then finished the installation remotely for me. Can you try that?

Thanks for the reply astrostar59.
 
First, I'm not upsampling. I just want to be able to play 176.4 and 192 sample rate material without an issue.
 
Second, I am going straight from the PC to my D16 via ethernet and to my DAC via SPDIF.
 
Unless I can figure this out quickly, I'm probably going to contact Focusrite again for a much longer conversation.
 
Thanks again.
 
Joel

 

[joelha]

   

I used a lo-spec laptop as an interim source between Microsoft Surface Pro 3 and hi-spec PC. I seem to recall that the lo-spec laptop on default settings behaved in a similar way; i.e., baulked at or generated higher latency for higher SRs. Optimisation - especially DISABLE INTERRUPT MODERATION in Device Manager/Network Adpater/Advanced - made the difference between no-show and acceptable playback. Force Duplex to 1Gb too. There is a host of other possible tweaks within this thread.
 
Hope it's a simple remedy and you find it quickly ...

Thanks a lot for the suggestion, lving.
 
I'll give it a shot and hope that does it.
 
I'll let you know if it does.
 
Joel

 

[Golfnutz]

  Why do you need to upsample? If you have an R-2R you are better plying bit-prefect. If you have a DS DAC it will be up sampling anyway in the DAC. I fail to see what is being achieved by up sampling on your PC?
 
Back to your latency issue, do you use a switch or another router in the chain or are you PC - Rednet - DAC via SPDIF? I guess you are on 1000BaseT and used their cable?
I had some confusion setting mine up and Sweetwater sent me a remote app, then finished the installation remotely for me. Can you try that?

And why wouldn't you upsample? The main purpose of HQPlayer is NOT to use bit-perfect.  My DAC is R-2R, and I can tell you I much prefer upsampling.
 
Given the history of Audio Note, known for terrible distortion (due to design philosophy), I would suggest you download a trial copy of HQPlayer and at least try it before passing judgement. If you search, you can find others who own Audio Note and prefer it using HQPlayer.

 

[rb2013]

 
And why wouldn't you upsample? The main purpose of HQPlayer is NOT to use bit-perfect.  My DAC is R-2R, and I can tell you I much prefer upsampling.
 
Given the history of Audio Note, known for terrible distortion (due to design philosophy), I would suggest you download a trial copy of HQPlayer and at least try it before passing judgement. If you search, you can find others who own Audio Note and prefer it using HQPlayer.

I have a R2R DAC - 24-bit PCM1704U-K chips.  I prefer upsampling redbook to 96K in Foobar using the excellent free SoX upsampler.  On my D-S DAC to 192k - works equally well with both.
 
The upsampling in a D-S chip is for a different purpose - to shift the extreme noise of the 1-bit switching out of the audible band.
 
The SoX type of upsampling is on the audio waveform to 'smooth' out the notched representation of a 16bit 44k sampling - using interpolation algorithms.

 
 
http://www.mother-of-tone.com/conversion.htm
 

As a 16 bit R2R DAC is able to generate 65536 different static voltages, and a single switch can only generate 2 different voltages (hi and low), a high switching frequency (usually in the range of a couple of MegaHertz, and achieved through oversampling) is necessary for proper operation and thus, much noise will be produced by the switching process in a sigma-delta converter.
In fact, for any practical application, the noise-level is much higher than the signal that is to be reproduced.
Therefore, this inacceptable high noise-level is shaped into higher-frequencies, as it is believed that high-frequency noise is outside the human listening range and will not degrade sound quality.
As a side effect of this high-order noise-shaping even higher noise levels are generated, residing in the high-frequency region.
 

http://funwithaudio.blogspot.com/2012/01/today-in-electronics-everything-is-made.html

I now firmly believe that some delta sigma chips sound very good. But, I am still yet to hear one that to my ears sounds as analog as earlier more costly breed of DAC chips.

Today in electronics everything is made small, and as a consequence, compromises must be made to make everything fit in a small package, and run off one power rail. 

Delta Sigma DACs all have internal op-amps to provide a voltage output.

Op amps are not evil, however there are good sounding op-amps and average sounding ones. Good ones cost more than most delta sigma DAC chips themselves. One of the problems with most delta sigma designs, is that the on board op-amp is not of the best quality. There is no option to take the current output from the chip. Hence we are stuck with the voltage output and consequently, the "sound' of the op amp, that the manufacturer gives us.

The reason delta sigma was developed was to get the chip size smaller and reduce manufacturing costs. From what I can tell, it is not in any way shape or form to obtain better sound.

If the object was to obtain better sound then the manufacturers would improve laser trimming of the R2R ladder network, however this costs a lot of money, and the chips stay big! However the PCM1704 is an exception to this rule being a small surface mount 24bit 96khz R2R chip.  

 

[astrostar59]

 
And why wouldn't you upsample? The main purpose of HQPlayer is NOT to use bit-perfect.  My DAC is R-2R, and I can tell you I much prefer upsampling.
 
