[yates7592]

It may explain why some DACs respond better than others. I am swopping DACs right now, but may look at the SPDIF receiver next, that may the the next hurdle to jump over.

If I were you and I had the $$$$$ I would jump on that Kondo KSL DAC on flea bay.

 

[astrostar59]

If I were you and I had the $$$$$ I would jump on that Kondo KSL DAC on flea bay.

Nay, the guy I bought my Audio Note DAC 5 off also had a Kondo KSL DAC and it is overrated according to him (he sold it last year). Beat by the Audio Note, so no dice.

 

[Iving]

I am swopping DACs right now, but may look at the SPDIF receiver next

reading between the lines you are sans DAC right now? how are you coping?

direct to chip? i2S

in prospect?
know of any rednet/dante instances?

 

[astrostar59]

reading between the lines you are sans DAC right now? how are you coping?

I am using my 'low-fi' AMR DP-777. It is R-2R and tubed, but it ain't no Audio Note DAC 5. Would be something really wrong if it was at 1/8th the price. It is ok, sounds slightly entertaining but is back to 'this is a digital image of real music'. IMO there are few DACs I have heard so far that escape that envelope. But hopefully something will do that soon.

in prospect?
know of any rednet/dante instances?

Not really, I was commenting on the clocking issues with S/PDIF, and that applies to many other input formats. My thoughts were i2S may be a more direct route, but can be problematic unless the source and DAC are designed to work together with that connection. I think Ethernet is the best I have found so far, but can see there may be ways to go better. The extra clocking some of you guys are doing is heroic and seems to help. Now if that could be done inside a DAC then we would not have all these boxes and LPS's! Here's hoping.

 

[joelha]

An interesting message from Focusrite:

Jack Cole (Focusrite )

9 Nov, 16:22 GMT

Hi Joel,

Thanks for your enquiry and your interest in our products.

Latency figures for the Scarlett range are published here: https://focusrite.com/scarlett-in-depth

The latency when using a D16 would depend on other parts of the system. If you're connecting the D16 directly to an ethernet port on your computer and using Dante Virtual Soundcard, your network latency will be 4ms minimum (that's the lowest option you can select with Dante Virtual Soundcard) + you'd need to factor in the driver latency of Dante Virtual Soundcard to then get sound to/from whatever software you're using (this isn't documented).

For very low latency performance, we would advise using the RedNet PCIe card. You would connect this to a spare PCIe slot in your computer (or in a Thunderbolt chassis if you don't have a PCIe slot) - you can then either connect the D16 directly to the card and then use the spare port on the PCIe card to connect to your computer's ethernet port for control, or connect the PCIe card, D16 and the computer to a network switch.

Using the PCIe card you'll be able to select the minimum network latency value for the D16 (1ms) and take advantage of the very low latency performance of the card which will give you around 2ms additional latency to/from a DAW at 48kHz, 32 sample buffer size.

I hope this helps, if you need any further information then please let me know.

Best Regards,

Jack Cole
Focusrite Technical Support

Vote for Focusrite in the 2018 Sound On Sound Awards here - www.soundonsound.com/sos-awards

 

[Iving]

An interesting message from Focusrite:

Jack Cole (Focusrite )

9 Nov, 16:22 GMT

Hi Joel,

Thanks for your enquiry and your interest in our products.

Latency figures for the Scarlett range are published here: https://focusrite.com/scarlett-in-depth

The latency when using a D16 would depend on other parts of the system. If you're connecting the D16 directly to an ethernet port on your computer and using Dante Virtual Soundcard, your network latency will be 4ms minimum (that's the lowest option you can select with Dante Virtual Soundcard) + you'd need to factor in the driver latency of Dante Virtual Soundcard to then get sound to/from whatever software you're using (this isn't documented).

For very low latency performance, we would advise using the RedNet PCIe card. You would connect this to a spare PCIe slot in your computer (or in a Thunderbolt chassis if you don't have a PCIe slot) - you can then either connect the D16 directly to the card and then use the spare port on the PCIe card to connect to your computer's ethernet port for control, or connect the PCIe card, D16 and the computer to a network switch.

