Originally Posted by Baldr /img/forum/go_quote.gif
snip
What I do not understand is why so many are getting wet listening to ethernet connected sources. I believe the reports, mind you. Where there is smoke, there is usually fire. Now one of my proven observations is that I am a circuit minimalist, wherever possible. The fewer the parts, the better, as long as no parameters such as noise, bandwidth, distortion, etc., are compromised. So why TF do I want to run my audio through a nasty hardware and software ethernet conversion and de-conversion and expect it to be better? Huh? So What is so good about ethernet anyway?
Yup, Isolation. Real, honest to God isolation for free in the ethernet connected world. Not trivial. All right, the hypothesis is that isolated is the desirable aspect of Ethernet. Isolation has been available in S/PDIF since its inception. Wait a minute, aren't there isolators available for connectivity over USB? A quick look on the market reveals that there are. The problem current direct isolation practice (as opposed to indirect, as practiced in eithernet) is that it slow as well as quite capacitive and therefore sounds like ass. Arguably less like ass than barefoot USB, but who wants to settle for any form of "less than".
snip
I can only speak for myself on this, and might I add, I also agree with the minimalist approach which AOIP would seem to violate by adding extra steps in the middle of handing off the digital audio stream, which just adds to the degree of consternation due to the observed SQ improvements.
And what adds even more consternation is the observed improvement of yet further enhancement while using multiple re-clockers, in series, (at 1K$ a pop).
This makes no sense, which tells me we're missing something, something fundamentally significant.
And that this approach (several re-clockers in series) has been demonstrated in mutliple types of digital audio streams (USB, SPDIF, AES) further tells me its not the transport method per se but something inherent in the transmission of digital data to begin with.
Perhaps it's galvanic isolation, or it plays a role, one of perhaps several.
Another might be the separation of the timing info from the data itself, or some such relationship.
These are but speculations, but they are obvious differences between ethernet and the other transport methods.
From the experiences we are gaining using Dante and suitable h/w (RedNet and unDaes-0 (
uD0)) the increase in inner details and focus is quite remarkable.
AND this use of ethernet allows us to use AES to feed the dac, which as you mentioned is 'better' than SPDIF and certainly USB.
And since SPDIF certainly is the step child of AES, which may account (at least in part) for part of the reason for AES's superior performance.
I mention this because these subtle yet distinct differences are easy to determine while using this AOIP approach.
As to "What is so good about ethernet anyway?" in my system (and others as well) it surpasses anything I have tried previously in terms of SQ in every way that I have come to describe and define and desire.
If I were to sum it all up it would be the inner detail and degree of focus has taken a mother may I step up in SQ.
It has acted as a catalyst and has led many of us to reach new levels of
REALNESS in not just the SQ but also the soundstage itself as it has become much more delineated and focused as well.
For example being able to easily differentiate between the lead vocal and the back up/ground singers (Paul Simon and the Everly Brothers, comes to mind) is but one notable improvement I have noticed, another is being able to hear the tuba player's lips flap (and recognize it as such) in the mouth piece is another notable improvement, among many others.
It seems to me that AOIP delivers data with better 'timing' such that during reconstruction, the dac is able to do a better job of assigning the acoustic energy where it's supposed to be.
Thus the
REALNESS factor comes into much better focus.
As others have stated, and I concur, in order to grasp the full measure of the changes AOIP can make, it really needs to be experienced directly and over time, in a well setup and dialed in system.
And we are talking about subtle changes that can all to easily be swamped out by other portions of the system that can 'get in the way' so to speak.
Like having a cart out of alignment, where it doesn't matter how good the rest of the system is, that is the
Choke Point that limits the entire system.
And I can see where Schiit wouldn't want to jump into the middle of all of this added ethernet complexity.
However, if I2S were an input to the Jggy for example it might provide an upstep in SQ, via AES, from a suitable AOIP data stream.
That is if I2S is even an option for the MB dac engines.
Just a thought.
JJ