Given the history of Audio Note, known for terrible distortion (due to design philosophy), I would suggest you download a trial copy of HQPlayer and at least try it before passing judgement. If you search, you can find others who own Audio Note and prefer it using HQPlayer.

None of the up sampling is smoothing anything, waveform or what. It can't find 'new' information. 
 
I suggest you listen to a true R-2R DAC like the Audio Note, Zanden, TotalDAC and then come back. Upsampling is against the entire idea behind those DACs. This is a huge and controversial (angry poster) subject that I won't get into. But simply listen, then decide. Tech specs are useless as has been proven, DS DACs that have 'perfect' frequency response and 0.1% distortion, many sound terrible as we know.
 
I have had many DACs in the past, and heard many top 10-20K modern designs such as the CH Precision C1 and a dCS stack, an MSB Platinum stack. I bought the Audio Note DAC 5 Special because it beat all those DACs on musicality and has zero fatigue / digital signature.

 

[Golfnutz]

 
None of the up sampling is smoothing anything, waveform or what. It can't find 'new' information. 
 
I suggest you listen to a true R-2R DAC like the Audio Note, Zanden, TotalDAC and then come back. Upsampling is against the entire idea behind those DACs. This is a huge and controversial (angry poster) subject that I won't get into. But simply listen, then decide. Tech specs are useless as has been proven, DS DACs that have 'perfect' frequency response and 0.1% distortion, many sound terrible as we know.
 
I have had many DACs in the past, and heard many top 10-20K modern designs such as the CH Precision C1 and a dCS stack, an MSB Platinum stack. I bought the Audio Note DAC 5 Special because it beat all those DACs on musicality and has zero fatigue / digital signature.

Audio Note uses a chip, so I wouldn't classify it as true R-2R. MSB uses resistors (not chips).
 
Based on comments below, I would think upsampling may have a positive effect. However, you would have to test it to find out (which you won't - see bold below).
 
From Stereophile:
 
"This indicates that, as expected from its use of an AD1865 DAC chip, the Audio Note's AES/EBU input truncates 24-bit data. So while its AES/EBU input will operate up to 96kHz, the DAC 2.1x is not a high-resolution DAC."
 
"Overall, it is difficult to avoid the temptation to describe the Audio Note DAC 2.1x Signature as "broken"! But other than its poor rejection of jitter, most of its measured problems stem from the decision to dispense with the usually obligatory reconstruction filter. Without those filter-related issues, you are left with a product whose distortion signature is predominantly the subjectively preferred second harmonic, but also a product that should not be used with preamplifiers of low input impedance"

 

[astrostar59]

 
Audio Note uses a chip, so I wouldn't classify it as true R-2R. MSB uses resistors (not chips).
 
Based on comments below, I would think upsampling may have a positive effect. However, you would have to test it to find out (which you won't - see bold below).
 
From Stereophile:
 
"This indicates that, as expected from its use of an AD1865 DAC chip, the Audio Note's AES/EBU input truncates 24-bit data. So while its AES/EBU input will operate up to 96kHz, the DAC 2.1x is not a high-resolution DAC."
 
"Overall, it is difficult to avoid the temptation to describe the Audio Note DAC 2.1x Signature as "broken"! But other than its poor rejection of jitter, most of its measured problems stem from the decision to dispense with the usually obligatory reconstruction filter. Without those filter-related issues, you are left with a product whose distortion signature is predominantly the subjectively preferred second harmonic, but also a product that should not be used with preamplifiers of low input impedance"

Wrong DAC, I have the DAC 5 different animal. If you care to listen to a DAC 5 it will reshape what you are saying IMO. I have listened to the MSB and it was not as good at all, too 'hifi' and electronic. Of course, each to there own. I want a Redbook 44.1 and am not interested in purchasing higher resolution files for various reasons. On removing said filter Zanden and many others have done the very same thing to great effect. 

 

[joelha]

Maybe the upsampling conversation could move to another or new thread?
 
Joel

 

[rb2013]

You can lead 'em to water, but you can't make 'em drink

 

[Iving]

  Maybe the upsampling conversation could move to another or new thread?
 
Joel

 
Respectfully I disagree on the basis that what we have in common is RedNet (strictly any AOIP cf. USB relay) ownership and optimisation of SQ thereby by all manner and means. That includes sharing info about choice and tweaking of upstream and downstream components that could advantage any existing or prospective RedNet owner. I do think it's clear when a poster is diverting elsewhere. These upsampling notes are easily identifiable as AOIP-hinged.
 

  Hi Iving
Your DAC will upsample anyway. I would try and send the data as 44.1 bit-perfect. Then let your DAC do the processing.