Using the PCIe card you'll be able to select the minimum network latency value for the D16 (1ms) and take advantage of the very low latency performance of the card which will give you around 2ms additional latency to/from a DAW at 48kHz, 32 sample buffer size.

I hope this helps, if you need any further information then please let me know.

Best Regards,

Jack Cole
Focusrite Technical Support

Vote for Focusrite in the 2018 Sound On Sound Awards here - www.soundonsound.com/sos-awards

Thanks Joel,

If it adds anything, here's my (redacted) conversation with Jack a month ago. Jack seems to think latency not related to SQ. So even if a RedNet PCIe card delivered very low latency, it would be a significant gamble whether a SQ advantage would accrue. I don't know what to make of why I am hearing differences between LANs/NICs. I am 100% sure of a meaningful difference between onboard LANs on two different mobos.

Me: I have ... onboard ... 1210-AT and 1219-LM - both Intel. I can hear - in audiophile terms - the difference between them. Neither produces quite the result I got from the predecessor mobo ... This has got me thinking about PCIe ethernet/network cards. An obvious contender is the Focusrite PCIe card. ... Can I expect any latency improvements over onboard NICs? I am getting a fairly consistent 7-800 microseconds.

Jack: In general, you should experience far better latency performance when using our PCIe card vs. a standard NIC. The very low latency that you're already quoting I'm assuming is network latency (?), the biggest latency improvement you would perhaps notice when using a PCIe card would be pre/post network (i.e. the speed that the driver can get sound to/from your applications vs. Dante Virtual Soundcard). ... Having said that, if your system is purely designed for playback ... is there a particular reason that you feel you need ultra low latency. ... The PCIe card simply sends/receives digital information in the same way your current NIC does, you shouldn't experience any audible difference between the two.

Me: The latency to which I refer and with which I am concerned is the Device Latency reported in Dante Controller. With onboard LANs I get averages of about 790 microseconds (Intel I120-AT) and 800 microseconds (Intel I219-LM). ... I have just installed an Intel X540-T2 achieving an average Latency over 12+ hrs of 793 microseconds. As it sounds better than the best onboard LAN and has comparable Latency, I will use it. Now - how am I to make a purchasing decision regards a Focusrite PCIe card?

Jack: The latency value you're reading in Dante Controller is only the delivery of packets from the transmitter to the receiver, it doesn’t include the playout buffer which will always be limited to the amount of receive latency that is set in Dante Controller for that particular device. Assuming that this isn't changed, you're experiencing the same amount of latency in either of your systems. ... Since you're only using the system to play back audio from applications, a differing amount of latency should correspond to a slight difference between the time when you press play and the time that you start hearing the audio, nothing more. If you're able to hear audible differences between motherboards then I'd suggest that the difference is likely being caused by another factor besides the latency measurement. ... As mentioned, I can't really say whether or not you'd be able to achieve a lower latency measurement in Dante Controller if you were to swap your current NIC for a PCIe card, but I can tell you that the speed at which you'd be able to get data to/from the card to/from your computer will be faster when compared to your current DVS + regular NIC setup (though I don't know whether that's important for you).

 

[mourip]

Ok. So I ordered a "Laird CAT6-HDBT-003 Belden 10GX Enhanced Shielded Category 6A 10 Gigabit IP Ethernet Cable - 3 Foot" from Markertek.

It was unfortunately not as cheap as the surplus one but is shorter. Will check back in once it is in place...

I tried the Belden 10GX cable for a few days. I went back to the red one that came with my D16 as I prefer it...

 

[Golfnutz]

I tried the Belden 10GX cable for a few days. I went back to the red one that came with my D16 as I prefer it...

What was it that made you prefer the Rednet cable?

The Belden was the only cable I found that eliminated that cross talk (from remote access using laptop's wifi). Otherwise, I couldn't say there was any audible differences with the music.

 

[WindowsX]

I'd like to inform that Fidelizer now supports DANTE and Merging technology properly in version 7.10. Happy listening.