 
Disagree! My Dangerous Convert-2 is a follow device. I wrote to Dangerous support as follows:
Hi, I am an audiophile Dangerous Convert-2 owner / user. I have been unpsampling to 192 on my PC playing thru ethernet via a RedNet interface with the C-2 as Master Clock. Great results. All good. I would like to know whether I can play at 44.1 doing the upsampling on the C-2 (to 192 although I would also try 176.4). The C-2 seems to *require* a SR setting matching incoming (or Auto). There is no sound if I set 192 on the C-2. I have checked the manual. Is upsampling on the C-2 possible? Thank you
Their reply:
No, the Convert-2 will  not up sample ... Let me double check with the designer incase I am incorrect ... Yeah no upsampling, final verdict. When you put the Convert-2 in WC dim mode, it automatically clocks to the digital signal it is receiving. Of course it sounds better with the Convert as the master clock, because it has a really good word clock in the unit. The WC on the C-2 will need to be set to the sample rate of the source audio.

 

[astrostar59]

I agree, cover this controversial subject in another thread. It has in any case been talked over so much already. There is the tech specs camp who swear by up sampling but have not even heard a decent R-2R DAC. There are the R-2R camp that are converts from DS, there are others who swear by up sampling PCM to DSD. It goes on and on.
 
My point is, listen to a decent R-2R DAC then make your case. I get fed up with pushing water uphill with those that have no personal experiences (listening) only tech specs.
 
The upsampling aspect is enormous. I can see why the industry went that route as a way to add a filter to 'remove' digital artefacts from the raw 44.1 data stream. The problem as many know resulted in ringing, a digital sound and basically CD replay being worse than the previous format (Vinyl). Remember vinyl tech specs are not perfect yet out sounds better, go figure?
 
I am interested in the current 'chip less' designs appearing. In theory such a FPGA topology could go beyond a chip based design, be bit perfect and avoid the issues of either DS or R-2R designs.
And it could be cheaper than multiple resistor arrays as TotalDAC for example.
 
Also bear in mind, the way a DAC handles the data stream is one point, the design of the power supply and line stage is another possibly even more crucial aspect as after all a DAC is a pre-amplifier with a digital board added in effect. Put in a cheap torriod PS transformer and an Opp amp gain stage and it won't sound so hot.....

 

[Iving]

  I agree, cover this controversial subject in another thread. It has in any case been talked over so much already. There is the tech specs camp who swear by up sampling but have not even heard a decent R-2R DAC. There are the R-2R camp that are converts from DS, there are others who swear by up sampling PCM to DSD. It goes on and on.
 
My point is, listen to a decent R-2R DAC then make your case. I get fed up with pushing water uphill with those that have no personal experiences (listening) only tech specs.
 
The upsampling aspect is enormous. I can see why the industry went that route as a way to add a filter to 'remove' digital artefacts from the raw 44.1 data stream. The problem as many know resulted in ringing, a digital sound and basically CD replay being worse than the previous format (Vinyl). Remember vinyl tech specs are not perfect yet out sounds better, go figure?
 
I am interested in the current 'chip less' designs appearing. In theory such a FPGA topology could go beyond a chip based design, be bit perfect and avoid the issues of either DS or R-2R designs.
And it could be cheaper than multiple resistor arrays as TotalDAC for example.
 
Also bear in mind, the way a DAC handles the data stream is one point, the design of the power supply and line stage is another possibly even more crucial aspect as after all a DAC is a pre-amplifier with a digital board added in effect. Put in a cheap torriod PS transformer and an Opp amp gain stage and it won't sound so hot.....

 
That is an example of a non-AOIP rant!

 

[astrostar59]

   
That is an example of a non-AOIP rant!

True, maybe I went on a bit there! Back on thread, playing Josh Gabriel super loud and the system (inc RedNet 3) sounds really amazing. Any last vestiges if treble glaze or digital edge is gone. I proves to me that a lot of grunge was feeding in from a USB chain, regardless of money spent trying to get around that. Basically, any DAC can benefit from the Rednet IMO. Now which DACs sound better, Ha Ha another Everest sized thread!!! And then we have the server optimisations, another super sized thread, and while we are at it throw in the power supply noise (mains). No time to read all this stuff......
 
Quick question (off topic a bit) how many music files are available at true high res (not botched up sampled as some on HDTracks) and where are these websites that sell them. In many cases I can't even find many RedBook files as downloads.... For dance gender BeatPort is excellent, as is Armada, but other genders it is still a void.

 

[Iving]

  True, maybe I went on a bit there! ... Now which DACs sound better, Ha Ha another Everest sized thread!!!

 
There's a popular generic one here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/804153/life-after-yggdrasil ... Go astro!

 

[astrostar59]

   
There's a popular generic one here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/804153/life-after-yggdrasil ... Go astro!

In a 'nice' world I would. But there are a lot of insecure and angry individuals out there and forums are a great place to use that type narcissistic bully boy behaviour.
 
My answer to that kind of aggression, listen first, then speak. Sadly many don't want to do that....