Regards.
Keetakawee

 

[mourip]

I am not sure if there was truly much difference. My original cable seems a bit fuller sounding to me. I am not currently having the issue where mouse movement on my remote desktop causes noise out of the speakers but I did have it previously. I have rearranged my grounding scheme so that might have solved it. Hard to say.

 

[astrostar59]

Thanks Joel,

If it adds anything, here's my (redacted) conversation with Jack a month ago. Jack seems to think latency not related to SQ. So even if a RedNet PCIe card delivered very low latency, it would be a significant gamble whether a SQ advantage would accrue. I don't know what to make of why I am hearing differences between LANs/NICs. I am 100% sure of a meaningful difference between onboard LANs on two different mobos.

Me: I have ... onboard ... 1210-AT and 1219-LM - both Intel. I can hear - in audiophile terms - the difference between them. Neither produces quite the result I got from the predecessor mobo ... This has got me thinking about PCIe ethernet/network cards. An obvious contender is the Focusrite PCIe card. ... Can I expect any latency improvements over onboard NICs? I am getting a fairly consistent 7-800 microseconds.

Jack: In general, you should experience far better latency performance when using our PCIe card vs. a standard NIC. The very low latency that you're already quoting I'm assuming is network latency (?), the biggest latency improvement you would perhaps notice when using a PCIe card would be pre/post network (i.e. the speed that the driver can get sound to/from your applications vs. Dante Virtual Soundcard). ... Having said that, if your system is purely designed for playback ... is there a particular reason that you feel you need ultra low latency. ... The PCIe card simply sends/receives digital information in the same way your current NIC does, you shouldn't experience any audible difference between the two.

Me: The latency to which I refer and with which I am concerned is the Device Latency reported in Dante Controller. With onboard LANs I get averages of about 790 microseconds (Intel I120-AT) and 800 microseconds (Intel I219-LM). ... I have just installed an Intel X540-T2 achieving an average Latency over 12+ hrs of 793 microseconds. As it sounds better than the best onboard LAN and has comparable Latency, I will use it. Now - how am I to make a purchasing decision regards a Focusrite PCIe card?

Jack: The latency value you're reading in Dante Controller is only the delivery of packets from the transmitter to the receiver, it doesn’t include the playout buffer which will always be limited to the amount of receive latency that is set in Dante Controller for that particular device. Assuming that this isn't changed, you're experiencing the same amount of latency in either of your systems. ... Since you're only using the system to play back audio from applications, a differing amount of latency should correspond to a slight difference between the time when you press play and the time that you start hearing the audio, nothing more. If you're able to hear audible differences between motherboards then I'd suggest that the difference is likely being caused by another factor besides the latency measurement. ... As mentioned, I can't really say whether or not you'd be able to achieve a lower latency measurement in Dante Controller if you were to swap your current NIC for a PCIe card, but I can tell you that the speed at which you'd be able to get data to/from the card to/from your computer will be faster when compared to your current DVS + regular NIC setup (though I don't know whether that's important for you).

I don't have a PC card for DANTE, but ouse my Mac Mini 1000BaseT port. I see 4 micro seconds in the limit in Virual SC. But sending the data on request goes on a constant feed to the Rednet then DAC, maybe the latency in this case (straight wire simple network) will not cause any issues? More the way ethernet sends data compared to USB which is packets. I wonder if the power supply to the Dante / Rednet devices being clean power and LPS is more of an issue.

 

[jelt2359]

Hi everyone, I'm getting dropouts of 24/192khz music files once in a while. Any idea what may be causing this?

 

[jabbr]

Ome possible cause is.latency in tour netwerk connection. Did you check the latent monitor in RedNet Control for any peaks in latency?

 

[jelt2359]

Yep. Plenty of peaks. Strangely this is direct from my audio computer to the Rednet, not going through a switch...

 

[jabbr]

Then you need to check for concurrent network traffic and/or optimise the settings of your NIC for low latency.
In the beginning of this thread there have been quite a number of posts on how to optimise for low latency.